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.
I really hope they publish some free guidelines for updating MM1 minions and solos to the MM2 standard. I was rather surprised to hear one of the designers admit the MM1 hydra was no good, but wouldn't be fixed.
Nice podcast.
Good to hear a little about the new minion and solo construction rules - I hope we'll see them in DMG2.
And more myconoids! I never liked them before, but the new incarnation is nice, and the picture in the MM2 (and on the podcast page) is inspiring.
You are correct. Infact I will be using myconoids for the first time just because of the pics. And was not even going to buy the book (was just going to use DDI) but now going to just because of how cool those are.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!" One of my rituals is soon to be published in Goodman Games's Book of Rituals... Yey...
On the WOTC Site there is a new Podcast, which I will not be able to listen until the weekend :P
So is there anything new and interesting in it?
There'll be another double page spread of Myconids in the Underdark book.. They've further improved (their words, obviously) minions in MM3. Solo's now have less HP and more dynamic powers.. Lots of very frank self-appraisal of where they feel they dropped the ball and are working to improve it.
I second the call for some form of article on house-ruling MM1 monsters, tho I can't see one coming through official channels. Perhaps Mearls might blog about it..
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by roguerouge
It's only a cliche if it doesn't work. If it works, it's archetypal.
Except that they won't correct past mistakes, even though people paid good money for PHB1/DMG1/MM1. Money they shouldn't have to pay again.
And they don't. They instead buy a different product (MM2, PHB2, whatever), that has great game material for them, and they might like it more than the old. Which is basically the point of buying a new product.
Why force people to print out pages of errata to use in their game, creating a confusing mess? Ever considered the usability of your suggestion?
Quote:
But if they correct past mistakes in the DDI and the next print run of MM1 includes them will people not raise hell that this is stealth 4.5?
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?>
Why force people to print out pages of errata to use in their game, creating a confusing mess? Ever considered the usability of your suggestion?
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.
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.
Dishonest? They telling us in podcasts and articles that they think they detected some issues and found approches to fix them. What you are complaining about is that they still want to make money in the process.
But sorry, that's the way it is. Products are constantly improved. You don't get them for free. The first batch of a new game console are often louder, have less hard disk space and what else. The next batch, a year later, has technological improvement that make them more silent or allow more space. You don't get the new one for free or as "errata".
The point is a "suboptimal" monster is not the same as a faulty product. It works in game, but it could work better. It doesn't make the game unplayable. It doesn't pose a(n additional) health risk to you.
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?>
Don't feel sorry, consumers who doesn't like it can always complain until changes are made.
And thanks for the console comparison. Not because it's relevant (it isn't) but because it shows the lengths to which you'll apparently go to defend WotC. That ends this discussion for my part.
Don't feel sorry, consumers who doesn't like it can always complain until changes are made.
And thanks for the console comparison. Not because it's relevant (it isn't) but because it shows the lengths to which you'll apparently go to defend WotC. That ends this discussion for my part.
It should, since you have no reasonable arguments. The german guy is right. This is how the world works. Nothing to do with WotC.
__________________
360 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 22nd level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
