Unnecessary Arguments over D&D Next iteration

I'm tired of all the whiners complaining about D&D Next. I know, I know - sounds like I should be upset at myself. However, in all seriousness, really, we all should take it with a grain of salt.

One argument expressed by most testplayers are limitations and rules. My rebuttal, besides being an unfinished product, is D&D Next is a fantasy roleplaying game.  Most of us have a brain; make your own rules, include rules and content from other games if you deem it necessary, keep it ordinary to fit OSG and have the DM arbitrate, so on and so forth. Why have so many people limit themselves or confine the potential of their games to printed material or resources? Really, I believe it all to be capsulized within the mindset of the players and DM to have a great RP time regardless of the system or edition.

Second argument conveyed is that WOTC is doing a new edition for the sole sake of profit. My answer is "Duh!" WOTC is first a business then a gaming company. Albeit, IMO they could take a different approach to making money by making more adventures or expansions to a social video game (XBOX Live). I recall walking into a gaming store and marvelling at all the adventures wrapped in plastic waiting to be played!

Few individuals at my gaming table believe WOTC's agenda is to merely make profit. To me stands to reason that their ascertation is slightly askew, since the discontented players are not accounting the larger picture for the future of D&D in general without a company to sustain its presence amongst other escapism activities (video games) or having enough foresight.

Lastly, we all came to play D&D. Plain and simple. Find a game and play it.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

I'm tired of all the whiners complaining about D&D Next. I know, I know - sounds like I should be upset at myself. However, in all seriousness, really, we all should take it with a grain of salt.

One argument expressed by most testplayers are limitations and rules. My rebuttal, besides being an unfinished product, is D&D Next is a fantasy roleplaying game.  Most of us have a brain; make your own rules, include rules and content from other games if you deem it necessary, keep it ordinary to fit OSG and have the DM arbitrate, so on and so forth. Why have so many people limit themselves or confine the potential of their games to printed material or resources? Really, I believe it all to be capsulized within the mindset of the players and DM to have a great RP time regardless of the system or edition.

Second argument conveyed is that WOTC is doing a new edition for the sole sake of profit. My answer is "Duh!" WOTC is first a business then a gaming company. Albeit, IMO they could take a different approach to making money by making more adventures or expansions to a social video game (XBOX Live). I recall walking into a gaming store and marvelling at all the adventures wrapped in plastic waiting to be played!

Few individuals at my gaming table believe WOTC's agenda is to merely make profit. To me stands to reason that their ascertation is slightly askew, since the discontented players are not accounting the larger picture for the future of D&D in general without a company to sustain its presence amongst other escapism activities (video games) or having enough foresight.

Lastly, we all came to play D&D. Plain and simple. Find a game and play it.



Why couldn't the solution to whatever problem anyone had with any previous edition to D&D be to "just houserule it"?  The answer lies in player psychology. For a lot of people it's important that their "vision™" or style of play is the officially sanctioned style of play.
Almost forgot, I believe that most of all WOTC is trying to appeal to new players and establish a new generation of players with a simple introductory iteration of D&D. If and when, WOTC decides to publish any material for D&D Next. WOTC should start off with a printing of one-in-all inclusive CORE D&D Next rulebook with DMG, PHB, and MM. Just like Paizo did with Pathfinder.

To all that is good and worthwhile.




Feb 11, 2013 -- 12:04AM, Jagannatha wrote:

Show
I'm tired of all the whiners complaining about D&D Next. I know, I know - sounds like I should be upset at myself. However, in all seriousness, really, we all should take it with a grain of salt.

One argument expressed by most testplayers are limitations and rules. My rebuttal, besides being an unfinished product, is D&D Next is a fantasy roleplaying game.  Most of us have a brain; make your own rules, include rules and content from other games if you deem it necessary, keep it ordinary to fit OSG and have the DM arbitrate, so on and so forth. Why have so many people limit themselves or confine the potential of their games to printed material or resources? Really, I believe it all to be capsulized within the mindset of the players and DM to have a great RP time regardless of the system or edition.

