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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6188010" data-attributes="member: 66434">The concepts for the modules seem ok and,in theory, will provide support for a variety of play styles as D&D Next was originally advertised as being able to do. I do see a bit of a disconnect in the methodology with which this is being implemented. For example:[/quote Mike Mearls]The editors and a team of designers will finalize work on the core game. This work consists of squashing bugs, simplifying things, and incorporating the final round of public feedback. The game’s foundation will be set in stone, as will the core options for the classes.Meanwhile, a second design team will tackle a number of outstanding topics. These include the following elements.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/dnd/images/ll_2013_0923.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />The underlying math of the game. We’ll run stress tests on the numbers, monster abilities, and so on to make sure that everything shakes out as we expect. This work is important to making adventure and encounter design fast and easy. It also ensures that the classes play fair.</li> </ul>[/End quote] So dev group 1 will be setting the core options and foundation of the game in stone, while dev group 2 will be working on the underlying math?  This is a setup for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing if ever there was one. I can understand the modules being developed independently (although the core would need to be done first to insure the modules would all be fitted to same base game) but the core game development being spread across two teams with simultaneous development taking place on modules looks like a blueprint for miscommunication. How many versions of the "set in stone" foundation for the core game will be floating around between the teams? Which one will get picked by the number crunchers? Which version of the crunched numbers will the tactical module team use? All of this will be happening with no external eyes on the process. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for the best, but memories of past sloppy copy/paste mistakes are making it hard to get those hopes up too high. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification