Results 631 to 660 of 1486
Thread: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
2012-11-12, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The first question is, are they asking the right people.
The play test best addresses the first type of people. After all, if you're a customer, you want to know what's going on. The play test also gets some of the second group (mostly those that played 1e, 2e or 3e and left recently. The rest of the second group is unlikely to be interested in the play test either because they're not RPG players now, of have never been interested in D&D as anything more than idle curiosity.
There is a third subset, which is the group of current customers who aren't actually interested in the play test. These are like some of my current players who are mostly there to hang out and have a good time beating up some orcs. They aren't particularly attached to the game, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. They will likely simply play whatever game their DM has chosen for them. These people do have some useful feedback to provide, but short of actually ambushing them directly, most of that feedback will be filtered through their DM who falls into the first group of people anyway.
So I would say overall, yes, they're asking the right people.
The second question is, will the majority answers be successful in drawing in new people and maintaining them?
The short answer is that you will never get the "right" answers from the questions you ask people when developing a new product.
The nature of their questions is, IMO, wrong. The surveys are all about the fluff and gut feelings, not about the mechanics. It's a lot of, "What's iconic?" and "Does this look like a bugbear to you?"
If there's one thing I've learned from playing RPGs is that if I buy a game, I want it to be one I couldn't have made myself.
Yet WotC isn't spending their time developing those mechanics or even introducing new ones. Instead, they are sending out surveys and polishing the skeleton instead of adding meat to the bones.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: WotC is abandoning (at their peril!) their strengths as a game development company and is instead trying to retread the ideas that were popular during their first big hit -- 3.0. Appealing to nostalgia might get you some money in the bank, but it is invariably the death knell of a franchise.
-
2012-11-12, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
-
2012-11-12, 01:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Sure, but paying people is supposed to convince them to devote more time to their Art, not less
Listen, I may be able to paint, but I wouldn't have thought to paint like Dali.
I may be able to write, but I wouldn't have thought to write like J.R.R. Tolkien.
I may be able to make RPGs, but I wouldn't have thought to come up with Relationship Mechanics like in Bliss Stage.
At the heart of any work of Art is the idea of the author. New ideas come from people, not from retreading works that already exist. I would have never thought to write anything like Tolkien but now that it's written anyone can write a "Tolkien-like" work. What WotC is doing now is like Tolkien repackaging The Hobbit instead of writing Fellowship of the Ring -- they're covering ground that has not only been covered already but are simply "giving people what they want" instead of using their own abilities to produce something new.
* * *
The strengths that WotC has are as follows:
(1) A staff of game designers who are paid to design games
SpoilerThey have a collection of, presumably talented or at least seasoned, designers who do not have to worry about doing anything but designing games. In the same way the artist with a patron can focus on creating art than the starving one, a paid game designer can spend more time working on mechanics than the web developer who scribbles notes in his spare time.
Ideally this means they can spend more time coming up with new ideas, trying them out, and actually put them together into a complete game. Y'know, before throwing some mechanics at the Internet and seeing what sticks.
(2) A bucket of money to hire auxiliary types (writers, software developers) to make the game pretty.
SpoilerYeah, we have time to see them make use of this bucket. Still, I'm disappointed that so far this bucket of money can't even make their "play testing" experience work smoothly.
The other stuff they're leveraging just fine, but #1 is the main issue. The whole attraction of Indie Games is that they're done by Geniuses (lit. a person with strong natural talent) who produce novel mechanics and therefore, play experiences. These games are naturally limited (since they don't have the resources to produce a game as broad as D&D) and often lack the bells & whistles that mainstream gamers like in their games: splatbooks, online reference tools, pretty art, etc.