Second argument conveyed is that WOTC is doing a new edition for the sole sake of profit. My answer is "Duh!" WOTC is first a business then a gaming company. Albeit, IMO they could take a different approach to making money by making more adventures or expansions to a social video game (XBOX Live). I recall walking into a gaming store and marvelling at all the adventures wrapped in plastic waiting to be played!

Few individuals at my gaming table believe WOTC's agenda is to merely make profit. To me stands to reason that their ascertation is slightly askew, since the discontented players are not accounting the larger picture for the future of D&D in general without a company to sustain its presence amongst other escapism activities (video games) or having enough foresight.

Lastly, we all came to play D&D. Plain and simple. Find a game and play it.





Why couldn't the solution to whatever problem anyone had with any previous edition to D&D be to "just houserule it"?  The answer lies in player psychology. For a lot of people it's important that their "vision™" or style of play is the officially sanctioned style of play.


McDonaldlization of D&D is retarded. Like I said, find a game and play it.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?
expanding any audience for any product has its up and down side. increasing player base creates cash for wotc and more people playing, however it is usually accompanied by a watering down of the product to make it easy to understand and that is the side i hate the most
What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

I think he means the capacity to adapt to a context or a group
Why "just houserule it" is bad game design:

1. If I wanted to design my own ruleset, I'd just do that. When I am buying a book, I am paying for a product. It would be like trying to sell a new car, only no engine (you put that in yourself). It's not the point (also, few people have the technical know-how).

2. If you design a game that has very bad gameplay, people will rather buy the game that has less bad gameplay, under the premise of "the less I have to houserule the better".

Now that we have that flawed idea out of the way: It doesn't really matter, because the entire point of D&DN is to have a solid, core game - that you are then expected to modify, albeit with already-tested-and-engineered game mechanics that are advertised as functioning well with the core product (as opposed to trying to do all the playtesting at your own table, week by week). Nobody is saying you cannot further house-rule the game; that kind of thing will always happen.

If there are big complaints that are there regarding "but D&DN isn't just like how I want to play", those are the real ridiculous ones. D&DN will (in theory) provide you with a D&D that is exactly how you want to play at your table.

Any remaining arguments should be over if the core accomplishes the 3 things it needs to do: Be a solid core foundation with common rules that are easily modified; be a good ruleset to teach people new to D&D on; provide compatibility between tables, so that taking a character from one table to another, regardless of which modules either is running, is quick and easy to do.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."


What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

"The process of McDonaldization takes a task and breaks it down into smaller tasks. This is repeated until all tasks have been broken down to the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then rationalized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. All other methods are then deemed inefficient and discarded." - quoted from McDonaldization.com

Why does everything have to be printed and laid out? Let arbitration of rules fall to the DM and allow the DM to build the world and story. Playing 4th edition D&D and Pathfinder, I found the players empowered with contesting rules. I found this very disheartening. I enjoyed earlier D&D games when the players were clueless to the limits and potential of their characters but found out later as the adventure or campaign developed. Nowadays, due to optimization, players have clues as how powerful their players could be given the proper equipment and build.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

Why "just houserule it" is bad game design:

[spoiler]1. If I wanted to design my own ruleset, I'd just do that. When I am buying a book, I am paying for a product. It would be like trying to sell a new car, only no engine (you put that in yourself). It's not the point (also, few people have the technical know-how).

2. If you design a game that has very bad gameplay, people will rather buy the game that has less bad gameplay, under the premise of "the less I have to houserule the better".

Now that we have that flawed idea out of the way: It doesn't really matter, because the entire point of D&DN is to have a solid, core game - that you are then expected to modify, albeit with already-tested-and-engineered game mechanics that are advertised as functioning well with the core product (as opposed to trying to do all the playtesting at your own table, week by week). Nobody is saying you cannot further house-rule the game; that kind of thing will always happen.

If there are big complaints that are there regarding "but D&DN isn't just like how I want to play", those are the real ridiculous ones. D&DN will (in theory) provide you with a D&D that is exactly how you want to play at your table.

