|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 6:54AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2008
|
Evidently you cannot win. Either you don't produce errata consistantly (3e and earlier) or you produce it regularly (4e). Either way folks get upset. Here are sad facts: - D&D is profitable (but not Magic profitable) and has a very limited staff to cover a lot of bases.
- D&D output dwarfs Magic the Gathering output.
- RPGA/LFR players are a small subset of D&D players as a whole.
- RPGA/LFR is tied to the RAW and is less flexible than a home game.
- D&D R&D does not write for RPGA/Tournament play like Magic R&D does for DCI/Tournament Play. The vast audience is home games.
- Magic Tournament Play involves money at certain levels and demands a far more structured game. D&D does not.
The number one problem (if you want to see it as a problem) is D&D's prodigious output. There is no way you can throw enough editors and playtesters to catch all the problems you constantly generate with new content and still make a profit. Magic relases are self-contained and spaced out. There are less variables to consider than with D&D. Basically, you got two choices turn down the spigot (slow down the relase schedule) or improve the feedback system and errata releases to deal with "issues". WotC chose the latter. If you don't think that operations like Paizo don't suffer this same problem, you are fooling yourself. When they turned up their production spigot quality did suffer for it. Personally, I want more stuff. I will put up with momentary stupidity if it gets fixed for LFR eventually. In a home game I don't care because as a DM I have ultimate authority to let something in or not. My Two Coppers, Bryan Blumklotz AKA Saracenus
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 7:27AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
- D&D output dwarfs Magic the Gathering output.
I do not think that is the case: there are many more MTG cards than there are D&D powers. Also, while it's true that LFR players are a small subset of D&D players, it is also true that tournament players are a small subset of MTG players. MTG designers explicitly do not only focus on tournament play.
Overall, you are incorrect: the problems in D&D do not lie in complex interactions of rules items or unlikely combinations of feats, races and powers. The problems lie in a small number of individual things, on their own, that are unclear, self-contradicting, or overpowered. Things like "does falling trigger opportunity attacks" and "how often does an implement bonus apply to damage done by Blood Pulse". It simply does not require a vast amount of resources from WOTC to clarify these.
The issue with players is that 80% of these problems got fixed in the latest errata, and they're asking for the remaining 20%. Of course, some of this 20% still stems from the first PHB and was spotted a year and a half ago.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 7:57AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
Personally, I want more stuff. I will put up with momentary stupidity if it gets fixed for LFR eventually. In a home game I don't care because as a DM I have ultimate authority to let something in or not.
I think this is probably the core of our disagreement. I would accept less stuff in exchange for a more fully fleshed out set of rules.
When 4e was announced at Gencon 2 1/2 years ago, the selling point was that you would not need to continually look up rules to find out how things worked. (Grappling was the example spotlighted).
I really don't find myself looking up rules any less in 4e than I do in my 3.5 game. (Try explaining to someone the difference between melee cover and ranged cover and how in one the attacker has the burden of proof and in the other the defender has the burden of proof, and how in one you draw multiple lines from multiple corners to multiple corners while in the other you simply look for a single line, and then their eyes glaze over, just like in 3.5). What I do find is that places where 3.5 would have a rule that covered a situation, in 4e the rule is vague or non-existant.
I'm not arguing that 3.5 is better than 4e, or that 4e sucks, or that people should be playing one or the other. What I'm hoping that I'm arguing for is that the framework in which all of this content is presented needs to be more complete than it currently is.
If the framework is complete, then it is much easier to judge what interactions will be problematic, thus reducing the amount of brokenness that can slip through the cracks. As it stands now, we have nifty power X. How does it work in this situation Y? Answer: well, that's not defined by either the rules or the power - let the DM decide. Suddenly, nifty power X isn't so nifty, as you don't know how it will work in a given situation.
I realize we may disagree. Your preference for more content at the expense of consistent rules is simply your preference. Me, I've always been a rules junkie. If I know how the rules work, then I'll deal with the content that exists and be happy. If the rules are a huge grey area, then I'll be less happy, no matter what nifty powers are presented as content.
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:00AM
#54
|
|
|
Of course, some of this 20% still stems from the first PHB and was spotted a year and a half ago.
In all fairness, most of what is still open from the PHB has a bit of a more fundamental impact then merely changing the property of an item. Stuff like implement and weapons and energy property and abilities are not nearly as easy to change. Or at least, not as far as I can see.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:25AM
#55
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
- D&D output dwarfs Magic the Gathering output.
I do not think that is the case: there are many more MTG cards than there are D&D powers.
This is incorrect on several levels:
1) Magic had 968* cards in the sets it released since 4E was introduced
2) D&D has 4718 powers in that time
3) Further, D&D has 7114 items, 262 rituals, 39** classes, 340 paragon paths, 68 epic destinies
4) In _16 years_ Magic has put out 14041* cards.
