July 07: Monster Manual V, Maps of Adventure

[Shade]

I hope they don't, because giving in the conservative voice of the gognards makes it really hard to fundamentally improve the presentation of the game.

Hopefully they won't take such a dismissive, elitist attitude and will weigh all the sources of feedback they receive (not excluding, but not limited to, these forums).

If ENWorld is such a poor source of feedback, why do so many game designers visit the boards and often elicit feedback?

 

[Harlekin]

I'm not arguing with your personal opinion.
I'm suggesting that offering an approach that appeals to a wider range of people would be better.

Of course the ~20 ppl posting in this thread do not provide any measure on the appeal of any MM.

I disagree with your assessment of the utility and really disagree that a standard beholder is comparable to a "standard" drow ninja. And you haven't changed the "one size fits all" point. But that is all completely beside the larger issue.

Why, if I may ask? Both the beholder and the DN are intelligent beings with incredible long life spans that are able to increase their ability throughout their life. Amongst either of the two one should expect a wide variation of skills. However, we are OK with a standard beholder as we can always modify it with templates or by adding classes. The same is true for the DN.

 

[Harlekin]

Hopefully they won't take such a dismissive, elitist attitude and will weigh all the sources of feedback they receive (not excluding, but not limited to, these forums).

So do I.

If ENWorld is such a poor source of feedback, why do so many game designers visit the boards and often elicit feedback?

Because it is such a powerful echo chamber?
Seriously, I don't think ENWorld is a poor source of feedback, but many frequent posters seem to be very resistant to change. So it may be the conservative voice in game design.

 

[Shade]

Because it is such a powerful echo chamber?
Seriously, I don't think ENWorld is a poor source of feedback, but many frequent posters seem to be very resistant to change. So it may be the conservative voice in game design.

...and that is a problem why?

I'm all for change when change is good (reserve feats are the latest that spring to mind), but I'll cry "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when the need arises.

 

[BryonD]

I hope they don't, because giving in the conservative voice of the gognards makes it really hard to fundamentally improve the presentation of the game.

I think you claim of improvement is highly questionable. Personally, I'd say you got it exactly wrong. I'm not certain how to show that one opinion is better than the other. But I'd say that based on reaction mine if better is making as many customers as possible happy is your goal. Which I'm betting is WotC's goal. If you'd prefer they lose sales, then so be it.
I still don't understand why you don't want them to learn and try approaches that offer something to more people. But to each their own.

 

[BryonD]

Of course the ~20 ppl posting in this thread do not provide any measure on the appeal of any MM.

I never claimed it did. I've heard a lot of people, here and elsewhere, state they didn't buy this book. I certainly can't point to precise numbers, but I think that the dislike had an impact.

Of course, your point also cuts both ways. The 20 people who complained are not a measure, but they are probably more reliable than the 12 who said they liked it.

Why, if I may ask? Both the beholder and the DN are intelligent beings with incredible long life spans that are able to increase their ability throughout their life. Amongst either of the two one should expect a wide variation of skills. However, we are OK with a standard beholder as we can always modify it with templates or by adding classes. The same is true for the DN.

I think it is pretty obvious how advancing a monster includes significantly different assumptions than simply gaining class levels.

 

[BryonD]

Seriously, I don't think ENWorld is a poor source of feedback, but many frequent posters seem to be very resistant to change. So it may be the conservative voice in game design.

I think you'd have a hard time showing that statement to be true.
Change and progress is very aggressively supported here on a frequent basis.
I think you are just building an unproven strawman here.

Having a good reason to think that a specific thing was a bad idea is not remotely the same as being resistant to change.

Beyond that, if you were right aboyut ENWorlds attitude (which you are not), then that still wouldn't address the concerns that have been stated.

 

[BryonD]

I'm all for change when change is good (reserve feats are the latest that spring to mind), but I'll cry "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when the need arises.

Exactly

 

[Harlekin]

I never claimed it did. I've heard a lot of people, here and elsewhere, state they didn't buy this book. I certainly can't point to precise numbers, but I think that the dislike had an impact.

Of course, your point also cuts both ways. The 20 people who complained are not a measure, but they are probably more reliable than the 12 who said they liked it.

Given that ppl are more likely to complain than to praise, it is probably impossible to compare those numbers.

I think it is pretty obvious how advancing a monster includes significantly different assumptions than simply gaining class levels.

I think that difference is purely one of habit. If you think of the actual work involved, it is easier to add a few HD to a monster than to add lvls. Furthermore, by adding HD the creature is not changed in a dramatic fashion, it does the same as before, just better. On the other hand taking a character up a few levels can change its ability fundamentally.

Thus I would suggest that we are used to stock nonhumanoid NPCs, but we do not like the idea of stock humanoid NPCs.

 

[Harlekin]

I think you claim of improvement is highly questionable. Personally, I'd say you got it exactly wrong. I'm not certain how to show that one opinion is better than the other. But I'd say that based on reaction mine if better is making as many customers as possible happy is your goal. Which I'm betting is WotC's goal. If you'd prefer they lose sales, then so be it.

As I said before, we have no idea if the MMIV actually made customers unhappy and lost Wotc sales as you claim. You didn't buy it because it was different from 1-3, I bought it because it was different from 2,3. Net sales loss 0.

I still don't understand why you don't want them to learn and try approaches that offer something to more people. But to each their own.

I think that the strategy underlying the MMIV is better for the hobby in the long run. The most common complaint against 3.x is that it is too hard to GM. Therefore anything that makes gamemastering easier and less work should be strongly supported.

Furthermore, upthread it was described as an accepted fact that the MMIV was not well liked and that "everybody" would like the next MM to be different. I disagreed, so I posted.