Any remaining arguments should be over if the core accomplishes the 3 things it needs to do: Be a solid core foundation with common rules that are easily modified; be a good ruleset to teach people new to D&D on; provide compatibility between tables, so that taking a character from one table to another, regardless of which modules either is running, is quick and easy to do.[spoiler]

Also, why not just play previous D&D if they disagree with D&D Next? I'm enjoying D&D Next myself as a player and DM.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

Also, why not just play previous D&D if they disagree with D&D Next? I'm enjoying D&D Next myself as a player and DM.

The problem with most disagreements with D&D Next are based around one of two things:

The person arguing "my way of playing is best" is in the wrong; that playstyle will be supported, so trying to have the D&DN core rules play that way is wrong. These are very common arguments due to the fact that the primary premise of D&DN is, apparently, somewhat obfuscated from their perception due to...a variety of factors.

The remaining arguments are "This rule in D&DN violates the concepts that would make the core ruleset strong - it doesn't work well for newbies or it doesn't get modified easily or it disables the primary core of the game". These are legitimate arguments, and are a large part of why this particular sub-forum (and the playtest in general) exist.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

"The process of McDonaldization takes a task and breaks it down into smaller tasks. This is repeated until all tasks have been broken down to the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then rationalized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. All other methods are then deemed inefficient and discarded." - quoted from McDonaldization.com Why does everything have to be printed and laid out? Let arbitration of rules fall to the DM and allow the DM to build the world and story. Playing 4th edition D&D and Pathfinder, I found the players empowered with contesting rules. I found this very disheartening. I enjoyed earlier D&D games when the players were clueless to the limits and potential of their characters but found out later as the adventure or campaign developed. Nowadays, due to optimization, players have clues as how powerful their players could be given the proper equipment and build.




I suppose I don't have a problem with McDonaldization then aside from the bit about anything less then optimal is discarded. In a properly designed game the amount of situations is so vast and randomness so fickle that it's impossible in the current age of the universe to calculate with accuracy the optimal path turn by turn. I don't play RPGs to be a cog in a DMs story. I want to bust up monsters and get treasure. As a DM I want to bust up players and stop them from getting the treasure!  Competive fair tactical game is what I find fun.  

I JUST WANT TO PLAY!

I hope D&D Next comes up fast this forum needs to be shut down pronto!

To all that is good and worthwhile.


I suppose I don't have a problem with McDonaldization then aside from the bit about anything less then optimal is discarded. In a properly designed game the amount of situations is so vast and randomness so fickle that it's impossible in the current age of the universe to calculate with accuracy the optimal path turn by turn. I don't play RPGs to be a cog in a DMs story. I want to bust up monsters and get treasure. As a DM I want to bust up players and stop them from getting the treasure!  Competive fair tactical game is what I find fun.  


My point is "are you wanting to play D&D or a game of numbers and rules?"

To all that is good and worthwhile.

one thing that drives me crazy is the fighting over magic and wizards and the 3rd and 4th edition players that think a wizard using a staff or dagger is out of flavor for them they say oh use a cantrip what about an antimagic field. the creation of feats did nothing but impress apon players that they need to take "powers" due to class weakness classes shouldnt need feats they should scale in power and the uniquness of a pc is in the roleplay and spell choice and playstyle
What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

I think he means the capacity to adapt to a context or a group



McDonalds and similar franchises are not known for quality but rather mass produced predictable consistancy... 
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

in the food business being a chef myself consistency is the goal of every chef or why would someone come to you for a dish you love. thats why the damage has been done to dnd over the past few years inflame people they see no consistency so they dont come back they play what they see as consistent

I suppose I don't have a problem with McDonaldization then aside from the bit about anything less then optimal is discarded. In a properly designed game the amount of situations is so vast and randomness so fickle that it's impossible in the current age of the universe to calculate with accuracy the optimal path turn by turn. I don't play RPGs to be a cog in a DMs story. I want to bust up monsters and get treasure. As a DM I want to bust up players and stop them from getting the treasure!  Competive fair tactical game is what I find fun.  


My point is "are you wanting to play D&D or a game of numbers and rules?"



