|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 1:39PM
#151
|
|
|
Non of the people I normally play with will touch it and only one person is under the age of 30. I have had to meet a new set of people to get involved in the playtest. fortunitely they eased up on the online restrictions or I wouldn't have been able to do that.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 1:55PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
After seeing a similar poll on the big purple, I decided that it would be a good time to check in with the playtest community and guage where public sentiment is at with D&D Next.
So folks, in the wake of the most recent playtest updates...
It seems rather strange that people are viewing the results of this poll as positive: 30% of responses are either "Dissapointing So Far" or "Ugh". Granted this is better then the corresponding poll on RPG.net where the numbers are about 60% in that category, but this is the official Wizards forums.
Less then 50% of the poll here are enthusiastic about 5th? In the spot on the web where attention and focus on the playtest is most intense? Yikes.
It's also worth pointing out that people that would answer "Dissapointing So Far" or "Ugh" should, reasonably, be relatively unlikely to be hanging around on these forums. Which the discrepancy between the two polls would, prima facia, seem to support.
If you don't like it you aren't likely to spend a lot of time reading about it, after all. The only reason I even saw this thread was I was puzzled by how lackluster the new packet seems, and wondered if I was missing something.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:01PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
It's nice, but subsequent packets have, in large part, been more and more lackluster. the short-lived Sorc/Warlock Packet, and Packet 1 were probably my favorites. I loved the design philosophy behind Packed 1, and think they lost something when Monte Cook departed the project... but at the same time, it was very unpolished and full of holes in many ways. The Sor/Lock packet showed us that they are working on variant magic systems, but left me with the bitter taste of Encounter effects
The latest packet is fascinating, but suffers mildly on a lot of fronts.
I just hope, when this long, long process is over, we can see something with the elegance of Packet 1 and the polish later packs.
However, to throw my hat in, I can safely say that I don't like the way things are currently going with the playtest. I started an account specifically for discussing my thoughts and feelings about the playtest, but as we get more and more packets, my interest in the game has severely been waning. The best that I can personally do is fill out the surveys and stress on the forums what I do and do not like. I'm a packet or two away from personally opting out of the playtest, and I don't intend on having a rage quit thread regarding it. I'll just simply leave. However, if things do start brightening up, then I'll continue as I have since October.
Ultimately, I can only give appropriate feedback and discuss accordingly. If the game doesn't cater to my specific tastes, then I simply don't buy the game.
These are two excellent posts.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 2:52PM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
No. I believe nostalgia is all about dwelling on a time in one's past, usually centered on recreating the feelings of that time through recreating the experiences. If you play an older game because it makes you feel like a kid again, it's nostalgia; if you play it because you prefer it, it is simply personal preference.
Yeah, generally nostalgia-based reasoning relies on just focusing on good memories from the past and reasoning "Well it had to be good, because we had fun back then, and if it was different, it just wouldn't be the same." So pretty much you're playing it becuase it's the game you loved back in the day, and not necessarly something you'd actively choose today. And the important thing for the rules is more so matching the old memories, as opposed to actually being mechnaically sound. Generally nostaliga based players will have blinders on as far as the older edition, and will not be open to change, because the flaws in the system are as important to the memory as the good parts, because the memories are one complete package.
Prefering an older edition relies on actually liking individual mechanics and being able to give reasons why those mechanics are superior to new ones. People with edition preferences are also open to change. They like certain parts of an edition because they thought those mechanics were fun, but there are almost invariably parts of the old edition they'd rather see changed. So these people are more apt to say stuff like "I hated magic item shops" or "I think feats are too complicated and the game should remain simple." But generally they also have other stuff that they do want changed, like they can accept that the 2E rogue handled stealth skills poorly, may be fine with point buy instead of rolling, or can accept a positive (instead of negative) AC scale. People driven by preference can prefer the style of the old system, but they can admit that it had problems that could use a fix, and that fixing them could create a better game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 4:02PM
#155
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Exactly, change does not = good; just different.
Unless it's a change that is objectively for the better, in which case change does INDEED = good. Unless you are a religious fanatic like this guy.
In the words of noted diplomat George Wildman Ball: "Nostalgia is a seductive liar".
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 4:21PM
#156
|
|
|
I picked neutral because I think judging the edition based on the playtest documents is premature and absurd. I wouldn't be surprised to think I am not alone in that. I also note we have no idea how many people responded.
Like I pointed out before, the most integral parts of the system are a done deal now. I believe that is more than enough to make a judgment on whether or not this is a game that I want to play.
For instance I know that magic isn't getting the overhaul it desperately needs to make the game viable. I looked at the recent update and we still have the old, obsolete 9 level tiered spell list with slightly more powerful versions of the same 20 spells. THis immediately tells me that I want nothing to do with this game.
I know that spell resolution is based around old style saving throws, where the defender rolls agaisnt a save DC, while weapon attacks are based around actively rollign agaisnt the defender's armor class. This is not going to change, and it immediately tells me that Iwant nothign to do with this game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 4:32PM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible. Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 9:26PM
#158
|
|
|
i have looked thru the information they give with the play testing and nothing really calls to me. they state the whole point is to make modules of information which is optional so you can emulate diffrent eras of dnd. why not just release conversion guides and new material which is easily converted to any edition the players want to play. thats basically what they did when 1st was changing to 2nd edition and when second went to 3rd. that would solve the edition wars, make sales from everybody that plays and since they are releasing old content on pdf and most have it from torrents already they could do it today.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 10:16PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
You keep claiming the game designers are making a terrible game. Feel free to develop your own and sell it.
Sounds like a sufficiently high enough bar to prevent people from criticizing something you like.
Not really - as has been said, quality is subjective. What one person might like, another might despise. Plenty of people like 4E. Plenty of other people don't. The same can be said for every edition of D&D, as well as every other RPG on the market. That's why it's subjective.
Your enjoyment of the game is subjective. Its design can be godawful.
Example: playtesting the Druid in 3ed. Would you believe that no-one playtested a Fighter alongside a Druid's Bear companion? True story: it was only after the books went to the publisher that a playtest group had a Fighter and a Druid's Bear Companion fight side by side, and their relative equality in combat effectiveness emerged.
Did you enjoy the effectiveness of the Druid's Animal Companion? Whether or not you did, how it was implemented was incredibly shoddy. I don't need to be a third party publisher to say that, because it was an incredibly easy thing to notice, and they failed to notice it. Not "We noticed it, but went ahead anyways", because that would assume they made a conscious decision; no, it was "Oops, one of the Druid's class features is equal to all of the Fighter's class features."
But folks saying that something is terribly designed - particularly when they don't have all the facts and behind-the-scenes information (thought process, etc)
If a game's features are not clear to a lay person, especially one that they would consider them reasons not to play it, I would consider that poor marketing at best, and poor design at worst.
- have every opportunity to be able to create their own game and market it these days. It's less a preventative bar, and more of a "put up or shut up" scenario, in my opinion.
But, by that standard, shouldn't you have to be a game designer to say that something is well designed? If someone couldn't say something negative about its design because of lack of experience, how could someone say something positive about it either? You can't fall back on subjectivity to defend your preferences, and hold people who disagree with you to a higher standard.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:08PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Exactly, change does not = good; just different.
Unless it's a change that is objectively for the better, in which case change does INDEED = good.
Ah, well that can be dicey territory to get into, I have seen a lot of posters espouse their biased opinions as "objectively" better.
|
|
|