5) In 1.5 years, D&D 4e has put out 12541 player equivalents
6) I suspect that when you remove duplicates the numbers are potentially quite close, which means D&D has over 10 times the output of Magic in terms of things to check.
* These numbers include duplicated cards, such as the basic lands which have appeared many times.
** Includes hybrid classes which are mostly duplicates of existing things, though still important to balance in their own right.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:32AM
#56
|
|
|
I do not think that is the case: there are many more MTG cards than there are D&D powers.
If you look at the fact that there's 16 years of Magic cards out there, versus a year and a half of 4E D&D items, maybe.
But...
I could consider each Magic card a "rules item". It's been a while since I've played Magic, but I think they're still releasing one "block" a year, of three sets, with something like 600 or 700 cards across the three sets. So, that's 600 or 700 "rules items" per year, not counting any changes to the core set, which they revise every 2 years or so.
Meanwhile, for 4E, they release a Dragon issue every month, every one of which has dozens of "rules items" (feats, powers, items). Most months, we get a new hardcover, most of which contain several *hundred* new rules items. I'm not going to sit here and do the math, but I guarantee you that, over the course of a year, D&D produces far, far more new "rules items" than does Magic.
Edit: Keithric did the math for me! 
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:32AM
#57
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Personally, I wish that the following would happen:
1) A team of people who are trustworthy and rules savvy enough to find broken stuff were given a month in advance look at just about everything and given the opportunity to give something a red flag (this will _break_ games) or yellow flag (this is dangerously overpowered compared to other options) on a tight schedule, say within 2 days.
2) WotC paid attention to those responses, most particularly changing or holding back things that got a consensus of red flags and absolutely looking closely at anything that gets even one (and informing or tossing someone who red flags too indiscriminately)
I know I'd be proud to be part of the first and there are more rabid rules hounds than I out there, indeed. I'm not sure wotc infrastructure currently supports the latter, but I imagine it could with a little work.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:37AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
Personally, I wish that the following would happen:
1) A team of people who are trustworthy and rules savvy enough to find broken stuff were given a month in advance look at just about everything and given the opportunity to give something a red flag (this will _break_ games) or yellow flag (this is dangerously overpowered compared to other options) on a tight schedule, say within 2 days.
2) WotC paid attention to those responses, most particularly changing or holding back things that got a consensus of red flags and absolutely looking closely at anything that gets even one (and informing or tossing someone who red flags too indiscriminately)
I know I'd be proud to be part of the first and there are more rabid rules hounds than I out there, indeed. I'm not sure wotc infrastructure currently supports the latter, but I imagine it could with a little work.
I would love to see it happen. Pick a few of the optimaxers and have them (under NDA) look for breakage. I'm sure for the change to get an advance look (even under NDA) you could get all the free labour you wanted.
Prediction - won't ever happen.
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 8:56AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
In all fairness, most of what is still open from the PHB has a bit of a more fundamental impact then merely changing the property of an item. Stuff like implement and weapons and energy property and abilities are not nearly as easy to change. Or at least, not as far as I can see.
I think that reasoning is backwards. For instance, one of the most prominent confusing rules is how exactly using a weapons as an implement works. WOTC could wait until they've studied every interaction so that they can foresee the impact of changes (in fact, this appears to be what they are doing now), but this is a losing proposition as new items get printed faster than they are examined in this fashion, and in the meantime the rule remains confusing.
So instead, it would be preferable if they wrote down a clear and simple rule on the matter. Then a handful of items might be pointless or broken as a result, but at least it would be clear. The resulting clarity makes it easy to write a fix a few weeks later for the few individual items that are problematic. But you need solid core rules before you can fix individual exceptions.
4) In _16 years_ Magic has put out 14041* cards.
5) In 1.5 years, D&D 4e has put out 12541 player equivalents
Okay, point taken. Nevertheless, the point remains that the most prominent unclear issues within D&D aren't spread about in combos between several powers/items/feats, but are localized. You don't have to study 12541! combinations to realize that e.g. Solar Enemy should have a duration listed.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 03, 2009 - 9:13AM
#60
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
You don't have to study 12541! combinations to realize that e.g. Solar Enemy should have a duration listed.
Sure, but its lack of duration is the equivalent of a typo. I imagine it _had_ a duration at some point before it went to the printer. Or maybe it had an abrupt design shift at the last minute, and before that it was a copy of the Aumanator CD and someone said 'You have to change this, it's too close to what we already published and, oh, the book is due for printing tomorrow'. Though I sure hope it wasn't the latter. Sadly, even if it's only for a single turn Solar Enemy is still broken. I actually still don't understand people making it last for the encounter and thinking that's RAW.
I could easily see someone looking at Power Salves and going 'Eh, another Comeback Strike? Sure, whatever' - but, that's why they need some people not in the pits who can wrap their minds around what it takes to break things to find stuff for them. They currently have that, it just takes several months to react to problems. Or, in the case of something like Orb of Imposition or Seal of Binding and Demigod regeneration, potentially years.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
