Jason Bulmahn Speaks about DDXP(His take on the system)
- Thread starter SPECTRE666
- Start date
fafhrd
First Post
He did specifically mention spells cast "throughout the course of battle" but even if we take buffs into account, utility powers in 4e seem to require an action of less than a standard action, so there's actually more opportunity to burn through your roster if you so choose.Shroomy said:
ruleslawyer
Registered User
I'm sure you can use Players Roll All the Dice in 4e just as easily as in 3e. (I use it currently, and I'm sure my players like making their defense rolls instead of my rolling for the bad guys!)ehren37 said:
Zaruthustran
The tingling means it’s working!
I appreciate the level of detail in Jason's post. But I have to shake my head at the default pessimistic mentality. What I mean by that is that in the whole review, Jason seems to start out auto-disliking any given rule or feature. If it's really good feature, he upgrades it to what can only be described as grudging acceptance. But if the feature is okay/merely adequate, then he actively dislikes it.
That's not healthy, and it's not fair. A review of 3E--or any game!--in the same style would likewise come away as generally unfavorable. "Death in 3E is a process that begins at -1 and ends at -10, with characters taking an additional 1 point of damage each round unless they stabilize (a 10% chance). The -10 threshold does not scale with level, and the low starting hit points of first level characters combined with the massive damage potential from crits means that 1st to 6th level characters can be taken from full hit points to stone dead by a single arrow. How lame is that?"
I mean, come on. Can we get a little optimism here? If you really dislike new games so much--if you view a new game arms folded, pouting, with a grouchy "you need to impress me" attitude--then please give yourself a break and just stop playing them.
That's not healthy, and it's not fair. A review of 3E--or any game!--in the same style would likewise come away as generally unfavorable. "Death in 3E is a process that begins at -1 and ends at -10, with characters taking an additional 1 point of damage each round unless they stabilize (a 10% chance). The -10 threshold does not scale with level, and the low starting hit points of first level characters combined with the massive damage potential from crits means that 1st to 6th level characters can be taken from full hit points to stone dead by a single arrow. How lame is that?"
I mean, come on. Can we get a little optimism here? If you really dislike new games so much--if you view a new game arms folded, pouting, with a grouchy "you need to impress me" attitude--then please give yourself a break and just stop playing them.
I've found it interesting to watch the commentary of various 3rd party developers and free lancers. Contrary the comments someone made above, 3rd party publishes have the LEAST reason to be honest about their negative views, if they have them.Gundark said:
The smartest ones (in my opinion) are the ones saying something along the lines of "I loved 3e, and I think there was limitless room for fun in it. Maybe I'll continue to write 3e products if the demand is there, or if it strikes my fancy. But I'm really looking forwards to the future and to digging in to 4e. It looks like it will be really great." This is smart because it makes a conciliatory gesture to rage filled fans of 3e, while making the developer a part of the 4e fan club, so to speak. Now the developer can sell to both groups.
The next smartest are the ones saying things like, "I really like 4e, except for issue X. But I bet that could be fixed with a rule like Y, or maybe Z." This is smart because it doesn't burn bridges with 4e, establishes a connection with others who have similar concerns with issue X, and best of all, positions the developer as a can-do kind of guy who will in the future write good products that take the positive things about 4e and merge them with whatever it is that people concerned about X wish 4e had. Rule Y and Z become a sort of preview for future work by that writer.
After that comes the Paizo types you mention. They raise concerns about X, and also Y, and also Z, but provide no solutions, and make vague comments about 4e not being good at telling the right kinds of stories. This garners them appeal with the ragers, but does burn a few bridges- if a writer thinks that 4e doesn't do a good job of telling the right kind of stories, doesn't that bring suspicion on later projects that tell exactly that kind of story? If I think that I can tell a certain type of story with 4e, but a writer thinks it can't be easily done, doesn't that suggest that my work is about as good as the writers? When facing a change in your industry, you generally do not want to position yourself as fearful. These people should instead be saying something along the lines of "3e and 4e look to be good in different ways, and we look forwards to supporting both."
The worst are the developers and freelancers who say things like "I hate X, Y, and Z about 4e, and I'm sure that 4e will be bad for running games of the sort I like to run." This is basically a big, bold print warning to the rest of us: "DON'T BUY 4E PRODUCTS FROM THIS GUY! HE'S TELLING YOU IN ADVANCE TO EXPECT HIS FUTURE WORK TO SUCK!" There are only a few people doing this. They really should stop, for the sake of their own careers.
Jason Bulmahn
Adventurer
Zaruthustran said:
Here is the thing. I actually had a good time during my events at DDXP. I enjoyed the games I was playing and I do believe that 4E will be a good game. I think many of my concerns are founded from my near constant need to nitpick the games systems that I play, and that goes for 3E as well as 4E (as well as Gurps, Vampire, Shadowrun, Hol, Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Rolemaster, etc... etc... etc...). When you are in this industry, part of your job is to nitpick, and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the same way.
When it comes to my review, I was trying to provide a frank opinion of where I thought the game was lacking. I think part of the problem is that it is always easier to criticize than it is to praise. I am sorry you took that as pessimism. It was not my intent.
As far as what this implies for Paizo. I am just one voice there and there are a number of factors that have nothing to do with the game itself that will lead to Paizo's decision. Many of those factors have not been resolved yet, and I would appreciate folks not reading more into my comments then what you see on the page.
Thanks.
Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer
Jason Bulmahn
Adventurer
Cadfan said:
That is a fair point. I think most of my concern stemmed from the adventure design and perhaps the DM handling of it. The adventure did feature similar foes in 4 encounters, one after another, and my DM handled each pretty much the exact same way each time. Having looked at them afterward, they did have a few different options. I have to say, without seeing the monster building rules, it is hard to comment on how hard it might be to modify a base creature to make it a more diverse encounter selection, like in 3E, adding a single class level might do. I am hoping that it is an easy process, but until I see them, I have to run with what I know.
Jason Bulmahn
Gamer/Game Designer
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
I wonder if there was a misapplication of the rules or if it might be something they will/have fixed in the final rules. We know the temp HP cannot stack, I wonder if ongoing damage also should not stack - at least from the same attack type.themilkman said:
If you have a cup of flammable liquid that you ignite, it won't burn hotter or faster if you add more of it to the cup, it will flare for a moment as you add it and then return to the level it was burning at before except it will burn for a longer time.
Without knowing the rest of how the rules work, I would consider changing something like this so that the ongoing damage does not stack, but the save to end the effects becomes more difficult with additional attacks piled on.
Similar Threads
