Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog - Wizards Like to Roll Dice Too
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5818125" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>That's just it. To me there are two sources of problem in 3.X. One minor, one major. The minor one is bloat caused by too many sources and weird interactions. Pun-Pun for example is an aberration. The major problem is extremely shoddy design. Didn't they playtest the monk against the druid? Didn't they realise that the shapechange rules were broken? Didn't they realise that, contrary to all previous editions, the fighter has almost no ability to resist spells? Couldn't they tell what PCs easily crafting scrolls and wands would do? Didn't they realise that most of the seeming imbalances (like the treasure table and the differing XPs) were there for a reason? Didn't they see a problem with making powerful spells risk free? All these are examples of seriously shoddy design.</p><p> </p><p>The problems with 4e on the other hand aren't about the system failing to do what it set out to with the exception of monster damage and solos. They are about the system not having set out to do the right things for a certain style of game. That said, I'd be worried if Slavicek was in charge of <em>writing</em> the PHB of a new edition.</p><p> </p><p>To use a board game analogy, I don't often play Knizia games and don't enjoy them much, but I respect the man as a game designer. He just doesn't design games I like to play.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It's hardly blind dislike to look at his record and be able to say "This is objectively bad design for many reasons."</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So your defence of him is "cock-up rather than conspiracy"? That there were gaping flaws in the game design that the team knew about and left in so the smart could enjoy that they'd avoided a trap and the foolish could fall into? </p><p> </p><p>And I am good at system mastery and enjoy it. <em>Precisely</em> because I'm good at it means I don't enjoy the 3e version. <em>System Mastery does not need rewarding.</em> In game it comes with its own reward. And it's far more satisfying when it's a challenge. Failure all around.</p><p> </p><p>That said, I am prepared to accept that it wasn't deliberate. (url=http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142]Just a foul-up. And one he compounds by not getting Timmy at all - that's how a pure Spike sees Timmy[/url]).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>And your paraphrase misses the critical parts. It was that he quite blatantly used 4e terminology and something that is being done by 4e in the manner he describes, and implying it was a new thing. The combination of the 'I like to call' - implying that it wasn't a standard term, but terminology he'd made up and a rare concept, and the quotes round the words "passive perception"</p><p> </p><p>If by his own choice of words he hadn't done this there wouldn't have been the outcry. If he'd simply cut the words "what I like to call" and the quotes round the passive perception, not implying that this was a novelty, I don't think anyone would have objected. It wasn't the fact that he didn't say it already existed. It's that he was presenting it as if it was something brand spanking new that he only did as an innovative house rule.</p><p> </p><p>Monte Cook wrote:</p><p><em>That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?" You know: when the PCs aren't actually looking for something, but it stands to reason that some one or more of them might just have a chance of noticing the hidden thing. </em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5818125, member: 87792"] That's just it. To me there are two sources of problem in 3.X. One minor, one major. The minor one is bloat caused by too many sources and weird interactions. Pun-Pun for example is an aberration. The major problem is extremely shoddy design. Didn't they playtest the monk against the druid? Didn't they realise that the shapechange rules were broken? Didn't they realise that, contrary to all previous editions, the fighter has almost no ability to resist spells? Couldn't they tell what PCs easily crafting scrolls and wands would do? Didn't they realise that most of the seeming imbalances (like the treasure table and the differing XPs) were there for a reason? Didn't they see a problem with making powerful spells risk free? All these are examples of seriously shoddy design. The problems with 4e on the other hand aren't about the system failing to do what it set out to with the exception of monster damage and solos. They are about the system not having set out to do the right things for a certain style of game. That said, I'd be worried if Slavicek was in charge of [I]writing[/I] the PHB of a new edition. To use a board game analogy, I don't often play Knizia games and don't enjoy them much, but I respect the man as a game designer. He just doesn't design games I like to play. It's hardly blind dislike to look at his record and be able to say "This is objectively bad design for many reasons." So your defence of him is "cock-up rather than conspiracy"? That there were gaping flaws in the game design that the team knew about and left in so the smart could enjoy that they'd avoided a trap and the foolish could fall into? And I am good at system mastery and enjoy it. [I]Precisely[/I] because I'm good at it means I don't enjoy the 3e version. [I]System Mastery does not need rewarding.[/I] In game it comes with its own reward. And it's far more satisfying when it's a challenge. Failure all around. That said, I am prepared to accept that it wasn't deliberate. (url=http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142]Just a foul-up. And one he compounds by not getting Timmy at all - that's how a pure Spike sees Timmy[/url]). And your paraphrase misses the critical parts. It was that he quite blatantly used 4e terminology and something that is being done by 4e in the manner he describes, and implying it was a new thing. The combination of the 'I like to call' - implying that it wasn't a standard term, but terminology he'd made up and a rare concept, and the quotes round the words "passive perception" If by his own choice of words he hadn't done this there wouldn't have been the outcry. If he'd simply cut the words "what I like to call" and the quotes round the passive perception, not implying that this was a novelty, I don't think anyone would have objected. It wasn't the fact that he didn't say it already existed. It's that he was presenting it as if it was something brand spanking new that he only did as an innovative house rule. Monte Cook wrote: [I]That's the straightforward, active perception issue, but what about what I like to call "passive perception?" You know: when the PCs aren't actually looking for something, but it stands to reason that some one or more of them might just have a chance of noticing the hidden thing. [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog - Wizards Like to Roll Dice Too
Top