The Paladin and the Stirges

[Blackwarder]

OMG!!! next we will have threads about a guy saying that he ate a hotdog during the game with no mustard and folks will start threads about how bad PR it is if the rules don't allow you to have mustard on your hotdog... jeez.

Warder

 

[D'karr]

OMG!!! next we will have threads about a guy saying that he ate a hotdog during the game with no mustard and folks will start threads about how bad PR it is if the rules don't allow you to have mustard on your hotdog... jeez.

Warder

It's even worse. There is no hot dog.

 

[Blackwarder]

It's even worse. There is no hot dog.

it already started... talk about a prophecy that fulfill itself

Warder

 

[curupira]

It's even worse. There is no hot dog.

The hot dog is a LIE!

Remember folks, you've heard it here first.

 

[nedjer]

More RPG players objecting to choices

If the rumoured attribute/ skill checks are true - and optional - it seems obviously better to have choice. GM A can invent special doors, GM B can make almost every door the same and GM C can choose to use a simple mechanic to turn doors into standardised checks.

Fairly sure every edition so far says it's OK for a GM to pick any of the three options, so fundamentalist claims that only GM C is 'playing right' seem based more on trying to limit choice than the rule books?

 

[Teataine]

To me the whole thing just shows that people are always ready to apriori hate an edition just because it's new or potentially varies from their super special unique way of playing.

Of course this applies to most things in life, not just D&D editions.

 

[catsclaw227]

True, but a statement by the OP would of cleared that up just as well. (let me state that in no way am I holding the OP to blame in any way, shape, or fashion. Something he said got away from him, it happens.) Plus, with the nature on NDA's, as far as I understand them, there was no promise of a strait answer. People speculate, it happens.

I am pretty sure Dave Chalker did make a statement in the comments section clarifying things.

 

[dkyle]

If the rumoured attribute/ skill checks are true - and optional - it seems obviously better to have choice. GM A can invent special doors, GM B can make almost every door the same and GM C can choose to use a simple mechanic to turn doors into standardised checks.

It's only "obviously better" if the game is balanced and coherent for both including and excluding the module. If the Devs favor a certain ruleset as the baseline, and don't do a good job developing, testing, and balancing the alternative ruleset, then no, the game isn't "obviously better", to me, having that baseline ruleset instead of the one I want.

 

[Kynn]

*yawn* People overreacted and clearly that's the fault of the blogger and not, you know, the people who overreacted? Give me a break. Wake me up when we have something interesting to discuss.

Who said this?

 

[Kynn]

And that results in a "PR nightmare"? Really? Seems more like "good DMing", "making things interesting" and "adding flavour" to me.

Complaints like this is why we don't get nice stuff. Instead of saluting Dave for taking what could have been nothing and adding a little bit extra to make it interesting (and, at the same time, not punishing any players by way of interesting things happening), we get complaints like this "PR nightmare".

The "PR nightmare" is not anything to do with Dave's actions at the game table or at the blog. It's to do with the way that WotC is handling release of information on 5e.