variant
Adventurer
It would be nice if they could included a digital copy of the book with each print copy. I would also like to see smaller screen ereader support, maybe even epub.
D&D 5E What do you want from Legends & Lore
It would be nice if they could included a digital copy of the book with each print copy. I would also like to see smaller screen ereader support, maybe even epub.
darjr
I crit!
I'd like more about what motivates or inspires particular changes. I'd also like a rundown of changes between packets and an explanation of those changes. I'd also like more detailed guidance of what they want to see tested and even a discussion of what they are asking in the next survey and why.
avin
First Post
This is good.
I don't know exactly what's involved in joining, but the Bits'n'Mortar scheme already does this for a range of publishers/stores. You buy the book, give the publisher your email, and a download link arrives. Sometimes before you get home with the book.
I know I in no way want them to share survey results, because the last thing we need is for people to see that "their D&D" is in fact not even CLOSE to being as popular as they think it is. Because we'd get nothing but an endless stream of posts from people saying "Well, if this is what people think D&D is, I'M OUT!"
If you keep thinking that how you play D&D is "right"... you're more likely to accept some changes if you can see other preferences of yours in the game. But as soon as you see obvious indications that you're "playing wrong" in the minds of most other gamers... you're more apt to just leave and never look back. More often just out of spite than any real hatred of the game itself. Which is not what ANYONE at WotC wants to see happen.
In this case... ignorance is bliss, people.
If you keep thinking that how you play D&D is "right"... you're more likely to accept some changes if you can see other preferences of yours in the game. But as soon as you see obvious indications that you're "playing wrong" in the minds of most other gamers... you're more apt to just leave and never look back. More often just out of spite than any real hatred of the game itself. Which is not what ANYONE at WotC wants to see happen.
In this case... ignorance is bliss, people.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Pie.
[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION], give me some dang pie!
[sblock]
I actually think controversy-sparking articles are a pretty good idea, so I am pro any L&L column that gets a passionate reaction from the unpleasable fanbase.[/sblock]
[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION], give me some dang pie!
[sblock]
I actually think controversy-sparking articles are a pretty good idea, so I am pro any L&L column that gets a passionate reaction from the unpleasable fanbase.[/sblock]
Sadrik
First Post
I would like them to take one topic and discuss the pros and cons of that topic and then at the end say you decide. Sometimes this may not be very closely tied to what is going on in their design process but it will elevate the discussion to talk about what the issues are. If you are nerdy enough to want to know what the design choices are that are going into D&D 5e then you likely are interested in reading about RPG tropes, distinctions, and options. I think this would also improve the ability to design because the design team could brainstorm more based on these, as it won't be as close as the rubber meeting the road.
If they wanted to include what is going on in the design process make it a little one paragraph blurb. Or use that as the springboard for the issues presented in the article. If the tone were made more as brainstorm rather than a hand down it might improve the fan reception. A certain amount of people simply will not like whatever is handed down in an article, if it is a brainstorm its hard to knock that.
So my vote is for less specifics and more theory, but presented in a collaborative discussion like format.
If they wanted to include what is going on in the design process make it a little one paragraph blurb. Or use that as the springboard for the issues presented in the article. If the tone were made more as brainstorm rather than a hand down it might improve the fan reception. A certain amount of people simply will not like whatever is handed down in an article, if it is a brainstorm its hard to knock that.
So my vote is for less specifics and more theory, but presented in a collaborative discussion like format.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
I'd just want a slightly longer L&L whenever the next column gets written. Maybe a short summary of what they've been doing for the past 3 weeks.
All I want is consistency. If there is an L&L article, then it should be written every week. We should be given advance warning when an article won't appear. WotC has a terrible habit of setting expectations and then falling short of them. Is a missed L&L article a big deal? No, but when a customer is accustomed to expect an article, and it doesn't arrive, it sets a perceived notion of failure in the customers eyes.
I think Mike's biggest problem right now is that he is discussing what is currently going on, which means he is unable to write an article during a time crunch since it can't be written in advance. I'd like to see the article morph a bit to encourage the reader be more a part of the R&D discussions. Perhaps something like this (this is just an example):
1st Monday of the month: Discuss a concept from a previous edition that seemed popular and perhaps may be what the design team is looking at. Solicit feedback and brainstorm.
2nd Monday of the month: Focus discussion on challenges R&D faces with aspects of D&D. For example talk about monster design challenges. Greater in depth knowledge about the challenges provides more transparency for players.
3rd Monday of the month: Mike provides playtest anecdotes. Gives concrete examples of how the rules are seen from R&D which allows readers to get more insight.
4th Monday of the month: In depth article about D&D Next developments over the past month. Talk about classes, design, next packet release, etc.
WotC has done a good job of soliciting feedback, but it would be nice if we could be included earlier in the design process. It might speed things up (though it may not)!
I think Mike's biggest problem right now is that he is discussing what is currently going on, which means he is unable to write an article during a time crunch since it can't be written in advance. I'd like to see the article morph a bit to encourage the reader be more a part of the R&D discussions. Perhaps something like this (this is just an example):
1st Monday of the month: Discuss a concept from a previous edition that seemed popular and perhaps may be what the design team is looking at. Solicit feedback and brainstorm.
2nd Monday of the month: Focus discussion on challenges R&D faces with aspects of D&D. For example talk about monster design challenges. Greater in depth knowledge about the challenges provides more transparency for players.
3rd Monday of the month: Mike provides playtest anecdotes. Gives concrete examples of how the rules are seen from R&D which allows readers to get more insight.
4th Monday of the month: In depth article about D&D Next developments over the past month. Talk about classes, design, next packet release, etc.
WotC has done a good job of soliciting feedback, but it would be nice if we could be included earlier in the design process. It might speed things up (though it may not)!
Similar Threads
