Let's catch up with WotC_Trevor!
Now, Trevor Kidd is more prone to extended conversations that Mike Mearls is. These conversations sometimes rope in a bunch of people and branch all over. I've done my best to capture the most relevant parts of the most relevant ones.
------------------
@WyattSalazar: Have a good one. Oh and don't cave on the rogue actually being able to do things.
@Trevor_WotC: Heh, well I like the skill tricks but we'll see what the survey feedback says.
@catastrophegame: I'm guessing it'll say 'half of the playbase isn't bothering to reply to these anymore' #dndnext
@Trevor_WotC: I doubt it, we still have a really high number of responses last time I checked.
-------------------
@TriskalJM: Random question. I see Dragonlance getting some love. Any chance of Planescape or other loved-but-older campaign setting love?
@Trevor_WotC: I really don't know what the future holds. But I do know we love those settings as well, so hopefully we'll see them again!
-------------------
@Trevor_WotC: And this week's #dnd Monster Fight is up! Brought to you in no small part by @boymonster. Check it out!
ow.ly/ggigr @BrainClouds: I'm really tempted to write a "Deadliest Warrior"-like battle simulator for 4E monster fights.
#DnD
@Trevor_WotC: hehe. A D&D monster trainer/fighter type game is on my list of things I want us to do.
-------------------
@Trevor_WotC: Would you be okay if a player asked "Hey DM, I want to insinuate that that Hill Giant's mother smells of elder berries to get him all pissed so he'll attack me. Can I make some kind of check to try that?"
@brianrjames: Taunting seems out of character for a rogue. Usually it's the fighter that would want to gain an enemy's attention, no?
@Trevor_WotC: I think of the rogue & bard as the smart-talking wise-crackers who tick the opponent off and get them to do something dumb
@brianrjames: That's one type of rogue sure, but to me rogue's have always been more about avoiding attention than attracting it
@Trevor_WotC: Yeah, I've played a lot of rogues like that too. That kind of rogue definitely wouldn't be taunting.
@ozmills: I think this is a blurring of mechanical & what was otherwise RP that people are iffy about. Your example is previously pure RP
@Trevor_WotC: Well, it's not pure RP. I think many DMs would have allowed the RP followed by a check of some sort to see what the monster did.
@ozmills: I'm not hugely against it if I'm honest, but as a DM I feel it does take the reigns out of my hands a little.
@Trevor_WotC: Yeah, I totally get that. In a perfect world, I'd like the ability to have a list of things I can have the monster do if it fails.
@Trevor_WotC: This ability codifies it, and I do get the concern that it becomes a hard and fast rule that might be abused.
@ozmills: The DM could say "Yeah you anger him, and he picks up a rock and throws it", this however says "He MUST move"
@Trevor_WotC: Yeah, and I get that frustration. Attacking from range makes sense too, or getting some kind of penalty due to distraction.
@Nerdy_Orion: yes I would but what if that player is not a rogue? I mean any class should be able to make fun of a creature's mother
@Trevor_WotC: Yeah, I don't think the rules are stopping that kind of thing from happening though. Any character can do that scenario still.
@Trevor_WotC: Hmm... so apparently some peeps don't like the rogue's taunt ability in the new #dndnext packet.
@Trevor_WotC: From what I've read this week, If the world does end on the 21st, the #dndnext rogue's taunt is solely responsible.
@Trevor_WotC: To be clear, I like the taunt ability, but I see and understand some of the gripes people have with it. #dndnext
-----------
@BrainClouds: "GURPS" name is getting thrown around an awful lot. That should be an indication that things aren't quite going as fans might like.
@Trevor_WotC: I played a lot of gurps when I was younger - and #dndnext is still pretty wide of that mark, imo.
@BrainClouds: The concern is too much modularity. I imagine arguments between DMs and players over what modules they want to use or not.
@Trevor_WotC: I've heard almost that exact same argument for every edition of #dnd. Just replace modules with other options.
@Trevor_WotC: Not that the concern isn't valid, just that it's an old argument/discussion we're giving new fuel.
@TheAngryDM: I think people are afraid of the "module selection process" becoming a big factor in campaign design.
@Trevor_WotC: Why be afraid of having some printed options (possibly) for ideas/builds people already use in their campaigns?
@Trevor_WotC: "I decide what goes in my campaign and how it works" instead, but isn't it very similar?
--------------------
@Trevor_WotC: This is one of those things where we can't please everyone. Some people want good, meaty monster lore. Others don't. And both of those camps seem sizable. With that in mind, isn't it better to give lore and let people use/ignore it?
---------------------
@Trevor_WotC: So it sounds like the current plan for alignment in the core of #dndnext is to have it be similar to alignment in #4E. I can dig that.
@Trevor_WotC: And by similar, I mean that it can be used flesh out a character/baddie but it's not required by other rules elements. #dndnext
@Trevor_WotC: And it seems easy enough to have a module that adds weight and rules for those who want alignment to matter more. #dndnext
@DreadGazeebo: That's fine but are they at least keeping the 9 "labeled" alignments?
@Trevor_WotC: It seems that way, but I don't know yet. We'll have to see how things roll out in the next couple #dndnext packets.
------------
@boymonster: I'm not sure GM fiat really works for XP reward & advancement any longer. Is this controversial?
@Trevor_WotC: Less controversial than it used to be I think. I really like tying leveling to completion of major story arcs.
@boymonster: Right, but that doesn't appear to be contingent on the GM thinking you played your cleric really well.
@Trevor_WotC: Very true, and I think that's better for many (maybe most, but I have no proof) groups.
Hopefully good role-playing on the players part interacts with good role-playing on the DM on the rest of the table's part and good role-playing is it's own reward - not one that you have to incentivize or reward by giving xp or leveling benefits.
@boymonster: I like rewards to somehow be hardwired into the game in a way that keeps the GM from picking favorites and encourages players.
@Trevor_WotC: I agree. Are we talking about rewarding the players for good role-roleplaying, smart choices, helping each other out, or what?
@boymonster: Yes.
@Trevor_WotC: Hehe! Then the age-old question is how do you hardwire a system to reward for all these different kinds of behavior and do so without leaving someone out or discouraging their preferred style of play?
@boymonster: You see how Milestones in #MarvelRPG work? I like it to work like that. Same rule as Keys in Lady Blackbird.
@Trevor_WotC: And I have no good answers for that.. which is why I'm just a lowly community guy :P
@boymonster: If you do X, get Y.
@Zelgadas: Not every RPG needs to support every style of play. You figure out what your game's about, and reward for that.
@boymonster: Right. If your game is actually all about exploring & killing goblins, give XP for doing those.
@Trevor_WotC: So a player creates their own milestone-esque goal based on the game and how they play, and the GM uses that to gauge success?
@Trevor_WotC: Sure, sure - I totally agree with that. But some players are going to roleplay/story tell more or better Some are going to be better at the team thinking or maybe some version of the metagame. Everyone can agree to a certain kind of game, but each player is still going to excel at different things
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
