Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WhatGravitas" data-source="post: 4025332" data-attributes="member: 33132">Problem with that analogy: The negatives are not facts. Repeat after me: Every you can criticise is not a fact, because it can be fixed, is already fixed, or is a product of the new design paradigm.Only in that last case, the criticism actually applies, in the former two, the criticism is moot, pointless, useless.I mean, if a playtester finds something negative, let's see the following courses of action:He posts his criticism on the internet only: Bad form, that's only to stir rage, and doesn't allow WotC to fix it.He posts it on the web and to WotC: Stirs rage, but will be fixed anyway, so no point.He only posts it to the web: No rage, it will be fixed, we're all happy.See why it should remain contained, until the the final PHB is finished and set in stone? That's because we're not dealing with facts or a finished product, we're dealing with a draft.Unfinished things and playtest material SHOULD be criticised, it's the whole point of'em to avoid criticism at the finished product.Considering that good feedback also involves praise about positives... this will probably keep it in. Furthermore, that's the reason why no specific crunch should be revealed. Not that all three comments on the game are about the "general feel", not about specifics. I don't think they'll rewrite the whole game, hence the general feel should remain similar.Cheers, LT.</blockquote>