What's your point?  Why are you anxious for DDN (5th ed)  if you didn't desire numbers and rules?  D&D btw has always been a collection of numbers and rules. Bust open your ol' school 1st edition DMG if you want to see some tables and tables and tables full of numbers and rules. 

If you don't desire or need numbers or rules then what are you waiting for?  
What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

I think he means the capacity to adapt to a context or a group



McDonalds and similar franchises are not known for quality but rather mass produced predictable consistancy... 
 



And convenience...


"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

in the food business being a chef myself consistency  



Do you shoot for consistantly low quality... hmmm?
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

What does that mean:  to Mcdonaldize?

I think he means the capacity to adapt to a context or a group



McDonalds and similar franchises are not known for quality but rather mass produced predictable consistancy... 
 



And convenience...





Thats generally the price excuse.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I thought that was the lazy excuse.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

in the food business being a chef myself consistency is the goal of every chef or why would someone come to you for a dish you love. thats why the damage has been done to dnd over the past few years inflame people they see no consistency so they dont come back they play what they see as consistent



Unlike food, a rule book is not normally a consumable item. If one desires consistency and likes a particular product they need to never update their rules to another version now would they?  If I am playing and happily playing 1st ed AD&D then why would I ever buy another 1st ed AD&D DMG?  If they make any substantial change to the ruleset it's now a whole new product correct? Point being if people are happy playing version x.x then stick with it. The book police aren't coming.

Now, new editions that have substantial changes and not just better editing and renamed devils and dressed succubuses are going to have a collection of people happy that some things changed and unhappy that others have changed. Guess what is going to be talked about and complained about on the forums?  

in the food business being a chef myself consistency is the goal of every chef or why would someone come to you for a dish you love. thats why the damage has been done to dnd over the past few years inflame people they see no consistency so they dont come back they play what they see as consistent

Regardless of system or edition, the DM and players make the game favorable. To put it in simpler terms, if you're on a date, regardless what you're both doing, as long as you both gel and having a good time is all that really matters.

To all that is good and worthwhile.

one thing that drives me crazy is the fighting over magic and wizards and the 3rd and 4th edition players that think a wizard using a staff or dagger is out of flavor for them they say oh use a cantrip what about an antimagic field.


It's not that it's out of flavor for a wizard to use a staff or dagger.  It's that that was the only available flavor.  Some people prefer to always be able to do something magical, even if it just takes the place of a staff or dagger attack.  I'm personally for the option to have it either way.

the creation of feats did nothing but impress apon players that they need to take "powers" due to class weakness.


Actually feats provided a means for character customization.  The structure got abused by those designers who felt that the feat system should encourage and reward system mastery instead of expanding capability and customizing the character.

the uniquness of a pc is in the roleplay


Roleplay is a very big part of the uniqueness of characters.  However, the class structure itself builds in a certain degree of straight-jacketing which really can't be overcome without a tool to change mechanics.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood



What's your point?  Why are you anxious for DDN (5th ed)  if you didn't desire numbers and rules?  D&D btw has always been a collection of numbers and rules. Bust open your ol' school 1st edition DMG if you want to see some tables and tables and tables full of numbers and rules. 

If you don't desire or need numbers or rules then what are you waiting for?  


I play all the editions. I'm not a lawyer and not best at arguing any point. My point is exactly what I asked you, "do you wanting to play D&D or a game of numbers and rules?" Seems to me, that you rather play a game of numbers and rules. [:p]

To all that is good and worthwhile.



What's your point?  Why are you anxious for DDN (5th ed)  if you didn't desire numbers and rules?  D&D btw has always been a collection of numbers and rules. Bust open your ol' school 1st edition DMG if you want to see some tables and tables and tables full of numbers and rules. 

If you don't desire or need numbers or rules then what are you waiting for?  


I play all the editions. I'm not a lawyer and not best at arguing any point. My point is exactly what I asked you, "do you wanting to play D&D or a game of numbers and rules?" Seems to me, that you rather play a game of numbers and rules. :p



Recently I have been playing a lot of Wizardry 8 the last of a decent old school CRPG. The game functions because it has a lot of numbers and rules yet it's also fun exploring the world and seeing what the story is. What I don't want is to yap at a DM or yap a player to resolve an action. I want my character or my monster to roll dice to resolve actions. Story and setting etc are nice but I don't want to participate in a theatre of the mind group fantasy novel sim to resolve things. It makes the whole "game" part of the game irrelevant.
 
