Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Serious question - are you going to invest in D&DNext?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6202702" data-attributes="member: 40233"><p>Absolutely correct, except for your misapprehension that my use of the word polish was somehow pejorative.</p><p></p><p>What you're talking about in the first paragraph is exactly the kind of stuff I wish they'd taken the time to do in 3e, but they went with "looks good. ship it!" (or at least I imagine; I understand they playtested levels 1 through 10 pretty extensively). ADDENDUM: 4e had the opposite problem of 3e. They did a lot of work with the numbers, but those numbers didn't generate results matching player expectations.</p><p></p><p>But it's clear to me that deciding that "fights should last 5 rounds on average, and fighters should succeed at hitting their opponents 70% of the time" are goals one decides on early in the design process, but then, at the end, you have to go through the rules, and figure out that "Yes, fights are lasting about 5 rounds and, oh no! fighers are hitting only 45% of the time! We need to adjust their attack bonus to make them hit more! But now the fights only last 3 rounds. Perhaps we should look at hit points again!".</p><p></p><p>All of this is incredibly important stuff. But it's not stuff you can look at until you've figured out the basic structure of the game. Which is what the public playtest was about. Do we want expertise dice or a proficiency bonus? Should mages be competent with martial weapons? Should dragons be a challenging fight for a whole party, or should a single rogue be able to take an equal level dragon on? How often <em>should</em> a fighter succeed at hitting?</p><p></p><p>That's the stuff they needed us to answer. And we did; but now comes sausage making-the math polishing. We've told them we like proficiency bonuses more than expertise dice. So how large should that proficiency bonus be? They don't need us for that part. In fact, we'd only get in the way...the same way a chef in the kitchen needs to know we want steak rather than sea food, but doesn't need us telling him how to cook it.</p><p></p><p>The frustrating thing is the idea that the math should work absolutely correct right out the door "Waddaya mean my rogue can beat up a dragon! I told you I want rogues and dragons! Can't you do anything right?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6202702, member: 40233"] Absolutely correct, except for your misapprehension that my use of the word polish was somehow pejorative. What you're talking about in the first paragraph is exactly the kind of stuff I wish they'd taken the time to do in 3e, but they went with "looks good. ship it!" (or at least I imagine; I understand they playtested levels 1 through 10 pretty extensively). ADDENDUM: 4e had the opposite problem of 3e. They did a lot of work with the numbers, but those numbers didn't generate results matching player expectations. But it's clear to me that deciding that "fights should last 5 rounds on average, and fighters should succeed at hitting their opponents 70% of the time" are goals one decides on early in the design process, but then, at the end, you have to go through the rules, and figure out that "Yes, fights are lasting about 5 rounds and, oh no! fighers are hitting only 45% of the time! We need to adjust their attack bonus to make them hit more! But now the fights only last 3 rounds. Perhaps we should look at hit points again!". All of this is incredibly important stuff. But it's not stuff you can look at until you've figured out the basic structure of the game. Which is what the public playtest was about. Do we want expertise dice or a proficiency bonus? Should mages be competent with martial weapons? Should dragons be a challenging fight for a whole party, or should a single rogue be able to take an equal level dragon on? How often [I]should[/I] a fighter succeed at hitting? That's the stuff they needed us to answer. And we did; but now comes sausage making-the math polishing. We've told them we like proficiency bonuses more than expertise dice. So how large should that proficiency bonus be? They don't need us for that part. In fact, we'd only get in the way...the same way a chef in the kitchen needs to know we want steak rather than sea food, but doesn't need us telling him how to cook it. The frustrating thing is the idea that the math should work absolutely correct right out the door "Waddaya mean my rogue can beat up a dragon! I told you I want rogues and dragons! Can't you do anything right?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Serious question - are you going to invest in D&DNext?
Top