Community

9 out of 10 times when I see a comment about how someone doesn't like something they heard about the new D&D, that thing isn't true.

But even so, the whole point is, once you actually see the real material instead of the hearsay, give feedback and make your voice heard.

That's fine - it's important to keep things in perspective. I'll take him at his word that there will be an opportunity to make our voices heard.

However, it's hard to blame people for reacting to their edition role out. Everything we're discussing is based on the information that the designers themselves released at D&DXP. If people are misinterpreting it, than Wizards needs to be actively correcting the record and combatting that perspective.

Jan 30, 2012 -- 11:50AM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

Jan 29, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Polaris wrote:

Jan 29, 2012 -- 2:44PM, Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:

As someone who works as a freelancer in another field, here is something I've observed: if I charge an obnoxious rate, clients are wonderful, prepared, wanting to quickly accept my suggestions. If I charge normal amounts, there's more give and take. If I charge a friend rate or worse work for free? They can be horrible without even realizing that they're bring such. In other words, if you're doing playtesting for free, you had better love what you're doing and be prepared for the possibility that R&D doesn't accept your advice. Or ignores you. It sounds as if both sides had unrealistic expectations for 4e. Harsh CharOp voice of authority might work well on CharOp, but R&D isn't really worried about CharOp breaking the game unless CharOp breaks the regular house game with a couple of steps.

Yes but it was WOTC that specifically solicited that advice and help from Char-OP.  To then completely disregard it is the height of arrogance and that is the very kindest way I can put it.

-Polaris  

Again, this is precisely my point. When you work for free and high expectations of having your advice matter strongly, you're going to be disappointed. Even when you're right.

Because if they highly valued your advice equivalent to their own viewpoints, you would be paid for that advice. What it means that if you want to do it, you need to find out exactly what their expectations of your advice is and is that level of expectations something you can work with.

Because it sounded as if that wasn't made clear to the CharOp people in a way that later had consequences.
 

I can only speak for the folks I talked to about this at WotC at the time; but this was more or less a pretty accurate explanation of what happened.  One group saw themselves as heavily influencing the process, and may have taken that to heart a little too much, while another group saw this as "more playtesters", nothing more, nothing less. 

As for Kender's statement; it is fairly true.  It doesn't mean that we've played "not D&D", it's that some of the elements associated by many of the holdouts (and even many of us) as parts of "iconic D&D" we did not care for (on a personal level, I agree with Salla), and thus, we may not like some of the mechanics they are bringing back.  That said; I don't think folks realize exactly how early in the design process they've talked about playtesting; it seems 5E is at a point that normally wouldn't be playtested for another year. 

Though, as a DM, the decoupling of NPCs / monsters and players does make me very happy.  My biggest fear as a DM is that monster creation would return back to the roots of 3rd, which was very fake simulationist creation.  One of the potential perks of melding the two is that it might be easier to create monsters that "feel" iconic, but scale correctly.  Orcs having Death Strike was the "iconic" Orc power in 4E (the power that all orcs had).  That...does not inspire me much.  (and was summarily useless with orc casters).

I'm also rather surprised at how few leaks there are, at least in the normal channels.  That said; leaking anything isn't particularly useful, due to it's high likelihood of being changed.