|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:51AM
#931
|
|
|
The problem arithezoo is that VacantPsalm is not argueing "gee I dont want to let a player use this.power" He and several in this thread say "I dont like it so no one can have i"
Honestly, it's both. From a regular gamer perspective: I don't care what other people do, I already have to change Charm, fixing something like this is just life when you're playing a game designed by someone else.
But, from a playtester perspective, yea, I'm going to argue about this being in the game in general. It shows they're taking the game in a direction I really don't want. Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing? Saying the game should be designed around their tastes, even though some people may like the structure, and they could easily ignore the line "must be lawful"? Sorry if that makes me look like a fat-hat, but tis what I'm to do as a playtester.
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:12AM
#932
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
But, from a playtester perspective, yea, I'm going to argue about this being in the game in general. It shows they're taking the game in a direction I really don't want.
And this is the only part of your argument that makes you objectively "wrong" (bolded for emphasis) when discussing a game for people other than just you.
The rest, as Arithezoo so eloquently stated, is a matter of opinion and preference. Nothing wrong with that.
Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing?
Yes. And they are wrong for the same reason. Because this isn't a game catering to their preferences.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 10:44AM
#933
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
The problem arithezoo is that VacantPsalm is not argueing "gee I dont want to let a player use this.power" He and several in this thread say "I dont like it so no one can have i"
Sure, but he also says that he isn't going to toss the game in the garbage if it does include it. All he is doing is expressing his own opinion, while at the same time admitting that other people have different opinions and that he will happily make the little changes needed to make the final game perfect for him and his group.
But, from a playtester perspective, yea, I'm going to argue about this being in the game in general. It shows they're taking the game in a direction I really don't want.
And this is the only part of your argument that makes you objectively "wrong" (bolded for emphasis) when discussing a game for people other than just you.
The rest, as Arithezoo so eloquently stated, is a matter of opinion and preference. Nothing wrong with that.
Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing?
Yes. And they are wrong for the same reason. Because this isn't a game catering to their preferences.
I disagree on this one. I don't think expressing your opinion is wrong. I think it is silly to say things like, "If Monks have an alignment restriction the game is ruined and I'm not playing!" Because there will always be things I don't like about a game, and the joy of a game like D&D is that I am totally free to make any changes I need to make.
Now, it would be wrong for someone to say, "You are wrong to like this aspect of the game." But I don't think it is wrong to simply say, "I don't like this aspect and I would be happier if it wasn't part of the game. But I understand that I'm not the only one here, and it is easy enough to just ignore that aspect."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 12:18PM
#934
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing?
Yes. And they are wrong for the same reason. Because this isn't a game catering to their preferences.
I disagree on this one. I don't think expressing your opinion is wrong. I think it is silly to say things like, "If Monks have an alignment restriction the game is ruined and I'm not playing!"
My bad, yes. That's what I meant. Sorry for not being more succinct. Apologies if I offended anyone for thinking they couldn't have an opinion.
I was more directing my comment at the folks who insist something should not even be an option at all just because they don't like it at their table.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 12:36PM
#935
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing?
Yes. And they are wrong for the same reason. Because this isn't a game catering to their preferences.
I disagree on this one. I don't think expressing your opinion is wrong. I think it is silly to say things like, "If Monks have an alignment restriction the game is ruined and I'm not playing!"
My bad, yes. That's what I meant. Sorry for not being more succinct. Apologies if I offended anyone for thinking they couldn't have an opinion.
I was more directing my comment at the folks who insist something should not even be an option at all just because they don't like it at their table.
No worries!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 2:19PM
#936
|
|
|
But, from a playtester perspective, yea, I'm going to argue about this being in the game in general. It shows they're taking the game in a direction I really don't want.
And this is the only part of your argument that makes you objectively "wrong" (bolded for emphasis) when discussing a game for people other than just you.
The rest, as Arithezoo so eloquently stated, is a matter of opinion and preference. Nothing wrong with that.
Are the people who complain about the alignment restriction on Monk not doing the same thing?
Yes. And they are wrong for the same reason. Because this isn't a game catering to their preferences.
Well then, we disagree on how to approach a playtest. I'm going to tell WotC the kind of game I want. There are far more things I can go either way on, and thus don't touch, but cognitive free will is one of the biggest issues IMO. Major enough to really dig my teeth into.
Is it wrong? Possibly. If so, I hope WotC keeps that in mind when reading through surveys. Cuz people like me are obviously treating the playtest this way.
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 11:52PM
#937
|
|
|
I respect that people want different things from D&D.
But I also hope that WotC ignore anyone who says "even though some people want X I don't think X should be in the game".
Because Next is supposed to be (and, to meet the financial expectations NEEDS to be) an inclusionist game.
So we should ALL be saying "I don't like X and would prefer Y, so can we have BOTH in the game please?"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 3:39AM
#938
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
Admiral-JCJF the only real way to do both would be to start having variant classes.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 3:46AM
#939
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I'm going to see how its implemented before crying about it. Could be something like "these are not the droids you are looking for".
A trickster rogue could be useful but it should probably be something like an encounter power to give an advantage in combat (bonus hit/damage/AC IDK). See what it looks like and then see how it plays.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:08AM
#940
|
|
|
I want the rogue to have this tauting ability. I just don't think it should be worded as 'if you succeed at the check, opponent does X' which implies no ability for the opponent's player to have input on the reaction. I am aware that no such wording exists, and everyone is simply reading into what MM said as either what they hope or fear he meant.
I think everyone should be able to attempt taunting with some kind of check that leaves the opponent's player final arbiter of what the opponent actually does.
A special rogue power could give the rogue a bonus or advantage in doing so, and even penalize the other player for not doing something more specific. For example, "if you succeed at the check the opponent is at disadvantage to attacking anyone else but you for the next round because they are distracted by your taunt." This leaves the actual reaction open to interpretation. A DM or player is sufficiently pointed toward the desired reaction, but if there are compelling story reasons to do otherwise, they can.
What keeps the DM or meta-gaming player from chosing not to react in a certain way to avoid the otherwise secret trap? Not any rule. Peer pressure. If the player's or DM cannot find the willingness to go along with the roleplay aspect of the game and are only capable of playing at the meta-gaming level then perhaps they are playing the wrong game. The game should not need a mechanic to keep players from meta-gaming.
|
|
|
