Designers looking for mechanics feedback on Optimization Board

[Neverfate]

Yep, but the "too many cooks" issue would then come in to play.

Well that's under the assumption that our opinions on the subject, specifically just yours and mine, have as much weight as Mike Mearls or Chris Perkins. Then that's too many cooks.

Getting at least a moderate amount of consensus on particular issues works fine. Ultimately it's still going passed the people in charge.

 

[Obryn]

The feedback on that thread so far is great. The CharOp forum is a great resource, and I'm glad WotC is finally tapping it.

Yeah, it can be a bit asinine at times - and the whole kulkor/frostcheese thing is kind of redundant - but they have a lot of collective rules insight, and a genuine desire to help make the game better.

-O

 

[kaomera]

The feedback on that thread so far is great. The CharOp forum is a great resource, and I'm glad WotC is finally tapping it.

Yeah, it can be a bit asinine at times - and the whole kulkor/frostcheese thing is kind of redundant - but they have a lot of collective rules insight, and a genuine desire to help make the game better.

I have the impression, and I absolutely don't spend enough time there or have enough insight into someone just from their forum posts to be in any way sure of this, that at least some CharOp posters have agendas that they are very attached to. I'm not saying that this biases them or anything, but a lot of 4e players have some very, very dogmatic ideas about what 4e is supposed to be and/or should be.

I think that a hazard WotC faces in asking CharOp for help is that (IMO) they can't and shouldn't cater to those agendas (especially where they are in conflict, of course). One of the things that I've seen throughout the life of D&D is that D&D doesn't really specifically and implicitly tell you how to play the game (in the way that some other games do). That's up to the individual group to decide / figure out. A lot of what CharOp does seems to be contingent on a specific way of looking at D&D, and a lot of the questions I've seen there seem to be of the sort that are only going to be satisfactorily resolved by knowing "why" WotC designs stuff the way it does - and I think that not putting that out there in many cases is not just a matter of lack of resources, but a part of the way that D&D works.

This has caused some issues over the years, but for me at least it's part of why I play D&D over some other games. Obviously with the advent of online communities such as ENWorld we've moved closer to a consensus, yet the lack of specific official answers has kept things mostly up to the individuals. And I'm not sure that WotC is going to be able to give CharOp what CharOp seems (to me) to want without coming out and being much more upfront about "this is the right way to play D&D".

Is it reasonable to think that WotC might be stepping in a hornets' nest here, liable to suffer backlash from asking CharOp what it thinks and then quite possibly not following through on that information in the way that the CharOp posters might like? Or (hopefully) am I just being a bit paranoid?

 

[Neverfate]

I have the impression, and I absolutely don't spend enough time there or have enough insight into someone just from their forum posts to be in any way sure of this, that at least some CharOp posters have agendas that they are very attached to. I'm not saying that this biases them or anything, but a lot of 4e players have some very, very dogmatic ideas about what 4e is supposed to be and/or should be.

I think that a hazard WotC faces in asking CharOp for help is that (IMO) they can't and shouldn't cater to those agendas (especially where they are in conflict, of course). One of the things that I've seen throughout the life of D&D is that D&D doesn't really specifically and implicitly tell you how to play the game (in the way that some other games do). That's up to the individual group to decide / figure out. A lot of what CharOp does seems to be contingent on a specific way of looking at D&D, and a lot of the questions I've seen there seem to be of the sort that are only going to be satisfactorily resolved by knowing "why" WotC designs stuff the way it does - and I think that not putting that out there in many cases is not just a matter of lack of resources, but a part of the way that D&D works.

This has caused some issues over the years, but for me at least it's part of why I play D&D over some other games. Obviously with the advent of online communities such as ENWorld we've moved closer to a consensus, yet the lack of specific official answers has kept things mostly up to the individuals. And I'm not sure that WotC is going to be able to give CharOp what CharOp seems (to me) to want without coming out and being much more upfront about "this is the right way to play D&D".

Is it reasonable to think that WotC might be stepping in a hornets' nest here, liable to suffer backlash from asking CharOp what it thinks and then quite possibly not following through on that information in the way that the CharOp posters might like? Or (hopefully) am I just being a bit paranoid?

EVERYONE has an agenda. It's what being human is about. Pseudo-philosophy aside. I also think you're viewing WotC's goals of this operation entirely in the wrong light. They're asking CharOp what is completely broken, not how to fix it. Ultimately the game design is still in the hands of the designers. If enough people (on any forum) are pushing for something to get changed, then it's at least a significant number.

