I’ve given two criticisms and one observation tied to them, and one isn’t especially a criticism. Level Up does not meet my standards for compatibility with D&D characters, just adventures. I don’t think it can be used alongside D&D content that isn’t a module, as written. I also think Press the Attack is flawed and should be removed.Mod Note:
Sure.
But, giving the same criticism nearly a dozen times, over multiple threads is... more than a bit insistent. I daresay folks are apt to react to that. After asking the same questions more than a couple of times, the chances of getting an answer start to decrease, because you leave the realm of asking politely, and enter the realm of demanding.
So, you know, maybe don't beat that drum so incessantly, hm? Thanks.
I have other issues, and other things I like, but stating two simple criticisms has become “repeated” by the number of bizarrely aggressive responses that “nothing is wrong.” My observation on playtesting builds off seeing that the two games do not function with each other, and some mechanics like PTA are not balanced or functional. That makes me question “how” the playtests took place that led to the conclusion the games are compatible with mixed parties of D&D and Level Up, and that PTA “works.”
These aren’t especially controversial opinions, so I’m not sure why I wouldn’t repeat the criticism in response to a counter-argument to said criticism. The criticisms remain.
Also, why would “folks be apt” to react to a criticism of a product, exactly? The designers might have things to answer for, but a lot of these responses are just fellow players. That’s entirely odd to me.
This is the stage where criticism is expected. Why wouldn’t it be exactly what is needed? Requested, even. There are major flaws that could still be fixed. Insisting they are fine isn’t helpful. Discussing what needs to be fixed, tweaked, or removed is useful. “Yes man” style validation of flawed rules isn’t helpful.
Last edited: