D&D 4E Really?? Is RPGA really the best place to test 4e

[Ruin Explorer]

Given the couple of RPGA groups I know, I would want them to have first crack at a news rules set for one big reason: if there is a loophole, they will find it. If there is a way to break a class, a spell, a feat, or anything else, they will find it. That's one of the big things you want in playtesting.

In our normal campaigns, we might stumble upon a certain rules situation once or twice a year. They'll probably find it that first night.

Exactly.

The general design of the game is complete. I'm not concerned about RPGA members making it more "MMORPG"-like, but I'd sure like to see it "stress tested" by the nerdiest beardiest bunch of munchkins in the Western world, and that's precisely what the RPGA is.

God bless you my bearded friends, may you twist and poke the rules until every loophole, error and potential misinterpretation is revealed!

<Salutes American-style and stands to attention, weeping silently, whilst an RPGA banner billows in the background and the theme from the D&D cartoon plays>

 

[reanjr]

Testing based on story-based play gives us playtesters who demand that monks and paladins can't multi-class, but apparently didn't bat an eye at game-breaking spells. I'd like a little more RPGA-style testing, thanks.

That's bull. There are plenty of story-based gamers who can run loops around almost any RPGA member when it comes to rules and balance.

And a decision to restrict multiclassing based on some groups' campaigns is the game designers choice, not the tester. I don't know of any heavy role players who give a second thought to whether WotC places a racial or multiclassing restriction on something. It's a complete non-issue to dictate that based on campaign. But they can get really pissed off when the rules are created in such a way that they can't even play the game they want to effectively.

Example (based on yours): If my group doesn't want multiclassing paladins (one rule that was univerally ignore in every campaign I've ever been in), they remove the restriction. If, on the other hand, every PC needs a couple levels of Wizard to be effective because of the rules balance, my group would get very pissed that the balance of the game is dicating our role playing choices. And 3e (playtested by RPGA) is chock full of these things.

It's pretty silly to arrogantly say one major group of players should playtest, but keep the others out of testing because it doesn't fit my play style.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No one's being offensive, I'm stating a fact. The RPGA has a supplemental guide, about 20 pages long, of rules changes that alter the core d and d rules. Thus it is not dungeons and dragons as written. Major changes include item handouts, xp, certain roleplaying type abilities and feats and restricted classes and skills.

The problem is your stating opinion AS fact and then claiming it's irrefutable.

You know HOW that document came about? It started almost completely open and increased in size every year as the RPGA found loopholes and problems with the 3rd edition rules. It also restricts things that wouldn't fit into Greyhawk as a campaign setting the same as any other DM would do in their home campaign.

As we discovered that powergamers were showing up at tables with characters who abused Divine Metamagic and there was no way to stop them, we banned Divine Metamagic. When we found out some spells were WAY too powerful when persistent, we remove Persistent Spell, etc. Most of the home game DMs I know have a similar restricted list(or they simply kick people out of their home game if they ever make up a character who abuses the options)

Item handouts let us give out custom items that aren't in the book and show that they are official to the next DM. Home game DMs give out custom items all the time. They just don't need to write them on certs since no other DM is ever going to look at them.

As for the rest of the book. We try REALLY hard not to change anything from the rules. In fact, we aren't allowed to by WOTC change anything that doesn't NEED to be changed. So, the only rules that got changed at all were the rules for Magic Item Crafting(which didn't get changed much, we just put a limit on how much you can do and clarified how much time it takes in terms of LG Time Units), using craft skills (this rule was changed because the amount of gp you could get from it wasn't in line with the gp you can get from adventuring and we wanted the focus of the campaign to be going on adventures), and the rate of advancement (XP was slowed down a lot to make the campaign last longer). No other rules in the whole book were changed. Almost every home game DM I know has changed a LOT more of the rules than that. They actually play further away from the rules in the book than the RPGA does.

