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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6040184" data-attributes="member: 7006">Actually... the design goals have been made very clear from the outset, by Mike Mearls and everyone within the company.  Anyone who's been following all of the interviews and panels and whatnot know exactly what it is they are going for.Along the way are they trying new things in order to reach a middle ground that as many fans of all editions of the game can be comfortable with as a starting point (from which they supposedly will generate the "modules" off of?)  Absolutely.The thing it seems many people are missing is that reaching a middle point on every single game system from which they can then branch out with modules to please the BECMI crowd, the AD&D crowd, the 2E crowd, the 3/3.5/PF crowd, AND the 4E crowd ain't exactly easy.  Because for every single person who says "What's the big deal?  Start at X and build from there!"... chances are very good it happens to match the rule from whatever edition they happen to enjoy the most.  And thus THAT rule the person is offering up might very well NOT be any sort of real middle point from which to build... because most likely you'd see a whole heap of people here on these forums complaining that "if this is the direction they're going, THEN I'M OUT!!!"Look... I have no problem with anybody criticizing particular rules that appear in the playtest packets (cause goodness knows I've done that myself).  But what I have a problem with are the people who are criticizing Wizards of the Coast for even trying to do it in the first place.  Because with every single packet, that's what we're seeing... some rules have changed AWAY from rules ideas or concepts they liked the last time, and immediately they start ranting about how WotC doesn't know what they are doing... rather than accept the fact that changes will be made in every packet as they work through the process of finding out what does and does not work and what is and is not popular.  And for the life of me, I just can't fathom how people are incapable of picking up on that.Have you ever played the game Clue?  If you have... then you know there is a very smart strategy to use.  Once you find out that one of your opponents has the Lead Pipe card and you've checked that off your sheet... you stop asking for that weapon anymore and you ask for something else.  Because you've already discovered what you needed to know... the Lead Pipe is not the weapon used in Mr. Boddy's murder.And it's the same way with these playtests.  Once WotC discovered that (for instance) Parry worked and was a popular choice for a Fighter maneuver... they don't need to keep Parry exactly the same way throughout the rest of the two years of playtest.  There's no need.  They know it works.  So they are now free to change it / remove it / adapt it as need be in order to use that as a test or comparison to other things they want tested... knowing full well that when they get to finalizing rules another 20 packets down the line, they can GO BACK to what worked.That's how you figure out what does and doesn't work across the board.  And it has nothing to do with them not knowing what their plan is.  And to honestly believe that a rule that seemed to work well in packet 3 is now slightly different in packet 4... and to not actually consider the fact that they know this and fully intend to possibly RETURN to what they had in packet 3 when they release packet 5... tells me those people probably shouldn't follow the day-to-day evolution of this game.  Because the concept of 'trial and error' seems to be a foreign concept to them.(And don't even bother trying to make the case that if you have concrete design goals that you shouldn't need to do 'trial and error' testing on anything... because that's perhaps the dumbest idea you might possibly put forth.)</blockquote>

Verification