Irreconcilable Differences

I will start out by saying something positive about WotC, I thought that SWSE was a great game, probably the best realised “fun” table top RPG I have found. Did a lot of things well, and the things it didn’t seemed to be presented in a way that made them deal withable. So don’t take anything that follows as WotC bashing, because they have shown that they can do well.


I also liked 4th ed, a good, solid, fun (if slightly OTT) game. I think a major part of why it didn’t do well was that each previous edition recognisable as an evolution of the previous editions. 4th ed was an improvement in a lot of ways on 3x, but seemed to start from scratch, not be a new implementation. This seemed to turn a lot of folks off, but didn’t worry me.


One of the things that was great about 4th was that it did away with things that devoted fans of  3x admitted were not great (grappling rules come to mind). This brings me to the first of my real concerns about Next. 4th changed things that even supporters of 3rd felt were not working, while Next seems to be getting rid of things that supporters of 4th think work really well. Seriously, they are pretty much chucking out all the stuff that those who played the game said was good about it, in order to appease those that didn’t play it. How this makes any sort of sense is simply beyond me.


My bigger concern, however, is something that has been gnawing away at me for a while, but I was not able to fully formulate until Mearle’s “William Wallace can’t make a soldier’s hand grow back” comment. The devs have given a lot of talks about modularity, but they are all really more like settings (like the sliders for different pitches on a graphic equaliser, not “Forgotten Realms” settings) rather than true modules.  The healing options introduced a while back are a good example. None of them changed how healing worked, just the rate it worked at. That isn’t a module, that is a setting.


This is a problem, because when something is introduced an folks say “I don’t like it” they are met with “don’t worry, because modules”. This is a bit like giving someone a remote for a graphic equaliser and putting of a cd with tracks they don’t like. When they say “I don’t like this track” you respond with “so use the remote”, but all this allows them to do is lower the bass and increase the treble , not skip tracks.


The even bigger problem is that it shows that Mearles and Co have a very  particular interpretation of the game, and it doesn’t gel all that well with at least a small chunk of the community (well, at least this very small particle of the community that is me and my roleplaying group, but since that is the portion I have influence over, it is significant to me). More vexingly , it isn’t even internally consistent. Early on in playtest there was a discussion that Hit Points were an abstraction, not a direct representation of tissue penetration or depth of a cut (or “meat points” as I have heard them called), the “Can’t grow back a hand” comment seemed to indicate that, at least when it comes to ruling that the warlord can’t have nice (healing) things, it is based on the idea that inspiration can’t heal meat points.


As a result of all this, I give in. There are some really frustrating things on these boards, but I was happy to put up with them because I had hope (as much as a 40+ page argument about not using the male pronoun as default scarred my soul, I still had hope). However, I have now lost any hope of next actually being any good, and thus can’t be bothered with the grief.  I will not be buying next (unless I hear some extremely positive reviews, and will still do some serious research first) and will no longer be visiting this board.


To those of you with Ayn Rand quotes as your signatures, feel free to post and tell me why my opinion doesn’t matter, I won’t be checking it, so you will be talking to yourself or those who share your opinion anyway.


To those still fighting the good fight, you have my admiration, you are stronger (or at least more optimistic) than me. I salute you all.


 


TL:DR


Mike, do you even read you own stuff? Now I has a disappoint. Bye.

Okay, yeah, so Wallace can't grow someone's hand back.

This doesn't mean he can't restore hit points.  Since hit points lost do not necessarily indicate physical damage, by the same token, physical damage does not require hit points to be lost.  Stumpicles could easily be at full HP, and missing his hand.  The whole 'the warlord yells at you and your wounds close up' argument has always been bunk, and Mearls should know this.  Warlords don't heal physical wounds, they inspire you to keep going despite them, assuming you even narrated your HP loss as significant physical damage in the first place.

But, yeah, Next isn't looking good.
Please no, not another Warlords and hit points tread, no no no!
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Okay, yeah, so Wallace can't grow someone's hand back.

Wallace shot fireballs from his eyes and lightning bolts from his arse - that implies a wizard, who absolutely can't ever never ever use helaing magic anyway for some reason.

  I definitely have to empathize with DreadPirateNat.  I've heard alot about modularity, and being able to build a game that suits my tastes - and though there are some truly promising things in the playtest packet, I haven't seen any evidence to back up the claims that this can be 'my D&D'.
 
