darjr
I crit!
Yea. They all work.I thought as much! So it's technically Dee Ae Arr Junior, not Dahr Junior or Darjher.
Yea. They all work.I thought as much! So it's technically Dee Ae Arr Junior, not Dahr Junior or Darjher.
I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.If you didn't want to take a chance on a game they said wasn't finished, all you had to do was wait until it was. There's no grift here. It was all very clear that things would change. Backing the kS for an unfinished game clearly carried risk you wouldn't like what came.
I understand perfectly. Thanks though.I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.
My point is that when a designer says it's open to change, but their first design promise is '[they] want to have no attack rolls'. Promise or idea unveiling. It would be equivalent to me as if Wizards when previewing 3.0 said that a d20 would resolve checks, and then released it as 'No, you roll a d6 per plus you have and make a dice pool'. Some people will feel they were bait-and-switched.
However, I think you're not trying to understand the point anyone is trying to say to you.
I have no problem with funding prior to completed design. It can be an effective strategy, and in some cases the only one practically available. However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.
What a strange comment. They didn't make some grand announcement. They made a patreon post which they do sometime multiple times a week and had a stream which is usually weekly. This is just them talking about themselves designing the game.I have no problem with funding prior to completed design. It can be an effective strategy, and in some cases the only one practically available. However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.
I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.
My point is that when a designer says it's open to change, but their first design promise is '[they] want to have no attack rolls'. Promise or idea unveiling. It would be equivalent to me as if Wizards when previewing 3.0 said that a d20 would resolve checks, and then released it as 'No, you roll a d6 per plus you have and make a dice pool'. Some people will feel they were bait-and-switched.
However, I think you're not trying to understand the point anyone is trying to say to you.
the goals are clear, the design that reflects them is being worked on. Also not sure how the change can be both so minor it is not worth mentioning and at the same time so big that it brings the goals into questionHowever the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.