|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 6:57AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
Can we please stop with the idea that we can merely houserule away lazy and poor game design? We need clear and concise definitions for game terms and explanations of how rules interact with other rules. We need cleanly designed game mechanics to run on those rules. The idea that we can "houserule it if we don't like it" is a logical fallacy at best and an apology on WotC's behalf at worst.
None of us are served by apologizing for this company and their mistakes. Right now, they need us to be critical and to be hard on them. For example, if we can get them to properly define their timing rules right now, we can save ourselves five years of arguing over RAW after the game is printed.
Lay down a solid groundwork of rules. If you want randomness in your character generation, that is what a sidebar titled "Optional Rule: Rolling Attributes and Hit Points" is for. With a solid foundation of rules, complexity can be added on top with minimal trouble, whether it is through additional modules or simple power creep.
The DM has the ultimate power in a game, at least as far as the players will allow. That is what a defined "Rule Zero" provides us. Do not write "if the DM feels like it" into every rule.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:04AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but they haven't exactly mentioned the modules lately and I have a wait and see attitude when it comes to WotC. I've been burned too often by them.
Good Lord, you carry on as though you've never seen an edition of this game before. It's only been a little over a week since the playtest began. You KNOW that once they get the base game formed that they're just going to spew out these modules.
The only difference? This time you're invited to watch the works-in-progress take shape.
I misunderstood the whole point of the playtest concept then. I thought I was supposed to "help" the works-in-progress take shape, not just "watch" it. This leads me to think the following:
I ain't never really seen a train wreck up close and personal a'fore, I guess now is as good a time as any.
Hey ya'll, watch this! 5E D&D is gonna be 1E D&D with a hybrid magic system and updated art. Ya'll think we should drop hunnerds a dollars onnit when it comes out? Playtest? Naw, they just wanted us to feel e'ry bump and bruise d'people ona train did. They weren't gonna change nuttin' 'cause of it.
(I use this style of speech because I'm from the country and we tawlk like this when we're being sarcastic  )
As for keeping a civil tongue in my head, well, yeah, I can do that too. I think sarcasm helps spell out my emotions which I do have, and I don't find the inclusion of a sarcastic tone in a post to be equal to a lack of civility. Sarcasm gets across it's own kind of message.
WoTC gave me a chance to comment on what I see, feel, play and I'm going to. They asked me to tell them what worked and what didn't, so I'm going to. Saying things like wait for the (N)ext rules set, or (N)ext module are not helpful when I'm still trying to understand or change things that I think are messed up with this one.
If they didn't want my feedback on what's right in front of me, then they shouldn't have put it in front of me. They should have given me something else to focus on.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:09AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Can we please stop with the idea that we can merely houserule away lazy and poor game design? We need clear and concise definitions for game terms and explanations of how rules interact with other rules. We need cleanly designed game mechanics to run on those rules. The idea that we can "houserule it if we don't like it" is a logical fallacy at best and an apology on WotC's behalf at worst.
None of us are served by apologizing for this company and their mistakes. Right now, they need us to be critical and to be hard on them. For example, if we can get them to properly define their timing rules right now, we can save ourselves five years of arguing over RAW after the game is printed.
Lay down a solid groundwork of rules. If you want randomness in your character generation, that is what a sidebar titled "Optional Rule: Rolling Attributes and Hit Points" is for. With a solid foundation of rules, complexity can be added on top with minimal trouble, whether it is through additional modules or simple power creep.
The DM has the ultimate power in a game, at least as far as the players will allow. That is what a defined "Rule Zero" provides us. Do not write "if the DM feels like it" into every rule.
Agreed.
This is the first time in History TSR, WoTC or any RPG game that I can think of has allowed a worldwide review and 360 degree feedback on a product that they're trying to distribute.
I owe it to them to be as hard and challenging as possible to ensure that they have a dynamite product with D&DNext.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:51AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Can we please stop with the idea that we can merely houserule away lazy and poor game design? We need clear and concise definitions for game terms and explanations of how rules interact with other rules. We need cleanly designed game mechanics to run on those rules. The idea that we can "houserule it if we don't like it" is a logical fallacy at best and an apology on WotC's behalf at worst.
None of us are served by apologizing for this company and their mistakes. Right now, they need us to be critical and to be hard on them. For example, if we can get them to properly define their timing rules right now, we can save ourselves five years of arguing over RAW after the game is printed.
Lay down a solid groundwork of rules. If you want randomness in your character generation, that is what a sidebar titled "Optional Rule: Rolling Attributes and Hit Points" is for. With a solid foundation of rules, complexity can be added on top with minimal trouble, whether it is through additional modules or simple power creep.
