|
What else did Mike Mearls work on? Iron Heroes was basically a 3e mod that stripped out casters and added in tokens.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
The only non-D20 things he's worked on are a handful of books for Vampire: the Masquerade and Hunter: the Reckoning. He's as mired in D20 as the rest of the design team, but he was on 4e's design team and is listed as co-author on the D&D board games, so he alone has experience in a capacity where it was his job to design a system.
Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:LaPille: Tom LaPille is a Magic: the Gathering developer. He started a website with the stated intention of getting a developer job, and got it, so he's a real developer-job-go-getter. He's worked on a bunch of Magic sets from 2007-2012. I know nothing about the history of and politics of Magic design, and I don't care to research it, so I can only assume that he was exiled to the prison realm of D&D for unspeakable crimes. However, I have great respect for Magic design, so I also assume his job is to watch what the rest of the Next team is doing and weep softly into the palms of his hands. That, or they've worked out a deal where Tom's paycheck is sent to his impoverished family, and he stays in a drug-induced coma so he can't do any damage. He went back to Magic the Gathering. And yes, I think it was exile; from what I hear he managed to run the format he was in charge of into the ground and have it replaced with the competing one. (Legacy was one of them IIRC). quote:Horner: I'm a little confused here. RPGnet's index only credits her as an author on a handful of AD&D books, but Her own bibliography lists her as an editor on many books all the way up through the 4e era. I find it notable that she also worked on West End Games Bloodshadows and Necroscope books. She's also had a handful of short stories published in TSR-era anthologies. She's an editor not a writer. She's inside the DMG2 as an editor, and is such a useful member of the team (and her CV is accurate). But so far as I can tell she isn't a game developer of any sort. So she's a necessary part of the team but not a game developer. quote:Jeremy Crawford wrote Blue Rose (a True20 game) From what I can tell that's a slightly misleading impression. True 20 was written for Blue Rose and subsequently made generic. On the other hand Kenson's credited with the system - Crawford might have had the setting. So that's the d20 hack that was Iron Heroes, the d20 hack that was Star Wars Saga, and possibly the d20 hack that is True20. Which still means that Tarnowski (Lords of Olympus, Arrows of Indra) possibly has more experience of gamke design than the team combined. Couldn't they have hired Luke Crane, Robin Laws, Rob Donahughe, Jason Morningstar, or Vincent Baker? (A D&D designed by either of those last two would probably be hilarious - although not as hilarious as if they'd tried to hire Ron Edwards).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Couldn't they have hired Luke Crane, Robin Laws, Rob Donahughe, Jason Morningstar, or Vincent Baker? (A D&D designed by either of those last two would probably be hilarious - although not as hilarious as if they'd tried to hire Ron Edwards) If only they could have gotten Monte Cook.  Does anyone have the full lulzy story of what transpired between Wizards and Cook yet? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
To be fair, Monte Cook was the only game designer involved with the project besides Mike Mearls. Since there is only one game designer now, it should come as no surprise that this is now 100% Mike Mearls. And Mearls is taking all of his cues from ENWorld. Still, given their stated design goals, from the get go no game designer could have salvaged this project. A lot of this thread, in its previous incarnation, was of the opinion that the various design goals were feasible and we just had to wait and see. At least he was honest!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
New Q&A is up, all about Legendary stuff. It's really short and has very little we didn't know already from Mearls' article other than the fact that it sounds like they're actually having separate XP values for the dragon both in and out of the lair like somebody suggested earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Does anyone have the full lulzy story of what transpired between Wizards and Cook yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
"Some magic items are important." "Some monsters are important, and also magical." Innovation. Next. Mearls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Does anyone have the full lulzy story of what transpired between Wizards and Cook yet? When one of the paid consultants first sends then publishes an e-mail like this then the group just isn't big enough for the both of them. And they decided not to drop the Pundit so far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:New Q&A is up, all about Legendary stuff. It's really short and has very little we didn't know already from Mearls' article other than the fact that it sounds like they're actually having separate XP values for the dragon both in and out of the lair like somebody suggested earlier. Wait why does it have two xp totals? Is it not two separate creatures? If it's more dangerous in lair would the fighter become more dangerous if he carried around a thatch roof with him everywhere he goes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:When one of the paid consultants first sends then publishes an e-mail like this then the group just isn't big enough for the both of them. And they decided not to drop the Pundit so far as I know. Reading that is hilarious. It's the first time I've seen it. It's hilarious because I remember being over on RPGnet when Cook started posting. And the response from most 4e fans is that everything he was saying was incredibly reactionary. We called him Monte "Caster Supremacy" Cook. "Everything this guy says scares old school gamers" is hilarious and indicative of all the problems Next faces when trying to 'unite' the player base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
