Community

Feb 21, 2013 -- 4:58PM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Feb 21, 2013 -- 4:17PM, LordofKhyber wrote:

Why are you all being such dumb butts towards one another? Can't we all play a magical elf game and have fun? Honestly you all need to cool the hostility jets, it's starting to put a damper on my ability to enjoy the game.

Problem is, some people just can't get over the fact that it's possible for people have fun in a different way than theirs.

Yeah I find this interesting myself.  4e is proof for me.  I would imagine those playing Pathfinder instead of 4e would convince a lot of other people.   The world is a big place.  Some play bridge and others chess.  It is not a reflection of your character or your value as a human being which you choose.

But it is also true that you like what you like.  I'm not happy to show up at the chess club and discover they are playing bridge.





 

Feb 22, 2013 -- 5:32AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 21, 2013 -- 4:09PM, professordaddy wrote:

Sj70 was not "hoping for some advanced rules." You're lying.

Feb 20, 2013 -- 5:19AM, SJS70 wrote:

I just wish they could use the good underlying system of 4th and build some better work on the top which embraces the desire for broader playstyles which is at the heart of DDN.

You're wrong.  Again.  And bizarrely, even though I provided the links for the posts in question you insist in your version of reality over actual reality.

Wrecan.  The sentence just before the bold is exactly what Professordaddy was claiming that he said.

"I just wish they could use the good underlying system of 4th..."

He may have also mentioned modules AFTER he said that he wanted the underlying system to be 4e's, but that doesn't change that he wanted the underying system to be something something completely different from the current underlying system.  You can't have multiple underlying systems for the entire core, so Professordaddy is right in regard to that particular impossibility.    
  

Feb 22, 2013 -- 7:54AM, wrecan wrote:

yes, and that's what pdaddy quoted and said was impossible and when Mand12 pointed it out, pdaddy made up a position for mand12...

Incorrect again, and at this point I have to begin to wonder what the point is of the disinformation.  My comment, at post #69, was "At some point, choices need to be made regarding which of the completely incompatible game systems bearing the name 'D&D' they will go with."  This statement remains true.  Mand12's throwaway comment, post #70, was, in toto: "Not really."  As in, the developers won't really have to choose which of the incompatible systems they'll use as the basis for DDN.  I pointed out - and will continue to do so - that maintaining illogical impossibilities is not helpful to the PlayTest process, nor anyone's peace of mind.

If he meant to clarify and say "No, I didn't mean that Mealrs' stated design goal is an impossibility; only that sjs70's desire for the underlying core be base don 4e is an impossibility given the cirrent playtest relases" he should do so.  but instead he continues to insist it's Mearls' "ad copy" that is impossible, rather than sjs70's request for a  4e-based system.

Because Mearls is, ultimately, the partial source of many posters' false belief that they can get a system which will please everyone, even the most disparate groups separated not by a few niggling details of balance but by entirely incompatible systems.  When Mike Mearls states that

...we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules.... these choices allow people to play what they want to play. In effect, the group can make their own edition of D&D.

or

a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like.... it's useful to begin to realize the various kinds of needs and desires different players and DMs have. To truly unite all the editions, the game needs to cater to all of them. In short, people need to be able to play the game that they want to play.

or

...Although we have playtesters who play all the different editions, they’re really not asking for radically different things...

, he is not presenting a realistic design spec, but advertising copy meant to hype the brand and generate enthusiasm.  The problem is, too many people repeat, and expand upon, those claims and end up demanding impossible things, modules to cover every possibility, and parallel systems for every potential possible table playstyle.  It’s not going to happen.  Recognizing the difference between the ad copy and the realistic – and significant – possibilities offered by DDN’s design should be conducive to mental health. 

Feb 22, 2013 -- 1:28PM, Mand12 wrote:

Actually, "Not really" was in reference to them not being completely incompatible, and so they don't have to choose.  You might, but they don't.

Yes, they do.  You can't have a system balanced around encounters and one balanced around complete adventure modules, for instance.  You get one or the other.  The decision about which one you choose will determine things like healing options, healing rate, spell recovery, number of hit points, effect of buffs, length of effects, monster strength relative to PC strength, etc., etc., etc...  Far too many variables to handle in any addendum or module.  Thus the design team has had to choose an option, or a mixture of them, and design around that decision.

Relative to the point of this thread, it's not evil of the devs to have done this, it's necessary.  Their lack of communication on why they haven't pursued this or that design option in any particualr case will sometimes be because it's something they haven't gotten to, and sometimes be because it's something they simply can't accomodate all people's desires on.