Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="VinylTap" data-source="post: 6105503" data-attributes="member: 6697217">Firstly, you're right Li. I misunderstood. I thought you were commenting on the exploration rules. i think you're right in keeping feats balanced, and you're going to 'unbalance' combat if there's not give with the take. Sal: Yes, but it the &quot;way&quot; these arguments are presented... I'm not going after Li with this, but it seems like sometimes these threads turn into a race to skim through the the rules and pick the first thing out of context you don't 100% agree with. These rules are more like balls of clay the community can help shape, with the game designers. They're polarized and drastic for a reason, because they're unrefined directions that the game could take-- and you get better feedback when you go long, and pull back. You can disagree with the specifics, but the conversation isn't all that productive if people aren't talking about things in context, or what the designers have in mind for the play-test. Arguing about whether you like this or that place-holder spell/feat isn't much help when the play-test isn't even near that stage of refinement. I feel like some people don't realize that the realities of real-world play-testing; it doesn't happen in theory on a web forum-- if you don't put a rule out there, its tough to know what direction you should take it. Constructively criticizing these play-tests is a great idea, but the hyperbolic nature of some of the discussion on this forum is not. .</blockquote>

[QUOTE="VinylTap, post: 6105503, member: 6697217"] Firstly, you're right Li. I misunderstood. I thought you were commenting on the exploration rules. i think you're right in keeping feats balanced, and you're going to 'unbalance' combat if there's not give with the take. Sal: Yes, but it the "way" these arguments are presented... I'm not going after Li with this, but it seems like sometimes these threads turn into a race to skim through the the rules and pick the first thing out of context you don't 100% agree with. These rules are more like balls of clay the community can help shape, with the game designers. They're polarized and drastic for a reason, because they're unrefined directions that the game could take-- and you get better feedback when you go long, and pull back. You can disagree with the specifics, but the conversation isn't all that productive if people aren't talking about things in context, or what the designers have in mind for the play-test. Arguing about whether you like this or that place-holder spell/feat isn't much help when the play-test isn't even near that stage of refinement. I feel like some people don't realize that the realities of real-world play-testing; it doesn't happen in theory on a web forum-- if you don't put a rule out there, its tough to know what direction you should take it. Constructively criticizing these play-tests is a great idea, but the hyperbolic nature of some of the discussion on this forum is not. . [/QUOTE]

Verification