Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[shadowguidex]

Just to reiterate what someone else had already said:

There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.

Disliking what is known is perfectly valid, yet I find entirely too much criticism of 4E is not in this category, but in the disliking what you don't know category.

Makes as much sense as this:

"I saw the Batman trailer and I think the new Joker looks cool, can't wait to see the havoc he causes"

vs.

"I saw the trailer and I think the plot sucks and the acting is terrible...Jack Nicholson is the only Joker I ever want to watch"

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm the GM in a fake 4E combat, and my player wants to throw sand in the orc's face (I have never seen the rulebooks, this is based off what I know of 4E):

Player1: I want to throw sand in the orc's face to blind him!!

Me(DM): Cool. That will take a standard action to grab some dirt and throw it. Roll Dex vs. his Reflex...no wait, Fortitude, he is just going to tough it out.

Player1: I rolled a 12, plus my Dex thats 14.

Me(DM): The sand gets in his eyes and impairs his sight but doesn't blind him. The orc grants combat advantage till the end of your next round.


WOW..thjat was tough..... How does this adjudication example not feel like D&D... Also, how was this handled in 3E....not nearly as well.

That's almost exactly how I would have handled it and in the 4e system I can see pretty much everything going something along these lines. I am sure I like it and that my players will probably like it too, because it is a sort of blanket rule for doing these kind of things and imo really opens up way more options for the players and the DM both.
The only thing you have to look out for is that certain actions don't become too strong and get used too often, but should that happen you can just change the rules aftera few sessions for game balance sake...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

snipped for brevity

You know, apart from this thread not really being the correct place to discuss this, I have the impression we'll simply have to agree to disagree and let it go that way. I simply don't share your assumptions and conceptions, or problems in having to look up a table for size modifiers, and I feel we won't gain on either side by trying to pound that nail to death. You got your game that allows you to rule stuff on the fly, and I got mine, we can both be happy campers in the first place.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.

Agreed.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Probably with an attack roll and a saving throw, same as it likely was since 1st edition, and it would result in either the orc being blinded, OR more reasonable the orc loses his action that round as he recovers. In 4e, it would probably involve a save each round until the orc recovered, like any other condition.

The problem with this is that PCs just didn't do individual actions in 1st edition. You can say, "I throw sand in the orc's eyes," and it should be absorbed by the 1 minute combat round and adjudicated by the attack roll that represents that round.

 

[Imaro]

Just to reiterate what someone else had already said:

There us a huge difference between enjoying what is known about 4E, vs. disliking what is unknown about 4E.

Disliking what is known is perfectly valid, yet I find entirely too much criticism of 4E is not in this category, but in the disliking what you don't know category.

Makes as much sense as this:

"I saw the Batman trailer and I think the new Joker looks cool, can't wait to see the havoc he causes"

vs.

"I saw the trailer and I think the plot sucks and the acting is terrible...Jack Nicholson is the only Joker I ever want to watch"

Personally I thik it's more akin to...

"I saw the Batman trailer and I think the new joker looks cool, can't wait to see the havoc he causes."

vs.

"I saw the trailer and it didn't really grab me. The scenes I watched with the joker didn't seem to capture the dark humor Jack Nicholson did in the old movie. I haven't paid $9 yet to see the whole movie, but I'm not liking the new Joker so far."

NOTE: These are not my true feelings about the movie in anyway

Now one could say, well you haven't seen the whole game yet...but that implies that I am willing to gamble over $100 to see if I like what hasn't been previewed. Instead I view it as a company should be previewing a game to appeal to the widest fanbase as possible. If they have all this cool stuff and believe it will draw people in, why not showcase it. Instead it seems that I am expected to purchase on blind faith what might, hopefully be in the game. If anything this seems like a failure on the part of WotC to showcase the features of their product.

I found nothing wrong with the blog since, in the end, it is an oppinion based on a person's experiences with the game (exactly what the point of a playtest is). JD goes through great lengths to stress this.

 

[mmadsen]

If you're going to go this route of "no rules = makes game more fun" then why not throw all the rules out and just sit around a table doing some improv?

Because the ideal number of rules is neither zero nor infinite -- just as the ideal number of laws is neither zero nor infinite. In each case, we want the arbiter -- DM or judge -- to have strong guidelines for making decisions, but enough freedom to make the correct decision in the present context.

 

[arscott]

I think they should have allowed JD to become a playtester. An NDA would work on him as well as anyone. He shouldn't have been given a spot automatically as a former employee, but it would have been wise to make him a playtester due to his influence in the community. But, hey, what's done is done.

I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).

Why? Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.

I've seen screenwriters and playwrights talk about test audience feedback. Invariably, some of the least useful comments come from other writers. They say things like "The villian's motivations are weak" or "The drowning scene would be more effective if it took place before the gunfight." But what they're really looking for is "I liked the part with all the explosions" or "It wasn't funny enough".

They've already got a bunch of people to offer insightful criticism elsewhere it the process. The point of the test screening is to see how the Hoi Polloi feel, and the writers aren't really giving that.

You give a game designer a playtest, and they're going to try to tinker with it--to redesign it. Heck, a lot of playtesters who aren't designers do just that. And that's just not the sort of feedback that an open playtest is designed to collect.

 

[malraux]

I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).

Why? Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.

There's that, plus the fact that many of the 3e designers are going to be wed to the idea of the 3e ways of doing things. I'm not trying to imply that the the 3e designers would consciously attempt to sabotage the new edition during play testing, but that they are going to feel extra defensive of their own creations and resist change when someone else comes in and tells them it was "wrong".

 

[AZRogue]

I have a feeling that cutting the 3e designers out of the playtest was a good move from a design standpoint (though, obviously, not that great from a PR standpoint).

Why? Because designers probably make terrible playtesters in general.

I've seen screenwriters and playwrights talk about test audience feedback. Invariably, some of the least useful comments come from other writers. They say things like "The villian's motivations are weak" or "The drowning scene would be more effective if it took place before the gunfight." But what they're really looking for is "I liked the part with all the explosions" or "It wasn't funny enough".

They've already got a bunch of people to offer insightful criticism elsewhere it the process. The point of the test screening is to see how the Hoi Polloi feel, and the writers aren't really giving that.

You give a game designer a playtest, and they're going to try to tinker with it--to redesign it. Heck, a lot of playtesters who aren't designers do just that. And that's just not the sort of feedback that an open playtest is designed to collect.

That may be true, but I think that they are just as likely to give some pretty detailed criticism that the game's designers may overlook themselves. We know already for a fact that the designers overlooked a few things that were straightened out during playtesting. Having another designer giving his input may have helped nail down other important points that they could have overlooked.

And the PR factor can't be ignored, either. If the game is good then having some of the older WotC designers on your side when it comes time to allow playtesters to give their feedback would be great. As it stands now, it LOOKS like a snub, which is just cheap and petty. I'm not saying it is a snub, but it sure can be interpreted that way.