MM4 Table of Contents up

[ColonelHardisson]

Crafting crunch is way harder than the fluff. There was a poster on the D&D message boards that explained it very well, in fact. WotC actually has an R&D team to do just that, balance out and test such material and then allow it to be released to the public. Same concept as "It's easier to upgrade a monster than to downgrade one" from FCI, so they gave us a "base" stat for the demon lords.



There's choice, but there's simply always the fact that one of my players asks for something not covered by WotC. 5 years I've had one player eagerly wait for me to come to him and say "They released a lightning-element monk PrC finally" and then he can finally play the character he wants. He's going to be waiting a long time, unfortunately. Should I craft the PrC on my own? Some do, but I don't. I don't believe my job is to do that and I can't make a balanced PrC for the life of me anyway. Plus it has that "unofficial" feel to it that my players don't like either. As for 3rd party products, we really don't use any for the same reason. Sounds silly, but it's just the type of games we prefer.

OK, these parts of your post are the most relevant to what people react to in your posts in general. You can't have it two ways. You can't claim people are bad or lazy DMs and then say you have spent 5 YEARS listening to a player ask for something and not make it on your own. That's PRECISELY the DM's job - to create elements that specifically fit into your campaign. It can be reasoned that it is a poor DM that doesn't do so.

You can't tell us that it's just sheer laziness to want premade stat blocks without also admitting to laziness for not actually creating something that fits directly into your specific campaign world. The latter is even more the province of the DM than the simple, yet time consuming grunt work of stat block creation. Why is the crap work something you feel the DM should be doing, but the actual creative work, the stuff that makes a DM a DM, is something you shouldn't have to do? If anything smacks of laziness or poor DMing, it's something like that. Why not craft the prestige class with the assiatance of the player, run it for a few test sesssions, and see how it works out? As the DM, you can simply explain that it's in playtest at your table, and you reserve the right to determine if it is balanced or not.

That's what a good, unlazy DM would do, rather than rely on being spoon-fed "official" material.

 

[Henry]

eh, No moreso than if Spell Compendium was 50% spells and 50% feats.

And as an amusing anecdote, Spell Compendium was all reprinted material, too. I'd daresay that what the TOC of MM4 is showing me is that MM4 is more new material than the Spell Compendium.

 

[Sammael]

Somebody should kindly point OStephens to the thread which showed that most people's buying habits are influenced by the designers' personal opinions. I don't think WotC would want the sort of negative marketing that he (she?) is currently providing.

 

[Razz]

Uhm...if it bothers you and your players that much, why switch to 3E? Not trying to be an ass, I'm just curious.

Because we didn't start from the beginning of 2E, thankfully, and we all realized 3E was fifty times better than 2E in terms of mechanics and the way we wanted our games to be. That and the fact we'll never be able to play D&D if we didn't convert except for rehashing the same stuff. So we switched.

But 3E is where we'll stop. Thanks to its multitude of options and, we won't need a 4E.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Somebody should kindly point OStephens to the thread which showed that most people's buying habits are influenced by the designers' personal opinions. I don't think WotC would want the sort of negative marketing that he (she?) is currently providing.

Most people responding to that specific thread said that, but that doesn't mean WotC doesn't have much more comprehensive figures to go by. That poll is by no means a good random sample.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Most people responding to that specific thread said that, but that doesn't mean WotC doesn't have much more comprehensive figures to go by. That poll is by no means a good random sample.

That poll is utter BS, actually. It's completely meaningless in terms of sales, such things don't even reach anyone's radar that isn't an avid reader of EN World, in which case they're buying the books they want regardless of who made it...because content is all that matters to your game.

Really, people, it's ludicrous to give credence to that poll, regardless of whether or not you don't pick up Mysteries of the Moonsea because I wrote part of it or not. See, there I go, torpedoing that book's sales! Oh no! I mean, flip it around and see if you think it makes sense: "Gee, there are so many negative people on an internet message board, I'm going to quit designing games!"

