ATTACK! MCDM's new rpg and removing the to-hit roll

[overgeeked]

I don’t think that is the case that is being made. The case is that Matt Colville is free to explore and decide what works best for his vision of the game while Jeremy Crawford has both hands tied behind his back by the playtest, and shows no cohesive vision

Well, it's MCDM...Matt's company...and he's one of the designers involved, yes, but it looks a lot like James Introcaso is the lead designer for the game. Matt's also been pretty clear that it's not "his vision for his game" it's a group effort.

WotC has rampant internal politics and we have no idea how bound they are or are not to the playtest feedback. All we know is what they report. We don't have access to the raw data. So they could just as easily report whatever numbers they want and design the game however they like and we'd be none the wiser. Of course, they could be 100% honest about it all. We have no way of knowing.

 

[darjr]

Well, it's MCDM...Matt's company...and he's one of the designers involved, yes, but it looks a lot like James Introcaso is the lead designer for the game. Matt's also been pretty clear that it's not "his vision for his game" it's a group effort.

WotC has rampant internal politics and we have no idea how bound they are or are not to the playtest feedback. All we know is what they report. We don't have access to the raw data. So they could just as easily report whatever numbers they want and design the game however they like and we'd be none the wiser. Of course, they could be 100% honest about it all. We have no way of knowing.

I'm not sure we have no way of knowing. I mean we can see public response.

This video goes into depth and even makes some predictions based upon public response. So we'll see? Maybe? Yes it has a clickbaity title, I wish it didn't, but I think he's trying to be well reasoned.

 

[bedir than]

I don’t think that is the case that is being made. The case is that Matt Colville is free to explore and decide what works best for his vision of the game while Jeremy Crawford has both hands tied behind his back by the playtest, and shows no cohesive vision

That you don't like the vision isn't evidence that there's no vision. They've spent thousands of words and hours of video explaining their vision.
To claim that they don't have a vision is to ignore mountains of evidence in order to sling mud.

why do you think that sales equals good design? If that were the case the field would be much more level

I don't necessarily think that sales are good design. But I also don't think the people who put out Strongholds and Followers are good designers - it had vision with horrible implementation that barely uses 5e paradigms.

I do think that if the only good designers are the people at MCDM and everyone else is a bunch of tired corporate types without vision that says something about commenters's opinions about things that have nothing to do with design.

 

[Morrus]

why do you think that sales equals good design? If that were the case the field would be much more level

Well that’s the McDonalds conversation. It’s the most popular food in the world. Is it the best food in the world?

What does quality even mean anyway divorced from personal taste? Is David Bowie better than Taylor Swift better than the Sex Pistols better than One Direction?

Anybody talking about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ design better bring a solid paper. Otherwise, they’re just talking about what they like. Which is fine, but let’s be honest about it.

 

[Morrus]

Well, it's MCDM...Matt's company...and he's one of the designers involved, yes, but it looks a lot like James Introcaso is the lead designer for the game. Matt's also been pretty clear that it's not "his vision for his game" it's a group effort.

WotC has rampant internal politics and we have no idea how bound they are or are not to the playtest feedback. All we know is what they report. We don't have access to the raw data. So they could just as easily report whatever numbers they want and design the game however they like and we'd be none the wiser. Of course, they could be 100% honest about it all. We have no way of knowing.

Sure. You can just declare WotC is outright lying but that pretty much ends the conversation. What’s the point?

 

[Nikosandros]

Sure. You can just declare WotC is outright lying but that pretty much ends the conversation. What’s the point?

I also don't understand why would WotC go to the trouble of making all this polls if they just ignore them.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I also don't understand why would WotC go to the trouble of making all this polls if they just ignore them.

They do not ignore them. Those polls are not about game design but about market acceptability. MCDM even EN Publishing have freedom that WoTC does not have. Smaller publisher can go all in on design as long as they know (via kick starter or other means) that the published product will turn a modest profit. They will be judged a success, companies like Kobold Press have a trickier aim, they want something close enough to vanillia D&D that they can market their adventure and monster books to that audience as well as the audience of their own game.

WoTC have to thread the needle, to create enough new design space that they can continue to sell mechanical addons to the game without creating a barrier to entry to the game, without creating mechanical ghettoes in the game, and without loosing market share or too many of the existing player base.
Their biggest design constraints are marketing and commercial constraints.

 

[Nikosandros]

They do not ignore them.

I never posited that they ignored them.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I never posited that they ignored them.

What were you positing then?

 

[Nikosandros]

What were you positing then?

The opposite. That it would absurd for them to ignore the polls.