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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="urLordy" data-source="post: 6224647" data-attributes="member: 6747028">To the people who don't like this poll. I can't please everyone obviously. The best I can do is try to explain the context.Let's look at what happened around DoaM. I will not argue the merits of this mechanic as is; I think there's been more than enough of that. However, I am interested in DoaM as a rallying point for at least two playstyles that often conflict, and WoTC's response.This is where I think WoTC totally dropped the ball. Before that, they had mechanics like advantage/disadvantage which is arguably playstyle-neutral and generally favored. Before that, concerns about implementation of backgrounds and skills, and Legends & Lore articles publically discussed the design progression in a very open way I think. Before that, when the playtest seemed too simple for tactical players, WoTC publically promised more complexity and tactical options. And so forth...But then DoaM comes along. Well, initially with the Reaper, then dropped. Then resurfaces. Months of heated debate in forums. What does WoTC say? Not much. Shutting down threads at WoTC. A twitter from Mearls that it's testing well (fair enough, he might be right, but keep reading...). A Q&A where Rodney offers an explanation that suits neither crowd (incomplete and incohesive fictional positioning for the sim-friendly crowd, too limiting for and rarely regurgitated by the narrativist camp).(Even Wandering Monsters which solicits very subjective opinions about the ideal monster background stories gets more public attention than the subjective story beneath any one mechanic)(The last time they addressed playstyles head-on AFAICR was June 2011 with this article <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110614" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110614</a> )I've been reading the book Of Dice and Men (aside: I didn't realize that so many elements of D&D were the brainchild of one man: Gygax) and it reminded me about the announcement of 5E.The point is that until a mechanic like DoaM comes along, I thought WoTC was doing reasonably well engaging with fans, and then here is a mechanic that is controversial for several reasons, both mechanical and that "a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to [the story]" and the best they can do is to tell us that DoaM is about the GWF bruising an opponent on a block. Sounds like "thrash metal" to me all over again.Perhaps this is a blip, a molehill, etc. But the Internet response is not a blip, it's the same old. If WoTC's agenda is to unite playstyles, this was a perfect opportunity to stop telling people what the story is, and address the people or playstyles having trouble getting past the mechanic to the story. That's where I think they blew it. I don't care what their answer was, as long as it received the same attention as the other issues.As a result, the ensuing forum feuding was predictable and inevitable. Left to their own devices, this is what ardent fans do. Of course, one common answer inevitably came down to "houserule it away" but that just spawns arguments about which is the default and where is the onus. Mods close down the threads. New ones arise. And so it goes. I'm not complaining or judging; just observing the paradigm.IMO the ongoing arguments of houserule vs optional rule, etc. by fans who feel upset or burdened by how to handle multiple playstyles doesn't need to remain status quo in light of 5E's mantra, yet AFAICT the wizards haven't fully engaged on this matter.D&D is very much collaborative storytelling. Some guidance on collaborating, please.That's why I created a poll about managing expectations, etc. I wanted to know if I was part of some unreasonable or irrational minority.  I wanted to poll if people thought the situation was an ideal one to be in.</blockquote>

Verification