Ahnehnois
First Post
this is very true.any rpg worth playing can be "broken" by anyone who tries hard enough.
this is very true.any rpg worth playing can be "broken" by anyone who tries hard enough.
How easy is it sans computer? I don't want to pay good money for a book only to have it be full of taped up pages of errata within a couple months and on top of that, have it called a good thing.
Design a solid yet flexible ruleset. Playtest well, THEN print it. Do not release your active beta as the finished game. Pnp rpgs are not software. People don't want to spend good money on beautifully crafted books that don't even last a year before being outdated.
How easy is it sans computer?
I don't want to pay good money for a book only to have it be full of taped up pages of errata within a couple months and on top of that, have it called a good thing.
Design a solid yet flexible ruleset. Playtest well, THEN print it. Do not release your active beta as the finished game.
Pnp rpgs are not software.
People don't want to spend good money on beautifully crafted books that don't even last a year before being outdated.
Does this mean a zero tolerance policy for errata? Of course not. Books are assembled by people and sometimes mistakes are made. With a decent editor, (which a company of this size had better be able to afford or just stop now) the amount of errata will be small and easily corrected on a second print run.
I sincerely hope WOTC has learned its lesson about trying to make the game "hack proof" and chasing every little loophole inspired exploit like a dog chasing its tail. Here is a bit of secret lore that game designers should know by now:
ANY RPG WORTH PLAYING CAN BE "BROKEN" BY ANYONE WHO TRIES HARD ENOUGH.
Design your game knowing that will help you hold on to your sanity. Endless futzing around for a balance that doesn't exist with patch after patch is for computer games.
You kind of need to there because there is no human being in the equation to exercise judgement. Computer game rules have no spirit. Games intended to be run by human beings DO.
You know, I think you're right.You know why computer games get patched? Because they can be.
You know, I think you're right.
I'm a fan of errata. I almost always ignore it if it isn't crucial, but I like it anyways. When I played 1e there was about 200 things that were wrong or unbalanced or didn't make sense, and we did a lot of guessing. I'm happier knowing what the correct changes should be. I may ignore that advice - heck, I probably will - but I like having the errata available for me to check at my leisure.
As a player? Use the Character Builder, and never worry about it, or just do a quick once-over of the existing errata for the powers/feats you've chosen, if any exists.
Playtesting does not catch everything. It's ridiculous to think that a limited playtest group will find all the problems that a global release will.
I think people will spend good money on the ability to play a good game. If people are buying books because they're beautifully-crafted, then they'll buy beautifully-crafted books. If people want a good game, they will get it in whatever way they feel best delivers that experience, whether it be in physical book, ebook, online subscription, or software format.
This isn't about just errata. This is about the ability to update your games. This is about us as a community graduating from acceptance (and, in some cases, encouragement) of static game design to acceptance of game design that evolves as the system matures.
That is not a justification for throwing the idea of balance out the window. It isn't even close. It shouldn't even be said.
This is a lame argument. You're basically saying that we should leave games as-is because the consumer can make up for any inadequacy or failure of earlier products to adapt to later changes to the design approach.
This is a really, really unreasonable opinion.
To a great extent yes; with an implicit assumption that after a year or more of open playtests they'll use the feedback to improve the game and in the end get it right, or very close.Lanefan essentially demanded that the core rulebook be used as-is because it's official.
I've seen how Magic has gone - errata everywhere - and would really rather not see the same thing with D&D.Errata (and rule updates, for that matter) is a net good. It improves the game. Use it, or don't. But stop griping about it. Incorporating errata is not the nightmare that a lot of people are trying to make it out to be.
Call me naive, but I really truly hope 5e will be simple enough that a Character Builder will be completely redundant (and there fore not exist), largely because "building" a character (in the 3e-4e sense) just isn't part of the game for me.As a player? Use the Character Builder, and never worry about it, or just do a quick once-over of the existing errata for the powers/feats you've chosen, if any exists.
Depends what scale the open playtest takes, I suppose. I'd like to think it'll be big enough to catch pretty much anything, and I give them full marks for testing on the scale it looks like they'll be doing.Playtesting does not catch everything. It's ridiculous to think that a limited playtest group will find all the problems that a global release will.
Hear hear to this.ExploderWizard said:This is where we are different. With regard to roleplaying games I am not a consumer. I am, and have ever been, a hobbyist. Consumers don't do anything but accept spoon fed product. The industry LOVES consumers.
I've said it before and it isn't going to change: Machete don't rent tabletop rpgs.