Unlike food, a rule book is not normally a consumable item. If one desires consistency and likes a particular product they need to never update their rules to another version now would they?  If I am playing and happily playing 1st ed AD&D then why would I ever buy another 1st ed AD&D DMG?  If they make any substantial change to the ruleset it's now a whole new product correct? Point being if people are happy playing version x.x then stick with it. The book police aren't coming.
   



Yup.... want consistancy the old game is still there that same exact meal can be eaten again and again and again..ad infinitem. 
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 




Recently I have been playing a lot of Wizardry 8 the last of a decent old school CRPG. The game functions because it has a lot of numbers and rules yet it's also fun exploring the world and seeing what the story is. What I don't want is to yap at a DM or yap a player to resolve an action. I want my character or my monster to roll dice to resolve actions. Story and setting etc are nice but I don't want to participate in a theatre of the mind group fantasy novel sim to resolve things. It makes the whole "game" part of the game irrelevant.


"Potaytoe, potahto," I suppose. But really I just want to play a game now and for all the arguing to cease. Individuals arguing aren't DM. I DM four games every week and play only one consistent game of Pathfinder. ho hum, that's my personal First World problem.

To all that is good and worthwhile.




Recently I have been playing a lot of Wizardry 8 the last of a decent old school CRPG. The game functions because it has a lot of numbers and rules yet it's also fun exploring the world and seeing what the story is. What I don't want is to yap at a DM or yap a player to resolve an action. I want my character or my monster to roll dice to resolve actions. Story and setting etc are nice but I don't want to participate in a theatre of the mind group fantasy novel sim to resolve things. It makes the whole "game" part of the game irrelevant.


"Potaytoe, potahto," I suppose. But really I just want to play a game now and for all the arguing to cease. Individuals arguing aren't DM. I DM four games every week and play only one consistent game of Pathfinder. ho hum, that's my personal First World problem.



Lol.  I wanted the arguing to stop 3.5 years ago!!!!  I also play WoW and Diablo III and I have to say games nowadays aren't the problem...   It's players and the forums. The combination of egocentric people and a platform to congregate is ruining gaming to some degree.
The combination of egocentric people and a platform to congregate is ruining gaming to some degree.

How?

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

A forum is a place to argue. Your argument is important as is mine. You know what I don't like? I don't like a lot of rules that say it is up to the Dungeon Master. Not all of us are naturally creative story tellers. We're paying WOTC to help us tell the story. I want modules and advanced rules to complement the basic core rules to help the DM and players when they are ready to advance.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

[Lol.  I wanted the arguing to stop 3.5 years ago!!!!  I also play WoW and Diablo III and I have to say games nowadays aren't the problem...   It's players and the forums. The combination of egocentric people and a platform to congregate is ruining gaming to some degree.



I agree. 


What's your point?  Why are you anxious for DDN (5th ed)  if you didn't desire numbers and rules?  D&D btw has always been a collection of numbers and rules. Bust open your ol' school 1st edition DMG if you want to see some tables and tables and tables full of numbers and rules. 

If you don't desire or need numbers or rules then what are you waiting for?  


I play all the editions. I'm not a lawyer and not best at arguing any point. My point is exactly what I asked you, "do you wanting to play D&D or a game of numbers and rules?" Seems to me, that you rather play a game of numbers and rules. [:p]



I don't get the question.  D&D is a game of numbers and rules.  Otherwise you are just sitting around telling stories to each other.
The combination of egocentric people and a platform to congregate is ruining gaming to some degree.

How?



It's basically player entitlement run amok. It's particular bad when it's uninformed player entitlement. 

Here's the bottom line and why I think Mearls's heart is in the right place even though I think his project is doomed:  you cannot please everybody all the time and you can't even please a single person all the time. People as a group are not homogeneous and a single person over time evolves. 

