D&D 4th Edition D&D Next Chat Transcript (Mike Mearls & Jeremy Crawford) - Page 4




+ Log in or register to post
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93
  1. #31
    Just jumped on to say there is nothing in that I do not like a lot
    Gloria Finis

 

  • #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    That's a straw man argument. It's not about finding broken combos, it isn't even about balance. It's about actually giving the game a fair shake. Without character creation options, people are simply going to improvise their own, which won't be reflective of what's in the actual rules. Of course the core mechanics of the game are what's at issue, but how one decides ability scores or chooses skill is about as core as it gets.
    Dude. This is the first set of playtest rules. There will be others, as already announced. Rules down the road will have character creation.
    Drew Melbourne,
    DrewMelbourne.com

  • #33
    I think I have exactly one misgiving about using pregens for the initial playtest.

    Let's say that we play through all 10 levels with the pregens. All goes well, and there is a general consensus that everything works well and is well balanced.

    Then we get the character creation rules and find out that the fighter's stats required some extremely lucky rolls, the rogue was optimized by an expert with the system, and the casters were severely gimped compared to other options that they could have taken.

    If that were to happen, our conclusions from playtesting with the pregens would be completely invalidated. Either that, or the character creation rules would need to be tweaked -- but would that be possible at that point?

  • #34
    Quote Originally Posted by RangerWickett View Post
    Out of Harm's Way
    Move Action
    One time before the start of your next turn, you can move 5 feet at any point, such as to duck behind cover from an incoming arrow or leap out of the blast of a fireball. You can increase the distance to 10 feet, but you fall prone afterward.
    Thankfully it sounds like 5E is moving away from the tracking every single square of the battlefield that dragged out 3E and 4E combat.
    For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such.

  • #35
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    hafrogman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    8,167

    Ignore hafrogman
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    Then we get the character creation rules and find out that the fighter's stats required some extremely lucky rolls . . .
    I would be absolutely stunned if the premade characters were not built using either point buy or an array.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    . . . the rogue was optimized by an expert with the system, and the casters were severely gimped compared to other options that they could have taken.
    I also expect all the premades will be made using the "default" character builds, not something that required either extreme system expertise or passing up obvious choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    If that were to happen, our conclusions from playtesting with the pregens would be completely invalidated. Either that, or the character creation rules would need to be tweaked -- but would that be possible at that point? .
    Character creation is by far the easiest thing to tweak at the end of development. Change how combat works or skills work and you need to change ever class that has skills or will ever enter combat. Change how a specific feat or class ability functions, and for the most part that's all that needs to be edited.

    But also, this is, as others have said, merely the first step. They said character customization will roll out this summer. So sometime between June 21st and September 21st we'll be able to start toying with those rules. But they've also said no releases 2012 . So there's still time for playtest, feedback and revisions once we get that part of the playtest rolling.
    PbP Signature: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5934473-post84.html

  • #36
    Registered User
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    8,504
    GM's Day CMG

    Ignore Mark CMG
    It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics. I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E. I am also wondering if the audience of this coming edition will wind up being mostly 4E players moving forward from 4E to this new edition and that the lack of feedback from non-4E players/lapsed players is going to wind up producing an edition that doesn't draw lapsed players back to D&D thus not addressing the problem WotC wished to address, that of recapturing lapsed players.

    Now one could argue that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if lapsed players don't participate in the playtests in large enough numbers to influence the design process then that is their loss, but I'm not sure that serves WotC's ends which was suggested to be the broadening of the new edition's audience to include current players and lapsed players. I'm wondering if they are considering this potential disparity by gauging how much of their feedback is coming from current players versus those more representative of the portion of the market they are trying to recapture.

    Even if they are getting low amounts of feedback from lapsed players, possibly because many are taking a wait and see what happens stance, they might be wise (if they really want to appeal to lapsed players) to cast a more discerning eye on the source of the feedback they are getting and be sure it is balanced not in regard to who they are drawing in for the playtest but based on who they hope to draw back in as players overall.

    If they indeed produce a new edition that merely carries a portion of the current players forward (some not seeing enough changes to switch), and draws only a small portion of players from the lapsed player pool, they might be in danger of coming out the other side with an even smaller market share than they have at present. And thet wouldn't serve anyone since they might pull the plug even faster than this last time around.
    Fighting Fire - Ernie Gygax Relief Fund

    Please, help boost the signal!

    http://tinyurl.com/gygaxrelief

    As always,
    Mark CMG
    CreativeMountainGames.com

  • #37
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Li Shenron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edition-shifting
    Posts
    9,901
    Forgotten Realms Planescape Rokugan D&D

    Ignore Li Shenron
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark CMG View Post
    It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics. I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E.
    While I like almost everything from the transcription, I had this same feeling when I read that the "overwhelming" majority of feedback was in favour of at-will spells, even if it's just cantrips...

