General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Did you always do something new perfectly the first time? Are you an expert golfer after you practice a year?
This is really an unreasonable comment, and I really see it a lot. There is a huge difference between a year of playtesting with hundreds of people, and then releasing it to tens or hundreds of thousands. The tens of thousands are gonna find more about the game as multiple hundreds of thousands of hours of the game are done.
If you have ever said, "Hey, I never considered that..." then you are in WOTC's shoes.
You are taking 4th edition as a completely seperate entity as what came before it, and applying that as how well the game should function. That is fine for a first edition, not a fourth.
Oddly enough, I do expect a fourth try with 30+ years of experience to be better than a third try with 25+ years of experience. That is where I am coming from.
I believe I have said on this board at least a couple times that tossing out all of the old system would not solve old problems so much as give us an entirely new set of problems. I have also said that the playtest cycle was too short and small to properly debug the game. This thead really kinda shows that.
Before someone gets on my case, I am not saying that 4th ed is a bad game. I just dont think that it was done well. Definitely not done well enough to warrant my spending money on it.
This whole thread is pointing out that the inital release books could use a major revision, less than a year after release. I dont think that bodes well for the future.
So, like, a juvenile foulfang black dragon. Fewer hit points. Has a spit attack minor action to blind a target a la the dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park. An ability to bite and drag creatures away into shadows. This way he can pop out of a mire, grab a PC, drag him underwater, and savage him as the rest of the party tries to save him.
And when bloodied, the dragon's skin begins to slough off into shadows, and its blood causes any attacker who hits it in melee to take acid damage. It gains a rechargeable phasing move action.
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
So, like, a juvenile foulfang black dragon. Fewer hit points. Has a spit attack minor action to blind a target a la the dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park. An ability to bite and drag creatures away into shadows. This way he can pop out of a mire, grab a PC, drag him underwater, and savage him as the rest of the party tries to save him.
And when bloodied, the dragon's skin begins to slough off into shadows, and its blood causes any attacker who hits it in melee to take acid damage. It gains a rechargeable phasing move action.
ewwwww... anything with skin that "sloughs off" is yucky.
What's the difference though if they release a "revised" monster, or a new monster of the same type, but different options? There aren't any "default" monsters anymore. They're all just various depictions of different monsters.
I guess with the dragons you could classify them as defaults, because they're broken up by age... But why not just release a "new" Red Dragon, give it a new Nounverb at the end, and have at ye?
The outcry over how they 'fixed' the math of the game by releasing new feats in MP. How they 'fixed' the Fighter by giving him something better than +1 to hit. If they were to fill MM2 (or 3, etc.) with creatures that are perceived as "obvious fixes" for the old MM monsters they will have to deal with further outrage from customers.
I wouldn't cry foul, but I would prefer they focus later MMs on new creatures, not just revamps of the old. I think they could use the Updates file and DDi to make some quick blanket changes to the creatures in the MM to have them fall in line with the new designs that many people (including myself) seem to enjoy without spending too much time looking backwards in the game.
You are taking 4th edition as a completely seperate entity as what came before it, and applying that as how well the game should function. That is fine for a first edition, not a fourth.
It is a separate entity. They were most obviously trying to break new ground. Whether one likes or dislikes 4E I think most of us can agree that it is way different than previous editions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Oddly enough, I do expect a fourth try with 30+ years of experience to be better than a third try with 25+ years of experience. That is where I am coming from.
The designers of 4E don't have 30+ years of experience. Each edition has gotten things "wrong" in the eyes of some people. I think your expectations are too high. Maybe if the same team of designers had been working on and researching what works and what doesn't with each edition they release you might be able to expect that. Ask fans of Palladium Fantasy RPG if the newest edition of that game is perfect. That's the only game I can think of with the same designer from day 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
I believe I have said on this board at least a couple times that tossing out all of the old system would not solve old problems so much as give us an entirely new set of problems. I have also said that the playtest cycle was too short and small to properly debug the game. This thead really kinda shows that.
Any time you retweak enough to warrant a new edition you're going to create new "problems." The severity of those problems are a matter of opinion. Could they have done more playtesting? Of course. Would it have helped? Maybe. You have to weigh the cost vs. the benefit of a playtest cycle. Many other systems have smaller playtest groups and shorter timeframes, but people have fun playing those games anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Before someone gets on my case, I am not saying that 4th ed is a bad game. I just dont think that it was done well. Definitely not done well enough to warrant my spending money on it.
:Wha?: A thesaurus will tell you that "not done well" = "done badly", so you are saying that it is a bad game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
This whole thread is pointing out that the inital release books could use a major revision, less than a year after release. I dont think that bodes well for the future.
Major? That's a matter of opinion. I believe monsters could use some tweaking, but other than a few things here or there I do see anything that needs a major overhaul. Nothing more than was needed in previous editions for sure.
The outcry over how they 'fixed' the math of the game by releasing new feats in MP. How they 'fixed' the Fighter by giving him something better than +1 to hit. If they were to fill MM2 (or 3, etc.) with creatures that are perceived as "obvious fixes" for the old MM monsters they will have to deal with further outrage from customers.
I wouldn't cry foul, but I would prefer they focus later MMs on new creatures, not just revamps of the old. I think they could use the Updates file and DDi to make some quick blanket changes to the creatures in the MM to have them fall in line with the new designs that many people (including myself) seem to enjoy without spending too much time looking backwards in the game.
I guess you have a point... But still I could understand if they suddenly release a MM Redux book with al the same creatures redone, or new versions of the exact same creature...
But I guess I just see the monsters in this edition differently.
I find it interesting that out of the excepted monsters, none have Fortitude higher than AC. The pod demon even has a Will defense higher than its AC and and its Fortitude is its lowest out of FRW.
We have only a few monsters so far, but who knows? The designers trying to balance out the MM1's staggeringly high-Fortitude brutes? In optimization circles, Fortitude is regarded as the worst defense to target, particularly for implement powers. On my Protecting Shaman, I've opted out of the Protecting powers entirely because below 17th level, they all target fortitude.
__________________ "In Life's name and for Its sake, I advise you I am here on the business of the Powers That Be! Your actions toward me, and through me, toward Them, will determine the continuation or revocation of your present status. Be warned by me and desist!" --Wizards at War, Diane Duane
Last edited by chitzk0i; 1st May 2009 at 12:48 AM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
