Meaning... who cares what the Essentials rules say??
Anyone who cares about D&D should care what those rules say.
Bad design leads to bad design. Rewarding people for lying to you encourages them to lie to you. The current design team has lied about Essentials compatability and is outright showing us that they are designing things very poorly. If you reward them for this behavior you are telling them they can give you crap and claim it's gold and you'll eat it up.
Now perhaps you think that crap is gold, and that balanced game design isn't fun. Fine you're entitiled to your opinion and you should say it. But saying that people shouldn't care about such things but should just write their own game to fix WotCs mistakes is garbage.
As for "we haven't seen it yet," well we have seen their mistakes. They proudly admit them. I suppose they could be lying to us about those too, but that's not exactly something WotC should be praised for either.
Ok then. You've made your point. Anyone who believes that the direction is cool is obviously a moron and that their crap is gold.
May I point you to another game system? One perhaps you will enjoy? I worry for some of your blood pressures. Death in your 30s due to heart attack or stroke is a reality these days and the anger can't be helpful.
My games will continue to be fun. All of your senses of entitlement and superiority are really off the chart though. That's all I will say on this matter anymore.
I gladly look forward to one of you guys writing the next great RPG of our generation. Quite honestly I feel you have the market cornered because you are all brilliant and I wish I had 1/10th of your insight to be able to see what makes the perfect game. I sometimes feel bad when I play my version of D&D because I know it's only a fraction of what it should be. I think I'm just afraid to admit that I'm an awful player and DM though.
I can't wait to check out the forums on your website. =)
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
Same here. When I see someone posting that everything in Essentials is terrible because of one or two minor things, taking a vague preview and extrapolating it into a vast conspiracy theory, or making assertions that are not consistent with what we've seen in the previews, I either give an alternate opinion to show that the poster's inference isn't the only way of looking at things, or point out evidence that shows their claims are unsupported by what we currently know. A lot of people take that as me completely loving everything about Essentials and blindly praising all WotC products coming in the future, but that isn't the case. For some reason, they take your contrary opinion as a declaration that you completely disagree with every concern they have and that no amount of new information could ever cause you to either agree with them or disagree with WotC.
Ok then. You've made your point. Anyone who believes that the direction is cool is obviously a moron and that their crap is gold.
I apologize for that. That was a typo. It is possible for some people to belive that the previous system was good.
As for the rest? Do it yourself is a poor arguement as well. I don't have the time or money to make a company to challenge WotC for dominance of the tabletop gaming industry. That doesn't mean I can't state that things that WotC developers proved were bad game design in the past haven't suddenly morphed into good game design.
What is poor... good, good design, poor design... these are all opinions.
You have every right to post your opinion. And I respect everyone's opinion.
When a person starts acting like their opinion is fact that should be etched into wikipedia.org, that is where you will see me usually saying something contrary.
I say do it yourself because a lot of people can complain a lot like they have all the answers. I mean, when we say "wizards is exercising POOR DESIGN", that's fine. So show us what is not poor design. And do it in a way that is more than mere opinion being laid down as better than another opinion. Otherwise to many people you are saying "red is better than green, because I say so"
Saying "i believe that what wizards is doing is poor design because..." is a little more ... shall I say... palpatable?
See I don't feel that much of what has been revealed is bad design. I feel this way because as a game it works for me. And as a game I enjoy playing it. Which means as a game it accomplishes what it sets out to do.
If my DMG said "you will use wishlists in this version of the game" I would chuckle, and continue to do what I always do; ignore what I don't like and use what I do.
Just the other day I implemented prismatic spray and prismatic wall into the game (older edition powerful spells). It was a lot of fun.
The uproar about the treasure changes... I mean... give me a break. Again if Essentials came out right now and said you WILL use wishlists from now on I would post maybe once that I am not using that regardless of what it says, and woudl continue to use the parcel system, that I have laying next to me on the desk in my DMG.
Ranting about the treasure system and carrying on about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... we get it. Some of you don't like random treasure. Some of you think it's poor design. That doesn't make it poor design, nor does it make it good design, it is just not to some of your tastes. But it's optional.
optional
Meaning, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Not even once.
Not even a little bit.
Hell you can rip the pages right out of your book, defecate on them, set them on fire, and then toss the ashes over a cliff... and no one will care. Not one person. If I choose to use these rules, it shouldn't bother you or affect you.
If someone you know wants to use them, and you don't want to, then you have to learn a valuable skill called compromising. It is difficult for some to do I understand, I used to hate to do it personally... but it's either that or you find a group that won't use those rules.
Or you don't play.
Or you find a new system.
There are a ton out there.
Meaningful, thoughtful discussion is awesome. And its' win. Ranting and carrying on like a rabid baboon over rules none of us have even actually seen is inane. Calling people out for having poor arguments because they don't agree with you is hostile, offensive, and verbally assaulting in a way, and doesn't allow for thoughtful and meaningful conversation.
It usually causes the ORC patrol to get in here and flamethrower us down.
Which is a waste of our time.
And that makes us all sad.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
What is poor... good, good design, poor design... these are all opinions.
You have every right to post your opinion. And I respect everyone's opinion.
When a person starts acting like their opinion is fact that should be etched into wikipedia.org, that is where you will see me usually saying something contrary.
I say do it yourself because a lot of people can complain a lot like they have all the answers. I mean, when we say "wizards is exercising POOR DESIGN", that's fine. So show us what is not poor design. And do it in a way that is more than mere opinion being laid down as better than another opinion. Otherwise to many people you are saying "red is better than green, because I say so"
Saying "i believe that what wizards is doing is poor design because..." is a little more ... shall I say... palpatable?
See I don't feel that much of what has been revealed is bad design. I feel this way because as a game it works for me. And as a game I enjoy playing it. Which means as a game it accomplishes what it sets out to do.
If my DMG said "you will use wishlists in this version of the game" I would chuckle, and continue to do what I always do; ignore what I don't like and use what I do.
Just the other day I implemented prismatic spray and prismatic wall into the game (older edition powerful spells). It was a lot of fun.
The uproar about the treasure changes... I mean... give me a break. Again if Essentials came out right now and said you WILL use wishlists from now on I would post maybe once that I am not using that regardless of what it says, and woudl continue to use the parcel system, that I have laying next to me on the desk in my DMG.
Ranting about the treasure system and carrying on about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... we get it. Some of you don't like random treasure. Some of you think it's poor design. That doesn't make it poor design, nor does it make it good design, it is just not to some of your tastes. But it's optional.
optional
Meaning, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Not even once.
Not even a little bit.
Hell you can rip the pages right out of your book, defecate on them, set them on fire, and then toss the ashes over a cliff... and no one will care. Not one person. If I choose to use these rules, it shouldn't bother you or affect you.
If someone you know wants to use them, and you don't want to, then you have to learn a valuable skill called compromising. It is difficult for some to do I understand, I used to hate to do it personally... but it's either that or you find a group that won't use those rules.
Or you don't play.
Or you find a new system.
There are a ton out there.
Meaningful, thoughtful discussion is awesome. And its' win. Ranting and carrying on like a rabid baboon over rules none of us have even actually seen is inane. Calling people out for having poor arguments because they don't agree with you is hostile, offensive, and verbally assaulting in a way, and doesn't allow for thoughtful and meaningful conversation.
It usually causes the ORC patrol to get in here and flamethrower us down.
Which is a waste of our time.
And that makes us all sad.
This is a classic Oboroni Fallacy writ large.
Your entire argument here seems to be "The rules aren't bad, because I'm not using them." And that's terrible logic. It's like saying "It's not a mistake to claim 2+2 = 98, because I know it's 4."
We now know treasure will be mostly in the DMs hands. We know they lied about compatability, because the Magic Item rituals just got reamed in the official rules. We know the parcel system just got replaced wholesale, and we know they're using rarity to avoid balancing magic items.
