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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Mass Combat
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="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7709429" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Trevor Kidd over at WotC does occasionally come over here and read these threads, so you aren't talking completely in a vacuum. And I would hazard a guess that when the time comes for the survey and they receive a shiteload of responses that all say "The math as it stands does not work at all and I can't even test it effectively.")... if the folks over there are really taken aback by that and want to further know why... chances are pretty good that Trevor will come here, to reddit, to rpg.net and get the full scoop on the situation (including all the math.)</p><p></p><p>But also here's the other thing we have to remember... oftentimes they deliberately post playtest options with "unchecked math" knowing full well that fixing the math later is the easy part. What is the hard part is knowing whether the actual format of what they are giving us will be embraced. And for the most part... it seems like that's been embraced okay. Or at the very least the format has been embraced more positively than the previous version of their mass combat rules did. It's appears as though it feels better to more people here. So if that's what they also get in the survey responses... they know they can in this general direction and just fix the math.</p><p></p><p>But you all do also have a strong point when you say that the math could be <em>so bad</em> that you aren't even able to give a proper analysis on the feel of the rules format. So in that regard for at least a bunch of you... the article is basically a worthless endeavor and there's nothing WotC can glean from it. The question then comes down to whether Mike & Co. would agree with that assessment, or would there be enough firmer opinions (on both sides) for them to take legitimate lesson from and make their decisions on whether to continue down the path in design?</p><p></p><p>For that, I have no idea. But I do believe they will glean something from this at the end of the day. And for all we know... exactly what they were looking for.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7709429, member: 7006"] Trevor Kidd over at WotC does occasionally come over here and read these threads, so you aren't talking completely in a vacuum. And I would hazard a guess that when the time comes for the survey and they receive a shiteload of responses that all say "The math as it stands does not work at all and I can't even test it effectively.")... if the folks over there are really taken aback by that and want to further know why... chances are pretty good that Trevor will come here, to reddit, to rpg.net and get the full scoop on the situation (including all the math.) But also here's the other thing we have to remember... oftentimes they deliberately post playtest options with "unchecked math" knowing full well that fixing the math later is the easy part. What is the hard part is knowing whether the actual format of what they are giving us will be embraced. And for the most part... it seems like that's been embraced okay. Or at the very least the format has been embraced more positively than the previous version of their mass combat rules did. It's appears as though it feels better to more people here. So if that's what they also get in the survey responses... they know they can in this general direction and just fix the math. But you all do also have a strong point when you say that the math could be [I]so bad[/I] that you aren't even able to give a proper analysis on the feel of the rules format. So in that regard for at least a bunch of you... the article is basically a worthless endeavor and there's nothing WotC can glean from it. The question then comes down to whether Mike & Co. would agree with that assessment, or would there be enough firmer opinions (on both sides) for them to take legitimate lesson from and make their decisions on whether to continue down the path in design? For that, I have no idea. But I do believe they will glean something from this at the end of the day. And for all we know... exactly what they were looking for. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Mass Combat
Top