Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 2982279" data-attributes="member: 33904">Then we have to agree to disagree on that part (unless you want us to go "first sentence"-"second sentence" over sides)I actually don't think removing complexity from the game in a larger amount is actually part of the game. The new Ogre Mage is certainly still a complex monster (sneak attack, fly, spell like abilities, including an evocation blast), though it's a bit streamlined (I agree that there's some to much in that "a bit"). The moment D&D stops being a tactical game it lost its complexity. Lets just say that I as a tactician in part see no removal of complexity.There are shortcuts provided for the inexpirienced, lazy, uncreative and those that simply lack time, people who are all valid and valued part of the games audience. This includes encounter tables, the return of adventures, example encounters, classed Monsters in monster books etc.Then there's the removal of complication, like the rust monster. Parts of the game that can be fun if handled correctly/introduced to the right crowd, but can screw the games of others. Rust Monsters are great fun, but you need a certain amount of expertise for that. When I carelessly used a rust dragon and consequently destroyed the 6th level fighters complete gear, I was lucky he was mature enough not to storm out in disgust and he was lucky that I came up with something to replace his gear. In our game this lead to some roleplaying and interesting new hooks and plot elements when he took that cursed bone armor from the doomguard to replace his equipment. In other groups, those of younger/more casual people, which is a large number of groups, i.e. customers, that player would have stormed out in disgust or the DM would have left him in the dark without equipment.What this tells is, that if any complexity is stripped out of the game, it's the complex fun, while the fast and easy fun remains. Everyone can have fun kicking <s>puppies</s> kobolds, slaying dragons, fighting beholder, throwing fireballs etc.But a Ogre Mages Cone of Cold or Rustmonsters equipment have the possibility to massively wreck games. Hell, there are even those slimy DMs that use rustmonsters or instant kills to screw their players (screwing PC's is fine, but screwing the players just sucks), using their officiality as excuse. And wrecked games are unfun games and lead to players dropping out and leaving the game. Do I agree that groups shouldn't be screwed with killer encounters? YesDo I agree that there should be ways to "complex fun" in my gaming material? Hell yeah.It's a dilemma for the designers. Mearls articles certainly made it seem that wotc is stripping out the "complex fun", just to be sure. But if the articles are really more experiments (and I don't think mearls lied to us), then they seem to deal with the dilemma by trial and error.So in a way I agree with you, there are indication that this may be part of the goal. However, my complain is, if you are concerned about this, I don't think complaining on a internet board first is the way to go when you could very well first ask the designer "Is this the design goal?"I understand that people are concerned, but complaining about proplems that may or may not exist doesn't go right with me. We have little prove that this isn't part of the stated design philosophy, but we don't have much proof that it is either.Of course I can't promise you that will never be part of the design philosophy, but I'm pretty confident that wotc has a R&D that creates a design philosophy that is not as one dimensional and single minded as that. The game has to many aspects to be handled that easily.Well, management isn't always the most knowledgable on the actual subject. Hell, they don't even know much about marketing communication either. 95% of the time ""This is unfun, so we don't do it" sounds perfect to a manager/marketing expert, but it can still upset the custommer.</blockquote>

Verification