Search results

Actually...the vast majority of play, once you have completed the "main story" of an MMO, is almost entirely group-focused. That's...why I brought up the "duty roulette" thing. You are getting assigned a random dungeon or raid with other players. It's actually a pretty recent development to...

Bearing in mind that I am inventing numbers as I write this post, and thus any numerical balance is extremely unlikely to bear out beyond superficial examination: Imagine that in this hypothetical 6e, we can define the absolute bare minimum one requires in order to have...a character, as...

So what does that make of a huge, huge swathe of both complaints levied at, I dunno, some particular version of some popular game out there, AND at the explicit design policy that went into the sequel? Because if that's true, then the entire foundation upon which 5e was built is inherently suspect.

Irrelevant. Player psychology is doing so. Are we now saying that the players should adjust to the game's design, regardless of their personal feelings? Is that actually an argument you want to make? I suspect it isn't, that's why I'm asking.

Perhaps not; but it is a general truism in game design that, unless you specifically go out of your way to make support very enjoyable or very powerful (the two are not the same), people will prefer to play direct-action roles, even if they would otherwise like playing supportive roles. This...

It is? When was that established? I never got that understanding from it, and it was never communicated in any of the level-based games I've played. A level-based game is there to have understandable steps of progression. That has nothing to do with where one starts that progression. The...

That....was literally my point. What GM hears "Hey, I have this third-party product which makes better monsters" and thinks "Golly, that sounds swell! We'll start using that right away." The last time I saw a GM accept player-provided 3PP, 4th edition hadn't been released yet. And believe me...

How does that help? That just means the PHB, DMG, and MM need to be even better, because now those are functionally the only books that exist at all!

Who cares there's a fix somewhere when 3/4 of GMs don't know it's there, 3/4 of those who do will refuse to ever even consider using it, and 3/4 of those who might consider using it have other things they want to focus on instead? The vast majority of third party products functionally don't...

Playtest documents are....literally nothing like "written down house rules" beyond....the fact that they are written. Are you seriously claiming the two are identical?

If a designer does this, they're an a#$&@%e, plain and simple. Do you think I don't know what it's like to be treated like a second class citizen? Come the frick on, Dave. I'm a 4e fan. 5e, and especially its fans, will take every opportunity to remind me that I'm a second-clsss citizen now. I...

Ever notice how people only demand playtest rules when it's something they question? I never see you demand this of yourself, for example. But I'm pretty used to double standards at this point.

As is so often the case: a problem being solved in 3PP is not actually solved. I get why you suggest it. I'm not really in a position to benefit from that. Particularly in this glorious age of "DM Empowerment".

If 5e only had CR failures on edge cases, I would completely agree. That has not been my experience with it.

I mean, I had thought it was obvious that WotC did not have that. CR is only very slightly less of a joke now than it was in 3e, and that can be placed entirely at the feet of the overall reduction in the power of spells and the inclusion of Concentration.

No. But demanding that the game be designed presuming that absolutely everyone has identical experiences to yours? That is.

It is better for several reasons. Not being levels means, as I've said already, we completely and utterly cut out the "but that's not FIRST, you start at FIRST because that's what FIRST means, why would you ever start anywhere other than FIRST". And yes, while this is not the majority opinion...

Good. Without skeptical people, testing doesn't work. You need people willing to challenge you in order to actually achieve the end goal.

Ah. Then that is the issue. I prefer to actually make them manifest some kind of archetype rather than just making them vehicles for mechanics.

Well, keep in mind what Lanefan said to me: This isn't just "this should be a valid path". Lanefan wants this to be the ONLY path. I am completely in favor of providing tools and support for multiple approaches. I am not--and never will be--in favor of what Lanefan is advocating here. This is...