Search results

Would all that testing result in a game that would make WotC even more money, enough to compensate for the time lost to development? Becsuse if not there's no way they would do it. And they would have to be pretty sure it would increase profits, because they've been shown to be pretty...

Exactly how strict the mechanics of various PC abilities are can will vary a lot depending on the ability and the game.

By the averages of 5e, most of your PCs have magic powers. Sounds like special effects to me.

It is the one thing I credit WotC for at this point: being successful enough to spawn better versions (for me) of their games from other designers.

I use Encyclopedia Magica in my Level Up game, and use worldbuilding rules from a variety of other RPGs.

I guess. Never understood why a company like WotC can't just make a successful game that people like and pay for. It has to be number one, with all the annoying knock-on effects associated with that need.

Not sure what you intend the end if that sentence to be. I know D&D has more players. I also know all those games have players and are successful by their own standards.

There are modernized/updated versions of B/X with more options, like OSE and ACKS II. And there are more modern games inspired by old school ideas like the Without Number series and Shadowdark. It doesn't have to be the official game.

Teaching the basics IMO is what starter sets are for.

I don't claim my preference is more popular (it really isn't), but for me it is superior.

The Rules Cyclopedia was pretty great. My favorite version of a D&D-like game is essentially an iteration on it and it's close cousins. That being said, 5e is a great base for a D&D-like game too, and easier to find players for, so it's an excellent alternative.

Only if your product has to be made to appeal to the widest audience, and maximum profit is your top priority.

I still don't think encounter balancing through math is necessary.

I had a mentor when I learned on BECMI, and later on 1e. Neither system had a combat balancing system that rated monsters like CR does. Hit Dice is different.

There's no way to know which of you is right, so his speculation is just as valid as yours.

Plenty of GM books got by just fine without an encounter balance system.

Not seeing a lot of faith in your fellow gamer here. We were all new once, and we all worked through to get better.

That's my point. Not admitting it and not trying to fix it for nearly a decade is their fault.

I don't know if that's true. You still get xp for overcoming encounters even if you don't kill the monsters.

Or playing a different game that doesn't assume they don't know what they're doing. Would have been nice if the books said any of this though.