It's like we were scared of a mugger and ran, only to find Godzilla around the next corner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
I love the fact that Pundit is pissed at Cook not because he wants to make a simulationist game, but for using the word simulationist, because that would be admitting that other approaches exist. But seriously that whole thing astounds me. I cannot for the life of me imagine another industry that would ever embrace the crazy fringe of its fandom in the way D&D has.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
I thought simulation was exactly what people like Pundit want though? Like, I don't get it. He hates narrative poo poo, poo poo where players can simply declare what happens and everybody 'plays pretend.' What would he want if not simulation? e: Is he arguing for the existence of the rare gamist, war-gaming pole? Because if not... what the hell does he conceive as a valid RPG?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:I love the fact that Pundit is pissed at Cook not because he wants to make a simulationist game, but for using the word simulationist, because that would be admitting that other approaches exist. Well. I was more interested in the part where he compared a certain mode of game design to the holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
He wants a game that identifies him as belonging to a group that excludes users of the shibboleth "simulationist."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:We called him Monte "Caster Supremacy" Cook. Who's this "We"? I called him Monte "Passive Perception" Cook. And it wasn't until after that little fiasco I took against him per se (although I'd been highly unimpressed by both his understanding of Timmy cards and his deliberately putting weak feats in his system). neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Oh my god his first response to the first responders:quote:I think the issue, Magnet, is that they need to create a basic core system that will effectively represent the "essence" of D&D, and that essence is, at its base, old-school. That's not to say they can't innovate; It literally doesn't matter what's after that semicolon because his entire argument is that the core of D&D literally always has to be whatever it was way back when but everything he's arguing isn't even from way back when it's from one specific version and there are plenty of people that feel exactly the same way this is the worst uggghhhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Who's this "We"? I called him Monte "Passive Perception" Cook. And it wasn't until after that little fiasco I took against him per se (although I'd been highly unimpressed by both his understanding of Timmy cards and his deliberately putting weak feats in his system). Okay by we I mean like six dudes in one thread. I'm just saying it's not like the crowd was rallying behind Monty here. The notion that he represents terrible, new-fangled gaming design just tickles me. Heh. Passive perception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:To help understand this mindset realize this: ENWorld absolutely loved the new 5e dragon (the one that's a bad 4e knockoff) right until someone mentioned that the legendary action points or whatever were dissociated, at which point they began to rapidly turn against it. Enjoyment matters less then ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
So I haven't really been keeping up with the playtest; what does the Fighter actually do now? Last I can remember there was something about Expertise/Martial Dice and...no, that's about it. Is he going around just swinging his sword? Is he any good at it? From reading the thread it sounds like Caster Supremacy is in full effect, but how far behind is everything else? Basically, what's the current state of the Fighter (and Rogue, haven't heard really anything about them)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:So I haven't really been keeping up with the playtest; what does the Fighter actually do now? Last I can remember there was something about Expertise/Martial Dice and...no, that's about it. Is he going around just swinging his sword? Is he any good at it? From reading the thread it sounds like Caster Supremacy is in full effect, but how far behind is everything else? That'll be in the next packet. So they keep saying. (My interpretation is that they have no loving clue. The first maneuvers presented were a joke, the dice thing had potential but got bogged down and eventually given to all classes, so now there's... uh... we'll get back to you on that.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't give a poo poo at all about 5E at this point, but it's eventually going to end my close relationship with my FLGS, because I am simply not going to come in once a week to participate in 5E Encounters. That's what bugs me at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I wouldn't give a poo poo at all about 5E at this point, but it's eventually going to end my close relationship with my FLGS, because I am simply not going to come in once a week to participate in 5E Encounters. That's what bugs me at this point.  WordMercenary posted:But seriously that whole thing astounds me. I cannot for the life of me imagine another industry that would ever embrace the crazy fringe of its fandom in the way D&D has.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Wait why does it have two xp totals? Is it not two separate creatures? If it's more dangerous in lair would the fighter become more dangerous if he carried around a thatch roof with him everywhere he goes? Strong conjuration; CL 17th; Craft Wondrous Item, roof; Price 82,000 gp. WordMercenary posted:I love the fact that Pundit is pissed at Cook not because he wants to make a simulationist game, but for using the word simulationist, because that would be admitting that other approaches exist. Mendrian posted:I thought simulation was exactly what people like Pundit want though? Like, I don't get it. He hates narrative poo poo, poo poo where players can simply declare what happens and everybody 'plays pretend.' WordMercenary posted:I love the fact that Pundit is pissed at Cook not because he wants to make a simulationist game, but for using the word simulationist, because that would be admitting that other approaches exist. Splicer posted:Comic books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
There are probably some parallels that can be drawn between the relationship of comic books to comic book movies and the relationship of D&D to, say, Magic: the Gathering or (yes) World of Warcraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I thought simulation was exactly what people like Pundit want though? Like, I don't get it. He hates narrative poo poo, poo poo where players can simply declare what happens and everybody 'plays pretend.' Humorously enough, I think he's angry over largely the same stuff that people in this thread get upset over. Sim means that they're taking a 'this makes sense, I bet this emulates reality' approach to the design rather than a 'oh hey, this will create a gameplay style that will be fun' approach. We're pretty much on board with his problem with feats, too. We might not agree with what RPGPundit wants instead of Next, but what he complains about in that post is more or less in line with what we complain about here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:When one of the paid consultants first sends then publishes an e-mail like this then the group just isn't big enough for the both of them. And they decided not to drop the Pundit so far as I know. So very much about 5e suddenly makes so much sense. Barudak posted:Wait why does it have two xp totals? Is it not two separate creatures? If it's more dangerous in lair would the fighter become more dangerous if he carried around a thatch roof with him everywhere he goes? That's honestly one of the better things about the dragon. Costing the whole encounter rather than just the dragon portion is good game design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Humorously enough, I think he's angry over largely the same stuff that people in this thread get upset over. Sim means that they're taking a 'this makes sense, I bet this emulates reality' approach to the design rather than a 'oh hey, this will create a gameplay style that will be fun' approach. We're pretty much on board with his problem with feats, too. And this is perfectly in line with Ron Edwards theories - that G and N are different but simmilar approaches (the rules should serve what you are trying to do) with S being way out on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:When one of the paid consultants first sends then publishes an e-mail like this then the group just isn't big enough for the both of them. And they decided not to drop the Pundit so far as I know. No surprise someone thought that every thing that Cook banged on about was detrimental. Every L&L that 'The Moon' published, tended to go down like a lead balloon. All the nostalgia and reminiscing of how it used to suck playing as say, a thief etc. Then to say, "We're bringing all that back! Isn't that great?!" Don't get me started on that passive perception thing. I'm not sure what grinds my gears more. That or Rodney Thompson conveniently forgetting in 4e you only have 1 opportunity action per round. Then inventing the reaction mechanic and limiting it to 1 per round. To 'eliminate', the multiple opportunity actions in 4e that slowed down the game. I'm really worried Mearls is going to destroy the game I love, just to bring back the game he played when he was a teenager.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Why is Monte Cook the "Moon" now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
knux911 posted:I'm not sure what grinds my gears more. That or Rodney Thompson conveniently forgetting in 4e you only have 1 opportunity action per round. Then inventing the reaction mechanic and limiting it to 1 per round. To 'eliminate', the multiple opportunity actions in 4e that slowed down the game. Actually, I'm pretty sure Essentials changed the rules so that you get one opportunity action per turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Actually, I'm pretty sure Essentials changed the rules so that you get one opportunity action per turn. Npbpdy changed the rules. You get one Immediate action per round. You get one opportunity action per combatant's turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Why is Monte Cook the "Moon" now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:Actually, I'm pretty sure Essentials changed the rules so that you get one opportunity action per turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It's always been 1 opportunity action per turn and 1 immediate per round since phb1. Either way, Rodney Thompson was correct it appears. Edit: Unless the poster I responded to said 'opportunity action' when he meant 'immediate action'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Has anyone played in or run an OD&D session/campaign?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
victrix posted:Has anyone played in or run an OD&D session/campaign? I'm running one right now. If RC counts. It's The Lost City.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:I'm running one right now. If RC counts. It's The Lost City. Nah, specifically the little brown box rules...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
victrix posted:Has anyone played in or run an OD&D session/campaign? If it's D&D, AlphaDog has played it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 05:26
|
|