Doesn't sound too likely, does it?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, presenting a balanced perspective would provide the "good" of added credibility.

To what end? Leaving aside the fact that it's woefully unprofessional to go slagging a fellow writer's work in public, I risk offending people who I may very well be working with on my next gig. I love the ENWorld community, and I certainly hope that my opinions are valued here, but I'm not about to alienate my co-workers to provide the illusion of balance to a few posters who apparently already assume that my positive opinions have been bought.

Yes, the fact that I work for WotC influences what I'll say in public. I won't lie (though of course, you have only my word on that). I won't come out and say that a book is great if I don't think it is. I won't defend a book that I think is poorly designed.

But I won't come out and bash them, either. I'm sorry if it disturbs people to hear that, but that's simply the way it works in the real world. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If I see a product that I feel is being unfairly slammed, I'll defend it. If I have a positive opinion about something, I'll express it. If I have a negative one, well... I'm happy to share those opinions with the writers, on a private forum, if asked. Going on about it here does nobody any good.

It also isn't fair to discard all negative response as "rants".

I don't believe I did that. I've seen lots of critiques that have merit. There are even some in this thread. The specific ones I responded to are, IMO, not among them.

 

[Sammael]

That poll is utter BS, actually. It's completely meaningless in terms of sales, such things don't even reach anyone's radar that isn't an avid reader of EN World, in which case they're buying the books they want regardless of who made it...because content is all that matters to your game.

This is only partially true. For instance, I have a lot of gaming friends who don't read ENWorld, at least not on a regular basis. However, they almost always ask me for book recommendations, since they know I keep informed about the current book releases and book reviews. All I would have to do to influence their purchases is not recommend a particular book because of its author. Now, none of the designers in this thread have done anything to warrant such an action from me (in fact, I have nothing but respect for Wil, Ari, and Mike, although I must admit I know next to nothing about OStephens), but there are other designers out there who have.

Really, people, it's ludicrous to give credence to that poll, regardless of whether or not you don't pick up Mysteries of the Moonsea because I wrote part of it or not. See, there I go, torpedoing that book's sales! Oh no!

You'll note that I didn't point YOU out to that thread. It's all in the attitude.

I mean, flip it around and see if you think it makes sense: "Gee, there are so many negative people on an internet message board, I'm going to quit designing games!"

Doesn't sound too likely, does it?

I know of at least two artists who quit producing D&D artwork because of negative reactions to their works. Perhaps artists are more sensitive, or have more opportunities for work outside the industry?

 

[d20Dwarf]

This is only partially true. For instance, I have a lot of gaming friends who don't read ENWorld, at least not on a regular basis. However, they almost always ask me for book recommendations, since they know I keep informed about the current book releases and book reviews. All I would have to do to influence their purchases is not recommend a particular book because of its author. Now, none of the designers in this thread have done anything to warrant such an action from me (in fact, I have nothing but respect for Wil, Ari, and Mike, although I must admit I know next to nothing about OStephens), but there are other designers out there who have.

I can see your point to an extent, I certainly will avoid certain art because I don't like the people that produce it, but I think the RPG industry is different in a couple of ways.

1. The commercial impact of a designer on a book is virtually nil, so no amount of consumer feedback on the author is going to influence whether or not that author gets work again. This is different in more passive media like films or fine art, where artist/actor/director impression can make a big difference to the bottom line (MI:3 for instance).

2. RPG books are, for the most part, instruction manuals written in an entertaining and imaginative way. Your personal feelings about a writer aren't going to really impact how you *use* the book, so in my opinion the incentive to make judgments is lessened by that fact. If you don't like the way a writer writes, that's one thing, because part of the product is the enjoyment of reading it.

You'll note that I didn't point YOU out to that thread. It's all in the attitude.

I know, I don't take anything on the net personally, that's why I find it so funny when people accuse me of being a corporate shill or of artistic defensiveness. Like Ari, I just won't slag a book I don't like, unless I really don't like the author either (geez, that Heroes of Horror, now that's some crap...umm, seeya Saturday Ari!...ehehehe. )

I know of at least two artists who quit producing D&D artwork because of negative reactions to their works. Perhaps artists are more sensitive, or have more opportunities for work outside the industry?

