D&D 5E My happiness or yours.

[pemerton]

I don't get this whole "my turn" thing. And agree with [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION], [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] and others: buy and play games you enjoy, don't buy and don't play games you don't enjoy.

If you are compromising in playing a game with friends that is not your favourite, well that's not the publisher's problem. It seems to be a result of friends having different tastes. Most of us have worked out ways to deal with this, from choosing pizza to choosing movies to choosing games. For WotC it is a commercial problem - how to maximise their market uptake - but I can't see that it has any moral dimension. No one has an entitlement that a commercial publisher deploy its resources to make a game well-suited to them.

Heck, design your own game and then invite your friends to play it with you! (I think there are some posters on these boards who have done just that.)

 

[Jester David]

I disagree that this should be the guiding force behind any game design. That's just that dumb pizza analogy reworded into generic, non-pizza terms. It rests on a number of assumptions - among them that the designers' vision of their game is less valuable than that of their (supposed) fans.

Your goal when designing a game should be to design the best game you can, full stop. Designing a game to please your loudest objectors results in a bland, shapeless mess.

That's fine if creating a brand new game or product without an existing audience. In that situation it is better to make a consistent game that follows the views of the designer.

It's doesn't work for a product with an existing fanbase, as it puts the views or a very, very small number of people (the 5-10 designers) ahead of the audience.
If the designers want to create a game that's their baby, their vision of a game, they should form their own game company and kickstarter their dream like Numenera and 13th Age. If they want to design for an existing franchise they need to follow the conventions of that franchise and respect the audience first, because the fans have their own ideas of what the product should be like, and they'll reject a product that does not conform to their idea what their game will be.

Really, this goes for other creative endeavors such as movies or video games or books. You don't go into a James Bond movie and try and make it entirely your own, to treat it like a personal vanity project. You can't write Spider-man like an independent comic. There are pros and cons to working with a Brand. Such as Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Obryn]

That's fine if creating a brand new game or product without an existing audience. In that situation it is better to make a consistent game that follows the views of the designer.

It's doesn't work for a product with an existing fanbase, as it puts the views or a very, very small number of people (the 5-10 designers) ahead of the audience.
If the designers want to create a game that's their baby, their vision of a game, they should form their own game company and kickstarter their dream like Numenera and 13th Age. If they want to design for an existing franchise they need to follow the conventions of that franchise and respect the audience first, because the fans have their own ideas of what the product should be like, and they'll reject a product that does not conform to their idea what their game will be.

Really, this goes for other creative endeavors such as movies or video games or books. You don't go into a James Bond movie and try and make it entirely your own, to treat it like a personal vanity project. You can't write Spider-man like an independent comic. There are pros and cons to working with a Brand. Such as Dungeons & Dragons.

In broad strokes? Sure, absolutely. A James Bond movie must have Mr. Bond, he must be British, etc.

But something as piddling and minor as DoaM? Not hardly. That''s an amazing stretch. To me, this indicates a toxic and unpleasable fanbase more than anything else. And toxic elements of the fanbase are, indeed, best ignored.

 

[Jester David]

In broad strokes? Sure, absolutely. A James Bond movie must have Mr. Bond, he must be British, etc.

But something as piddling and minor as DoaM? Not hardly. That''s an amazing stretch. To me, this indicates a toxic and unpleasable fanbase more than anything else. And toxic elements of the fanbase are, indeed, best ignored.

It's so piddling and minor that we need a seperate forum to argue about it.

To people who like it it's piddling. To people who hate it, it's as annoying as, oh, dwarves taking -2to Charisma or chainkinis or other mechanical pet peeves. Heck, any pet peeves in general.

 

[Obryn]

It's so piddling and minor that we need a seperate forum to argue about it.

To people who like it it's piddling. To people who hate it, it's as annoying as, oh, dwarves taking -2to Charisma or chainkinis or other mechanical pet peeves. Heck, any pet peeves in general.

So tell me how that's not indicative of a toxic fanbase obsessed with minutiae again?

 

[pemerton]

To people who like it it's piddling. To people who hate it, it's as annoying as, oh, dwarves taking -2to Charisma or chainkinis or other mechanical pet peeves.

