An open letter to Randy Buehler

[carmachu]

Because he's worked himself up FROM R&D to Digital Gaming. Randy started as a "tester/gopher" for M:TG cards, worked himself up to lead designer on a couple of sets, then became LEAD DEVELOPER of all M:TG.
The guy is a gamer made good.

And thats great for him. And M:TG.

But not so good for us D&D customers. He's got alot of street cred, so to speak, magic wise. I see nothing yet that makes me want to have him around RPG's....

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . In the end, I think they should post at least the Heroic tier overview. That's enough to keep everyone sort of on the same page without spoiling too much.

I'd be cool with this. I can't speak for everyone, but I think you are right that this would take care of most peoples issues with this. I just hope WoTC is paying attention to this thread.

 

[catsclaw227]

I am good with a Heroic tier overview only at this point. It would at least give the DMs something to work with. Some DMs might continue on, some might fork off on something else and and some may even end their game at Heroic, if that's the kind of game they like to play.

 

[Jack99]

I want an overview too. But I would rather have better adventures than an overview. But maybe that is just me.

 

[Nifft]

I want an overview too. But I would rather have better adventures than an overview. But maybe that is just me.

I don't see this as a matter requiring a trade-off. If they know their future direction, they can outline it. If they don't, they're unlikely to write "better adventures".

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Little Raven]

But not so good for us D&D customers.

He isn't involved in the development of D&D, so I fail to see how his presence in the company in a non-brand-specific role is bad for D&D.

 

[Jack99]

I don't see this as a matter requiring a trade-off. If they know their future direction, they can outline it. If they don't, they're unlikely to write "better adventures".

Cheers, -- N

Of course not. I wasn't implying that it should be one or the other. If you insist, I will spell it out.

I find it funny (as in odd, not in ha-ha) that a lot seem to focus on the overview issue, when the modules themselves are quite sub-par, even for WotC. I mean, without an overview, decent modules can still be made to work. An overview won't help much if the modules are crappy - unless you rewrite big parts yourself, in which case you do not really need an AP IMO.

Cheers

 

[The Little Raven]

What works for M:tG isn't necessarily going to map equally well to D&D, because one is a hugely abstracted card game with flavour as...well, flavour...and the other is a very specific fantasy world simulation, with flavour as one of the main reasons for bothering to play in the first place.

D&D is, and has always been, a highly abstracted game. That's why things like AC, hit points, and most of the mechanics do not map cleanly to real world traits, since they are an abstraction whose purpose it is to prevent simulation of things to slow to a crawl.

But the temptation to create mechanics for mechanic's sake, resulting in abominations with no flavour reason for existing, like the "warlord", is seemingly too strong.

Ah yes, the idea that a martial commander who is more adept at leading troops then just beating ass has no right existing in a game that features a guy singing while his friends fight a dragon rears it's head again. Sorry rounser, but a game that features giant, acidic Jell-O molds as enemies is not negatively impacted in any way by having a battlefield commander when having a opera diva as your support in combat is acceptable.

It's D&D, and we see silly rules that don't make sense except for extensive handwaving and references to Die Hard.

Yeah, silly rules like hit points and AC and levels, all of which are huge abstractions to avoid issues like infection, hit location, and the like.

It's all so ideologically extreme, like the result of giving an extremist political party dictatorship powers, and seeing the unexpected side effect result of their ideologies come into play.

Comparing people who reduce liberties, impose sanctions, and take lives to the developers of a roleplaying game is so beyond ridiculous it approaches insanity.

Maybe D&D will become more like M:tG (or already has become that way), in that people will take their Dragonborn for the +2 strength modifier just the way they'd put a Derelor in their deck for being a cheap casting cost 4/4, and just think about the crunch effect...stuff the flavour.

Oh, just like how people back in 1e and 2e would take "elf" or "dwarf" for the bonus to Dexterity and Constitution. This attempt to paint the newest editions as the only ones to attract power gamers is silly, since history demonstrates the game's ability to attract gamers that only pay attention to the crunch from the outset.

Arguably it's already begun with 3E and it's "builds". They harken to M:tG deck construction.

Or they harken back to spellbook construction in all previous editions of D&D, since two wizard builds can be entirely different based on the spells they have selected

 

[Shemeska]

He isn't involved in the development of D&D, so I fail to see how his presence in the company in a non-brand-specific role is bad for D&D.

The failure of Gleemax and the repeatedly delayed DDI hurts WotC, and thus downstream you can be sure as heck that it hurts D&D.

 

[The Little Raven]

The failure of Gleemax and the repeatedly delayed DDI hurts WotC, and thus downstream you can be sure as heck that it hurts D&D.

But it has no impact on the development of D&D itself, merely an impact on their digital products division. The DDI being delayed doesn't mean D&D is delayed, since the former is merely an additional resource for the latter.