And just because we can choose never to touch any 4th edition works from here on out doesn't change the fact that these changes solve only one of D&Ds current issues with items*, while decreasing game balance and removing player options. As past editions have shown already.
We can support or oppose these changes. But giving the designers a free pass just because hurts the game.
(* Assuming you find item optimization a problem. )
What is poor... good, good design, poor design... these are all opinions.
You have every right to post your opinion. And I respect everyone's opinion.
When a person starts acting like their opinion is fact that should be etched into wikipedia.org, that is where you will see me usually saying something contrary.
Sure, there are facts and there are opinions. Often "that's your opinion, and I respect that" is just a way of blowing off a concern.
It's a fact that the martial classes previewed so far use basic attacks exclusively and have no daily powers /that we've seen/. It's a fact that a class with fewer daily resources will not balance as neatly and automatically with classes that have more such reasources, as 4e classes do.
That class imbalance is bad, is, of course, an opinion. Class balance is just one aspect of an RPG - a class-based RPG, no less - that can be justifiably sacrificed for something else - like verisimilitude or theme or a classic feel. It's not like there's some platonic-ideal RPG floating in the Odyllic plane that designers will just keep getting closer and closer to until the hobby is perfected. There are trade-offs in RPG design. 4e traded away a lot of traditional feel, customizeability, rewarding of system mastery, and some simulationism in return for balance and playability (and a hint of narrativism). WotC can decide that was a mistake, and reverse some of it. My opinion is that it wasn't a mistake - I /like/ a game that's balanced, fun, and easy to play (and surprisingly easy to run). But that's just me. D&D was never easily-balanced before, and maybe a lot of people /really/ liked that they could leverage class and build choices to outshine eachother. D&D isn't 'supposed' to be competative, but it can be and is played competatively (tournaments, PvP, or just simple spotlight-hogging), and has been almost since it's inception.
Now, if WotC gets every bit of what they're aiming for in sacrificing game balance - and I'm not sure what that is, exactly, but I'm guessing a big chunk is retro feel to attract lapsed fans, and another chunk may be to ease the production of new content - that's good game design. Good execution of an objective I don't care for, but that is my opinion.
Ranting about the treasure system and carrying on about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... we get it. Some of you don't like random treasure. Some of you think it's poor design. That doesn't make it poor design, nor does it make it good design, it is just not to some of your tastes.
Again, it's good design if it achieves it's objectives. I find it hard to divine what the objectives actually are, from what we've been told, since they seem contradictory. If the objective is to make it easier to churn out magic items as content in future suplements - because they'll 'need' less play testing and balancing - then yeah, it's probably a good change. The price is that the DM has to carefully choose which items to give out in order to prevent introducing imbalances into his campaign. The game becomes a bit harder to run, a bit less robustly balanced. That's bad if you like how easy to run and balanced 4e is, now, it's good if you're anxiously waiting for more books of really cool magic items.
optional
Meaning, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Yes, in that sense, everything in the game is optional. Which, of course, means that the claim that something is OK because it's 'optional' is no defense at all.
Or you don't play.
Or you find a new system.
There are a ton out there.
Or you whine and bitch and complain about how magic items aren't powerful enough, and wishlist are stupid, and you just want to hit the orc with your axe, until WotC changes the rules to something you like. Then you jump on-line and tell everyone not to whine about it.
Thank you for quoting one of the many fallacies. You are using the well known McDouche fallacy. That is, picking apart a statement, honing in on something, and then assigning it one of the myriad fallacies that exist in a way that you interpret it to prove you are the superior intellect. Thank you for your opinion. I will value it as such.
The rules aren't bad because I'm not using them. lol right. That's EXACTLY what I was saying.
How about this: Your entire argument here seems to be "the rules are bad because I say they are bad." That's terrible logic. That's like saying "2+2 = 98 because I say so". See how that works?
