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.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Who said making errata available for those who care forces those who don't to print it out?
If they at least reprinted the buggy MM1 monsters in MM2, that would make it clear as day that yes, the MM1 hydra is buggy, and yes, we're not giving out errata for free - we make you pay to get corrections to our mistakes.
Other solutions could include having a warning icon in the monster builder, alerting the user to the fact the monster's been identified to have issues, even if no fix has been implemented. And when a fix does happen, they only honest way is to have a clear version history, so any DM can see that his notes might be outdated.
The core of the issue is transparency: the main beef about WotC's current practices is that they're underhanded. They fix the game, yes, but only if you continue to give them money, and not by making it clear the original design is flawed in any way.
Same with Expertise feats. They're presented as "more options" when in reality they're a fix.
It's a really shoddy way of doing business. Feels way too dishonest and indirect for my taste.
Yeah, it's a real shame they couldn't have playtested that material before they published.
I finally heard the podcast on the way home today.
There were few interesting things...
- Regarding the errata "controversy" - it seems more as if the WotC designers seem to think as errata as a "cheap way" to fix stuff. "Oh, yeah, we made a mistake, but here's the errata, everything is fine now, nothing wrong ever happened."
- They modified the Minions in that they added roles to give them more distinguishing features and make them easier to use. They don't go much into the damage increases they did.
- They described the changes to the Solos - No more 5x hit points at Paragon Tier and upwards, instead focusing more on adding extra damage and making the monster more dynamic during fight.
- There is some talk about how the monsters background and use in a story influences its abilities, and how its abilities can be used to influence the narrative and how to use the monster in an adventure. One example they use is the Bullywugs "wrongness" and how one of the designer used them in his campaign in a "defiled swamp" scenario, where hitting and taking down Bullywugs slowly undid the curse the area was suffering from it.
Sometimes monsters are apparently still driven by mechanical concerns, but once they have made up more background fluff for a monster, they get a feeling for it and the results are usually better (in their opinion, of course.) Upcoming products will feature monsters that will work even better than the MM2 monsters as they learned more during the process.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I finally heard the podcast on the way home today.
There were few interesting things...
- Regarding the errata "controversy" - it seems more as if the WotC designers seem to think as errata as a "cheap way" to fix stuff. "Oh, yeah, we made a mistake, but here's the errata, everything is fine now, nothing wrong ever happened."
Some quotes that I found interesting:
Quote:
We decided not to errata that, and just, well just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we get to fix our mistake by doing errata.
Quote:
I wish I had him running it before the game came out.
This "incremental improvement of the game" is weirding me out a little bit.
It's great the problems are being fixed and all, but why push out a game with a release that hasn't been tested enough to find its biggest flaws?
I dunno. Why buy MM2 if MM3 is just going to invalidate 25% of the monsters in MM2 as things that were poorly designed?
In other news: Myconids who aren't playing air guitar are only slightly less awesome than those that are.
Why push out a release or why buy a release?
There is always a point in any type of creative process is where you have define "this is as ready as we get. We can take 10 more days, months or years, and will find stuff to improve. But we have to release something now, or we end up as Duke Nukem Forever."
There is also the point of "I need new monsters now. The next monsters might be 3x times better, but I don't want to wait 12 months not playing the game."
It's a problem I have with purchasing computers all the time, actually. I know, no matter how long I wait, a few months later, there will be a better machine and it might even be cheaper then the one I can get now.
It's just something you have to live with. At some point, you decide you have to release something. At some point, you have to decide to buy something.
You can't escape this problem. We can strive for perfection, but we can't achieve it.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Last edited by Mustrum_Ridcully; 31st May 2009 at 09:15 PM..
It's just something you have to live with. At some point, you decide you have to release something. At some point, you have to decide to buy something.
You can't escape this problem. We can strive for perfection, but we can't achieve it.
I agree with this statement, however I feel that that with the rise of the 'digital channels' which we now enjoy, WOTC has a perfect channel through which they could apply all the improvements they have come up with retroactively to older source material.
For example, why should they not update the MM1 and MM2 monsters(via DDI) to be just as dynamic and exciting as the MM3 monsters?
This would add value to the DDI, IMO, and they could even keep separate records of the 'original' versions and the 'updated' versions.
