Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6177917" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Agreed.&nbsp; I floated this idea a while back, but more and more I'm starting to believe it.&nbsp; I don't think Mearls was pouring his heart out during that podcast.&nbsp; I think he was intentionally taking a contrary position to Rodney's, so they could thrash out the issues.&nbsp; And far from being an edition warrior, Mearls strikes me as a guy who just doesn't care about editions.&nbsp; Other than 5e, of course.&nbsp; Looking at his Twitter account, people will throw edition war bait at him and he plays dumb.&nbsp; In the GenCon seminar, one guy, supposedly speaking for &quot;old school players&quot; continually gave Mearls a hard time because the fighter had Second Wind, but Mearls continued to note that a lot of players liked the idea, and that it would be easy for people who didn't like it to just not have it in their game.Again, agreed.&nbsp; The new thing is apparently to say that Mearls &quot;flip-flopped&quot; on Warlords.&nbsp; And it's like, we're in the middle of the design process.&nbsp; Someone asked him about warlords.&nbsp; He said, &quot;Right now, they're like X.&quot;&nbsp; There was a lot of discussion had.&nbsp; They put out a tentative version in a playtest.&nbsp; They got feedback on it.&nbsp; They changed the design in response to feedback.&nbsp; That's the system working as intended!When challenged on the stridentness of their rhetoric, 5e's harshest critics have always replied, &quot;It's a playtest.&nbsp; We're supposed to tell them when we're not happy.&quot;&nbsp; But when the design team responds to that criticism, it becomes &quot;WTF?&nbsp; They flip-flopped!&quot;&nbsp; Or, &quot;Mearls changed his mind,&quot; as if Mearls is just making decisions from on-high, and the design team is not trying out different directions, debating and arguing said directions, and using internal and public playtest feedback to inform their directions.&nbsp; In the infamous &quot;shouting hands back on&quot; podcast, Rodney Thompson explicitly said, &quot;I think fans of the 4e Warlord should be able to play that in Next.&quot;&nbsp; How come nobody (aside from <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334583-Will-there-be-such-a-game-as-D-amp-D-Next/page35&amp;p=6099992&amp;viewfull=1#post6099992" target="_blank">me</a>) brought that up as an indication of possible design direction?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6177917, member: 6680772"] Agreed. I floated this idea a while back, but more and more I'm starting to believe it. I don't think Mearls was pouring his heart out during that podcast. I think he was intentionally taking a contrary position to Rodney's, so they could thrash out the issues. And far from being an edition warrior, Mearls strikes me as a guy who just doesn't care about editions. Other than 5e, of course. Looking at his Twitter account, people will throw edition war bait at him and he plays dumb. In the GenCon seminar, one guy, supposedly speaking for "old school players" continually gave Mearls a hard time because the fighter had Second Wind, but Mearls continued to note that a lot of players liked the idea, and that it would be easy for people who didn't like it to just not have it in their game. Again, agreed. The new thing is apparently to say that Mearls "flip-flopped" on Warlords. And it's like, we're in the middle of the design process. Someone asked him about warlords. He said, "Right now, they're like X." There was a lot of discussion had. They put out a tentative version in a playtest. They got feedback on it. They changed the design in response to feedback. That's the system working as intended! When challenged on the stridentness of their rhetoric, 5e's harshest critics have always replied, "It's a playtest. We're supposed to tell them when we're not happy." But when the design team responds to that criticism, it becomes "WTF? They flip-flopped!" Or, "Mearls changed his mind," as if Mearls is just making decisions from on-high, and the design team is not trying out different directions, debating and arguing said directions, and using internal and public playtest feedback to inform their directions. In the infamous "shouting hands back on" podcast, Rodney Thompson explicitly said, "I think fans of the 4e Warlord should be able to play that in Next." How come nobody (aside from [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334583-Will-there-be-such-a-game-as-D-amp-D-Next/page35&p=6099992&viewfull=1#post6099992"]me[/URL]) brought that up as an indication of possible design direction? [/QUOTE]

Verification