The DM has the ultimate power in a game, at least as far as the players will allow. That is what a defined "Rule Zero" provides us. Do not write "if the DM feels like it" into every rule.
Rules dependancy and hating the Rules makers is a strange combination.
I would like to see WotC put more effort in bolstering a DM. The DM is the fulcrum. Build up the DMs and you will build up the hobby. No matter what rules system is published.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:53AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
Until we see those modules I have every right and reason to voice my concerns. All you are doing is confirming yourself as a poor consumer OP, promises of things to come are cheap and until WotC actually delivers I'm not buying it.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 6:41PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2009
|
As the OP, I'm going to be clear about the point of this thread:
STATE YOUR OPINIONS NICELY.
That is all.
If all you can do is freak out, why should WotC listen to us?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 9:29PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2009
|
Rules dependancy and hating the Rules makers is a strange combination.
I don't see how.
The DM is not the "rules maker". The DM adjudicates the rules. The DM takes the rules, when necessary, and bends, breaks and modifies them to suit a situation. That has been and always should be something that is necessary for the game. But the game mechanics must be able to stand up on their own as designed. Having a rule that can be interpreted in different ways depending on the whim of the current DM is absolutely unacceptable.
Having a coherent set of rules and definitions does not diminish a DM's power any more than it diminishes a player's ability to roleplay. It provides a strong and everlasting foundation from which game designers can add more complexity to the game and from which DMs can do their job better. If you want to play a free-form version of D&D, feel free to houserule away at your own table, but that does not, in any way, preclude our need for a strong and well-developed rules set.
To the OP: I am looking forward to additional playtest material, but I intend to be absolutely merciless in my criticism of it. D&D is a game I love and no gain is made by going easy on WotC for design errors or by apologizing for them. Right now, the apologists are the ones doing the most damage.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 2:33AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I wouldn't argue they're doing the most damage, but maybe the least amount of real playtest work. I like to have fun too, and I have with the playtests, but I'm also playing it to rate what I do or can't do while playing, not make excuses (apologies) for bad game mechanics and loftily think that WoTC will "magically" fix things that are just wrong with their initial stab at the core rules.
This reminds me a lot of a scene from the movie Willow, where Mad Martigan (Val Kilmer) yells at Willow (Warwick Davis) because when they get to the kingdom of Tirathlene everything is not as it should be. The kingdom is in shambles, the people are all trapped in ice or stone, and there is no one to save them from the enemies charging down their door.
Once he sees this, Mad Martigan looks to Willow and very snidely says "...everything will be fine as soon as we get to Tirathlene....I should have never listened to you, peck!"
This same line runs through my head everytime I read another post from someone telling me the "promised" land is out there, just beyond the first module cover. I'm not buyin' it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 7:48AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
One reason why the core (at this point) is rules light is to get feedback from us showing WoTC what we feel is missing. It seems perfectly reasonable that we as playtesters, play the game as is, and provide honest feedback of what we would like in the core, and as options. Therefore, we have no choice but to "wait and see."
If we are going to playtest, we cannot prejudge our decisions based on past performance of the company. If our judgement of WoTC is negative and it influences our decisions we will not provide valuable feedback. Even if we can provide feedback that is valuable, if we provide it couched with too much emotional baggage, WoTC may dismiss it as biased.
Be constructive and give it a chance. When it's all over, you can decide to switch over to 5e or not. Hopefully, if everyone gains from the experience we'll all switch over.
Happy playtesting.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 7:53AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
One reason why the core (at this point) is rules light is to get feedback from us showing WoTC what we feel is missing. It seems perfectly reasonable that we as playtesters, play the game as is, and provide honest feedback of what we would like in the core, and as options. Therefore, we have no choice but to "wait and see."
If we are going to playtest, we cannot prejudge our decisions based on past performance of the company. If our judgement of WoTC is negative and it influences our decisions we will not provide valuable feedback. Even if we can provide feedback that is valuable, if we provide it couched with too much emotional baggage, WoTC may dismiss it as biased.
Be constructive and give it a chance. When it's all over, you can decide to switch over to 5e or not. Hopefully, if everyone gains from the experience we'll all switch over.
Happy playtesting.
I agree, and trust me; I'm playtesting the crap out of these rules. At first it was for fun, and now I'm just trying to push the rules and options to see where they break. The WoTC team isn't a bunch of stupid, incompetent nerds trying to throw a product out for consumption. I know that.
I think they're more like a bunch of sharks who threw some chum in the water that they may or may not have liked and the want to see what the rest of the shark community thinks. I'm just having fun chewing on what they gave me...
|
|
|