  Abstract HP are not the subject of this thread - false promises are.  Modularity is.

  Perhaps it's still early in the playtest; I do have hope for something good here... but it's looking more like I might just want to appropriate the cool magic item flavour, and the abilities /skill dice /backgrounds system into my already existing game.  I certainly don't have to buy a new edition to do that.
I had similar feelings, and a break for anyone may be called for regardless of the edition you prefer. So come back when you are ready and put up a good fight. The game is not over, until it is over.
First, sorry to see the OP leaving the Forums and active Next participation in the Playtest. People who want to constructively review what's happening and input feedback are always desired.

Second, as was said, no, by Inspiration alone, a hand won't grow back, but as has been said, in the default of the game, HPs are an abstract, and are in fact affected by a Dial setting...which was explained as one of the kinds of Modular content that will be offered...not all, but some will be Dial settings. In a more gritty game, where the HP reflection is dialed down to HP=Meat Points, the Warlord has no place, on the other hand, turning the dial another way, where Mind over Matter is believed to be almost magical, and even something described as a severed hand might be healed by a Warlord's Inspiring word. Hypnosis patients have been known to develop sores on their skin based on hypnotic suggestion, an extreme fantasy equivalent to that would be something so inspiring that it would make the body heal itself. This is fantasy afterall.

Dials have multiple settings. default would be the zero-point, where HPs are strictly an abstract concept, reflecting both actual wounds, and fatigue, and being off balance, etc..., the + side of the dial would be where HPs represent more and more, actual physical damage, while the - side of things would be where HPs are more and more an abstract cinamatic affect where even death blows can be healed almost completely by will power. The dial might be set to +2 where 20% of HPs are considered actual wounds, for instance. A -10 on the other hand has the Warlord commanding wounds to close by force of will and personality alone. Shoot, at a -10 setting, a character's 2nd Wind is the equivalent of a cinamatic: "It's just a Flesh Wound" call after being practically beheaded!

I still want to see other kinds of modules, other than Dials, and the D-Team has already indicated there will be other types of modules...there already are in fact. Backgrounds is a Module, Specialties is a Module. I would assume things like Build Choices for Classes is actually a modular enhancement (since I don't see Schemes, Traditions, Deities, or Styles as choices in the BASIC version of the game)

There will probably be Advanced optional modules including a Fatigue Point system, a Wound Level/Vitality system (one of the most requested alternate systems I've seen, even if I'm not a fan, I recognize there are those who want it) which are direct affects on Healing different from a Dial. I see alternate casting methods like a Mana point system or even a system where a person's Hitpoints can be spent to cast spells, an AEDU module to supercede the current action economy. A tactical combat module for both TotM and Grid-based combat. Not to mention expanded Classes and Races above and beyond the Core-4 of each that will be represented in the BASIC game. Some of these modules will be in the Standard version of the game, and some of these will be Advanced options that are either in their own expanded module book, or maybe in Appendixes of the PHB and DMG and even the MM. Not to mention being introduced in any Settings where these expanded options are more considered to be default for the setting (Preserver/Defiler magic for instance for Dark Sun, along with Wild Talent Psionics, Spellscarred rules as an expanded module for Forgotten Realms, Firearm rules for a setting like Eberron, Rules for the Mists and cutting out your own territory for a Ravenloft setting, etc...)

I am in no way 100% satisfied with how next is progressing, however, I am 100% confident that the D-Team is actually listening to those playtesting the game, and taking the Majority comments under consideration, especially for what should be DEFAULT rules, and still thinking about how to add modular content to appease the next level of Commenters (Say 30%, which happens to be a Majority wants option A, 25% wants option B, and the other 45% is split among 8-10 other options, Option A would most likely become the DEFAULT, and Option B would be considered as a Module right away, and still, if another group is prolific enough, say Option C gets 15% of the remaining opinion, while no other option gets more than 3-5%, then I see option C making the Module cut as well, if at all possible) Also remember, the above example can be the breakdown only on a specific mechanic/rule system...such as Healing, or Vancian Casting.

Do I think that 5e will be the game that fulfills all My gaming needs...not at all, no such thing as perfect. Do I think they can make 5e a fully playable and enjoyable game that could get me to transfer my campaigns in the making over to the new system? Absolutely. I have been a fan of each new evolution of the game as it has come out, and I do see the game as evolving, not just blindly changing for no reason. I see it getting better with every iteration, even if some things are worse than the previous ones. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
  false promises are. 