WotC is asking, "What needs to be balanced?"; not, "How should we design the game?". There is enough versatility in the Char-Op forums. They're not entirely computers (there are some that might be, but there's always someone who thinks D&D HAS to be a certain way in any group. We all know that guy and we know well enough to ignore him).

Also, many NON-CharOp regulars are posting in the thread mostly because certain classes just suck (like, even the fluff for the Seeker needs to rethought... oh wait, Hunter did it, right. Nevermind!)

 

[kaomera]

EVERYONE has an agenda. It's what being human is about. Pseudo-philosophy aside. I also think you're viewing WotC's goals of this operation entirely in the wrong light. They're asking CharOp what is completely broken, not how to fix it. Ultimately the game design is still in the hands of the designers. If enough people (on any forum) are pushing for something to get changed, then it's at least a significant number.

WotC is asking, "What needs to be balanced?"; not, "How should we design the game?". There is enough versatility in the Char-Op forums. They're not entirely computers (there are some that might be, but there's always someone who thinks D&D HAS to be a certain way in any group. We all know that guy and we know well enough to ignore him).

Also, many NON-CharOp regulars are posting in the thread mostly because certain classes just suck (like, even the fluff for the Seeker needs to rethought... oh wait, Hunter did it, right. Nevermind!)

Well, for example: there's a lot of people clamoring for something to be done with the seeker (among other classes), but what if that's not forthcoming? Doe going out of their way to specifically ask for input like this end up leaving WotC in a position where they need to either take action on that input or at least comment on why they aren't? And which parts of that input are going to be seen as significant are going to vary from poster to poster, as is what's an acceptable level of response. On the one hand, more information about why WotC designs things the way they do can be seen as a good thing, but I think that it could run the risk of creating at least a perceived "one true way" to play the game.

 

[Neverfate]

Well, for example: there's a lot of people clamoring for something to be done with the seeker (among other classes), but what if that's not forthcoming? Doe going out of their way to specifically ask for input like this end up leaving WotC in a position where they need to either take action on that input or at least comment on why they aren't? And which parts of that input are going to be seen as significant are going to vary from poster to poster, as is what's an acceptable level of response. On the one hand, more information about why WotC designs things the way they do can be seen as a good thing, but I think that it could run the risk of creating at least a perceived "one true way" to play the game.

I'm sure this whole experiment will be treated as business-as-usual by WotC. If something works? Praise it (ex. Dark Sun). If something does work? Forget it (ex. Much of PHB3). That's just how these things work with WotC or anything else.

Also, they aren't going to ever stick with "one way". "One way" is bad for sales. Essentials was a great design (both mechanically and aesthetically), but Heroes of Shadow is fugly (mechanically, and maybe aesthetically depending on how much undead dudes/chicks seem attractive...). Still, it's dependent on which is more profitable to see which we get more of.

Ultimately, what I imagine WotC is trying to achieve is simplification of overly complex things, or to increase the fun had with playing the game instead of scratching your head over wording of a feat, or feeling your character's class is invalid (an Assassin who can't assassinate is an NPC) takes away from the experience. They're doing what they can. It's at least something.

 

[Destil]

Bah, wrong thread.

 

[Aegeri]

I have to admit that the past few comments have left me scratching my head a bit. If you've actually been *reading* the CharOp thread the same things are coming up again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again and so on and such forth. There is a real genuine consensus running through the thread, from many different posters and many of these are people who argue consistently with one another elsewhere.

The point of the matter is that when this many people who are arguably some of the best at figuring out what mechanics are/are not working as intended agree, you really should be paying attention. There are of course differences between posters, but there are core points that are coming up all the time. I would even say they're the same points that have been coming up time and time again, since the expertise feats were first introduced into the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have to admit that the past few comments have left me scratching my head a bit. If you've actually been *reading* the CharOp thread the same things are coming up again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again and so on and such forth. There is a real genuine consensus running through the thread, from many different posters and many of these are people who argue consistently with one another elsewhere.

The point of the matter is that when this many people who are arguably some of the best at figuring out what mechanics are/are not working as intended agree, you really should be paying attention. There are of course differences between posters, but there are core points that are coming up all the time. I would even say they're the same points that have been coming up time and time again, since the expertise feats were first introduced into the game.

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.

 

[kaomera]

I'm sure this whole experiment will be treated as business-as-usual by WotC. If something works? Praise it (ex. Dark Sun). If something does work? Forget it (ex. Much of PHB3). That's just how these things work with WotC or anything else.

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.