|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:37AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
"What interests you as a player?"
What would you do if I told you 'everything'?
I've played leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers from across every power source on the board. I've played characters of every race, class, tier, and item availability, and I love them all.
When WotC publishes material that any of these permutations can use, I am happy.
When WotC publishes material that none of these permutations can use, like they have this month, I am considerably less happy.
So, your definition of 'everything' is considerably more narrow than the usual 'everything'. After all, I'd bet 'rare items' falls under 'everything'. I'd also bet 'rare items' is material that any of those permutations can use.
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:38AM
#92
|
|
|
I respectfully disagree with you Kalex (and agree with GelatinousO  .
I find some classes woefully undersupported, and this is far more of a problem for me than anything else... especially an alleged lack of fluff. My girlfriend for example is currently trying to play a Seeker; she can see that the fighter has many times more choices at each level than her, and that is a problem. She is not conversant enough with the rules to design her own powers, and I quite frankly don't have the time to do so myself (that's why I pay WotC for their books and for the Insider). I spend what time I have on building good adventures and preparing to DM games. This lack of crunch has a direct and negative impact on my game... and it's hard enough trying to get my gf to play DnD!
I need more crunch for the Seeker. This is the one thing above all others that would improve my game. I'm know many Runepriests, Battleminds and others feel the same.
I don't mind if this month doesn't have anything for the Seeker, as long as SOME undersupported races and classes get some more options; then I will feel like perhaps WotC realizes that some races and classes are underplayed due to a lack of support, and that at some point in the future the Seeker may not have to live with limited choices and class-support envy.
Okay, but I guess at least part of my point is that the class IS playable. Perhaps for such a new player as your girlfriend too much choice would actually be a problem.
I'm not saying no crunch at all. Just that I think the balance needs to be kept between crunch and fluff, and when people come on the forums and make over the top, overly emotional comments it makes me think the part of the mags that I most enjoy might go away because of a few squeeky wheels. What I don't have time to do anymore is develop an entire world full of interesting people for the games I DM. Fluff about the Nentir Vale is my number one most desired content for either magazine.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:42AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2010
|
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give the argument a 180º spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Saludos
Adriano
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:43AM
#94
|
|
|
Oh and for the record, no one in either the campaign I DM, or the one I play in use any of the classes, or races you describe as needing help. We did have a shardmind briefly at first level, but his actions wrote him out of the story. Other than that the other options weren't even considered for a variety of reasons.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:44AM
#95
|
|
|
Here is a question.
First, I would not be surprised if WoTC is seeing what classes people are making in the online CB. I also wouldn't be surprised if they aren't gathering information on what people are looking up in the Compendium. Which they should, in my opinion.
Now, lets say they are finding that the number of people looking up strength based clerics, or runepriests, or shifters or any of the other stuff people are asking for more support, is like 2-3%?
Should they make supporting material equal to that 2-3% of all the stuff they come out with for that year, or should they do way more and try and make the support material they come out with equal in amount across the board for any class or race?
You assume people don't play classes/races because they were under supported. More support would encourage more people to play those classes/races, ergo undermining your entire point.
I didn't assume anything. But you did. It's an assumption that if a class had more support, people would play it. You could write a whole book about every single possible cleric out there, and I still wouldn't want to play a cleric. I know lots of people that don't want to play fighters. Or wizards.
Ever. It has nothing to do with how much support there is for a class. It has to do with their preference.
I asked if WoTC knows that some classes only attract a small percentage of players, should they devote equal time to developing more materials for those class, or an equal percentage based on interest
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:44AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give your argument a spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Well, sure, if you want to go against the game rules then that's perfectly fine and dandy. And if your DM is willing to do that, then more power to your group. But what about LFR players? Or people with DMs that follow the rules explictly (1 rare per tier at most)? This is to say nothing of the fact that, by their very nature of being completely under the DMs control, they are not player content. Stick then in Dungeon where they belong.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:44AM
#97
|
|
|
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give your argument a spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I agree with this. Players need access to read about rares, and I don't want mine reading through the DMG or Dungeon Magazine to get it.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:46AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2008
|
While in 4E 'items have traditionally been in player hands' is absolutely correct, I will restate: ruleswise rare items are not player options.
They are DM options, and entirely reliant on a willing, or lax, DM.
They are not, nor have ever been, a player option given the rules for them. The rules are very specific about that.
So yes, everything else has always been a player option. Rares are the exception.
Oh, and boons.
Oh Content, where art thou?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:46AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2010
|
Oh and for the record, no one in either the campaign I DM, or the one I play in use any of the classes, or races you describe as needing help. We did have a shardmind briefly at first level, but his actions wrote him out of the story. Other than that the other options weren't even considered for a variety of reasons.
Cool, but even so, "Classes I don't use don't need to be supported" is not much of an argument. Please note, neither is "Classes I do use need to be supported". The real argument is "Unsupported classes need to be supported", with the point of contention being "unsupported".
Saludos
Adriano
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:47AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
I didn't assume anything.
I asked if WoTC knows that some classes only attract a small percentage of players, should they devote equal time to developing more materials for those class, or an equal percentage based on interest
You assumed it was a good idea. Which it isn't because classes that recieve more support and more prominance get played more. That's simply how promotion works. If anything, they should support the classes they have with at least a modicum of effort - a sustainted burst of good extra content - and see if the statisics change. If they do, that's a good argument for keeping that class supported. But simply denying unsupported classes and races new content is based on a false premise: that they are not played because they are disliked instead of not played because they are either obscure (due to lack of promotion) or uninteresting/unworkable (due to lack of support).
|
|
|