I gave up expecting a business to keep its promises a long, long time ago.
And just for the record, a hand can not grow back with a cleric unless they cast regeneration.
The low solidifaction of the core is the biggest source of disagreement in Next. It is the seed of most of it. It is easy to tear down something that is not finished because the target can be imagined into anything hated.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

So a Warlord can't shout a hand back onto it's arm but a Bard can sing one into a complete arm?

Makes no sense either way. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I'm not optimistic about Next in general, but really, it's not over till it's over.  I'm still very interested in seeing how it all turns out.  And I'll always be a D&D fan.  So I won't call any differences I have "irreconcilable."

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

@shamanstar

Very nicely put. 
  false promises are. 



I gave up expecting a business to keep its promises a long, long time ago.



Unless you have absolute evidence of the complete future of the game, you cannot at this time claim "false promises".  Their promise isn't false until the game is released without something that they promised.

Edit:  Actually, even then it isn't a false promise unless they knew when they made the promise that they couldn't/wouldn't keep it.  A promise made that cannot for some reason be kept is a broken promise, but not a false promise.  So not only do you have to have a promise made that is not kept, but you have to factually be able to prove that they were lying when they made it in order for it to be a false promise.

Good luck.    

People strike me as incredibly naive sometimes.


Honestly, who thought Mearls and his team lacked personal bias and didn't want the game to represent things their way? The other obvious thing in that podcast everyone's foaming at the mouth over is that there was contention on that healing point. Not everyone on the team agrees with Mearls, which means it's an ongoing discussion internally. Mearls is the head designer so the buck's gotta stop with him but that doesn't mean the rest of the team doesn't have input.


Point is anyone who enters into this playtest with the idea that the designers will not act on their own personal preferences is either deliberately ignoring reality or is incredibly trusting of what they read. Neither of those things are particularly responsible.

Please no, not another Warlords and hit points tread, no no no!



It isn't going to stop until WoTC allows warlords to heal. Even if only via maneuvers, so that tables that think that HP=meat points can ban those manuevers without having to ban the class.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
To be frank we have not even seen the rules yet, this seems kind of...premature. It's true that roles were very limitted in 4th edition so you needed another class to do leadership. However a 4th edition Fighter could not really play as an archer either the focus of the class was too narrow. The paradox of many narrow  classes is that they can give less choice than fewer broad classess, so for example if you wanted to play an archer in 4th edition you at first had to be a Ranger with all the baggage that brings.
Please no, not another Warlords and hit points tread, no no no!



It isn't going to stop until WoTC allows warlords to heal. Even if only via maneuvers, so that tables that think that HP=meat points can ban those manuevers without having to ban the class.



when warlord healing is brought up, mike quickly sais that is more of a bard thing. to heal and inspire.

You woulden't expect the captain of the guard to heal downed wariors, then if you say well he can heal becouse of his inspiering presence then you just kind of described a bard.

And then they will put somthing in the fluff about many seeing the inpirational powers of the bard as somthing magical.
Alouwing people who want magical healing only to say it is magical, and people who want non magical healing to say it is non magical based on how you want to interpret the fluff.

So putting non magical healing in the bard class you end up with somthing that can swing both ways depending on what you prefer.
While putting it in the warlord makes in inherently martial and forced a specific view of hitpoints.
1. I'll start with the standard response to a GBCW thread: Can I have your stuff?
2. There's a whole l&l article where the specifically say that modules will include both "sliders" and more advanced and complex changes, like critical hit charts and such.
3. 4e also changed stuff people DID like from 3e, thus the edition wars.
4. Mearls was clearly playing devil's advocate on the healing wounds thing.
5. Even if he wasn't, every version of D&D I've seen, including the playtest, has agreed that dropping below zero hp entails some physical damage. A 4e warlord can heal that damage by "inspiring" unconscious allies, which is undeniably weird. (And this is from someone who likes inspirational healing.)
6. But they'll have modules for non-magical healing anyway, like the hd already in the packet. So the real loss here isn't that they don't understand hp (which they do), but that they don't think the warlord stands up as a class regardless of healing
Please no, not another Warlords and hit points tread, no no no!



It isn't going to stop until WoTC allows warlords to heal. Even if only via maneuvers, so that tables that think that HP=meat points can ban those manuevers without having to ban the class.



when warlord healing is brought up, mike quickly sais that is more of a bard thing. to heal and inspire.

