Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!

[Brown Jenkin]

.
Huh? Who is this "our"?

"we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority" - Ryan Dancey

I guess this is how we got D&D 3.5 AKA Andy Collins House Rules released.

 

[MerricB]

We've already discussed the specifics, but just let me interject that many of us do not share your adoration for these books.

So what, Psion? Many of us don't share your dislike of these books, either!

WotC would be foolish to rely merely on my perception of the books, or contrariwise, merely on your perception of the books.

I guess this is how we got D&D 3.5 AKA Andy Collins House Rules released.

Oh, come off it BJ - not just Andy Collin's House Rules... I'm sure that Ed Stark added a few things here and there!

But really - how is this different to any other edition of D&D? oD&D, AD&D and UA were Gary Gygax's house rules, 2E was 'Zeb' Cook's house rules, 2.5E was Doug Niles' house rules and 3E was Monte Cook's house rules...

Cheers!

 

[JoeBlank]

Butt-kissing to follow, please skip to next post if prefer to avoid reading such drivel:

Merric, the more I read your opinions and analyses, both here and on your website, the more respect I have for you. Your knowledge of, and love for, the game impress me. You are old-school, and yet open-minded. The fact that I share many of your opinions certainly helps. When I find a reviewer with likes and dislikes similar to my own, I can usually trust that his reviews on future books will be reliable.

Thanks for all you bring to this community.

And more on topic: I have not had to time to read thru all of UA, but I very much like the idea of a tome of alternative house rules. Some parts of the book I have looked at might make their way into my future games, and many certainly won't.

And I agree with the OP that just reading the book sparks many new ideas about ways to run a game.

 

[Psion]

So what, Psion?

"So what?" I chimed in, just the same as you. Should have I posted "so what" in response to your post? I was merely stating that I think that those books can, AFAIAC, be point at as signs of dubious work.

 

[MerricB]

"So what?" I chimed in, just the same as you. Should have I posted "so what" in response to your post? I was merely stating that I think that those books can, AFAIAC, be point at as signs of dubious work.

Psion, I've no problem with you saying that, however that isn't how what you posted reads to me. It reads as "I don't want to discuss it, but you're wrong."

At least point to a few balance issues in the CW (or posts in another thread).

Certainly, I don't believe that CW has anything on the level of balance issues that the BoED has. Do I believe that there are issues with the role-playing vs. game bonus style of the BoED? Absolutely, but I put that book, and UA, in a different category than the range of books designed more for the core market.

Cheers!

 

[Ranger REG]

Huh? Who is this "our"?

"we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority" - Ryan Dancey

I'd like to think that my voice is one of the majority.

There's a big difference between playtesting and thorough playtesting. Playtest the VP/WP system for D&D. Ok. Now thoroughly playtest it. I'll get back to you next decade...

'better, faster, cheaper: choose two"

Taking shortcut: playtesting
Ensure quality: thorough playtesting

Honestly, initial playtesting is that bad to allow the mechanics to be presented "as is"?

You want me to fully praise Wizards of the Coast -- offering no criticism -- like a plastic Ken doll? I can do that. But if you want my genuine feeling, I will give them what is good and what is not good.

 

[MerricB]

Not at all, but it just seems as if you're not quite getting all the nuances of my posts.

I said that thoroughly playtesting UA is ludicrous. Certainly, there are ideas that that can be playtested in a fairly thorough manner before release (traits come to mind), but there are other ideas for which the implications are too great to allow such playtesting (gestalt classes, VP/WP systems). Consider the playtesting that 3E received, unparalleled in the history of role-playing, and it still had major issues with its balance. Not that 3.5E fixes all of those problems, for it doesn't, and of course introduces some new problems.

They can do a little gaming with the variant rules in UA, but the implications of each of the changes taken alone can be huge for a campaign that lasts two years, and then there are the combinations of the changes. Oh dear!

With a book like Complete Warrior, as a book where any part of it should integrate into a campaign easily, and that is built off the basic assumptions of D&D, then playtesting and the balance issues are solid and real. If it does fail on the balance issue, then that is a real problem for Wizards.

However, I don't think that quite the same standard applies to Unearthed Arcana, and expecting that holds WotC to an unrealistic standard. I see UA as a real grab-bag: some ideas that are good, some ideas that have little relation to standard D&D, and some ideas that add much to the OGC community, even though their application in a 'normal' D&D is uncertain.

The weird, the wacky, and the wonderful - and which is which is down to personal preferences.

Cheers!

 

[dreaded_beast]

That's what I call "misleading the haoles."

Sorry for going off-topic but I just had to chuckle at this since I live in Hawaii too, heh.

 

[Ranger REG]

I said that thoroughly playtesting UA is ludicrous. Certainly, there are ideas that that can be playtested in a fairly thorough manner before release (traits come to mind), but there are other ideas for which the implications are too great to allow such playtesting (gestalt classes, VP/WP systems).

While I have yet to pick up the book, I question if they did institute any kind of playtesting for Unearthed Arcana. That's why I ask earlier if they have the names of playtesters on its Credit page. Or better yet, have those playtesters assure me that they went through the material for at least 30 days.

However, I don't think that quite the same standard applies to Unearthed Arcana, and expecting that holds WotC to an unrealistic standard. I see UA as a real grab-bag: some ideas that are good, some ideas that have little relation to standard D&D, and some ideas that add much to the OGC community, even though their application in a 'normal' D&D is uncertain.

Still, if such a product bears the D&D logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the D&D core game like a glove. I can accept that certain variant rules from UA cannot work together (and it should say so) or you have to pick and choose (e.g., replacing HP health system with VP/WP health system), but I'd like FULL instruction on how to use each variant rules into the D&D core ruleset with little or no fuss.

The weird, the wacky, and the wonderful - and which is which is down to personal preferences.

Of that statement, We can agree.

 

[MerricB]

I agree with all of your points there, Ranger.

I'm sure some of the variants got playtested (just because I'm sure some are house rules), but others... urk.

Still, if such a product bears the D&D logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the D&D core game like a glove.

I do still think UA is a special case, and that it's been marketed as a special case.

Cheers!