Sell the fluff, pimp the crunch

[Kzach]

Counter argument.

Renting crunch is bad.

That's actually not an argument, that's a statement.

Which begs the question, why is it bad?

As far as the core rules go, I have everything I need in the PHB 1 and DMG 1 (and I can print the errata to include in it if I want). So for prosperity's sake, if I desperately want to cling to 4e once 5e comes out, I still can.

Maybe that's the problem here? I don't tend to cling to the past. I like to embrace new things, including new editions of D&D. I *never* reference any of my old D&D books for rules. I do, however, reference them over and over and over again for fluff. But then again, I have no desire to play 1e or 2e or 3e.

I suppose for people who like to stick to a particular era there's some use to keeping crunch. But even then, if you were to pick up an AD&D 2e game, would you be using every single source of crunch for the game that existed back in the day (assuming you had access to it all still)? Or would you just be using the core products?

Gods, the thought of going through Player's Options and Handbooks again... arrrrrrrrrrrgh!

Kzach runs screaming.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I am optimistic about the future of the game, there's no guarantee that the next batch of rules will be good ones for a particular individual, and there's every possibility that a person may be so engaged in their current campaign that they would like to end it with the rules they've been using before considering the new ones, especially if the new ones do not yet have options for the character they are playing.

Moreover, some of the old books have some really good mechanical ideas worth looking at, as WotC clearly feels.

 

[vagabundo]

I'd love for them to launch a cheap mag called Dungeons and Dragons. Reuse some content from DDI and keep it cheap. It would be used to get the brand out there again. And as a cheap read for us nerdy folk on the run. I could see it doing well. It doesn't have to be a huge page count.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The sheer amount of text may be a reason to have mistakes, but it's no excuse. How many lines of code go into a MMORPG? How many pages are there in the US gov't's annual budget?

Ummh, I thought updates are a regular occurrence in MMORPGs?

I don't know about the editorial quality of the US budget but hazard a guess that way more, higher qualified and better paid people are busy getting that game straight.

Mistakes get made, to be sure, but all that means is that someone needs to take a reasonable amount of time to proofread it. With live eyes, not just editing software spelling/grammar checkers.

Beg to differ. Many of the 4e updates weren't corrections of errors but a continuing development effort. Continuing development of 4e is a decision made by WotC, which incidentally shall sell more DDI subscriptions. On the other hand it might stave off the release of 5e for the foreseeable future as an edition change doesn't make sense any more.

In lawmaking, it also means analyzing what changes were made and why, and what are the most likely effects (intended and unintended) In gaming, the process should include playtesting.

I frankly don't understand why so many people claim that 4e has not been playtested. It hasn't been tested enough to remove all errors and their hasn't been a (n+1)st development pass to incorporate the wisdom gained by such an extensive test run. Well, as test manager of a software development company this doesn't come as a surprise; I have yet to see such a well-structured project.

 

[Quickleaf]

I frankly don't understand why so many people claim that 4e has not been playtested. It hasn't been tested enough to remove all errors and their hasn't been a (n+1)st development pass to incorporate the wisdom gained by such an extensive test run. Well, as test manager of a software development company this doesn't come as a surprise; I have yet to see such a well-structured project.

Speaking to 4e specifically, some of the recurring complaints I've seen (and share) are the adjusting of skill DCs twice, the way high level monster attacks/defenses outpace high level PCs, susceptibility of solos to stunlock (yes that's being addressed in recent design), end of next turn frequently being more powerful than save ends despite save ends being reserved for daily powers, feat intensive/prohibitive multiclassing, etc.

These strike me as the sort of basic components of the game that shouldn't need errata, and a sign that something broke down in the playtesting process. Within a couple games of 4e my group noticed these issues and more, and we weren't the only group to do so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ummh, I thought updates are a regular occurrence in MMORPGs?

They are, but as a percentage of actual data, there are relatively few out and out errors- and many updates add to/improve the game as opposed to fix errors.

Many of the 4e updates weren't corrections of errors but a continuing development effort.

The RECENT ones, yes, but go look up ENWorld's own 4Ed bughunting thread, and you'll find a host of simple proofreading errors, like incorrect page references. That's stuff so basic it simply shouldn't happen.

I frankly don't understand why so many people claim that 4e has not been playtested

Quickleaf said it better than I could, but I'll add: the PHB1 is so woefully inadequate that it's hard to imagine it as anything but an afterthought. And personally, our group (10 experienced gamers) found some of the PHB1's layout to be pretty poor- certain things that needed explaining within a paragraph or so were instead shunted off for pages & pages. It led to some frustrating early experiences.

To me, that says there weren't a lot of people who were using the book's info as if cracking it open without prior knowledge of the contents. Or, to put it differently, whatever playtesters there were were generally too close to the design & development process, and as a result, did not notice things fresh eyes would have caught quickly.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Speaking to 4e specifically, some of the recurring complaints I've seen (and share) are the adjusting of skill DCs twice, the way high level monster attacks/defenses outpace high level PCs, susceptibility of solos to stunlock (yes that's being addressed in recent design), end of next turn frequently being more powerful than save ends despite save ends being reserved for daily powers, feat intensive/prohibitive multiclassing, etc.

These strike me as the sort of basic components of the game that shouldn't need errata, and a sign that something broke down in the playtesting process. Within a couple games of 4e my group noticed these issues and more, and we weren't the only group to do so.

Playtesting just gives you reports from the field. Several or a lot groups like your's will have noted and reported this problems. Now somebody has to gauge these responses and pair them with former design decisions. Assuming that the game design was the source of these reported problems and further assuming that the design has happened with some justification for its decisions you have two (or more) versions of any conflicted point. Now someone has to decide which version to use.

This late in a project you won't have time left to discuss all these points at length let alone change them and make another round of playtests. You have to assign these decisions to somebody and let him decide. This guy will decide on what he assumes the best version. He will err, sometimes.

Note that we don't know what has been changed based on the playtests. The more changes are implemented the larger the risk of other things coming out worse unintentionally.

Taking this behaviour of project development as granted, the DDI way of constantly changing and updating the game in an uncomplicated way (for DDI subscribers) is a cool, satisfying solution.

 

[DracoSuave]

That's actually not an argument, that's a statement.

Which begs the question, why is it bad?

Because that puts the game mechanics at a subscriber-based model. When said subscriptions give you necessary value, such as the servers needed to play the game, wtc, it is justified.

However, in the case of a table top roleplaying game it is not. They're not taking a cost to run the medium the game is played on. My table is owned and operated by myself.

So where is the justification for renting something that traditionally is perchased, with no value gain in the rental?

 

[Dedekind]

As a player, I love, love, love, ..., love, love DDI. It is far more cost efficient for me to have everything in one place. And WotC gets more money from me now (per year) than it ever did in the past. Plus my characters can be accessed in far more places.

As a DM, my feelings towards DDI fall to merely liking it. I worry about "renting" adventures and losing my Monster Builder custom material. (yeah, yeah, it doesn't "build" monsters.) For DMing, I would rather have a bound book or magazine.

The net value to me is totally positive. I don't want the 20+ books in my library like [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION].

 

[Gronin]

There has been a great deal of talk about WOTC and their playtesting and its effectiveness.

I have a question --- has anyone here ever been involved in playtesting for WOTC? Does anyone know anyone who has been involved in playtesting for WOTC? I am specifically interested in out of house playtesting.

There are plenty of other companies out there that have had external playtesters for RPGS (I myself have been involved in three) but I have never seen any application process from WOTC.

To me, that says there weren't a lot of people who were using the book's info as if cracking it open without prior knowledge of the contents. Or, to put it differently, whatever playtesters there were were generally too close to the design & development process, and as a result, did not notice things fresh eyes would have caught quickly.

I would have to strongly agree with this statement --- if you don't have things proofread/playtested by someone who has had little or no exposure to the product prior to that there are inherent assumptions made - if you already know what something is supposed to say that is how you will read it. As Quickleaf said there are/were a lot of pretty basic issues in 4E and I can't help but feel that if they game had been properly playtested out of house that at least some of these would have been found and, hopefully, rectified.