Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannager" data-source="post: 5828556" data-attributes="member: 73683">If you're playing at the same table, this shouldn't be an issue. Simply say, &quot;We're using the original rules as printed in this book,&quot; and pass that book around if a rule needs to be double-checked. Maybe if you're playing online it could come up, but that just sounds like a situation where you'd want to be using DDI anyway.It is, but I think we've seen the light at the end of that tunnel. There was a period of time, recently, where software designers had sloppy product launches followed by patches soon after, but that's largely behind us. Products now are by and large shipped in polished form, or receive a Day 0/1 patch to address any concerns that arise after the title has gone gold. I think we saw this cycle in 4e already - during the first year and a half of the game's lifecycle, a lot of books required major patching. Now there is a concerted focus on needing as little post-release attention as possible. They've written a couple of online columns on this very topic and how they've been addressing it.Organized play has been dealing with it for a while now. Organized play DMs are typically dedicated and rules-savvy, and tend to be up-to-date on how the game mechanics function. The players gripe occasionally, but that's mostly because organized play sees a lot of optimized play, and many builds bandied around as optimal tend to be what I've called &quot;nerf-vulnerable.&quot; There are some builds that are so obviously more powerful than the accepted norm that players who decide to use them should not be surprised when their character receives a nerf to one or more of its rules elements. Organized play rules typically allow for retraining of the affected element when major changes are made.I agree. But as I've pointed out, I feel strongly that it is a net positive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannager, post: 5828556, member: 73683"] If you're playing at the same table, this shouldn't be an issue. Simply say, "We're using the original rules as printed in this book," and pass that book around if a rule needs to be double-checked. Maybe if you're playing online it could come up, but that just sounds like a situation where you'd want to be using DDI anyway. It is, but I think we've seen the light at the end of that tunnel. There was a period of time, recently, where software designers had sloppy product launches followed by patches soon after, but that's largely behind us. Products now are by and large shipped in polished form, or receive a Day 0/1 patch to address any concerns that arise after the title has gone gold. I think we saw this cycle in 4e already - during the first year and a half of the game's lifecycle, a lot of books required major patching. Now there is a concerted focus on needing as little post-release attention as possible. They've written a couple of online columns on this very topic and how they've been addressing it. Organized play has been dealing with it for a while now. Organized play DMs are typically dedicated and rules-savvy, and tend to be up-to-date on how the game mechanics function. The players gripe occasionally, but that's mostly because organized play sees a [B][I]lot[/I][/B] of optimized play, and many builds bandied around as optimal tend to be what I've called "nerf-vulnerable." There are some builds that are so obviously more powerful than the accepted norm that players who decide to use them should not be surprised when their character receives a nerf to one or more of its rules elements. Organized play rules typically allow for retraining of the affected element when major changes are made. I agree. But as I've pointed out, I feel strongly that it is a net positive. [/QUOTE]

Verification