WotC Jeremy Crawford interview: they read your feedback. An exclusive interview by Christian Hoffer at GenCon.

[UngainlyTitan]

We've already had someone post today that using cards as your randomizer in your RPGs makes them not an RPG, so I suspect there will be people scandalized by the Book of Many Things this fall.

Dang and on the boardgame mechanics I have been advocating creating an adventure off a randomised (or semi randomised ) deck.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a fan of Christian Hoffer's work, but even I don't think we need to be writing entire articles to simply counter daft marginal online silliness.

I dunno. Maybe if more people countered daft marginal online silliness, then we’d get less of it? Or at least less people parroting it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I dunno. Maybe if more people countered daft marginal online silliness, then we’d get less of it? Or at least less people parroting it.

Unfortunately, studies of non-gaming online silliness suggests that people tend to dig in and double down. No examples, due to forum rules, but you can probably guess what to Google.

 

[Morrus]

I dunno. Maybe if more people countered daft marginal online silliness, then we’d get less of it? Or at least less people parroting it.

Well (1) the article wasn’t written to counter daft online silliness and (2) even if it was, which it wasn’t, acknowledging it legitimises it. There’s a reason NASA doesn’t spend effort debunking flat earth theory or the latest Einstein debunker—it’s a pointless waste of time which merely draws attention to the nonsense, and they have actual real work to do. But, thats’s all moot, and not relevant to this topic, and nothing to do with this article.

 

[mamba]

Dang. I just lost a bet. I was sure we could have a thread that discussed what WOTC does without trashing them at least until we hit double digit responses. Ah well.

you should have posted more

 

[overgeeked]

players and DMs aren't game designers.

Quite a few are.

History tells us this. Spellcasters had a lot of restrictions that people didn't like in AD&D 1E and 2E. When D&D 3rd Edition got rid of those restrictions, we got complaints about "martial-caster disparity" and "linear fighters, quadratic wizards."

LFQW started all the way back in AD&D. It wasn’t new with WotC D&D.

 

[Alzrius]

Quite a few are.

The vast, vast majority are not. Or do you think that any significant percentage of the much-touted fifty million D&D players are also game designers?

LFQW started all the way back in AD&D. It wasn’t new with WotC D&D.

Unless you're saying that 3E's rolling back of numerous restrictions on spellcasters had no tangible effect, and that no one had a problem with those changes in terms of their overall impact on game-play, what you're saying here is moot (and highly debatable anyway).

 

[Hussar]

Yeah. I’d point out that fighters in 2e were extremely powerful compared to casters. At least until about name level and even then.

People forget adnd monsters had about 1/4 the hp of later era monsters and fighters dealt easily as much damage as latter era fighters. Even into the low teen levels.

It was 3e and later which really created the LFQW problem.

 

[Reynard]

I feel like a lot of the modern complaints aren't so much LFQW as they are about how wizards have more options to be cool in the fiction.

 

[Parmandur]

bewbs

Just to focus in on this part, Mark Rosewater is the head designer on the Magic the Gayhering side of the equation, and he has explained on Tumblr to Mafic fans that WotC has stopped doing old-timey cheesecake on Magic cards because it turns oit...sex doesn't sell. Cheesecake reduces sales numbers and turns off players from a game. So no, WotC isn't goikf to hurt their bottom line with Boomer Bewbs.