WotC_PeterS talks about his "aggresive playtest" (with Le Rouse, SKR, & Noonan)

[Scott_Rouse]

That said, Get back to work, you slackers! *cracks whip*

I am on vacation hahahaha

 

[Delta]

It is all relative. The 4e jump is still significant enough to warrant a new edition but what I was trying to convey is that there are core elements (like core d20 system rules) that make it different than the jump from 2nd to 3e.

SWSE is still D20 in certain ways but it is also not 3.0 or 3.5 in many others.

Does this make sense?

Well, since you asked me, I have to say: Frankly, no.

The "core d20 system" mechanics to me always looked mathematically equivalent to 1E AD&D. Feats were new and I liked those. But 4E's totally-new races, classes, BABs and saves, alignment and planes, and complete demolition of the spell/magic system is unlike anything I've seen in D&D since its inception.

I'm not the target audience anymore, but on this point we'll be very much disagreeing.

 

[Azegoroth]

I am on vacation hahahaha

Drats, foiled again! :\

 

[Henry]

The "core d20 system" mechanics to me always looked mathematically equivalent to 1E AD&D. Feats were new and I liked those. But 4E's totally-new races, classes, BABs and saves, alignment and planes, and complete demolition of the spell/magic system is unlike anything I've seen in D&D since its inception.

I have to say I disagree with you. 1E and 3E math were quite different after about 3rd level or so; a 1E and 3E character side by side comparison would have the 3E character outdistancing the stats of a 1E character "by a country mile," as the saying goes. Between the feats, higher ability bonuses, class bonuses, hit points, spell capacities, etc. There was no contest.

And Scott is right about the 2E to 3E conversion: In no case was I or any of my regular gaming group able to capture the feel of our 2E characters by converting them with the conversion rules provided. Heck, the multiclass characters alone were several levels higher than their companions!! The stats were skewed; a 15 in AD&D meant nothing often times, but meant a +2 bonus in 3E. Those 15 scores then got shoved up to 16's often when you added the ability bonuses from every 4th level, so that's a +3. In the end, any 2E character I had, I ended up starting from scratch and converting by eyeballing it, the same method that James Wyatt recommends for 3E to 4E. It was an illusion of conversion that they realized wasn't necessary this time around. It's all in taking the concept, looking at the new rules, and then just figuring out what abilities give you the same feel as the character you had.

In fact, this part will likely be easier than from 2E to 3E previously, because then you were going from "narrow" to "wide" with the range of options, and often felt like in our experience the characters were being stiffed out some of the new stuff if you converted them strictly. In this case, IF they do their job right, then hopefully the first basic rules in 2008 will allow us to convert 90% of our existing characters right out of the gate. The only part that gets me concerned is when we hear playtesters saying stuff like "I took my warmage, and made him a Warlord, but with some wizard abilities", which sounds crazy as heck on the surface.

In summary, I really don't put much stock in the whole, "THEY WON'T HAVE CONVERSION RULES" argument, and that's the reason why. The math is very different from 2E to 3E, and different from 3 to 4, but likely not as different.

 

[azigen]

So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest:

I was told they were going to get barbecue for lunch (and the go to the comic book shop). I thought I could catch them in the parking lot.

I thought this was Andy Collins car but when I jumped inside it was full of Magic R&D.

So I went back to the building to look for the answers but I had trouble with the door.

Finally some one let me in the building and I headed to the second floor to see if someone in digital games might know the answer.

The place was empty.

I think they were off playing Rock Band or Guitar Hero or something.

I thought Events/Organized Play might know but they were at some team building off-site

So I headed to the fourth floor (home of Brand)

Legal was empty except for some guys caught downloading bootleg PDFs.

So I went to the executive offices:

But they were empty too (sort of)

Everyone in Brand was busy

So I just could not get an answers to your questions.

Seriously though more will be revealed soon.

Check out D&D Insider on Friday for some scoopy goodness

Happy Holidays

Ok, now your just being plain silly? Vacation Egg Nog any good ?

 

[Dragonblade]

So I went to talk to R&D for answers but they had just finished their latest playtest..........<snipped for brevity>.......Happy Holidays

That was AWESOME!! Seriously man, I had to wipe the tears away.

 

[GSHamster]

Does D&D use the same Design/Development split-team model that Magic uses?

It's always struck me as a good model for developing games, and it seems fairly successful for Magic, and I was wondering if the D&D team uses the same model.

 

[JohnSnow]

Does D&D use the same Design/Development split-team model that Magic uses?

It's always struck me as a good model for developing games, and it seems fairly successful for Magic, and I was wondering if the D&D team uses the same model.

Yup. It works a bit differently with D&D since it's a different game than Magic, but they have both designers and developers. Designers come up with cool new stuff, and developers make it fit the system mechanically (sometimes by tweaking the design of something, and sometimes by adjusting the level of it.)

There's also a story team, which seems to be separate from the above. I understand that there's a bit of crossover among all three groups, though.

 

[Rechan]

A thought occurs to me as to why running a regular campaign, or a regular adventure, is a good idea.

1) Player satisfaction with the character. "Does this character do what you want, what you would have liked, given this character's concept? Do you feel limited or disappointed with it? Does your dwarf feel like a dwarf should?"

2) Rest. 4e is supposed to "fix" the "Fifteen Minute Work Day". Well, they can't quite do that if it's just a "four guys in a room with a monster, rinse repeat." If you're just taking 4 PCs against some monsters, with no continuity, then they'll just use their Per-Day abilities every encounter. Measuring the entire "work day" is good.

3) As Noonan mentions in the other thread, characters will act more aggressively with pre-gen characters, rather than characters they have grown attached to. Is it a good measurement of PC ability when they're all acting like kamikaze pilots?

4) A campaign-style play best simulates how the game will be played. Yeah, doing the "aggressive" manner above is great to work out the big, glaring mistakes. But after sending that sports car into crash tests, off-road tests, and high speed tests, you also need to take it for a casual sunday drive to see how it behaves under every-day experience.

Finally

5) I think it's a little unreasonable to expect the WotC guys to just hammer in "Fight after fight after fight" without getting to, actually, play and enjoy their product. It is, after all, a game.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I know this is many hours old and a Moderator got frisky over the poster, but I something said just made me blink many times in confusion.

His post would have been funny if he had responded constructively to the worries laid out earlier in the thread.

Can anyone tell me how responding constructively results in making a post funny where not being constructive then removes the humor potential?