You woulden't expect the captain of the guard to heal downed wariors, then if you say well he can heal becouse of his inspiering presence then you just kind of described a bard.

And then they will put somthing in the fluff about many seeing the inpirational powers of the bard as somthing magical.
Alouwing people who want magical healing only to say it is magical, and people who want non magical healing to say it is non magical based on how you want to interpret the fluff.

So putting non magical healing in the bard class you end up with somthing that can swing both ways depending on what you prefer.
While putting it in the warlord makes in inherently martial and forced a specific view of hitpoints.



I'm not making an argument one way or another here. I'm just saying, the warlord and hitpoints argument will invade every vaguely related thread until the warlord fans get a bone. For good or ill, that's just where things lay right now.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

when warlord healing is brought up, mike quickly sais that is more of a bard thing. to heal and inspire.
You woulden't expect the captain of the guard to heal downed wariors, then if you say well he can heal becouse of his inspiering presence then you just kind of described a bard


And since the warlord shares a similar but not identical concept in reference to a bard, then warlord healing is a valid option as well, whether it is based on inspiration or something different.

And a captain of the guard can be a rogue, ranger, bard, warlord, fighter, paladin, cleric, etc. so it means nothing in the context of the discussion. Except to make a cheap shot at the warlord.      
    
The whole point of Next, the entire reason for its existence and its primary and fundamental goal, is that these differences don't have to be reconciled at the system level.

They do at the table level, but that's expected and acceptable - people do it all the time, in every edition.

But you'll be hard pressed to explain to me why my ability to play in a way you don't prefer will have any impact whatsoever on how you run your game if Next is executed according to its core design principle.

I'd like to give this line special treatment, however:
The even bigger problem is that it shows that Mearles and Co have a very  particular interpretation of the game

The fallacy in your logic is that you assume that what we see now is what the end product is supposed to look like.  That because the packet doesn't support much variance of playstyle, that "Mearles [sic] and Co" are telling you how they think you should play.  That's flatly wrong.  What they are doing now is creating the simple version, the one without the bells and whistles that you an I really enjoy, and that's fine.  Not everyone is going to play the simple game, and quite frankly I don't even expect a majority to.  But as long as you are under the  impression that what we're seeing now is representative of what they want a final design to look like, you will be disappointed and frustrated because you aren't operating on the same wavelength that the developers are.  They're not trying to create a final design that accomplishes all of the goals.  They're trying to test and explore specific, narrow pieces that go into that puzzle. 

What you're doing now is like watching a test of the Space Shuttle's landing gear system and then complaining that you don't see how it's going to get into orbit.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

As a result of all this, I give in. ...  I will not be buying next...




So... the game that is still in its early stages of development and won't be out in 2013 isn't what you want it to be yet, and you have decided that 8+ months down the road you won't be buying the game.

Angry with how it's going? Quit the playtest and don't go to the boards.

But to declare that there is no way you'll be purchasing a product that will likely look nothing like the latest playtest is idiotic, especially since providing your (constructive) criticisms is exactly how the game will look like what you want. 
To be frank we have not even seen the rules yet, this seems kind of...premature. It's true that roles were very limitted in 4th edition so you needed another class to do leadership. However a 4th edition Fighter could not really play as an archer either the focus of the class was too narrow. The paradox of many narrow  classes is that they can give less choice than fewer broad classess, so for example if you wanted to play an archer in 4th edition you at first had to be a Ranger with all the baggage that brings.



What "baggage" other than getting free training in the Nature skill? Gee, a skill training pre-chosen (and still as many to pick as a Fighter gets so you're not even losing a slot), oh noes, my character is dooooooooooooooooooooooomed!Yell
For some people, that's too much baggage.  Anything that is part of their character that they didn't want to be part of their character is bad.  It doesn't matter if they weren't deprived of something in exchanging for getting something don't want, it's that they have something that they don't want.

And they're not wrong for thinking that.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The whole point of Next, the entire reason for its existence and its primary and fundamental goal, is that these differences don't have to be reconciled at the system level.

They do at the table level, but that's expected and acceptable - people do it all the time, in every edition.

But you'll be hard pressed to explain to me why my ability to play in a way you don't prefer will have any impact whatsoever on how you run your game if Next is executed according to its core design principle.

I'd like to give this line special treatment, however:
The even bigger problem is that it shows that Mearles and Co have a very  particular interpretation of the game

The fallacy in your logic is that you assume that what we see now is what the end product is supposed to look like.  That because the packet doesn't support much variance of playstyle, that "Mearles [sic] and Co" are telling you how they think you should play.  That's flatly wrong.  What they are doing now is creating the simple version, the one without the bells and whistles that you an I really enjoy, and that's fine.  Not everyone is going to play the simple game, and quite frankly I don't even expect a majority to.  But as long as you are under the  impression that what we're seeing now is representative of what they want a final design to look like, you will be disappointed and frustrated because you aren't operating on the same wavelength that the developers are.  They're not trying to create a final design that accomplishes all of the goals.  They're trying to test and explore specific, narrow pieces that go into that puzzle. 

What you're doing now is like watching a test of the Space Shuttle's landing gear system and then complaining that you don't see how it's going to get into orbit.



They've said multiple times that the core is done and they've said that core is basic. So what we have thus far pretty much is what the game will be based on. Maybe they'll change some numbers around like making MDD into WDD, but they aren't going to throw out a huge chunk of the rules at this point and start over. Anyone who thinks that is deluding themselves. What we have is a nearly finished product. We might get some more maneuvers for the Fighter, some more tricks for the Rogue, some more spells for the Wizard and Cleric, maybe a few new classes, but nothing fundamental is going to change from what we have. They've already said so...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

As a result of all this, I give in. ...  I will not be buying next...




So... the game that is still in its early stages of development and won't be out in 2013 isn't what you want it to be yet, and you have decided that 8+ months down the road you won't be buying the game.

Angry with how it's going? Quit the playtest and don't go to the boards.

But to declare that there is no way you'll be purchasing a product that will likely look nothing like the latest playtest is idiotic, especially since providing your (constructive) criticisms is exactly how the game will look like what you want. 



They've already said in articles that core is done and that core is basic. So we aren't in the 'early stages of development'. We are in the beta stages where there won't be huge changes. Sorry to break it to people but what you see is pretty much how the game is going to work...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Core is not done, did you miss the part where they said they're redesigning many of the classes?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Core is not done, did you miss the part where they said they're redesigning many of the classes?



I especialy liked the rumors about fighters new manuver system.
From what i can pice together it might be very simular to book of 9 swords.
So...quitting on a project still in its Alpha phase because you don't like how it's shaping up.
Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

You're part of a playtest...an organized, structured environment for facilitating change throughout the creation process...and you're dropping out of it. That makes NO sense whatsoever, and looks more like someone just wanting to rage-quit because their particular pet-peeve wasn't handled before anyone else's were. it seems both petty and sad. I have NO sympathy for people who give up on a playtest. When the final product is something they truly hate, then it serves them right. They deserve what they get. The entire point of a playtest is to be hit with things you don't like, and to try to facilitate change through feedback. Rage-quitting the forums is just immature, attention-grabbing garbage that's more along the lines of something a 5 year old would do when they're told something they don't like. People like this can't be taken seriously. They bring us all down.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Core is not done, did you miss the part where they said they're redesigning many of the classes?



I especialy liked the rumors about fighters new manuver system.
From what i can pice together it might be very simular to book of 9 swords.



Same here.
The opportunities are huge, and potentially quite exciting.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
someone just wanting to rage-quit because their particular pet-peeve wasn't handled before anyone else's were.


Pretty much this.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This doesn't seem to be a rage-quit as much as a lingering seething anger quit.  At least the former is less likely to induce ulcers.
Core is not done, did you miss the part where they said they're redesigning many of the classes?



I wouldn't exactly call taking the dice cost away from maneuvers and swapping MDD for WDD 'redesigning many of the classes'. Anything else is pure speculation on the part of hopeful posters. Unless you can quote and link some articles I missed...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So...quitting on a project still in its Alpha phase because you don't like how it's shaping up.
Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

You're part of a playtest...an organized, structured environment for facilitating change throughout the creation process...and you're dropping out of it. That makes NO sense whatsoever, and looks more like someone just wanting to rage-quit because their particular pet-peeve wasn't handled before anyone else's were. it seems both petty and sad. I have NO sympathy for people who give up on a playtest. When the final product is something they truly hate, then it serves them right. They deserve what they get. The entire point of a playtest is to be hit with things you don't like, and to try to facilitate change through feedback. Rage-quitting the forums is just immature, attention-grabbing garbage that's more along the lines of something a 5 year old would do when they're told something they don't like. People like this can't be taken seriously. They bring us all down.



