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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4125761" data-attributes="member: 18490">This was my reaction as well. Judging from the tone of the playtest report, it seems to me that these designers had decided that they wouldn't like the game and then set out to prove it. The 'flaws' they found in the game weren't even backed up by the character sheets the playtest characters were printed on. They constructed a lot of false comparisons. Hmmm. If monsters from one location react in a realistic manner and join the fight in another room, that makes the game play like an MMORPG or a video game. I'm sure Gygax would have been surprised that he was copying video games way back when he wrote all those early 1e modules. I also liked how using cards to keep track of resources makes the game functionally equivalent to a CCG. We had spell cards back in 2e (maybe 1e, I can't remember).They miscontrued the way the powers worked and then attacked their miscontruction as if it were real. The failure to appreciate how a power that does d6 damage and makes the user invisible is just as good as a power that d10 damage with no added effect would be astounding if it came from random hobos on the street with no gaming experience. From game designers it was ridiculous. I had a similar reaction to the claim that the paladin was a better healer than the cleric. I can only chalk it up to not reading the powers before trying to use them.Once upon a time, I had respect for some of the folks in question, but no more. It's one thing to not like a game, or a new edition. I've read plenty of well-reasoned posts in these forums that do just that. It's another thing to post random comments that aren't based even on the rules they were supposedly using to playtest the material and call it a playtest report.</blockquote>

Verification