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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5047620" data-attributes="member: 61155">I agree that I found it a great article, but I don't really agree with your portrayal of the decisions used by the D&D team.   Except that I'm confident the designers of the game are out to create the best Roleplaying game they can. I suspect they very much feel they have done so. Some gamers disagree, sure, just like many will disagree about how successful Magic is for casual or professional play.  Now, there are some elements that can't be combined in the same system, and so there are specific elements that will be missing in the game in order to make it (what they consider) better in other ways. But I don't think they set out to actively abandon anybody, or create a game devoted to tactical gaming alone. I think there is a lot of the game that support non-tactical elements, and the argument otherwise was disproven quite some time ago.   "Means nothing"? That seems to be a harsh claim from a single piece of evidence. Having the names of iconics from 3rd Ed crop up in unusual places would seem an example of attention to detail. Many of the more obscure references in the planar cosmology would be the same. The production of the recent PHB1 and PHB2 bundle with slip case. The delineation of player and DM content and the focus on several distinct lines of products.  Sure, there may be areas where they could make better design decisions - more uniform spines for the books, for example. I'm sure there are many others. I suspect examples could be found for Magic, as well - it is pretty much impossible to always anticipate everything, and produce the perfect game for every player.  It may well be that Magic does a better job at this than D&D. But I think the claim that attention to detail "means nothing" to the D&D designers is completely baseless.   I'd say there are a good number of cool items in the game. I find it unlikely that, if WotC feels there is room for a category between basic items and artifacts, that they won't work hard to find a way to include that in the game. I'd say that the presence of regular errata, as well as innovative new mechanics in supplements and DDI, are pretty strong signs that they are more than willing to find solutions to what they feel are lacking in the game.  I think that these are all good elements to have in the design of the game. I see them there all the time, in play and in the support the designers provide for the game.  You certainly don't need to enjoy the game - everyone is welcome to their opinion on that. But claiming that the designers don't care about the details or about finding solutions to problems, or that they aren't interested in including any elements outside of tactical play... that seems to be making some very large (and potentially insulting) assumptions about the motivations of the designers, and ones that aren't supported by my experiences at all.</blockquote>

Verification