I have no sympathy for people that can't tell that WotC and Mearls has ignored many of the 4E fans since the play test started. I have no sympathy for people that don't realize core is done and core is basic and the game isn't going to change very much from here on out. I also don't have sympathy for people that want 4E fans to continue to spend their precious time play testing a game it appears they won't buy. Now it would be totally different if Mearls came out and said here's a module for you to test that breaks bounded accuracy, gives Fighters out of combat Maneuvers, has a non-vancian casting system for Wizards, etc...etc...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I will say that taking a break from the playtest process for a packet can be helpful when all you feel that you see is your 'side' being marginalized at best (no, seriously, it worked for me, got me to come back with a fresh perspective, especially after running at ECC and getting some new faces to play with me online).

I do believe that leaving the playtest entirely is a bad thing as it will result in your perspective losing a voice in the final outcome. 
I will say that taking a break from the playtest process for a packet can be helpful when all you feel that you see is your 'side' being marginalized at best (no, seriously, it worked for me, got me to come back with a fresh perspective, especially after running at ECC and getting some new faces to play with me online).

I do believe that leaving the playtest entirely is a bad thing as it will result in your perspective losing a voice in the final outcome. 



I see statements like this, and what I hear is "please stop complaining and go away so we can get our game"
...whatever
I will say that taking a break from the playtest process for a packet can be helpful when all you feel that you see is your 'side' being marginalized at best (no, seriously, it worked for me, got me to come back with a fresh perspective, especially after running at ECC and getting some new faces to play with me online).

I do believe that leaving the playtest entirely is a bad thing as it will result in your perspective losing a voice in the final outcome. 



I see statements like this, and what I hear is "please stop complaining and go away so we can get our game"


Yes.  Please, do that - if you are of the opinion that you are certain that the end product won't be something you enjoy.  Because if you do stick around, you do nothing other than influence something you're not going to enjoy anyway, to the detriment of those who would.  You cease to be a productive, constructive voice, and instead serve only to poison the discussion.

If you don't believe that there's a chance of getting what you want, then yes, you should stop complaining and wait for the next edition.  I really hope that you don't fall into this category, but that's something only you can know. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I will say that taking a break from the playtest process for a packet can be helpful when all you feel that you see is your 'side' being marginalized at best (no, seriously, it worked for me, got me to come back with a fresh perspective, especially after running at ECC and getting some new faces to play with me online).

I do believe that leaving the playtest entirely is a bad thing as it will result in your perspective losing a voice in the final outcome. 



I see statements like this, and what I hear is "please stop complaining and go away so we can get our game"



I don't think that's really a fair respresentation of what Jonathan is saying. I think what he really means is that coming here and participating regularly can be extremely demoralizing. It's good to take regular breaks from this vitriol.

I think that D&DN is a pretty bland and unappealing game with the sorts of mechanical issues that I thought D&D had largely fixed in the last few years. I don't think the design team is especially innovative, and the playtest packets have me constantly questioning if they're capable of basic math. And it's taken them an entire year to get this far. Now, all that said? I have no urge to rage quit. There may come a time (very soon) when my playtesters and I decide that the D&DN playtest packets aren't worth actually playtesting, but I'll at least give them a read. I can continue to participate largely because I find the process interesting and it's really not the end of the world if the next Dungeons and Dragons is a derivative and unappealing game.
I will say that taking a break from the playtest process for a packet can be helpful when all you feel that you see is your 'side' being marginalized at best (no, seriously, it worked for me, got me to come back with a fresh perspective, especially after running at ECC and getting some new faces to play with me online).

I do believe that leaving the playtest entirely is a bad thing as it will result in your perspective losing a voice in the final outcome. 



I see statements like this, and what I hear is "please stop complaining and go away so we can get our game"



Um, thecasualoblivion, I usually agree with you and support you and what I wrote was intended to say that losing any voice or perspective in this playtest is a bad thing, although you might want to take an occaissonal break if it gets overwhelming (like it did for me a while back) so I am completely baffled as to how you took the message you did from my post.

*edit* Also, what Rheinhart said. 
It's really frustrating for me to see topics like this get responded to by trolls yelling "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Come on guys, let's at least try to keep up a facade where we respect one another's version of the game. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Sign In to post comments