|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:30AM
#1
|
|
|
here are some interesting questions that might help WotC understand how to improve the game for DMs:
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:38AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Good Poll Lokiare, looking forward to seeing the results.
One thing I would have changed though is the word complexity in the question "Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?" . Simply put its kind of a loaded question, of course we want it simpler. But the question really should be do you want more options or less options, as less options would make it simpler, more options will make it more complex. When you just ask about complexity, its natural to not want that, after all, why would you want something more complicated. But if you reckognize that the trade off for simplicity is less options (which is always the case) the results I think would be different as I think many people would be willing to live with complexity, if it ment more options and additonal flexibility.
But other than that, looks good.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:38AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased. I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:38AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.
I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.
See what Im saying?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:39AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Worth noting that I have never played 1E or 2E, much less DMed them, so my not checking them at the end has nothing to do with their complexity.
What WotC can do to make me continue liking to DM is to follow up the fantastic encounter balance system that they introduced in 4E and the clear monster stat blocks that they introduced in 4E. I will gladly continue playing in 3E and Pathfinder games, but I refuse to DM them. After DMing for 4E, with the effortless elegant simplicity that it introduced for encounter design, I just can't go back. I cannot and will not go back to DMing a system where the suggested encounter table make no sense or where each monster stat block requires me to keep tabs in thirty different pages so I know everything that the monster is capable of.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:40AM
#6
|
|
|
Good Poll Lokiare, looking forward to seeing the results.
One thing I would have changed though is the word complexity in the question "Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?" . Simply put its kind of a loaded question, of course we want it simpler. But the question really should be do you want more options or less options, as less options would make it simpler, more options will make it more complex. When you just ask about complexity, its natural to not want that, after all, why would you want something more complicated. But if you reckognize that the trade off for simplicity is less options (which is always the case) the results I think would be different as I think many people would be willing to live with complexity, if it ment more options and additonal flexibility.
But other than that, looks good.
Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:
"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"
Same number of choices two different complexities...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:41AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
An extra question covering what editions we've DMed for would be a good control question here.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:43AM
#8
|
|
|
interesting poll. I have to wonder who wouldn't say no to "Would you enjoy an easier experience as a DM?" as it's currently phrased.
I put no to that question because I want a certain amount of optional depth that allows me to use my understanding of the system to more effect in encounters, like monsters with classes.
That has nothing to do with how easy it is. It can have many options and be easy or few options and complex:
1d6 or 1d4+2 or 1d8-1 or 1d10+1 or 1d12
1d6+3/2^2 or 1d8-1+3/2^2
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:44AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
Good Poll Lokiare, looking forward to seeing the results.
One thing I would have changed though is the word complexity in the question "Would you like simpler or more complex rules to make your experience as a DM easier?" . Simply put its kind of a loaded question, of course we want it simpler. But the question really should be do you want more options or less options, as less options would make it simpler, more options will make it more complex. When you just ask about complexity, its natural to not want that, after all, why would you want something more complicated. But if you reckognize that the trade off for simplicity is less options (which is always the case) the results I think would be different as I think many people would be willing to live with complexity, if it ment more options and additonal flexibility.
But other than that, looks good.
Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:
"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"
Same number of choices two different complexities...
Its not really what Im talking about. Im talking about options. For example in the monster manual you have an ORC and he has an XP budget. But what if I customize that Orc, what if I give him a Long Sword instead of a short sword and give him chain mail instead of Hide armor and I decide that he can also use cantrip spells. How does that effect my XP budget? It would require a more complex system for managing the budget and accounting for changes to the simple system. One is simpler (less options) the other is more complex (more options). In this poll people might choose simpler because, yeah sure, of course we want it simple, but if they discover it means less options as a sacrafice I think they would vote differently.
I mean really these are all kind of loaded questions now that I re-read them, the questions hand you the obvious answer.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:46AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Actually you can have the same number of options and more complexity, so the question is actually prased correctly:
"Would you prefer 1d12+6+2d6+1 divided by level of the character multiplied by the Strength of the character then square rooted? or would you like 1d12+6+2d6+1?"
Same number of choices two different complexities...
sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Everyone wants rules to be simple; they don't necessarily want rules that force complexity into the game. Really it's more a question of flexibility... but again, who wants rules to be less flexible? I'm not even sure what you're asking by those two questions, now that I really pick it apart. Really, the question is do you want optional depth or should the system just account for depth as well as breadth automatically - but then I also think that question probably directs the person being questioned to an answer. heh Oh well, I'm sure it'll spark some conversations if nothing else. edit: sentences that don't make any sense don't make any sense.
|
|
|
