The Paladin and the Stirges

[nedjer]

Would you prefer I said I think it's PR misstep? A PR unforced error?

Is there any way I can express an opinion that I disagree with WotC's strategies without making this a huge deal?

Foot fault? I'm good with - but don't share - your opinion now you've explained it.

Just don't quite know why some, other, commentators feel the need to hang, draw and quarter WotC for finding a way of potentially growing RPGs instead of continuing to fracture the fan-base and strangle recruitment.

Am I an insider, a 'fan boy' or even an Insider? Have I mentioned my Indie blog or quality clone Corruption, which takes old school off in the direction of exploration instead of combat . . .

My cloner's take being - like Joseph Goodman's - it's far better to at least try to unite much of the FRPG community and to form a vast pool of compatible game content than to go isolationist and end-up with less content and less players all round.

 

[Oldtimer]

Getting back to the original subject, I can see why some people react to the fluff described in the play-test report.

In no edition of D&D I can think of has mere hit point damage forced you to rest for several weeks (especially with a cleric in the party). Obviously there was some condition inflicted on the paladin by these stirges that caused Dave to make that ruling. Even if that wasn't an actual game rule, there is evidence that stirges could inflict something beyond hit point damage in the ruleset used at DDXP. Whether that is ability drain, disease, or something else entirely we don't know.

Information starved gamers on the internet are like hungry lions. The small tidbits thrown to them will cause them to go mad. But the interest created by this can easily turn into frustration, so WotC will soon need to start utilising some crowd control.

Oh, spring can't come soon enough. (doubly so, considering it's fifteen degrees centigrade below freezing outside my house).

 

[Anselyn]

I think all the hysteria about stuff like this is a bit overblown.

That being the nature of hysteria ...

 

[FSB]

I can't believe I registered just to respond in this thread:

In my opinion, this whole "issue" was blown way out of proportion. Dave was correct in stating that D&D is moving to something a bit more intuitive. But I believe the reason the "Paladin situation", and I may be wrong, stuck out was because of the irony of it all. Here was a Paladin that would not attack a helpless/defenseless foe....yet, that doesn't mean the paladin was combat shy. That's the funny side.

The whole "close to death by blood loss, necessitating a several week recovery time back at the Keep" was fluff, or story in my opinion. In no way shape or form was it a result of an attack or rules of recovery. I wasn't there for that encounter, but merely the consequences of rushing into a room filled with stirges. I wonder if having longer than 4 hours per encounter might have changed the consequences.

What I can say that I know, as I've been told is this:

Most new rules for D&D are still in infancy. What held true for the playtest may NOT hold true for the the open spring testing. That's what I found odd about the NDA. By the time the NDA is nullified, that information may be outdated anyway.

Lastly....Dave likes to kill players and I'm guessing he won the pot for most players killed in Ft. Wayne.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That being the nature of hysteria ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6R-LZ25Te0]Def Leppard - Hysteria - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ExploderWizard]

Lastly....Dave likes to kill players and I'm guessing he won the pot for most players killed in Ft. Wayne.

Perhaps that is why so few people in his group have posted about the experience


Few live to tell the tale.....Muuwhaahaahaa!!!!!

 

[Tortoise]

Is there any way I can express an opinion that I disagree with WotC's strategies without making this a huge deal?

Actually, saying you think they could handle promotion of the new edition in a different way or that you disagree with their strategy works well. Detailing what you think would be a good way to handle it would also be good since people could think about the idea and weigh in on pros and cons from their perspective.

What pulled the trigger was calling it a PR nightmare when it doesn't appear to be one at the current time. If anything it is working in their favor by generating discusssion which generates more interest and further discussion. Building critical mass, so-to-speak.

The fact that you asked this question earns you high marks from me. It shows you understand something didn't work the way you meant it to and want to understand why. Sentience, it does a brain good.

 

[davethegame]

I've updated the original post with an extra comment about my phrasing and an apology to Dave, if he comes back to read it.

Apology accepted. I'd also like to add that it's clear that WotC is reading and processing (though not necessarily accepting) everything, so regardless of the reactions, actual rules, etc. I'm confidant they're thinking about all of it.

 

[dkyle]

I'm suggesting having the choice in the first place is better, as one person's preferred baseline or default is another person's optional extra.

Game 1 has my preferred game mechanics.

Game 2 has my preferred game mechanics, as an alternative option to "core" mechanics.

Should I consider Game 2 obviously better than Game 1? I would say "no", because I have more reason to expect that Game 1 will be well designed, and well balanced around the specific set of mechanics I want. Your post seemed to suggest that Game 2 was obviously better, so we should have no objections to it.

If I say "I want Skills, not just ability checks", then maybe a system where Skills are an option, but ability checks are the baseline, will be sufficiently well-designed and well-balanced, but I have to expect it to be less likely than a system where Skills are core, and what the designers focused their attention on.

It's not about wanting to make fundamentalist claims about who is playing right. It's about wanting a certain kind of game (as we all do), and arguing in favor of making it a reality (as we all do). That includes arguing over what we think should be the baseline, and thus receive the most amount of design attention. Just saying that more options means we all get what we want would be cop-out.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Game 1 has my preferred game mechanics.

Game 2 has my preferred game mechanics, as an alternative option to "core" mechanics.

Should I consider Game 2 obviously better than Game 1? I would say "no", because I have more reason to expect that Game 1 will be well designed, and well balanced around the specific set of mechanics I want. Your post seemed to suggest that Game 2 was obviously better, so we should have no objections to it.

That is only true to the extent that you think that:

• Game 1 is an option.
• That if pursued it will be well done to realize those preferences.

If they decide, instead, to go without the options, for Game 3, which caters to my preferences, but not yours, then Game 2 would have been a far better choice for you.

I think when most of us are saying that the modular approach is better, it is implicit that there is a certain level of expectation that some of what WotC will do is not our preference, and that some of the stuff that is our preference will need tweaking.

I've seen an awful lot of lobbying for A through Z over the last few years, some of it quite bitter, and done in a vacuum of expectations that doesn't even acknowledge all the other, similar lobbying going on at the same time--sometimes even the same topic. Namely, that if they do A the way expected, then B through Z are out in the cold by definition. And same for any other choice. When the thing being lobbied for is excluding the majority of the audience, you may very well get it--but I wouldn't bank on keeping it long.

Short version: I want options to handle my preferences so that I'm more likely to get my preferences, and so that other people get their preferences, and thus will stop lobbying to remove mine.