Designers looking for mechanics feedback on Optimization Board

kaomera said:

Right, but what I'm questioning isn't how WotC is going to approach the issues raised, but what the fan reaction will be. Going out of their way to ask for advice of this sort kind of puts WotC in the hot-seat, and we gamers are an impatient and fidgety lot (IME). Every week that goes by from here on out more people will get fed up that "these suggestions" (specifically whichever ones they hold closest to their own hearts) are not getting dealt with. This is already happening, but I think that asking in such a direct and specific way may accelerate the process.

If WotC does address a problem, that's good for that specific problem and for those people who actually like the solution. It's potentially worst for people who either don't see it as a problem or have already dealt with it their own way. And if they actually come out and say that X thing was a failed experiment, that just ticks off more people...

I dunno, like I said I hope I'm just being paranoid. I'm not trying to say that there's problems with CharOp having it's agenda and wanting what it wants - as you pointed out that's true of anyone or any group. All I'm saying is that when you put stuff to the public like this, I think there's going to be an expectation by the public (on an individual basis) that you will deal with the issues in a way that is satisfactory to them. And I think that the 4e player base is just too big to effectively do that for everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm sure, like most everything, the fan reaction will be mixed. Essentials is a prime example of that. Personally I loved the direction Essentials took. WotC is ALWAYS in the hot seat when they make a choice or a decision or take a suggestion (heck, how often do we question those "Rule of 3" articles which specifically aim to ANSWER questions?). I understand what you're saying and whatever WotC does, it runs the risk of getting whined about (not saying that you are whining) and I think most people going in should realized this.

This isn't as cut-and-dry as WotC saying, "Spend $20 on this book called Martial Power 3" only for you spend it and get builds for the Wizard. I don't think they're misleading anyone by asking for a consensus on some things people feel are unbalanced mechanically.

Yeah, there will be some people who will be displeased with the level of effort they put in to posting and discussing and mailing WotC. I got frustrated with the Executioner play-test because they largely ignored feedback (and then wrote an article about why they ignored it). But I'm not gonna wage war over it. There's still so much more in D&D and specifically 4th edition that I think it'll take a while for stuff to really hit the fan so to speak.

Though I admit, where you fear you maybe being paranoid, maybe I'm just being overly optimistic. But if nothing comes from this but "we changed the wording of some feats here and there" well at least they opened communication. That's a start, right?

AbdulAlhazred said:

There's a fair amount of agreement between the sort of people who live on charops as to which are the 'proud nails'. As to agreement about what to do about them, not hardly. Some have pretty obvious fixes, but those they really didn't need to bother charops about.

I understand what kaomera is getting at. It isn't easy to articulate really. The point is there is more to the success of the game than having the most mechanically flawless set of rules. In some ways that can be at odds with other valid goals. Like I said on another thread, a perfectly mechanically flawless Vampire is worthless if it doesn't give me mechanics that allow me to use it to evoke a good vampire character. 'fixing' it because it is mechanically broken would be counterproductive, unless it can be done in a way that doesn't destroy its utility. Charops is not capable of that kind of analysis, or at least they provide no extra insight into those kinds of decisions than any other random group of experienced gamers would. Nor is it necessarily the perspective of hardcore players that is the best one for the game to adopt.

Anyway, it is an interesting experiment but kaomera is right, it could well piss off more people than it pleases in the long run.

Click to expand...

Must spread XP but *thwack* home run! on my thoughts.

AbdulAlhazred said:

There's a fair amount of agreement between the sort of people who live on charops as to which are the 'proud nails'. As to agreement about what to do about them, not hardly. Some have pretty obvious fixes, but those they really didn't need to bother charops about.

Click to expand...

This is true, but utterly and completely irrelevant to anything. The point of this exercise was to identify the problems in the system. I would say at this point that it's pretty obvious where numerous problems in 4E are and they've been clearly identified. Now what to do about them is something that only the people who control the actual rules (Wizards) can do. Charop doesn't have to agree on fixing the issues: Only what the actual issues are.

Aegeri said:

This is true, but utterly and completely irrelevant to anything. The point of this exercise was to identify the problems in the system. I would say at this point that it's pretty obvious where numerous problems in 4E are and they've been clearly identified. Now what to do about them is something that only the people who control the actual rules (Wizards) can do. Charop doesn't have to agree on fixing the issues: Only what the actual issues are.

Click to expand...

Eh, not really sure why they had to ASK vs just reading 'the handbook of broken', lol. I think all the significant issues are touched on in there.

IMO, having frequented CharOp quite a bit in 3.5 and the early days of 4e, there shouldn't be any problems so long as there aren't the Frank Trollman-type of posters who essentially come out and say "WotC's designers are total idiots for not seeing this". Most of the CharOp guys are powergamers, sure, but they care more about fixing what's broken than exploiting the rules or going on some crusade about how much better they could do than the designers. You get a few fringe lunatics that try to just use whatever wacky combinations give the most power, but the vast majority do what they do because they want the game to be better and to point out the loopholes in the hopes they'll be fixed and remembered later.

wayne62682 said:

IMO, having frequented CharOp quite a bit in 3.5 and the early days of 4e, there shouldn't be any problems so long as there aren't the Frank Trollman-type of posters who essentially come out and say "WotC's designers are total idiots for not seeing this". Most of the CharOp guys are powergamers, sure, but they care more about fixing what's broken than exploiting the rules or going on some crusade about how much better they could do than the designers. You get a few fringe lunatics that try to just use whatever wacky combinations give the most power, but the vast majority do what they do because they want the game to be better and to point out the loopholes in the hopes they'll be fixed and remembered later.

Click to expand...

Oh, there's always some garbage posts of course, but if you read the thread over there it's pretty good.