How about this: "but giving the designers a free pass just because hurts the game is terrible logic, because you are saying so makes it so and that's like saying 1+1 = 50 and is the color blue." We can go on like this forever.
Your opinion is not fact. It's opinion. Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's, despite how high your intellect may or may not be.
How about we argue how horrible fifth edition is because we just KNOW that there is going to be random loot because D&D 4.5 ... er... Essentials... is bringing it back?
How about the rules aren't bad because none of us have seen them yet.
Or... the rules aren't bad because I don't find them to be bad?
How are optional rules bad?
If the rules are bad, why are you posting here? Why not find another system that you find to your liking?
Or you whine and bitch and complain about how magic items aren't powerful enough, and wishlist are stupid, and you just want to hit the orc with your axe, until WotC changes the rules to something you like. Then you jump on-line and tell everyone not to whine about it.
If you are insinuating that I whine and complain about how magic items aren't powerful enough (I never have done this), wishlists are stupid (I have never said wishlists are stupid, I say I don't like them and have explained why), and I just want to hit the orc with my axe (I have never said that either), then jump online and tell everyone not to whine about it, I'd invite you to pull some quotes that show where I've done this?
Because they don't exist because I have never done that.
Yes, in that sense, everything in the game is optional. Which, of course, means that the claim that something is OK because it's 'optional' is no defense at all.
I see. Meaning it's no defense TO YOU because you are angry and unless it's something backing your opinion, it's not a defense at all. That's more valid.
Again, it's good design if it achieves it's objectives.
Seems to have achieved it's objectives to me. Who wins now you are me? Oh ... it didn't achieve the objectives YOU WANTED it to achieve, so it fails. That I can stand behind on your side. It didn't achieve your objectives so you are angry and it's bad design.
I suppose if I liked red sports cars and my favorite company stopped making them for the blue SUV I'd be mad too. But some people like the blue SUV. Who is the correct person in this case?
Hmm.
See I'm a 33 year old grown adult man. D&D is just one of my many hobbies. I manage a decent little band and play in it. I play soccer. I am raising children. I just dont' sweat something as silly as new optional rules that are coming out that chaffe my craw.
You guys have a pleasant day. I'll be heading to Encounters tomorrow to enjoy some D&D with people that like the game. Then I have a game of my own to prepare for. I will even be looking forward to some random loot tables. I know... my players probably hate this, but if they mouth off they know I will not let them out of the dungeon for a week and will only feed them stale cheerios and give them reruns of teletubbies to watch as punishment for their insolence.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
Alright let's try building the logic from the start.
Iced Crow. Do you agree with the following statments?
1: D&D is a game with rules. 1a: The game is disigned to be played with the rules you are given in the books. 1b: The quality of a games design is based on the rules in the books not the rules other people can make up.
I see. Meaning it's no defense TO YOU because you are angry and unless it's something backing your opinion, it's not a defense at all. That's more valid.
Ok, first I think we need to clarify what "optional" means, because most Essentials-defenders throw that word around like candy, saying it applies to errata, books, and pretty much everything. Like Daidjoi says, if you're defending a game because "rules are optional" than every game in the universe is exactly the same. Games are optional, and rules within games are optional, pretty much everything in life in optional except death and taxes. So I would agree that "the rules you don't like are optional" is a stupid defense for anything. If someone doesn't like golf, it would be hard to convince them they should like it because technically, hitting the ball with the club is optional, and you could instead drive a race car around on a track and call it golf.
The subject of this thread, Magic Item Rarity, is not optional - it's errata, and it's the only option presented in the new rule book. It's the only official option. An option with no other options available isn't much of an option. Mike Mearls has said that if you don't use it, you will need to make up your own house rules to try and preserve balance. In addition, they've said that all their future books are going to concentrate on Rare items rather than uncommon and common, meaning if you don't use it, you can't use most of the new material from here on. Overall, a highly dubious interpretation of "optional".
