|
People are vastly overestimating how easy it is to die in a 21st century edition of D&D. I have never had to fudge a die roll to save a PC (although as I said, I'm certainly willing to). If your game has characters dropping like flies then your DM is throwing way to much at the PCs and needs to rebalance the adventure's encounters. Yes, it's certainly possible to die in the game. But it's not the massive threat that people are making it out to be. Now L5R is a game where it takes an extended amount of time to make a character and is easy to die because unlike D&D L5R has open ended damage.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
bunnielab posted:Sure, but at the same time, caster supremacy is mitigated alot in AD&D if you actually use all the fussy magic rules, specifically spell components and treating a Mage' spell book as the huge burden it really would be. As a kid I remember having to think hard if it was worth the risk of taking the book into a dungeon or trying to find a safe space to stash it Yeah, but that poo poo isn't very fun. It's a bad balancing mechanic IMO. I agree, Tough. D&D 4e made it nicely hard for a PC to actually die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:Yeah, but that poo poo isn't very fun. It's a bad balancing mechanic IMO. Eh, I find it to be fun as poo poo. But I also really enjoy packing for trips and spend an insane amount of time fussing over my traveling tool box so maybe it's just me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Luckily for both of you there are editions/derivatives of D&D that can please you! Esser can keep playing 4e and bunnielab can play OSRIC or something. Which brings me around to my original point that it's okay if different games appeal to different people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:bunnielab can play OSRIC or something. Not with my dumb work schedule 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:
Unless they play Keep on the Shadowfell and run into Irontooth. Then everyone dies forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Luckily for both of you there are editions/derivatives of D&D that can please you! Esser can keep playing 4e and bunnielab can play OSRIC or something. Which brings me around to my original point that it's okay if different games appeal to different people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
D&D edition wars are cool and good and I'm glad we're reliving one in this thread again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Okay, but your original point is not really germane to what Rafferty has to say about design and market relevance. Who/what are you trying to address? I interpreted Rafferty to be claiming that the hobby as a whole needed to shift over and begin emulating video games, which I do not agree with. It's okay if some games want to do that, but I don't think that it needs to be some kind of mass movement or the new "correct" way of designing games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I think Rafferty was talking specifically about D&D as the "face" of the hobby. I think the issue with D&D is that it's a bit schizophrenic with what it wants to be. Does it want to be a modern roleplaying game that can appeal to newer players? Does it want to be an oldschool dungeon crawl? Should it try to support more heroic fantasy like Dragonlance or some of the Forgotten Realms stuff? They're trying to market it as capable of all of these, and it's really not. They need to do decide what they want the game to do, design it for that, and then market it as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
JackMann posted:I think Rafferty was talking specifically about D&D as the "face" of the hobby. They tried that with 4th edition and ended up writing it off as a failure. Damned if anyone can figure out why, outside of clearly it wasn't in line with Mike Mearls' personal design sensibilities and once he was put in charge, it had to go. My personal conspiracy theory is that Pathfinder convinced someone above Mearls that they were leaving a ton of money on the table and they could just get it back if they made a new edition with the explicit goal of being More Like Old D&D, regardless of how that's not a design thesis so much as a marketing ploy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:They tried that with 4th edition and ended up writing it off as a failure. Damned if anyone can figure out why, outside of clearly it wasn't in line with Mike Mearls' personal design sensibilities and once he was put in charge, it had to go. My personal conspiracy theory is that Pathfinder convinced someone above Mearls that they were leaving a ton of money on the table and they could just get it back if they made a new edition with the explicit goal of being More Like Old D&D, regardless of how that's not a design thesis so much as a marketing ploy. Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from. It uses a number of design concepts from his prior work. Iron Heroes is a dry run for a lot of them. Maybe it's that as a representative of WotC it was his job to tell you to buy the new edition after it was time to start hawking 5e, but everybody selling a new edition tells you it's better than the old one. Saying stuff like that is just his job. If he was told D&D had to utilize rubber chickens, he'd praise the monster type: stretchy fowl. He has a passion for the game, but I doubt he's especially partisan about it. I think it's extremely likely that 4e didn't meet targets set by upper management (even though many of these targets were probably missed due to reasons related to things outside their control, like the poor online play and community tools) and that the design team looked at the state of D&D and decided to pitch a version of the game marketed by fans' direct participation in its design, where they would choose from lots and lots of redundant game design assets they company had lying around from years of design and development processes. Mind you even if 4e didn't stick, it still lasted about as long as a typical edition of 21st Century D&D does. We had 6 years of 4e compared to 8 years of 3e, and midpoint revisions for both. Anyway I'm sure 5.5 or whatever will be neat when it arrives in 2017 or 2018.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
bunnielab posted:Sure, but at the same time, caster supremacy is mitigated alot in AD&D if you actually use all the fussy magic rules, specifically spell components and treating a Mage' spell book as the huge burden it really would be. As a kid I remember having to think hard if it was worth the risk of taking the book into a dungeon or trying to find a safe space to stash it I'm running modified 2e now. Without any power ups for spell memorization and with progressive saving throws it isn't too bad except for the odd overpowered spell. In our group's case it's Color Spray, because it disallows a save. Saves really are a big deal pre-3e because at a high enough level many spells become all but useless against high level/HD types.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Did this post come straight from 1999? Most successful RPGs released in the last decade have done away with the majority of those (or all, if you consider the focus on having character death only occur when it's meaningful as a solution to perma-death). The issue is that D&D Next is a gigantic pile of poo poo designed to appeal to grogs stuck in 2000, not with the RPG industry in general. It's straight out of the modern day. D&D5 and Pathfinder control the lion's share of the market, and they both work this way. New World of Darkness Age, 13th Age, Torchbearer all buy into this. FATE CORE is pretty wishy-washy on this subject, but FATE is pretty wishy-washy in general. gradenko_2000 posted:The other one I would throw out there is: Oh yeah, thanks, I forgot about that. It's crazy that D&D3.5 introduced "retraining", D&D4 kept it ... and then D&D5 threw it out. Doesn't WoD+GodMachine even have re-specing now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:They tried that with 4th edition and ended up writing it off as a failure. Damned if anyone can figure out why, outside of clearly it wasn't in line with Mike Mearls' personal design sensibilities and once he was put in charge, it had to go. My personal conspiracy theory is that Pathfinder convinced someone above Mearls that they were leaving a ton of money on the table and they could just get it back if they made a new edition with the explicit goal of being More Like Old D&D, regardless of how that's not a design thesis so much as a marketing ploy. Mearls or someone else in WotC learning the exact wrong lesson from Pathfinder's success would not surprise me. Namely they seem to think that you need to be as groggy as possible to sell, when the actual lesson is to not completely change your game and call it a new edition. If they had just released a 5th edition that was 4th edition but with an overhaul to the wonky early numbers it likely would have been a much more successful product.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from. It uses a number of design concepts from his prior work. Iron Heroes is a dry run for a lot of them. Maybe it's that as a representative of WotC it was his job to tell you to buy the new edition after it was time to start hawking 5e, but everybody selling a new edition tells you it's better than the old one. Saying stuff like that is just his job. If he was told D&D had to utilize rubber chickens, he'd praise the monster type: stretchy fowl. He has a passion for the game, but I doubt he's especially partisan about it. That's fair - there certainly was a lot of slagging on 3rd edition in the runup to 4th; although when I look at the things that he was most responsible for (Keep on the Shadowfell early on, then Essentials) I don't see evidence that he really got 4E from a conceptual point of view. KotS can partially be forgiven in the sense that it was the first published adventure and everyone was new at this. However by the same token it was twice as big a fuckup because you need your introductory offering of anything to be Polished As gently caress and it wasn't. When time came to either cash out or double down - as with anytime you have a new creative team move in - cashing out seems to have been the predictable (if incorrect, IMHO) move. MalcolmSheppard posted:Anyway I'm sure 5.5 or whatever will be neat when it arrives in 2017 or 2018. I don't see a lot of design space to be honed, honestly. The math is from what I understand sound so that doesn't need to be fixed, but it's not like you can do a ton of iterating on advantage/disadvantage without making things crunchy in a way that they seem to have deliberately rejected. There isn't going to be a big online tools launch (although Fantasy Grounds is pretty much the tits as far as that's concerned so they at least salvaged things there) so that leaves more races/classes/feats. Which if they have maybe learned something over the last fifteen years, will be properly balanced and not just filler. Terrible Opinions posted:Mearls or someone else in WotC learning the exact wrong lesson from Pathfinder's success would not surprise me. Namely they seem to think that you need to be as groggy as possible to sell, when the actual lesson is to not completely change your game and call it a new edition. If they had just released a 5th edition that was 4th edition but with an overhaul to the wonky early numbers it likely would have been a much more successful product. I think the only real lesson that can be viably learned from Pathfinder in hindsight is that sometimes you get played, just take your lumps and move on. Pathfinder players are never coming back and trying to lure them back was probably a fool's errand. I can see how they were trying to draw from a position of strength when whiteboarding 5th edition (crowdsourcing! open development! draw upon the best from all previous editions!) but I don't think those are the strengths they thought they were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from. It uses a number of design concepts from his prior work. Iron Heroes is a dry run for a lot of them. Because once he actually took the wheels of D&D, it sure as hell stopped looking like Iron Heroes? Mearls wasn't the lead for 4e. He was the lead for Essentials. And when you look at Essentials, or, poo poo, any of the myriad of modules and adventures Mearls made for 4e, it becomes apparent real fast that he had no idea how 4e worked and had no inclination to learn. Then you add a ton of anti-4e rhetoric that came out from him even before 5e was released, the general crowd he associates himself with, and the fact that, no, Mearls is not in fact some slick PR guy who changes his opinions on a dime to get more of that sweet sweet profit, and it paints a rather non-secretive picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Then you add a ton of anti-4e rhetoric that came out from him even before 5e was released, the general crowd he associates himself with, and the fact that, no, Mearls is not in fact some slick PR guy who changes his opinions on a dime to get more of that sweet sweet profit, and it paints a rather non-secretive picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:I think the only real lesson that can be viably learned from Pathfinder in hindsight is that sometimes you get played, just take your lumps and move on. Pathfinder players are never coming back and trying to lure them back was probably a fool's errand. I can see how they were trying to draw from a position of strength when whiteboarding 5th edition (crowdsourcing! open development! draw upon the best from all previous editions!) but I don't think those are the strengths they thought they were. I like the end result of all this because I enjoy Pathfinder and 4th edition a lot, but from WotC's perspective both edition changes were made by people who did not understand marketing on a very fundamental level. The primary difference is that 4th edition was you know an actually good game, so even after alienating a bunch of people it still found an audience and a lot of the people initially against the idea were won over. 5th edition has the same alienation problem, but from a situation of smaller market dominance, and doesn't have any good game cred to fall back on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Rafferty posted:It's straight out of the modern day. D&D5 and Pathfinder control the lion's share of the market, and they both work this way. New World of Darkness Age, 13th Age, Torchbearer all buy into this. FATE CORE is pretty wishy-washy on this subject, but FATE is pretty wishy-washy in general. I wouldn't really include Torchbearer in that as far as the presence of "old-school" game elements like permadeath is a deliberate and necessary part of the design. 13th Age, on the other hand, actually hurdles a lot of these pitfalls: It's not (as) easy to die quickly/instantly, as HP:damage ratios were actually considered to last more than a round There are extensive discussions and recommendations and alternative rules on death and its permanence Whether or not you're still supposed to track ammo on a 1:1 basis is not explicitly ruled on, but the very relaxed way by which they deal with gear in general ("encumbrance" is a word not used in the entire core rulebook) heavily suggests that you don't have to
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:If you don't see how WotC made the same fundamentally marketing mistake in the transition from 4th edition to 5th edition as it did in the transition from 3.5 to 4th, I don't know what to tell you. In both cases the release was preceded by a whole bunch of talk by developers saying how terrible the previous edition was. Then in both cases the new edition was completely incompatible with all previous books, and generally was just a completely different game. Contrast that with how say Dark Heresy 2nd edition has basically just a new edition of the same game. The marketing mistake was massively compounded by basically sanctioning a complete clone of the game and then watching as Paizo said, "Nice sales base, I think I'll take that". Turns out there were lots of people who were less wedded to the D&D brand then A) the actual design of 3E and B) the notion of being a Better D&D Than D&D spiritual successor. It was kind of a perfect storm of bad choices and opportunism that led to Pathfinder vs. 4E.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:If you don't see how WotC made the same fundamentally marketing mistake in the transition from 4th edition to 5th edition as it did in the transition from 3.5 to 4th, I don't know what to tell you. In both cases the release was preceded by a whole bunch of talk by developers saying how terrible the previous edition was. Then in both cases the new edition was completely incompatible with all previous books, and generally was just a completely different game. Contrast that with how say Dark Heresy 2nd edition has basically just a new edition of the same game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
The fact that they left Paizo holding the bag didn't help much. Not to say no one else could have done a 3.5 clone of their own, but Paizo already had all the contacts and distribution in place for it, and having been given the boot by Wizards, they didn't really have much choice but to try and extend the lifetime of 3.5. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but they all but forced Paizo to make Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from. It uses a number of design concepts from his prior work. Iron Heroes is a dry run for a lot of them. Maybe it's that as a representative of WotC it was his job to tell you to buy the new edition after it was time to start hawking 5e, but everybody selling a new edition tells you it's better than the old one. Saying stuff like that is just his job. If he was told D&D had to utilize rubber chickens, he'd praise the monster type: stretchy fowl. He has a passion for the game, but I doubt he's especially partisan about it. Cirno has already pointed this out to you. But it gets thrown into stark relief when you look at the books that actually have his name on the cover as lead author. * The Monster Manual 1. The least liked 4e Monster Manual of all. We can admittedly put this thing down to teething problems. * H1: Keep on the Shadowfell. 4e's single biggest PR problem is badly designed enough that I do not even believe it was playtested. It's adequate until you reach the keep, but the only thing to salvage it after that point is nuking the keep from orbit. 17 fights in a row with about three of them being plot relevant is not something that's ever going to work unless you're playing an edition with fights . * H2 had Richard "Red Hand of Doom" Baker working with him and is adequate. * H3: Pyramid of Shadows is a wannabe-Gygaxian-dungeon-crawl. Which again means it's a string of not terribly interesting fights, and that kills 4e. * Primal Power is ... adequate. Workmanlike. Less inspiring IMO than Martial, Arcane, Divine, or Martial 2. But that might just be me. * Player's Handbook 3 sucks. It contains six classes and Hybrids. Of these when I GM I place three classes (the Power Point using ones) under a hard-ban for being spamtastic, fiddly, and boring while the Seeker and Battlemind are under a soft-ban for being fiddly and annoying. And Hybrids are the biggest broken pieces of rubbish anywhere. That said, the Monk is awesome. * HoFL/HoFK are an internal 4e edition war within 4e. I consider the Thief a work of art and the first actually good Rogue/Thief in the history of D&D. On the other hand the two defenders can't actually do their jobs at Paragon tier (forced movement destroys them), the Hexblade doesn't work, Mage Supremacy is back, and the Sentinel Druid doesn't scale properly. The two books