Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4087614" data-attributes="member: 1054">Glad to be of service.Seriously, if the game isn't pounded into the dirt in playtesting, then the playtesting isn't doing it's job. Maybe I'm wrong, and the game is as perfect as any first release can be. But it seems to me, from what I've read here and from reports in the DDE, that a lot of burden for balance is being tossed back on the DMs shoulders, and I don't consider this "making his job easier". I have seen comments -- not from you, but from others -- to the effect of "If the PCs figure they can use their class powers to get filthy rich without ever going near some monster infested ruin, they're not playing properly, and you should just tell them to hop back on the plot train".And yes -- if you were playtesting, and you *weren't* trying to break the game, then you weren't playtesting. You were *playing*, which is not the same thing. I'm speaking from the perspective of software development, including game development. If the testing department isn't trying everything wrong, putting in invalid file names, clicking the buttons in the wrong order, trying to do 'b' before doing 'a' -- then you have a bad testing department and you'll have a bad product. Software that works perfectly if you do everything exactly right, but only then, is useless. I don't expect 4e to be 'bug free', but I do expect it to be only about as buggy as 3e. I absolutely don't expect the response to bugs to be "Well, the DM shouldn't let that happen". Nor do I think that's what I'm going to get, just to be clear.Should the game be played "as intended", to make sure it is fun when everyone is doing the "right thing"? Of course, especially since it has to be fun over 30 levels. But it also needs to be kicked in the nuts, metaphorically speaking, and if the only response to exploits or loopholes is "The DM shouldn't allow them", that bespeaks problems in the rules. "Putting the DM back in the equation" shouldn't mean "The DM should second-guess the 'intent' of the designers and judge accordingly." 4e makes some serious strides away from this by making design goals and methodologies much more explicit; it's a lot easier to see what the designers want to occur and how they expect play to be. This is a 'win' for 4e over 3e, where 'guess what the designers wanted' was part of 'system mastery'. This is also problematic when campaign style drifts away from the "proper" course, and I expect the game to be handle "non standard" campaigns within reason without breaking. If the stories I tell don't lead to 4-5 encounters in a day, daily powers shouldn't make every encounter a cakewalk. (I'm not saying they do. I wouldn't know. But if the game 'assumes' multiple daily encounters and breaks if they don't exist, that's a problem.)I expect my players to be excellent roleplayers with well developed characters, backstories, and plot hooks. I also expect them, from long experience, not to be idiots when it comes to the tactical side of the game, and not to ignore possibilities for victory because they aren't appropriately dramatic. I expect them to play characters who lived in the world and know how it works, that the game rules reflect the 'laws of physics' the characters know and accept, and that they will use these 'laws of physics' in fights or daily life to their best advantage. Putting it in 3x terms: What would you think of a DM who said, "No, you can't use telepathy, because I want to run a mystery story. I know you used it last week, but then, it was part of the plot to read the guy's mind. This week, I want to you to find the clues. No, I won't tell you why you can't, just don't!" You'd think, I suspect, he was a pretty lame DM. You'd accept him saying "Telepathy doesn't work in my world", and that's a ground rule for the campaign. You'd accept "Sure, the grand vizier is guilty. He's thinking how much fun it was to kill the prince. Too bad telepathic evidence isn't accepted in any court and unauthorized mind reading is a crime in itself. You'll have to prove your case the hard way, guys." But you won't accept fiat handwaving in the name of plot preservation -- at least, I wouldn't.</blockquote>

Verification