Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7709421" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I see what you are saying Defcon and agree for the most part.However, the idea about a minimum amount of quality is that for most of the actually useful posts in this thread, we are not talking about the rules they provided anymore. Talking about using BR to have smaller modifiers, turning each unit into just an inflated creatures, and ect, are not things expected by this system. The basic number crunching for this system shows that (IMO) nothing about it works to an acceptable degree. It is largely just telling us when there are no needs for these rules. What sort of useful playtesting can we do? What we are currently doing isn't playtesting, it is game design. And the usual surveys we get are not going to have room for someone to explain their new game design, it is only going to ask how these rules worked. To which the only real answer is, not at all they are terrible and let me explain why. So, unless they are reading these forums, they are not getting anything more useful than why this product failed, which is useful, but :failing on every count because battles are too static, too slow, and a d20 variance isn't enough, while morale and traditional military strategies are near meanignless" isn't as useful as the things we could find with a system that was of higher quality and we could simply find weakpoints in the math.</blockquote>