Nifft
Penguin Herder
Careful now, you're edging into probable assertion territory!hexgrid said:And I'm going to take an even wilder stab and say that Mike Mearls has read, and does in fact understand, 3e rules.
Cheers, -- N
Careful now, you're edging into probable assertion territory!hexgrid said:And I'm going to take an even wilder stab and say that Mike Mearls has read, and does in fact understand, 3e rules.
When they can't even get *that* right as the OP pointed out, I think it casts doubts on everything thereafter.wedgeski said:These guys aren't playtesting their ability to roleplay, they're playtesting the *rules*.
Beginning of the End said:Maybe for illiterates.
The rest of us read the DMG, in which the second paragraph in the section on "Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels" talked about parties with more than four members in them. We also noticed the large and conspicuous "Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty", which clearly laid out the fact that a 1st level party would be facing more than just EL 1 challenges.
Devyn said:Now this is just my opinion, but I believe the point that the "jerks" were making is that if WotC developers are going to use examples of how badly the 3E rules work in order to promote the "improvements" that they are making with 4E, that they might want to make certain to use the actual rules.
I realize that 3E bashing appears to be in vogue right now among many 4E supporters, but for some D&D players who actually like 3E, that attitude is getting rather stale.
Just an opinion.
Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.Rechan said:If they aren't going to "Bash" 3E, then how do you propose they explain why they're changing something?
So it's not "Bashing", just having flawed math?Spatula said:The point is, the article's premise is based around factual errors.
When you say "Tell the truth", do you mean that Mearls is lieing, or just mistaken? You yourself says it doesn't work "the author seems to think it does"?Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.
I don't agree. I think the factual errors are not important enough to invalidate the point he's trying to make. It doesn't really matter if a goblin has CR 1/3 or 1/4.Spatula said:The point is, the article's premise is based around factual errors.
The only thing you could accuse him of is the lie of omission.Spatula said:Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.
Rechan said:Suggesting that there are flaws in the system = Bashing 3e?
Jhaelen said:Errors like this are absolutely typical for game designers because they confuse earlier (beta)versions of game rules with the ones that actually made it in the books. That's also the reason why we so often see wrong explanations in columns like 'sage advice'.
Haffrung Helleyes said:I think we can all agree that 3E is in far better shape as a system than 2E was a decade ago. Yet, the 3E->4E changes being proposed seem just as radical as 2E->3E was.
Jhaelen said:The only thing you could accuse him of is the lie of omission.
freyar said:I think this what bugs me the most. I think Mike Mearls's work has been great, for the most part, at least what I've seen. And he seems to think about things a lot. But suggesting that the only appropriate encounters for a first level party are EL 1 is just, well, wrong, and it's right there in the DMG. And published adventures, etc. I imagine that he and others at WotC have been told to "make the most of 3e's flaws" or so, but it's a bit irritating that they've taken to misrepresenting the 3e rules to do it. It doesn't really help to educate the gaming public...
I'm certain that those of us here who do creative work can look back at something you did eight years ago and say "Wow, that made sense at the time, on paper, but really it just doesn't work the way I thought it would" or "Wow, that could've been so much better."Taking a look at the credits page for my 3.0 PHB, Richard Baker is listed as Additional Design, David Noonan is one of three names under Editorial Assistance. Bill Slavicsek is Director of RPG R&D. At the bottom, under Other WotC RPG R&D Contributors, we see names like Andy Collins, Bruce Cordell, , Rob Heinsoo, and James Wyatt.
Vigilance said:Or possibly he just had a point to make and picked an example that helped him make it?
Did he really need to list every possible permutation of feasible EL 1 encounters to make his point that the CR system could use a touch-up?
Do folks really need to go over his every word like the Zapruder film and see if its possible to twist it into something bad?
Vigilance said:Or possibly he just had a point to make and picked an example that helped him make it?
billd91 said:But he didn't. I don't mind criticism of the previous rule set. It makes sense in the context of making a new edition. But this is beyond criticism. It's hyperbolic. What I want is a frank discussion of the previous rules and where they went wrong or were clunky to use, not a lot of hyperbole focused on a narrow element of them that an experienced DM can poke through like wet tissue paper. I want a rigorous intellectual argument put forth to convince me of the merits of switching away from the old edition, not a sloppy one.
Vigilance said:Huh... so are people really reduced to saying Mike Mearls doesn't know how to run D&D now?
That he doesn't respect the designers of 3e? Including Monte Cook? A guy he used to work for?
C'mon guys, stop being jerks.