The environment is not the dungeons and dragons environment described in the DMG. Sure there's a dungeon master, players and an adventure, but by using that logic Gurps, True 20, Shadowrun, and Serenity are all Dungeons and Dragons as well. RPGA events are what they are events. THe campaigns described in the dMG are not there. Whereas the 3.5 books stress player interaction and development, that is impossible in an RPGA environment (just which group's story would be the main one).

Sorry what do you mean the campaigns described in the DMG aren't there?

We have
-4-6 players
-a table with a battlemat
-a DM
-dice, character sheets, pencil and paper
-an adventure with a mix of role playing and combat encounters
-some adventures are related to larger story arcs, some of which go on for years
-some adventures are stand alone, one session affairs unrelated to the larger story arc
-there is one entity who decides where the campaign is going and plans out events into the future (the Triad in each region)
-we follow all the rules to the letter written in the PHB, DMG, and MM with no(well, VERY few) changes

Tell me, what is it that's written in the DMG that we are not following that makes us "not D&D".

\It's good for a gaming fix but there's a reason why they don't sell out at Gencons and Origins. Because they don't provide the same elements as a traditional game.

This is the most confusing thing you've said. It also shows you really don't know what you are talking about. All of the Living Greyhawk events at the most recent GenCon sold out within the first 4 hours or tickets being available. I volunteered as a DM for a number of slots and I can tell you that Dave C was practically begging more DMs to volunteer since we had too many players. We actually reached the hard limit of games we were allowed to run (the number of tables that will fit into the RPGA room at GenCon) and we still had to turn away some people.

A better testing group would have been the writers and major contributors to 3.5 .

I agree, people like Erik Mona(Editor-in-chief of Dragon Magazine) who helped start Living Greyhawk and wrote the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. People like Jason Bulmahn(works for Paizo and co-wrote Expedition To The Ruins of Castle Greyhawk) who was a Circle member in Living Greyhawk for a number of years and an adventure writer for LG as well.

Or, say, any number of the 100 or so voluntarily work writing adventures in the same style as all the published ones with similar restrictions on what can and can't be in them (passed down to them from WOTC themselves), using the same format. They have to figure out Encounter Levels of encounters by the book, wealth for NPCs by the book, advance monsters by the book, etc. And they all go through an editing process where the numbers are all checked and the authors have to change things that are deemed too powerful or don't fit in with the story line. They all have to work within deadlines to get adventures out in time.

I think these people all have a very good idea of what D&D is like the way its written, given that they don't have the ability of most Home Game DMs to just "make stuff up".

 

[Badkarmaboy]

That's bull. There are plenty of story-based gamers who can run loops around almost any RPGA member when it comes to rules and balance.

And a decision to restrict multiclassing based on some groups' campaigns is the game designers choice, not the tester. I don't know of any heavy role players who give a second thought to whether WotC places a racial or multiclassing restriction on something. It's a complete non-issue to dictate that based on campaign. But they can get really pissed off when the rules are created in such a way that they can't even play the game they want to effectively.

Example (based on yours): If my group doesn't want multiclassing paladins (one rule that was univerally ignore in every campaign I've ever been in), they remove the restriction. If, on the other hand, every PC needs a couple levels of Wizard to be effective because of the rules balance, my group would get very pissed that the balance of the game is dicating our role playing choices. And 3e (playtested by RPGA) is chock full of these things.

It's pretty silly to arrogantly say one major group of players should playtest, but keep the others out of testing because it doesn't fit my play style.

BLUF- I want a wide cross section of the gaming community to test 4E, RPGA and otherwise. Ok, with that said:

1. Why are you dividing "story based gamers" from "RPGA gamers"? Like guys who want to game with the RPGA don't want a story? Apparently I've been wasting my time helping to develop a story line and plot arc in my region....

2. 95% of the people I know in the RPGA are active in one or more home games. The line you're drawing is arbitrary at best. The RPGA just gives the devs a better known quantity to deal with in the inital wave of the playtest.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Kudos Majoru, that was great. I forgot about Jason Buhlman when I went on my Chris Tulach bender earlier.

