Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GoodKingJayIII" data-source="post: 3821834" data-attributes="member: 13804">Really?&nbsp; Where is this poll that WOTC sited as the source of their decision?&nbsp; Do you have a link?&nbsp; I'm really curious, because what the designers have been saying lately is that, for 3e, some of the sacred cows remained the game for the sole reason that playtesters said &quot;Keep this.&quot;&nbsp; They've sited rules like monk/paladin multiclassing and spells like magic missile, items that were different from their current versions but were ultimately molded to look like previous editions, simply for nostalgia's sake.Touting this as a reason for some of the imperfect designs in 3e, I would think the current design team would've learned a lesson about player polls:&nbsp; you can't always obey every suggestion, even if it's in the majority.So, I'm not sure if you're using hyperbole or you're basing your response on an actual poll.&nbsp; I'm guessing the former, but if it's the later I'd like to see that poll, because I have my doubts about the 4e team basing their entire design philosophy solely on what the majority want.&nbsp; I'm more inclined to believe that, in this particular case they opted for this route because they feel it is ultimately better for the game.&nbsp; Whether or not one agrees with that is a matter of personal preference.&nbsp; I have played with this system in Star Wars Saga, and it makes things much faster, which I appreciate.&nbsp; And I assure you the sense of lethality remains.As for the removal of save-or-die effects &quot;limiting appeal across play styles&quot;... well, I think the logical extension of your line of thought has been spelled out be several others already.&nbsp; If they do not eliminate something and include everything, the game will cease to be DnD.&nbsp; I may like point-based systems better than level-based systems, but I think it would be unrealistic of me to demand that they include those in the core rules.Now, save or die effects are not such a stretch, but in the process of creating a new edition, some rules are going to be kept, others changed, and still others eliminated.&nbsp; That's just the way it goes.&nbsp; In this particular case, I seriously doubt the game will become &quot;unrecognizable,&quot; as you suggest.&nbsp; But again, that is a matter of opinion.&nbsp; Everything that I have seen has been very representational of the iconic game, AFAIC.&nbsp; Some have gone as far to say that this current version of the game is much closer to ODnD and 1e than its predecessors.Personally I am more concerned with the overall design philosophy for 4e, and my willingness to try the system is not going to be based on the inclusion or exclusion of particular rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GoodKingJayIII, post: 3821834, member: 13804"] Really? Where is this poll that WOTC sited as the source of their decision? Do you have a link? I'm really curious, because what the designers have been saying lately is that, for 3e, some of the sacred cows remained the game for the sole reason that playtesters said "Keep this." They've sited rules like monk/paladin multiclassing and spells like magic missile, items that were different from their current versions but were ultimately molded to look like previous editions, simply for nostalgia's sake. Touting this as a reason for some of the imperfect designs in 3e, I would think the current design team would've learned a lesson about player polls: you can't always obey every suggestion, even if it's in the majority. So, I'm not sure if you're using hyperbole or you're basing your response on an actual poll. I'm guessing the former, but if it's the later I'd like to see that poll, because I have my doubts about the 4e team basing their entire design philosophy solely on what the majority want. I'm more inclined to believe that, in this particular case they opted for this route because they feel it is ultimately better for the game. Whether or not one agrees with that is a matter of personal preference. I have played with this system in Star Wars Saga, and it makes things much faster, which I appreciate. And I assure you the sense of lethality remains. As for the removal of save-or-die effects "limiting appeal across play styles"... well, I think the logical extension of your line of thought has been spelled out be several others already. If they do not eliminate something and include everything, the game will cease to be DnD. I may like point-based systems better than level-based systems, but I think it would be unrealistic of me to demand that they include those in the core rules. Now, save or die effects are not such a stretch, but in the process of creating a new edition, some rules are going to be kept, others changed, and still others eliminated. That's just the way it goes. In this particular case, I seriously doubt the game will become "unrecognizable," as you suggest. But again, that is a matter of opinion. Everything that I have seen has been very representational of the iconic game, AFAIC. Some have gone as far to say that this current version of the game is much closer to ODnD and 1e than its predecessors. Personally I am more concerned with the overall design philosophy for 4e, and my willingness to try the system is not going to be based on the inclusion or exclusion of particular rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification