Dragon 334, Malhavoc's Surprise = Ptolus

[romp]

No one with the Dragon issue willing to post more details?

I think my copy will arrive after I leave Atlanta for about a month, so it will be a while before I can read it....

My Dragon just came in the mail today... Ptolus has about a half page write up in the previews section, Nice preview of the cover, decent art and logo, 640 pages, full color, just focusing on the city (not the world around it), with detailed history, groups vying for power, etc. included are a double sided map sheet, two dozen handouts, and three bound in cloth bookmarks, The rest of the article is a lot of fluff repeating what has already been said here (long running campaign, lots of top people in the biz participate, early testbed for 3ed, that kind of stuff)

This might actually be a great product, since the whole city is a mash-up like the cantina bar scene, you have everything in one place, hmmmm I am actually liking this one, despite the obviously high price point, especially how it "has been shaped around the rules, rather than forcing the rules to bend to fit the setting."

 

[romp]

I must be the only one, but ... I'm glad it's not Planescape.

You are not the only one, sigh, was Beyond Countless Doorways that bad?

 

[d20Dwarf]

I can't think of any writer or designer that would purposefully not put his all into a project specifically so that it can be revised later.

Did the 3e design team believe that they had produced a 100% errata-free One Game that would be the end-all-be-all of the D&D/RPG experience?

 

[BryonD]

Did the 3e design team believe that they had produced a 100% errata-free One Game that would be the end-all-be-all of the D&D/RPG experience?

Do you believe that is a fair question?

I'm a big fan of what happened with 3.5.
But the results of 3.5 are still the credit of the 3E team.
I know there are various conspiracy theories and pet peeves about this change or that, but in the end 3.5 is just 3E plus thousands of hours of real play play-testing. Not everyone has to like every change for that to be ultimately a true statement.

But even with my support of 3.5, it only seems completely reasonable that someone wouldn't be thrilled to know that their product was planned to be re-tooled before it was tooled. (Even if it is a reasonable plan from both a business and game evolution POV)

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You are not the only one, sigh, was Beyond Countless Doorways that bad?

No, it was actually pretty cool. Maybe those who disliked it were expecting Planescape. I was hoping for anything but Planescape, and so was very pleased with "Doorways."

 

[d20Dwarf]

Do you believe that is a fair question?

I'm a big fan of what happened with 3.5.
But the results of 3.5 are still the credit of the 3E team.
I know there are various conspiracy theories and pet peeves about this change or that, but in the end 3.5 is just 3E plus thousands of hours of real play play-testing. Not everyone has to like every change for that to be ultimately a true statement.

But even with my support of 3.5, it only seems completely reasonable that someone wouldn't be thrilled to know that their product was planned to be re-tooled before it was tooled. (Even if it is a reasonable plan from both a business and game evolution POV)

A lot of people would be thrilled to work on a game with that kind of support structure, actually. A lot of people that aren't 100% perfect in every way, that is. I've not had the pleasure of working on a game with the kind of development time and resources devoted to it that Monte has...he's one of a handful in the history of the industry...and I'd truly like to know if he thinks that given years of development if he thinks that he can put out a perfect game, because that must be a nice feeling.

Yes, it's a fair question.

 

[BryonD]

A lot of people would be thrilled to work on a game with that kind of support structure, actually. A lot of people that aren't 100% perfect in every way, that is. I've not had the pleasure of working on a game with the kind of development time and resources devoted to it that Monte has...he's one of a handful in the history of the industry...and I'd truly like to know if he thinks that given years of development if he thinks that he can put out a perfect game, because that must be a nice feeling.

Sure, I agree. And I'd wager that Monte would as well.
But none of that comes close to bridging the logic gap between not being thrilled to know that a re-work is planned before the results of the first working are available to even pass judgement on and claiming anything remotely close to perfection.

Yes, it's a fair question.

Well, I'd say that is an assessment that can only be reached from a safely distant perspective.
(And yes, I know you do design)

 

[d20Dwarf]

Sure, I agree. And I'd wager that Monte would as well.
But none of that comes close to bridging the logic gap between not being thrilled to know that a re-work is planned before the results of the first working are available to even pass judgement on and claiming anything remotely close to perfection.

Well, what I"m saying is that unless you know you are turning out the perfect game, then how could you be offended at the idea that you'd be able to go back and fix your mistakes and make an even better game? That's what I mean. When I heard Midnight was going to a fully revised 2nd edition, I wasn't upset or offended, I was thrilled! I *had* to get back and work on it so I could fix what needed fixing, and the game is better for the changes and additions that were made after a couple of years of feedback and play. I'm happy there's now a better game on the market.

I wouldn't have asked had I not perceived that Monte thought D&D was as good as it could be and wouldn't need any updating. And then about AU, he stated that he's perfectly happy with it and didn't feel the need to make many content changes. So his contention that he was offended by the plan to update, followed by his saying that AU needed very little in the way of content updating, made me think that he is saying he's capable of making the perfect game the first time around. I'm only asking if that's the correct assessment, I'm not assailing him, I'm as perplexed by his statement as he is the idea that someone could put 100% into something and not have it turn out perfect.

If it's possible to make the perfect game on the first try every time, then obviously I need to raise my bar a little higher. (Not that anyone I work for will ever give me that much development time .)

 

[Banshee16]

Did the 3e design team believe that they had produced a 100% errata-free One Game that would be the end-all-be-all of the D&D/RPG experience?

I'm sure that there were things that were "almost there" but not quite the way they wanted them. But at some point, you've got to have "feature lock" or you'll be in development forever.

As a consumer, I'd really have preferred that WotC not have tinkered with things, because now we have the abomination that is 3.5, rather than 3.0.

Banshee

 

[Stone Dog]

I'm ambivalent on the Ptolus thing. No opinion really till I've seen it.

Because I am just tired enough that I can't let something go...

Ambivalent- 1 : having simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action

So, conflicting opinions, not none. Sorry about that. Insomnia puts weird obsessions into my head sometimes. Please, continue.