Both are correct, in my experience. Artists are more sensitive about their work than RPG designers. Even still, artists that flame out are about as rare as writers that flame out (What *is* that smell, anyway?). And, artists with any talent can find jobs in their field outside RPGs much more easily than writers. For the most part, this is because it's easier to tell crappy art than it is crappy writing, so there are more crappy writers with jobs out there than crappy artists. Sigh, nobody respects the written word...*melodramatic Brontean wistfulness*

 

[Razz]

OK, these parts of your post are the most relevant to what people react to in your posts in general. You can't have it two ways. You can't claim people are bad or lazy DMs and then say you have spent 5 YEARS listening to a player ask for something and not make it on your own. That's PRECISELY the DM's job - to create elements that specifically fit into your campaign. It can be reasoned that it is a poor DM that doesn't do so.

You can't tell us that it's just sheer laziness to want premade stat blocks without also admitting to laziness for not actually creating something that fits directly into your specific campaign world. The latter is even more the province of the DM than the simple, yet time consuming grunt work of stat block creation. Why is the crap work something you feel the DM should be doing, but the actual creative work, the stuff that makes a DM a DM, is something you shouldn't have to do? If anything smacks of laziness or poor DMing, it's something like that. Why not craft the prestige class with the assiatance of the player, run it for a few test sesssions, and see how it works out? As the DM, you can simply explain that it's in playtest at your table, and you reserve the right to determine if it is balanced or not.

That's what a good, unlazy DM would do, rather than rely on being spoon-fed "official" material.

See, there is a big difference between the two.

As a DM, I should not have to create new game mechanics and playtest them. That is not what a DM does. He is to run the game with what he is given and the rest what he makes up. Not game mechanics. It is not his job to create a feat for a player and playtest that feat a few sessions. That takes up too much time, causes too much stress, and causes a lot of Player-DM debates. A DM can choose to do that for his games if he'd like, but I don't believe it is a requirement in order to play and enjoy the game.

A perfect reason for why I should'nt be required to make my own lightning-element monk prestige class. I had written some psionic powers for Bruce Cordell, which he edited and posted on his site long ago. Eventually some of those powers ended up on the D&D site, but not the power Bend Space. I kept it in the game, however, and my player's Psychic Warrior used it for a few sessions. Eventually, me and even the other players realized it was too powerful, at least for its power level. Course, the player didn't feel that way. There was a lot of debates, hostility and tension in the group. After some time, the Mind's Eye took the power and edited properly and balanced it perfectly. Now we're all happy...except for the player now. There was a lot of argument and it sucks to have to "reverse time" in the sessions to explain the new changes to the psionic power. It left a very inconsistent feel to our games after that. It also was not worth it at all. Not worth the wasted time on playtesting and arguing and D&D is a game to play, not to playtest new material. Cause we have tons of ideas for new stuff, we just don't ever implement them because it's obviously not going to do us any good. Since then, I've pretty much stated I'm never doing that again. That's WotC's job, I am quite comfortable doing everything else a DM is actually supposed to do. If it's from WotC, no one complains, everyone's happy, and no time is lost or wasted.

So, no, I am not a lazy DM. I am a smart DM for avoiding unneccesary elements to a D&D game. And I am a smart DM who can come up with his own reasons for a certain PrC fits in his world, create his own organizations, create his own NPCs and classed monsters, and create his own adventures. And I work a 40 hour/week job and have a wife and in college. I found time, I am sure anyone else can, too.

But this is going way off topic. This is supposed to be about MM4, not how WotC should be doing things and how they shouldn't be. Nor is it a let's bash Razz's negative comment thread either. I've had too many of those. I am heading off this thread, no need to reply. I've stated my point about MM4 and it's done. If you want, you can start a thread on this or keep in in private messages.