Now, giving an Indie Designer a bucket of money doesn't guarantee (or even promise) a better game -- many Indie Designers basically just have one Good Idea and lack a wider vision to design a larger game. But WotC -- theoretically -- can have a range of designers from the Indie Genius to the TSR Workhorse and clearly has the infrastructure to let them work together and produce a unified system. 4e, as an example, is a vast game -- larger than any one person could conceivably produce -- and was the product of the shared vision of a team of designers. Whether you liked it or not, it was both new and different from any other game on the market.
If WotC can do that once, why not do that again? Learn from your mistakes, of course, but use your team to make a game first and then play test it. This design-by-committee approach could have been done by anyone with a bucket of money: as Mearls himself said, he's just "the product owner" and his so-called designers serve as code monkeys that throw something together every two weeks to satisfy customer survey results.
That's not a game; that's a mish-mash that nobody can claim to have designed or will be responsible for when it failsLead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-11-12, 01:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Just because they're asking for feedback doesn't mean they're doing whatever the playerbase says. They're still developing the game the same way they usually would, except that now they get to see what people like and don't like before the game is released, rather than after. This allows them to make informed decisions about what to work on, what to change, what to leave alone.
Game developers (and developers of all kinds) have been using this process forever. The only difference now is that the people testing the game is all of us, instead of the designers, or a handful of paid game testers over in WotC.
It's doing for RPGs what the web has already done for comics. It's allowing the end user to participate (indirectly) with the creation of the thing they're enjoying.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-11-12, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
So... the way that these games have always been developed is (1) throw together a combat mechanic (2) test the combat mechanic (3) throw in new elements willy-nilly and see what sticks?
How do you get a game like Mountain Witch or Bliss Stage or Burning Wheel working like that? When I design games I start with the Purpose of the game and then define Resolution Mechanics, Character Creation and Character Advancement before I start playtesting.
So far I've seen half of one of these steps (no definition on Skills, for example) and in the meantime WotC is tinkering with spell descriptions rather than, say, describing how non-combat interactions are resolved.
Yeah, I don't buy that this is normal procedure for game design. Or if it is, then I guess that explains a lotLead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-11-12, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Sure, but paying people is supposed to convince them to devote more time to their Art, not less
At the heart of any work of Art is the idea of the author. New ideas come from people, not from retreading works that already exist.
The strengths that WotC has are as follows:
Learn from your mistakes, of course, but use your team to make a game first and then play test it. This design-by-committee approach could have been done by anyone with a bucket of money: as Mearls himself said, he's just "the product owner" and his so-called designers serve as code monkeys that throw something together every two weeks to satisfy customer survey results.
WotC learned that for many of their fans, D&D is more than just a name on a box. It's a very particular feel and play style, and it has its own built in assumptions and flow that make D&D what it is. And to that rather substantial part of their customer base, 4e is no more D&D in anything other than name, than it would be Mouse Guard or Vampire if the same mechanics were released under those names.
What I said in the previous post about mechanics not mattering at this stage? I meant it. 4e turned people off because the mechanics didn't support the feel that made D&D for those people. That's why they're so concerned with how the game feels right now. Because it's easier to build a game around a feel, than it is to build it around mechanics you've already decided on.
Where as everyone else is worried about how much they're talking about "feel" and "iconic", I'm personally worried that they're still so married to the rolls to solve everything that they won't be willing to deviate to far from that system to address real "feel" issues. See using the same d20 roll that decides combat deciding ability checks.
-
2012-11-12, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Other than the crack about "willy-nilly", you've just described iterative design. Which, yes, is how most games are developed.
Burning Witch and Bliss Stage look like games that one person hacked together and which haven't been played enough to find all of the flaws that invariably exist. Burning Wheel seems a bit more used, but not much, and looks like a terrible system in the first place since all you do is sit around and throw a bunch of d6 to see whether the next part of your story starts with "fortunately" or "unfortunately", rather than making actual decisions.
The grass is always greener on the other side. Most of the "obviously better" games that people point to to show how bad DnD is aren't actually better, but simply less well examined. The rest aren't actually better than DnD, but instead are simply different types of games and thus appeal to a different sort of person.
Wizards has done that too. Resolution is made with d20, adding player bonuses and compared to a target threshold. Character creation means assigning stats, picking race, class, feats, and skills. Character advancement uses a experience system which grants you levels. Each level gives your character more stats, and more character choices.
What do you mean no definition on skills? At any rate, skills aren't the focus of the playtest right now. They've got a long time to playtest, so it's better for them to focus on single aspects and resolve them one at a time, rather than rushing through everything.
Game design is messy. You don't get a good game from a single stroke of genius, you get a good game from days, weeks, months, or even years of slow, repetitive, thorough, hard work by many different people.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-11-12, 03:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I gotta agree with Oracle Hunter here. This incremental design by committee stuff is for the birds. The only "new" idea I've seen come out of all of this was the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, and they've so far neglected to do much with it. Everything else just feels like a lukewarm 3e game (and I say that will seeing the fragments of 4e in the system).
I'm tired of the "it's just a skeleton, there will be more meat later!" excuse. They have, to this point, presented a fully functional (but yes, flawed) system. But does anyone honestly think that the classes/skills/backgrounds/etc. are going to look significantly different between now and their release, when the current classes/skills/backgrounds/etc. are pretty darn similar to what they were in previous editions? Numbers will be tweaked, but (aside from maybe the Rogue), I can't imagine the final product being completely unrecognizable from the current one.
It's a completely underwhelming system. There is nothing that makes me go "I really want to play this" - let alone pay for it - over simply playing Pathfinder (or simply sticking with 4e). I would go as far as to say that there is an absence of creativity in the current product.
-
2012-11-12, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I'm tired of the "it's just a skeleton, there will be more meat later!" excuse.
As far as things being substantially different 2 years from now. Take a look at the first play test packet (which was also a fully functional but flawed packet) and then the most recent one. You don't see any substantial changes at all? But yes, to some small degree you're right, things won't be radically different, but that goes back to my earlier comments about D&D having a certain feeling.
The fact of the matter is a completely new game with all new mechanics and all new classes and skills and backgrounds that no one has seen before is not, will not and can not be D&D. You can put a D&D name on it, but it's no more D&D than it would be Vampire or Burning Wheel or Traveler. And there is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with WotC recognizing the D&D is made up of certain tropes and concepts that permeate the system and that a lot of people who play D&D play it because of those tropes. Heck, I'd argue that for almost all the people who play D&D, they play it for those tropes, because lets face it, if you wanted different tropes, there are thousands of alternatives out there in the RPG world.
Now, that means that you may not buy D&D Next, but if WotC is smart, in the long run, that won't matter. My guess is they are planning on taking a page from the GURPS play book. Where as D&D had major version shifts in 2000, 2003, 2008 and now a projected 2014, GURPS had one in 1988 and another in 2004, and is likely to not see another until sometime closer to 2020, and even now, 3rd and 4th edition GURPS are much more compatible than say 2e and 4e D&D (or even 3e and 4e D&D). But what GURPS does and D&D doesn't (but hopefully will) is build a single solid core and then leave it the hell alone and play with new additions to that core. New "modules" if you will. If WotC can pull that off, they really can have Tactical Squares players along side with My Grand Novel as Acted out by My Friends players. Not all at the same time mind you, but in the way GURPS does, with a Tactical module, and a Grand Novel Module and a module for Bronies, and a module for Mecha folks and so on and so forth, just as long as they use the same basic and well tested core, and then leave that core alone. And then you may not buy D&D next when it first comes out, but you might find a module that interests you, and that is hopefully what their goal is. Heck, if they can really make the core small enough, they could include a basic 5 page "Here's how it is" run down of the "core" and then each module could almost be a completely playable game in their own right.Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2012-11-12 at 03:43 PM.
-
2012-11-12, 03:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Well... I'm still as skeptical about Next as anyone, but I'll give Expertise Dice their due - not because it's a completely innovative mechanic, but because I haven't seen it before in D&D.
Bounded Accuracy is another good concept - one I hope they're able get working, because it would be awesome. However, the reality that we're beholden to a d20 roll for task resolution makes it both perplexing and counter-intuitive.
I agree that Advantage/Disadvantage is neat. It looks like it's moved from being a central mechanic to being an edge-case, though, which is a shame.
-O
-
2012-11-12, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I cannot agree with this.
Mechanics are not tropes; D&D is no less "D&D" in 3.x because they got rid of THAC0 than 5e would be less D&D because it has Fighters who don't suck or a Diplomacy mechanic that made sense.
Notwithstanding the fact that I am not personally hung up on whether or not a given game "is D&D" I refuse to believe it is good for WotC or the pen & paper industry as a whole if they largely turn over game design to The Internet instead of exercising some direction in designing the system before playtesting it.
Look at the first playtest packet. Look at this current one. What sort of game is WotC designing? What goals are they moving towards? What is motivating their design choices?
All I can see is a mish-mash of old ideas with tweaks to appeal to fans of previous editions (i.e. 3rd Edition and earlier). I see none of the exciting ideas from 4th or even ideas that are descended from their most recent experience at building a roleplaying game. Where's the vision?Lead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-11-12, 03:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-11-12, 03:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Now you all need to get some things straight.
What they are doing are surveys of what people think of what they did so far. Those are not votes on what the playtesters decide the next version is going to be.
Pretty much everyone here makes it look as if there are only two ways to design a game, which are locking yourself in a basement and present a finished game without any input from anyone but the designers, or having the entire rulessystem be descided in an online shouting match.
This is strawmen debating of the worst type.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-11-12, 03:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
As a shining example, if Dungeon World turns out as well as it looks like it might, it could be better at "being D&D" than D&D is. ;)
I think what we've been looking at over the years is that the core concepts of D&D were more or less calcified after AD&D. That's when the basic D&D "genre" hit the cultural consciousness, and it's been so fruitful it's hard to imagine the entertainment world without it. Since then, 3e, 4e, and - now - 13th Age, Dungeonworld, a multitude of OSR games, and most other fantasy RPGs (or RPGs with fantasy add-ons like GURPS and Savage Worlds) try to emulate the tropes of the genre - all with different mechanics.
-OLast edited by obryn; 2012-11-12 at 03:53 PM.
-
2012-11-12, 03:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Just because they're sending out web surveys and caring what the players think, doesn't mean they're blindly following whatever the "internet" tells them to do. They've stated many times what direction and vision they have for the game. Player feedback simply allows them to make an educated decision on how to best execute it.
Edit:
Fortunately, since they're making Dungeons and Dragons, they do know what kind of game they're making.Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-11-12 at 03:57 PM.
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-11-12, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Mechanics are not tropes; D&D is no less "D&D" in 3.x because they got rid of THAC0 than 5e would be less D&D because it has Fighters who don't suck or a Diplomacy mechanic that made sense.
I refuse to believe it is good for WotC or the pen & paper industry as a whole if they largely turn over game design to The Internet instead of exercising some direction in designing the system before playtesting it.
Look at the first playtest packet. Look at this current one. What sort of game is WotC designing? What goals are they moving towards? What is motivating their design choices?
In the later stages, yes. Iterative design is worse than useless in the earliest stages when you don't even know what kind of game you're making.
As for when to use Iterative design, you want to use it early, that's the whole point. Build, run, test, fix, repeat, as often and as early as you can. That way, you don't find yourself 1 year down the road going back and having to tear out a bunch of assumptions you made that no longer hold up. Iterative design is the designers version of "Measure twice, cut once".
-
2012-11-12, 04:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
As far as I can tell, their "direction and vision" is "all things for all people."
Go on, find me a quote from Mearls with is otherwise. That's not a vision and it isn't direction; it's the sort of puffery you put in a Press Release when you don't know exactly what you're going to do.
Well, I'm glad someone knows what "Dungeons and Dragons" means. Mind filling me inLead Designer for Oracle Hunter GamesToday a Blog, Tomorrow a Business!
~ Awesome Avatar by the phantastic Phase ~Spoiler
Elflad
-
2012-11-12, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I'd call it a second attempt at 3rd Edition, figuring out where it went wrong in transitioning from 2nd. But on a whole, I entirely agree.
I don't want a new game. I want an improved version of my old game. That's what an edition is supposed to be and how the word is used to my knowledge by all RPGs, except D&D 4th Edition.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-11-12, 04:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Iterative design is an optimization process. To use an optimization process, you need three things:
An evaluation function, essentially a process for distinguishing between which states are "better" than others in some sense. It's important because your evaluation function determines what parts of the design space the process will lead you toward: Choose a bad one and you won't get what you want.
A neighbor-selection heuristic, essentially a way of knowing in advance which potential changes are worth testing first. A good heuristic speeds up your search quite a lot, sometimes astronomically, which is especially important when your evaluation function is computationally expensive (like, say, putting out a public playtest and checking the survey results to see how satisfied people are). A good heuristic is the difference between needing 3 tests to get your result and needing 3 * 10^576.
A starting state. While less important than your heuristic, a good starting state can speed up the process as it initially biases your search.
The thing about iterative design is, if any one of these three things are bad, the design process won't tell you this. At least not until you've wasted a whole bunch of time on a fruitless direction. This is what we mean when we say they need a "design direction" and a "purpose."
-
2012-11-12, 04:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
That depends. Are there a lot of Pathfinder fans participating in the playtest? Because that is a major part of the target audience.
We're at the point where most of the mechanics are locked in (or being locked in), and what is left is generating a couple hundred spells/maneuvers/powers/monsters/feats. Because that's the part that takes time; writing a basic resolution framework can be done in a few days by any competent designer.
That means that, for example, if you don't like expertise dice or vancian casting, well tough luck: they're here to stay, that ship has sailed.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-11-12, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The particular part of the Legends & Lore article that worries me is this one:
Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
Well expertise dice at least I really like. Their ability to represent precision damage, round-to-round flexibility (such as fighting defensively vs. offensively), and increasing power as you gain levels, all packaged up into a token that you already own lots of, is pretty good IMO. I do think that the implementation needs more polishing, and I really hope enough people are telling them that.
As for vancian spellcasting, now that they have at-will and encounter powers I'm not even sure it's really vancian any more. It's just a blurry, sticky mess.Last edited by Excession; 2012-11-12 at 05:03 PM.
-
2012-11-12, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Do you think that the play test is the only design process wotc is using?
Do you think that all of their attention is focused only on Internet feedback?
Do you think they are showing all of their cards, even?
I'd imagine that they have some people working with the play test, most of the others doing other stuff. Mearles said he's the one who reads responses. That's one person devoting time to Internet feedback. Better than before, but hardly their only tactic.
So they're devoting a fraction of their time to what we see. We have some clue what they are doing, and I think that's cool, but I don't think it's the whole show.
-
2012-11-12, 10:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Judging by the contents of the playtest and the contents of the articles that have been written about it, yes. The only reason I can see to believe otherwise is if I just blindly gave faith that WotC knows what they're doing and 5E has this brilliant future I just can't see because I don't have some hidden information.
And, well, I can give that kind of trust to some designers, but not to WotC. And I'm not giving that sort of trust to them until they do something to earn it.Last edited by Craft (Cheese); 2012-11-12 at 10:20 PM.
-
2012-11-12, 10:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
-
2012-11-12, 10:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-11-12, 11:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Iterative design is an optimization process. To use an optimization process, you need three things:
We're at the point where most of the mechanics are locked in (or being locked in), and what is left is generating a couple hundred spells/maneuvers/powers/monsters/feats. Because that's the part that takes time; writing a basic resolution framework can be done in a few days by any competent designer.
I read this as saying that the only way that something becomes red or yellow, and therefore having the designers look at it again, is it being voted down in the survey. Perhaps there is input from other sources, but if so Mike has not told us about them.
Sorry, I don't mean to be so snarky, but honestly it really seems like people are trying to read the worst things into everything being said just to make themselves feel better about hating on WotC and D&D. I mean, I seem to recall a lot of hate for the fact that 4e was a closed door process with no insight from the community and no good communication with the fans. I also recall hearing a lot of good things over how pathfinder did things and how WotC should do a public playtest. Now we got exactly what we asked for and now everyone is freaking out that they're paying too much attention to the public playtest and they're talk one too much about the public play test and on and on.
Based on how weak and situational many of their feats are I'm worried that a balance check at least isn't being applied before things get sent out.
Judging by the contents of the playtest and the contents of the articles that have been written about it, yes.
The only reason I can see to believe otherwise is if I just blindly gave faith that WotC knows what they're doing and 5E has this brilliant future I just can't see because I don't have some hidden information.
And, well, I can give that kind of trust to some designers, but not to WotC. And I'm not giving that sort of trust to them until they do something to earn it.
Not get me wrong. WotC has produced their share of duds. They've also screwed up on plenty of occasions. But to say that you don't believe that WotC has any clue how to design a game beyond beging for ideas online, and that they need to prove to you that they can design a game before you believe they have more going on behind the scenes than just what little you see through the window of the public play test seems like the absolute height of hubris to me.
-
2012-11-12, 11:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Well, yeah, there's that! But I don't think WotC can afford that sort of thing right now. "You playtested this game for 2 years! The end result looks nothing like it! BUY MY GAME!"
I do honestly think they're listening to feedback. They're certainly reacting to it and spending time developing stuff which responds to the criticisms. That's no trivial task. I don't know that I find this necessarily comforting, though.
-
2012-11-12, 11:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
They do not seem to have an evaluation function other than the survey results, and they don't seem to have a heuristic other than "throw random ideas at the things people don't like", that we can see. You're perfectly right that they very well could have a much more involved process we're simply not seeing, but I see no reason to assume this is so. Especially because the only evidence that there *is* more going on behind the scenes is "Well, they're professionals, and professionals aren't incompetent."
I will give them credit they picked a decent place for a start state though. "Number inflation across levels seems to be a problem, so let's start out with small bonuses that barely increase at all. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are by far the most popular classes, so let's include those to start off with."
So just to be clear here, we have no faith that the "professional" game designers, the ones who mind you designed 4e, which to some people here it seems was a pinnacle of D&D design and should never be abandoned, has no clue what they're doing. We know that WotC has no clue how to design a game because Magic: The Gathering, Pokemon (ccg), Betrayal at House on the Hill, d20 modern, D&D 3e, D&D 4e, guillotine, and many other games that WotC have put out over the years have all been failures from a game design standpoint. And until WotC does something to prove that they know how to design a game beyond hoping online and begging the brilliant minds that make up these here gaming forums for ideas, well we just can't trust that they would ever be able to make a game.
-
2012-11-13, 12:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Work on parts of the game. Get some feedback.
They should use it to get priceless info on what their market expects from 5e.
They should use it to confirm or disprove what their game testers found.
Maybe polish some ideas, maybe even come up with a few points.
I don't see it being the whole show, however. I also can't see them pushing the play test through to any sort of finished product.
-
2012-11-13, 01:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Yes. We know this because they (or similar people) have designed 3E and 4E, and there are no glaring fundamental design flaws in either of those...
...wait
So anyway, somebody at the WOTC forum is planning a series of columns examining the initial hype, playtest, and promises for 4E, and what actually became of them in practice. That should be interesting to read.Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!