To me, it seems lazy for them to admit that mistakes were made, and then decide not to fix them, when DDI provides an ideal venue through which such changes could be made available.
They might not be able to achieve perfection, but they could give DDI subscribers 3 MMs worth of 'MM3 Quality' monsters, instead of 1.
But "fixing" the monsters in the MM1 doesn't come for free.
It costs time.
Just because they know that the MM1 Hydra is not as good as the MM2 Hydra in play doesn't mean the process to improve it is straightforward and done automatically.
They might be able to do that, but that would only help those that use DDI or otherwise incorporate all errata in their game.
And this means that the people that want an MM3 will have to wait longer. Or pay more money. Or both. Oh, and of course, the DDI users will also have to wait longer for the MM3.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I would also like to point out that assuming you levelled a mordant to level 20, it actually has a better than average chance of putting the smack down on the heroslayer (range 10? Swim 12? Plus Hydra Fury? The Heroslayer shouldn't even touch a mordant...)
My impression is that the heroslayer isn't more powerful per se...but more fun but it should be noted that when previewed, there were valid complaints that the heroslayer is not as interesting since it is a melee only threat...
(Now I'm thinking a mated pair--one's a heroslayer and the other is a mordant--hmm, what level of encounter is a level 18 solo and a level 20 solo together?)
It's utterly painless for me to knock off 20% of the hydra's hit points and increase the damage by roughly a third; it'll take me literally 15 seconds at the table. Then again, I screw around with almost all the monsters I use, so I'm probably more used to it than many people. *shrug*
This "incremental improvement of the game" is weirding me out a little bit.
It's great the problems are being fixed and all, but why push out a game with a release that hasn't been tested enough to find its biggest flaws?
You do realize that when you find and fix a games biggest flaws, the second biggest flaw is now the biggest?
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
It's utterly painless for me to knock off 20% of the hydra's hit points and increase the damage by roughly a third; it'll take me literally 15 seconds at the table. Then again, I screw around with almost all the monsters I use, so I'm probably more used to it than many people. *shrug*
Aye.
Hell, I routinely turn elites into normal monsters, de-level higher level monsters, or steal a power form here or there to make something to suit my needs. So "fine tune whatcha got" is pretty habitual for me.
What I think needs ironing out and improving is the PHB1 classes. For instance, the Warlord is fairly lacking, mechanically, imho. Compared to the Shaman or Bard, it's just not robust as a class.
There is always a point in any type of creative process is where you have define "this is as ready as we get. We can take 10 more days, months or years, and will find stuff to improve. But we have to release something now, or we end up as Duke Nukem Forever."
There is also the point of "I need new monsters now. The next monsters might be 3x times better, but I don't want to wait 12 months not playing the game."
It's a problem I have with purchasing computers all the time, actually. I know, no matter how long I wait, a few months later, there will be a better machine and it might even be cheaper then the one I can get now.
It's just something you have to live with. At some point, you decide you have to release something. At some point, you have to decide to buy something.
You can't escape this problem. We can strive for perfection, but we can't achieve it.
Hi,
This is, of course, true.
I think the issue is that the creative process becomes more of a collaboration. The overall game results from the combination of both the author's and the player's inputs. The company is in the role of shepherding the process.
There is a cooperative mode that could have been taken in evolving the game in this fashion, but instead we have more of a cycle of internal deliberations (by "game designers") followed by product releases, followed by some data gathering, and rinse and repeat.
I think a truly transformative approach to building the game would have exposed more of the game evolution process to the fans, in an open source sort of fashion, with the company more as guiders, editors, polishers, and as points of contact for producing final products. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a website where you could put in a monster idea, and get input on how to turn that idea into a playable monster? Or, if the set design for miniatures allowed players to input which monsters and PC figures they wanted, and they could choose which went into the next set?
What I think needs ironing out and improving is the PHB1 classes. For instance, the Warlord is fairly lacking, mechanically, imho. Compared to the Shaman or Bard, it's just not robust as a class.
Have you tried the PHB1 classes with the powers books? My warlord got way more interesting after I had access to more powers. Generally speaking, I think the powers books are meant to do what you suggest and I feel like they accomplish it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
