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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9778244" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't say anything about design being good or bad. I talked about WotC's reasons for doing this or that.I don't see why WotC has any reason to release what you would consider a better product. It's a game, played by millions of people mostly (I suspect) in a pretty light-hearted way. I think things like clarity of writing, the art and layout, and being appealing as a vehicle for reasonably mainstream fantasy, are important considerations from WotC's point of view. I just don't see any evidence that encounter maths matters all that much, as far as WotC is concerned.Why? I mean, to the extent that they ran a 10-year playtest with revisions over the last 2 or 3 years of that time, they made lots of money by selling the playtest game, which then provided the resources to do those revisions. And now they're selling revised books making even more money!I can see how you would prefer that they did what you are suggesting. But as I posted, I'm not seeing why WotC has any reason to take your advice.To me, this suggest more about the extent to which WotC staff are time-poor and/or aren't all that familiar with the current state of the rules they're demonstrating. And to the extent that that is so, that's a further reason they're not going to do what you're advising them to do.Ultimately, I think the demand for tightly-designed games is not sufficient to sustain an enterprise on the scale of WotC's D&D.</blockquote>

Verification