So tell me how that's not indicative of a toxic fanbase obsessed with minutiae again?

I'm happy to hold my head up high as part of that toxic fanbase who like DoaM!, and for whom it's not piddling, at least in the following way: eliminating an optional PC build element because some customers can't handle the option being part of the game would tell me about who D&Dnext is being designed for, and therefore whether or not it is likely to include optional elements that suit my taste.

If DoaM cause a reaction this extreme, what is going to happen if they try to introduce a fighter option for inspirational healing?

 

[Jester David]

So tell me how that's not indicative of a toxic fanbase obsessed with minutiae again?

There are toxic elements, yes. On both sides. And there are normally non-toxic people being pushed to the toxic. And there are normally people are are just passionate.
You cannot just dismiss an argument or audience because some of the people involved are troll.s because, really, trolls be everywhere.

 

[Jester David]

I'm happy to hold my head up high as part of that toxic fanbase who like DoaM!, and for whom it's not piddling, at least in the following way: eliminating an optional PC build element because some customers can't handle the option being part of the game would tell me about who D&Dnext is being designed for, and therefore whether or not it is likely to include optional elements that suit my taste.

If DoaM cause a reaction this extreme, what is going to happen if they try to introduce a fighter option for inspirational healing?

It's not an option. It's a mechanic that is primarily part of an option, but it' still a mechanic. There's no certainty that it will remain just a part of the one class feature. It already went from being a fighter feature to the feature of three classes. And it could easily become a part of two or three move.
And as options go, it's pretty non-optional. It's what you pick when you want to play a DPS fighter or paladin.
Really, given it's part of one of the two most common builds of the fighter (one of the two options that made it into the 4e PHB), and the fighter being one of the most (if not the most) common classes, it's pretty much a core mechanic. Monsters will use it, feats with include it, as DoaM becomes a part of the game. Just like 4e, DoaM will be a fundamental part of the game.

I'm okay with it as a real option. Something that's added into the game. Something like a single feat or chain of feats. Or a rules module that gives every class "glancing blows" for players who really hate missing. But currently... it's not really optional.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

7

Martial damage on a miss introduces a playstyle that certain numbers of players don't like. It's also pretty arrogant of people to dismiss them as a vocal minority, or shout and yell that Wizards is just going to listen to those few people who yell really loud.

The thing is, none of us know who the minority is. Also, don't know about you, but if I want change then I will shout and yell for it. Especially, if I have to fork over money to get the product.

 

[pemerton]

It's not an option. It's a mechanic that is primarily part of an option, but it' still a mechanic.

<snip>

I'm okay with it as a real option. Something that's added into the game. Something like a single feat or chain of feats. Or a rules module that gives every class "glancing blows" for players who really hate missing. But currently... it's not really optional.

I don't understand this at all.

By this logic, it's not optional whether or not a gameworld includes a god of Light, or counts weasels among its fauna.

The ability is on a list of things from which a choice must be made: the exact words are "Choose one of the following options". It can be removed from that list without making any class unbuildable or unplayable. No other aspect of the game depends upon it. (I'm following convention here and ignoring the billion-and-one non-AoE spells that do autodamage.)

I don't like the Expertise feats in 4e. That means my group just doesn't use them. It's as easy as that. I don't need them to be quarantined into some special corner marked "optional". I just tell my players that, when they are choosing feats, they should opt for something else.

It's what you pick when you want to play a DPS fighter or paladin.

So, just to be clear: it has to be removed, so that those who can't abide it aren't tempted to put it into their games anyway (and then what - post about how it is ruining their fun?).

At 1st level, the typical melee fighter has +4 to hit (+3 stat, +1 prof). The typical AC is, let's say, 13, meaning the to-hit rate is 0.6. Hence the expected damage boost from DoaM is 0.4*STR. As a damage bonus on a hit, that would be +2*STR/3. Just replace DoaM with +2 to damage and your expected output should be about the same.

Advantage on a d12 damage roll also gives average damage of 8 and 35/72, which is just a touch less than +2 to a d12 damage roll. So that is another option.

I've got nothing against adding to the range of options. I just don't see why they need to be reduced.