 

[TheSeer]

Bwhahahahah! Restrictions is our chosen playstyle. You slay me!! All of those restrictions that are put in place by Living Cmpaigns are there for one of two reasons:

1) to level the playing field bewtween everyone involved. (hence things like point buy system for ability scoes instead of random rolls). Its no fun playing with cheaters.

2) To remove game breaking effects that otherwise inhibit play (like 3.0 polymorph) oh have gamebreaking effects that are hard to police in a closed system (Wish for exapmle).

Its not our preferred playstyle, On the contrary you need to see the bitching and moaning about the banning of a particular spell fills the boards. But it is a necessary control in a tournament system where there are no concequences if you dont show up for a game for days, weeks, or even years later. QUOTE]

Fair enough. It is true that my post wasn't worded the best and I am sure that there are some people who chafe at the system. And I never said that the RPGA never had perfectly valid rules for why they do what they do.

Again, that being said, I was just stating my concern at the biases (bias does *not* equal bad, just a disposition for) that the RPGA system (note, not members) have for certain things. For instance, Warlock is on the closed base classes list in RPGA. As has been hinted, Warlock will possibly be a one of the eight classes in the 4e PHB. So a RPGA member starts testing looks at new Warlock and feels it is somewhat similar to previous version and due to that complains that it's broken.

Now, is it broken because:

1) It's broken

2) In the RPGA's view, whatever made it broken previously still keeps it broken?

If #1, all well and good. If #2, then that's my concern. Cause it may not be broken, just not the way they prefer/they thinks is overpowered due to their experience with RPGA.

Again, I'm not saying the RPGA way is bad, but the inherent biases may skew how they report "broken" mechanics.

 

[TheSeer]

Those rules don't apply to the RPGA. They apply to the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign.

I guarantee you that the slower advancement will also apply to the RPGA's 4e Living Forgotten Realms. A common adjustment in home campaigns.

I strongly doubt that Living FR players will not be allowed to play an evil character (one example of limited choices). Like most home campaigns.

The level cap in Living Greyhawk was implemented later in the campaign history when it became apparent that high level spells broke down game play. Originally, play was going to go to 20th level, then it was stepped to 18th, then 17th, and now foreced retirement at 16th. We have all heard that 4e development intends to fix the sweet spot so that play at high levels isn't obnoxious.

So those campaign adjustments, to me, don't bring anything for a reason why a playtest (which is not a campaign) by RPGA members is a poor choice.

Sigh. Again, never said that they were a poor choice. Have multiple times stated they would be a good choice, but that their playtest reporting might be skewed by their experiences (ie: the idea that high level spells broke down game play - while there are broken spells, not all high level spells break down game play, but RPGA just outrights bans them all). As I said, it was just a concern, not that they wouldn't do a good job.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I have no experience with the RPGA.
But to me it makes perfect sense to use members of an already existing organization to test a rule set. Stands to reason it'd make it a lot easier to test and get feed back.

 

[TheSeer]

Those rules don't apply to the RPGA. They apply to the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign.

I guarantee you that the slower advancement will also apply to the RPGA's 4e Living Forgotten Realms. A common adjustment in home campaigns.

I strongly doubt that Living FR players will not be allowed to play an evil character (one example of limited choices). Like most home campaigns.

By the way, thanks for educating me on the fact that RPGA and Living Greyhawk are not synonymous. I thought some rules (like the level cap) applied across all RPGA games.

 

[Tarek]

So many flaws and mistaken assumptions...

Some playtesting is being done by RPGA members. RPGA members don't just play RPGA scenarios. Many of them have their own home campaigns that they use.

However, certain RPGA members, being organizers and writers for the various Living campaigns, have experience with playtesting scenarios and rules. I suspect that the "average joe" RPGA member was never considered, and that playtest slots were first offered to those RPGA members who have written adventures for one of the RPGA campaigns and/or been on a Triad for Living Greyhawk.

I expect that no RPGA scenario is being used for playtesting; for one, it's against RPGA rules to use any ruleset for a D&D RPGA scenario other than 3.5e.