    I am not against at-will magic, but I really hope it is one option. It is OK for to have some wizards which toss around prestidigitations all the time, and if they can then I presume most of them in fact would do that to help them with houseworks and daily activities. But I don't want that to be the default for every wizard, otherwise it might automatically give a certain feel to all campaign settings, that spellcasting somehow always starts from the little tricks, which means the world around expects those tricksters to be fairly a normal presence.
    "There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos."
    "You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game."
    "And rules are OVERRATED by the way!

  • #38
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)



    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    318

    Ignore Zireael
    I must admit I like practically all of what Mearls and Crawford wrote.

    What a pity a question about modules wasn't put into the transcript...
    A fan of D&D (especially the Fair Folk) from Poland.

  • #39
    Game Developer
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    Matt James's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    738
    Silver ENnie Winner I Defended The Walls! I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Matt James
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    It's about actually giving the game a fair shake.
    I'm not sure if you're ignoring what others and myself have said, or if you just want to argue. Character creation playtesting will surely come in the future. It is not, however, crucial at this point. The game is in it's infancy. It is no where near publication and WotC is doing everything it can to make sure feedback is targeted and concentrated.

    I'll repeat: At this stage of the game's development, character creation isn't something that needs to be looked at by the community as a whole. Once they have the core of the game smoothed out the way they think it should be, based on playtest feedback, they can focus on other areas.

    Despite what the Internet says, WotC has a staff of professional game designers that are milling through all of the feedback that has already been provided, in addition to their internal data. Next week, the public playtest will dump streams of additional data. This is good for the game, and a healthy way for WotC to interact with the consumer. Let them do their work.

    Why won't you give the game a fair shake?
    Matt James
    Lead Developer
    Vorpal Games
    http://www.twitter.com/matt_james_rpg

  • #40
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Goonalan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Grimsby, UK
    Posts
    3,033
    Blog Entries
    1
    Goodman Games D&D

    Ignore Goonalan
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark CMG View Post
    It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics. I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E. I am also wondering if the audience of this coming edition will wind up being mostly 4E players moving forward from 4E to this new edition and that the lack of feedback from non-4E players/lapsed players is going to wind up producing an edition that doesn't draw lapsed players back to D&D thus not addressing the problem WotC wished to address, that of recapturing lapsed players.

    Now one could argue that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if lapsed players don't participate in the playtests in large enough numbers to influence the design process then that is their loss, but I'm not sure that serves WotC's ends which was suggested to be the broadening of the new edition's audience to include current players and lapsed players. I'm wondering if they are considering this potential disparity by gauging how much of their feedback is coming from current players versus those more representative of the portion of the market they are trying to recapture.

    Even if they are getting low amounts of feedback from lapsed players, possibly because many are taking a wait and see what happens stance, they might be wise (if they really want to appeal to lapsed players) to cast a more discerning eye on the source of the feedback they are getting and be sure it is balanced not in regard to who they are drawing in for the playtest but based on who they hope to draw back in as players overall.

    If they indeed produce a new edition that merely carries a portion of the current players forward (some not seeing enough changes to switch), and draws only a small portion of players from the lapsed player pool, they might be in danger of coming out the other side with an even smaller market share than they have at present. And thet wouldn't serve anyone since they might pull the plug even faster than this last time around.
    That's a little difficult to work around though isn't it?

    WOTC: We made a game that after a year of playtesting and feedback is as close to the publics wants and needs in every way...

    Lapsed D&D player: Yeah, well it's not what I wanted?

    The point being if you are connected to D&D in any way, I figure by now you've heard WOTC are up for a new edition- and they're looking for feedback. Chasing Pathfinder- the home for some of the lapsed D&D players, perhaps.

    So what's WOTC to do, second guess the people who are not bothered enough to provide feedback, or get involved, or else try and guess what they'd like in the new edition.

    I see what you're saying and all, and I don't want to come across as harsh but what are your suggestions- other than shouting it from every rooftop- D&D is getting a new edition, if you're interested then feedback is important, come one come all.

    I guess the thought is with the modular settings then any iteration can be replicated to some extent- but if you don't say anything, sit on the sidelines. Or worse still come along a year later and say I didn't vote for that when the truth is you didn't vote at all...

    WOTC are going to listen to the numbers (+ intuition, game desigher-fu etc).
    Check out my 4E Campaign- HARD CORE a final attempt to play through the WOTC core modules- obviously we've made a few changes along the way.

    Or else there's my Let's Play scenarios, a bunch of one-off games, mostly, you'd best go check out the list.

    Let's Play series also available, all in one place, at Obsidian Portal.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. [UK] Jeremy Crawford at Patriot Games for WWDDGD
      By CharlesRyan in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: Thursday, 19th March, 2009, 12:10 PM
    2. Even more Mike Mearls
      By MerricB in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 77
      Last Post: Monday, 10th December, 2007, 05:56 PM
    3. More from Mike Mearls
      By MerricB in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 35
      Last Post: Monday, 10th December, 2007, 10:22 AM
    4. Draconomicon Chat Transcript
      By Stegger in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Sunday, 23rd November, 2003, 10:23 AM
    5. Mongoose B5 Chat Transcript?
      By FCWesel in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: Sunday, 9th March, 2003, 06:33 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •