Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OB1" data-source="post: 6994501" data-attributes="member: 6796241">I did mean the former, and you would be right to criticize my post for being vague as my intent was to be clear <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So I actually agree with most of what you are saying here, which leads me to believe that I did a poor job in communicating what I meant about criticism and author intent so I'll try again.  Most importantly, please don't take anything I'm saying here as an argument to not make changes at your table.  I absolutely believe that tables should make any and all changes that they want to ensure that they are meeting the goals of play.The reason that Intent is central to useful criticism, is that it allows us to look beyond "like" or "dislike" of something, an opinion, and instead focus on the quality of the author's craft.  By doing so, we gain understanding on why certain techniques do or do not work to accomplish the intended result and other authors can then learn from those techniques to better craft their works.  In the case of  Gygax's intent, listed above, understanding how he accomplished his intent allows other RPG makers who desire a different outcome to learn from what he did and change it to meet their vision.  If instead, you simply say that Gygax "made a mistake" or "didn't know what he was doing" or "was a big fat idiot" you can miss valuable insights into game design that may better inform your decisions. In the case of the Ranger, we see a case of competing intents by WotC, between the type of experience they are trying to create and the desire to have a popular product that people like and want to buy.  While the Ranger succeeded at meeting the design goals, it failed at providing a satisfying experience for a majority (or at least a loud minority) of players.  Impressively, it appears that WotC was able to create a more acceptable Ranger without succumbing to power creep, which most of the home brewed solutions to the Ranger did.Which brings me back to the point of this thread.  To me, these boards are a place to come to be inspired by other ideas or to ask for specific advice about a specific problem I'm having in my game.  I know, for example, that I'll be coming here for advice when my players are getting close to their Tier III BBEG, a Litch who rides a Dracolitch and is trying to begin a time of endless darkness upon the world, to try and make this mission one that the players will be talking about for years.  I want to tap into the vast wealth of experience and knowledge on these boards to make it more likely that my intent will be realized.But what I see from the Capn' is a desire to get WotC to change the game because it doesn't fit his personal taste.  While this is fine in and of itself, the danger is that he is using poorly designed criticism to show why WotC needs to change things, and that doesn't help anyone.  Purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is "broken" in an extreme edge case doesn't help people to better understand the game and how to run in to maximize the enjoyment at their table.  Bad arguments, and specifically ones made on the back of a complaints instead of a criticism, can lead to bad decisions in future designs.  It can also lead to the rejection of good advice because your real concern isn't fixing your game, but trying to "fix" D&D.  So I will continue to read and enjoy this thread on making melee more competitive, because there are several posters who have gotten me to think more deeply about encounter design and how to challenge my players in an enjoyable way, to better reach the goal of play that WotC so elegantly put at the start of the PHB, to create an exciting story about bold adventurers facing deadly perils.</blockquote>

Verification