Neither will the death of a thousand patches fix everything. The problem is oneof human beings interacting with the material. Until you can remove the human element from things your design work is never done.
..or come to realize that what is best in gaming comes from within themselves and the other players.
Sounds more like acceptance of the edition treadmill for the sole purpose of supporting an industry.
Well then its a good thing I never said that.
Balance must come largely from people so long as as people are involved with the game. That won't change no matter how many fixes are applied to a ruleset.
This is where we are different. With regard to roleplaying games I am not a consumer. I am, and have ever been, a hobbyist. Consumers don't do anything but accept spoon fed product. The industry LOVES consumers.
Well I guess it's just as well you don't sit at my table.
I haven't chased errata yet and I ain't planning on doing it later. If it's really broken I'm sure the guys I play with can figure it out and fix it our selves.
To a great extent yes; with an implicit assumption that after a year or more of open playtests they'll use the feedback to improve the game and in the end get it right, or very close.
I've seen how Magic has gone - errata everywhere - and would really rather not see the same thing with D&D.
The number of D&D DMs who go on discussion forums to talk about the game is relatively small. The number of players who do the same is tiny.That said, if someone finds some broken combo (and as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that they will) there's nothing at all wrong with an official "heads up" so DMs can know what they're dealing with and react each in their own preferred way. But for me that's what discussions forums like this are for.![]()
Call me naive, but I really truly hope 5e will be simple enough that a Character Builder will be completely redundant (and there fore not exist), largely because "building" a character (in the 3e-4e sense) just isn't part of the game for me.
We'll see. Either way, there will still be errata and updates.Depends what scale the open playtest takes, I suppose. I'd like to think it'll be big enough to catch pretty much anything, and I give them full marks for testing on the scale it looks like they'll be doing.
This isn't an endless question. It's been answered. Playing D&D is a hobby, and that hobby is supported by an industry (or, if you prefer, a commercial structure of businesses and products).Lan-"the endless question - is this a hobby or an industry"-efan
You don't get to just redefine the word "consumer." You're a hobbyist, sure, and you're also a consumer whenever you make use of a commodity or service.
What you're doing is attempting to draw a made-up, arbitrary distinction between hobbyists and "consumers" by implying that consumers are sheep, and that you aren't a sheep like they are. Replace "hobbyist" with "elitist" and you have something that's probably much more accurate.
To clarify, I did not say that I was not a consumer of anything. As a hobbyist it doesn't mean product is never purchased. That product is purchased, tinkered and toyed with until becomes what we want it to be. A hobbyist does not wait for some man behind the curtain to "fix" the game. The game is adjusted to the tastes of those playing it.
Everyone does that anyway. That doesn't mean you've eschewed the label of "consumer." You're also trying to define "hobbyist" in a way that suits your argument, rather than the word simply meaning a person who engages in a pursuit or activity for relaxation or leisure. Neither of those words mean what you're trying to force them to mean. I can practically picture you speaking those words while looking down your nose at the rabble.
Again, "elitist" fits better. You're talking about how some people mindlessly buy whatever is put in front of them, and how other people (like yourself, of course) are discerning and capable of doing what others must blindly pay for.
Well if just hanging out and doing your thing without worrying about what the man behind the curtain is doing is being an elitist you got me.
First and foremost they should weed out as many issues before release as possible. Once it is out in print I an not a fan of frequent erratta (too much erratta and your print book becomes somewhat meaningless). The bar should be set high. Erratta isn't a chance for designers to keep adjusting and perfecting their design (doing that after release is just another form of designer's disease). Genuine errors, mistakes or major problems need erratta. Things that only a few people notice don't. There will always be loopholes in any system but constantly plugging them after release creates its own issues. Instead the designers should encourage GMs to enforce the spirit of the rules not just the letter. This is why older editions strongly discouraged min/maxing. We all knew it could be done, but one of the GMs roles was to discourage it.
That said, if someone finds some broken combo (and as has been pointed out, it is sadly inevitable that they will) there's nothing at all wrong with an official "heads up" so DMs can know what they're dealing with and react each in their own preferred way. But for me that's what discussions forums like this are for.
Lanefan
No, it's the attempt to a) portray consumers as mindless drones, which you apparently believe a significant chunk of the tabletop gaming community is, and b) portray yourself as separate from and above what you call "consumers," both in your professed unwillingness to accept whatever the company in question puts out and in your drive and ability to do what you believe "consumers" are forced to rely upon others doing for them, by redefining the word "hobbyist" to mean something that it does not mean - an elite subgroup of discerning enthusiasts.
Again, why do you feel the need to redefine words like that?