Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 6111058" data-attributes="member: 115">I think this implementation is awful.Once upon a time, way back&nbsp; in January of 2013, there were a series of L&amp;L articles that&nbsp; detailed the current goals of DDN.&nbsp; In particular, <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128" target="_blank">this article</a>&nbsp; detailing the &quot;Advanced&quot; rules talked about the concept of &quot;dials&quot; -&nbsp; that the rules can be adjusted to fit a play-style, or rules can be&nbsp; stacked on top of the &quot;Standard&quot; rule set.&nbsp; To me, this seems like&nbsp; exactly the sort of thing that should fall under that banner.&nbsp; In fact,&nbsp; many of the examples in the cited article specifically point at grittier&nbsp; play.&nbsp; To quote Mike from the current L&amp;L: &quot;Adventurer tier covers&nbsp; most of what we consider to be the standard D&amp;D&nbsp; experience.&quot;&nbsp; I thought the Standard rules were supposed to be covering&nbsp; the standard D&amp;D experience.&nbsp; That's why they were called Standard.Mike&nbsp; further says, &quot;most experienced groups will simply jump straight to&nbsp; adventurer tier...&quot;&nbsp; In essence, this means eschewing the Standard rules&nbsp; altogether for most groups (his words, not mine).&nbsp; Since most players&nbsp; will gain experience by playing the game, you would expect any given&nbsp; player/group to run the Apprentice tier once, maybe twice.&nbsp; Unless, of&nbsp; course, you're going for a certain style of game - in which case, see&nbsp; above.&nbsp; Now we're at a point where most groups aren't even&nbsp; running the Standard game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, the change is pretty&nbsp; minor.&nbsp; However, per their own design goals, spinning those dials,&nbsp; changing the rules, was supposed to be relegated to the whole Advanced&nbsp; modules thing.I have no qualms with the whole &quot;gritty fantasy&quot;&nbsp; feel, and I&nbsp; enjoy playing it as much as I enjoy playing heroic fantasy. I would buy&nbsp; the hell out of a module that had Apprentice levels, rules for more&nbsp; realistic and/or lethal play, and so forth.&nbsp; But this is shoddy design.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not poor because it doesn't work.&nbsp; It's bad design because it&nbsp; explicitly contradicts the design goals set forth two months ago.&nbsp; If they're not going to follow their own design goals, what's the point of even making them?[EDIT] I want to explicitly address mechanical design.&nbsp; I think everyone has heard the initialization/acronym KISS with regards to design. For example, if the problem is hit points, the simple thing to do is change hit points rather than add new levels.&nbsp; For example - start everyone with three hit dice at first level (and use the &quot;dials&quot; to suggest 1HD for grittier play).&nbsp; The problem I have with the &quot;just start at third level&quot; argument isn't because it's difficult to do.&nbsp; The problem I have (with regards to mechanics) is that it encourages lazy and convoluted design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 6111058, member: 115"] I think this implementation is awful. Once upon a time, way back in January of 2013, there were a series of L&L articles that detailed the current goals of DDN. In particular, [URL="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128"]this article[/URL] detailing the "Advanced" rules talked about the concept of "dials" - that the rules can be adjusted to fit a play-style, or rules can be stacked on top of the "Standard" rule set. To me, this seems like exactly the sort of thing that should fall under that banner. In fact, many of the examples in the cited article specifically point at grittier play. To quote Mike from the current L&L: "Adventurer tier covers most of what we consider to be the standard [B]D&D[/B] experience." I thought the Standard rules were supposed to be covering the standard D&D experience. That's why they were called Standard. Mike further says, "most experienced groups will simply jump straight to adventurer tier..." In essence, this means eschewing the Standard rules altogether for most groups (his words, not mine). Since most players will gain experience by playing the game, you would expect any given player/group to run the Apprentice tier once, maybe twice. Unless, of course, you're going for a certain style of game - in which case, see above. Now we're at a point where most groups aren't even running the Standard game. Sure, the change is pretty minor. However, per their own design goals, spinning those dials, changing the rules, was supposed to be relegated to the whole Advanced modules thing. I have no qualms with the whole "gritty fantasy" feel, and I enjoy playing it as much as I enjoy playing heroic fantasy. I would buy the hell out of a module that had Apprentice levels, rules for more realistic and/or lethal play, and so forth. But this is shoddy design. It's not poor because it doesn't work. It's bad design because it explicitly contradicts the design goals set forth [I]two months[/I] ago. If they're not going to follow their own design goals, what's the point of even making them? [EDIT] I want to explicitly address mechanical design. I think everyone has heard the initialization/acronym KISS with regards to design. For example, if the problem is hit points, the simple thing to do is change hit points rather than add new levels. For example - start everyone with three hit dice at first level (and use the "dials" to suggest 1HD for grittier play). The problem I have with the "just start at third level" argument isn't because it's difficult to do. The problem I have (with regards to mechanics) is that it encourages lazy and convoluted design. [/QUOTE]

Verification