I am not saying player feedback is bad. What is bad is the expectation that player feedback needs to result in a change. It's pefectly legit for a design or a game mechanic decision to exist without approval of 100% of the potential playerbase.

Where I see this being a particular nightmare is in the concept of balance. It's nice to have a 'decent' amount of balance, but striving for pure balance is doomed and counterproductive. Also even if a game is properly balanced amongst the players the balance between players and encounters is also variable. For every group who is char-op caliber character builder thinking the game is too easy you have a group of new players and a new DM that may feel an encounter is too hard. Each group will have a valid gripe, from their perspective, on practically every encounter in every published adventure.

With the ease of complaining and the ability of the internet to amplify similar voices into an "echo chamber"  it becomes near impossible for the publisher or designer to ignore the playerbase even if the game is properly designed. In other words, instead of doing a few simple tweaks (without needing WotC blessing or permission) to make the game work for their group MANY loud persistant people bleat until the game gets tweaked. The problem is, no matter what gets changed the changes will inspire the same behavior. Even a company like Blizz that can afford to ignore their most pest like customers feels the pressure to do constant tweaks to satisfy the loud complainers.  Which of course creates a vicious cycle as it shows that complaining loudly is rewarded.

The funny thing is this:  how much revenue is a single one of those loud complainers supplying the company?   I know how much  I have spent on wotC products in the past few years. Every hardcover 4th book, at least 10 published adventures, many MTG decks, many mini-packs, every Dungeon Commander product, DD Insider...  You would think they'd listen to my advice over some one who only spends money on pathfinder and complains for 5 years about their product... That's the poisonous and destructive modern gaming environment. 

You think I am going to spend near $1000 on 5th edition products that I think are a step backwards because campaigners suceeded in shortening the life of 4th?  You think I am happy they scrapped any effort at making a decent VTT?  The nature of the problem is that those who are happy aren't sufficient to counteract the loud minority and when 5th is released there will be a new loud minority and the cycle will repeat...  Until the publisher gets fed up with the cycle.       
A forum is a place to argue. Your argument is important as is mine. You know what I don't like? I don't like a lot of rules that say it is up to the Dungeon Master. Not all of us are naturally creative story tellers. We're paying WOTC to help us tell the story. I want modules and advanced rules to complement the basic core rules to help the DM and players when they are ready to advance.

See bro Pathfinder has full on campaigns mapped out for you in a large book form. Perfect for your needs as a storyteller. begins the characters at fledgeling levels and works them up the tier. Cool beans.
With the ease of complaining and the ability of the internet to amplify similar voices into an "echo chamber"  it becomes near impossible for the publisher or designer to ignore the playerbase even if the game is properly designed.

I really suspect the larger portion of their "tweaks" are the cause of either reading the feedback from the actual post-playtest surveys (which are less often done by people that are just wanting to scream about the new thing they don't like, and more often done by serious groups looking to actually try to make the game work for them) or from actual in-house testing and design.

Amusingly, I really think the game developers are more intelligent than to just listen to whatever screaming notion the forums has this week on why what they are doing is bad. I imagine they skim thru, picking out pieces that are legit criticism or large trends that seem to be broad across a variety of types of players (and matches the response from the post-playtest surveys).

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

The combination of egocentric people and a platform to congregate is ruining gaming to some degree.

How?



I cannot speak for malcapricornis, but for myself I see it this way:

I have oodles of friends who play D&D.
Of those, I am the only one on these boards.
They find me a bit mad for coming on here and participating.
The reason? Mostly it's because people don't really come to this discussion forum to "discuss" anything. They come here to espouse their opinions, and then shout down everyone who doesn't agree. That shouting down spawns more shouting down, and so on.

If you have a question about a facet of the game, there is a slim chance you might get a legit response from someone who just wants to help you out. Chances are far greater, though, that you'll instead get a total jerk who'll down-talk you and tell you to RTFM. That jerk is then assailed by other jerks, and the shouting down kicks off again.

It is not a friendly place for folks who want to discuss the game. It is, however, the perfect place for people who want to beat their own chests, claim how their opinions are far better than anyone else's because they've been playing since dice were carved out of consecrated stone tablets, and spit as much bile as possible at each other, all the while staying just under the CoC radar (usually be resorting to the worst kinds of passive-aggressive tactics and rhetoric).

How is it "ruining the game"? While I might not go so far as to claim it is ruining the game, it sure as heck isn't helping to expand it. It's old mindset of "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". New players will venture here to sniff around, then, if they don't have a mind to argue about everything, they'll leave. It is not a good place for facilitating constructive conversations. It's a place where a select few folks will bounce ideas around while a larger selection of folks bash any ideas, insult each other, insult the creators of the game, and try their best to "win arguments" as opposed to contributing to constructive conversations.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
If you have a question about a facet of the game, there is a slim chance you might get a legit response from someone who just wants to help you out. Chances are far greater, though, that you'll instead get a total jerk who'll down-talk you and tell you to RTFM. That jerk is then assailed by other jerks, and the shouting down kicks off again.

I really haven't had that be my experience in these forums - mind you, I'm not talking about the D&DN forums, but the WotC forums in general. For the most part, people try to be helpful, in my experience at least.

As far as screaming and yelling in this area of the forum? Yes, because this part of the forum is for, generally speaking, feedback on what isn't actually a full-fledged game yet, just a playtest. Some of that feedback will include "I really don't like this aspect" in the hopes that it will be agreed with and changed.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Why couldn't the solution to whatever problem anyone had with any previous edition to D&D be to "just houserule it"?

A big part of it is system complexity. I've tried to houserule magic items out of Pathfinder. I can't do it. The system is simply too complex and my understanding far too simple to understand how to handle the game without magic items.

expanding any audience for any product has its up and down side. increasing player base creates cash for wotc and more people playing, however it is usually accompanied by a watering down of the product to make it easy to understand and that is the side i hate the most

This is a reasonable stance to take. An unreasonable stance would be "D&D Next is going to be a watered down version of D&D." Your sentiment is perfectly understandable. I think its the latter sentiment that has malcapornicus upset.

players that think a wizard using a staff or dagger is out of flavor for them they say oh use a cantrip what about an antimagic field.

I'm having trouble understanding your post justmike. But here's my attempt to respond: Antimagic fields are designed solely to screw over characters that rely on magic. If you have a character whose entire capabilities of being effective are wrapped up in magic, then your character is going to be screwed should an antimagic field come up.

the creation of feats did nothing but impress apon players that they need to take "powers" due to class weakness. Classes shouldnt need feats. They should scale in power and the uniquness of a pc is in the roleplay and spell choice and playstyle

(I've updated this quote with punctuation to convey my understanding of the post). Tax Feats (and there were quite a few in both 3.5e and 4th ed) definitely convey the idea that a class isn't good enough and needs feats to make it effective. Conceptually though feats were intended to allow customisation of a character. D&D Next feats definitely seem to fall into this area with the tax feats currently not present (IMO). However should you dislike feats. It is quite easy to remove those feats and it's even supported by the rules (feats are marked as optional).

"Potaytoe, potahto," I suppose. But really I just want to play a game now and for all the arguing to cease. Individuals arguing aren't DM. I DM four games every week and play only one consistent game of Pathfinder. ho hum, that's my personal First World problem.

if you don't want to discuss the game but simply play it, what are you doing on the forums?

I want modules and advanced rules to complement the basic core rules to help the DM and players when they are ready to advance.

And all available information we have tells us you'll get this.
players that think a wizard using a staff or dagger is out of flavor for them they say oh use a cantrip what about an antimagic field.

 
 
Thought I would mention I want a wizards staff and dagger use to be very thematic (I hate Xbows for mages) and I want it effective not a gimp bregade ... heck I want his defenses to be more appropriate (staffs are awesome defensive weaponry by the way) and I want those who go Gandalfy to have an effective sword use.  

But really I prefer how gandalf uses his staff in LOTR... in a sort of telekinetic smashing and huge amounts of knock back style fight.

And I want somebody with a concentration in that to be able to have shield spells that are as effective as a fighters parry, but operates differently. (for instance they collapse if penetrated and require an action to restore them.)


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments