Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="justanobody" data-source="post: 4593942" data-attributes="member: 70778">More to the point that there are two actual weakened states. One deals directly with HP in that when your a lowered to a certain level you gain new abilities and powers, and the other is a status effect that halves damage done. It is where I find a problem with the keywording of things that has gotten worse with 4th. weakened should be used and it is, but I think the status effect isn't really needed or should maybe come with what is considred "bloodied". Bloodied is a term related to appearances, not functionality. Someone could be bloodied and not be harmed at all for it could be someone else's blood they are covered in.I don't like the rules taking away descriptive terms that add to the story elements because they are used as game mechanics.I focus on bloodied because all that it could mean and the mountains of examples I can provide off the top of my head for it."The man in fornt of you is bloodied."A: He is at half HP or less?B: He is covered in blood?B1: His own blood meaning he is weaker than his norm?B2: Someone else's blood?B2a: If was not intended and this person is not a threat?B2b: He covered himself in someone else's blood to feign weakness?That one word can mean so many things, but including it to a game mechanic was not good. I also wouldn't mind it being called doohickey, or thingamajig.You are several post behind and stuck there and need to follow after that to where the discussion has lead beyond the thesaurus reference.For whatever reason, the word is the problem. Didn't they change the name of something else prior to print because the community said the naming convention was dumb for it from its preview?Also I question now with recent events, the playtesting of the material for what is seen in the beta of DDI, because it seems they leave big gapping holes in the beta/play testing of things because they are neglected and should be testing everything including the specific reader response to the wording where books are involved. Maybe it isn't the designers fault, but the editors, but we won't know unless we know what process WotC uses, and it seems with DDI beta at least they are using a different testing method than others have been using for years, so it is possible with the D&D products they are using a different method as well that may not be catching these things that need to be fixed, or just not testing them enough to catch them in the case of a complete new product which 4th edition is.The same was a problem with 4th as well wasn't it? I mean how long did it take for 3.5 to come around because of poor design, editing, or testing to not catch the problems with it?Look at all the errata for Magic the Gathering cards. Some have more than a page of corrections for a card with but a paragraph of text on it.It seems a systemic problem within WotC though.Anyway....The words are just one disconnect from gamers and designers, and it is funny the more technology allows for communication, the more the lines of communication break down.The house reference, is all about the lines that gamers have within a game to where it is something they want to play versus something that no longer interests them such as moving someone else's furniture in a house.Like I said somewhere if the names of the products were switched for Warhammer and D&D would people still play the one named D&D, or the one with the D&D rules? That tells you what is important to each of those people depending on what they chose and what real priority you should put on their opinions.The ones playing the game named Warhammer that are the D&D rules are the ones you would be interested in seeking ideas and advice from, while those playing the game named D&D that has the Warhammer rules, are not going to provide you with any useful information to doing something with D&D as they are just playing the name, not the game.It has been asked many times before so in the vein of "trusting designers", would 4th edition be as good a game and have as many profit if it did not carry the name D&D? The answer is no, not yet. The reason is above, and those that disagree with design elements from any edition are the ones playing the game, not the name and found something in that game that they liked and gave them a reason to play D&D instead of Warhammer, Rifts, Vampire, etc....So the designers took the game in a direction and some gamers disagreed with that direction and don't agree with it so don't play 4th edition D&D, or didn't play 3rd, 2nd, whatever.</blockquote>

Verification