are pretty decent at giving people who don't like the basic 4e classes something to do. * Heroes of the Shadowfell was the second worst splatbook in the history of 4e. (The worst was the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide - which is basically half full of adverts for WotC dungeons and was produced after it was obvious they'd given up on 4e). The Vampire is a fun class but doesn't work mechanically. The Binder is the weakest class in the whole of 4e. The Blackguard doesn't do its job or scale properly. The Witch is a bit of wizard-supremacy no one ever asked for. The warpriest domains in that book don't work. There's some great fluff in there and I wanted to like it - but the mechanics aren't up to scratch and the interesting ones don't mesh with 4e. If you were to ask the average 4e fan for the greatest misses of 4e almost all the ones they'd name would be on that list. If you were to ask them for the greatest hits none of them would be on that list. Either Mike Mearls didn't get 4e or he did and deliberately produced all the worst major books in the run. I prefer to believe the former.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:Unless they play Keep on the Shadowfell and run into Irontooth. Then everyone dies forever. My party hilariously chumped him when I ran it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
A critical thing to remember is that there was no Essentials variant of the Warlord but, what, five different Wizards? That really says enough about Mearls' design philosophy by itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Cirno has already pointed this out to you. But it gets thrown into stark relief when you look at the books that actually have his name on the cover as lead author. Hammerfast was ok!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
I doubt Mearls is rubbing his hands together in glee at making GBS threads on 4e, but he's clearly got ideas he's wedded to that didn't do any favors for 4e, and hey they're not doing 5e any favors so maybe he's just a bad game designer. As cartoonish as some of our industry's villains can be, plenty of people just don't think about what they think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Oh yeah I mean to attribute malice to him when our wonderful hobby has the jokers it does is a bit much. Still criminal negligence is awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:I doubt Mearls is rubbing his hands together in glee at making GBS threads on 4e, but he's clearly got ideas he's wedded to that didn't do any favors for 4e, and hey they're not doing 5e any favors so maybe he's just a bad game designer. As cartoonish as some of our industry's villains can be, plenty of people just don't think about what they think. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Mearls isn't cackling gleefully at making GBS threads on 4e, but that doesn't mean he didn't sink it to bounce himself up. Essentials very clearly reads of "I don't want to work on 4e - I want my OWN edition," and what do you know, he got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
homullus posted:Hammerfast was ok! Notably, Hammerfast contains next-to-no actual rules or stats, just a ton of cool characters, places and ideas that could kinda work together and lets you use whichever parts move coolest to you. I love me some Hammerfast, but it's pretty far removed from "designing a functioning game product" ProfessorCirno posted:Mearls isn't cackling gleefully at making GBS threads on 4e, but that doesn't mean he didn't sink it to bounce himself up. Essentials very clearly reads of "I don't want to work on 4e - I want my OWN edition," and what do you know, he got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Zereth posted:2e to 3.0 was also basically an entirely new game where none of your old stuff was compatible. I think 4e would've done better if there wasn't this perfectly legal way for somebody else to continue producing it independently that Paizo jumped on. In the transfer from 2e to 3.0 there wasn't really a massive internet community for people who wanted to use the old edition to organize through either, and even then by the time the internet made such organization possible the OSRIC popped up as a fairly large community. In fact the OSRIC predates Pathfinder by a few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Again, I don't know where the idea that Mearls secretly disliked 4e comes from. It uses a number of design concepts from his prior work. Iron Heroes is a dry run for a lot of them. Maybe it's that as a representative of WotC it was his job to tell you to buy the new edition after it was time to start hawking 5e, but everybody selling a new edition tells you it's better than the old one. Saying stuff like that is just his job. ProfessorCirno posted:Then you add a ton of anti-4e rhetoric that came out from him even before 5e was released, the general crowd he associates himself with, and the fact that, no, Mearls is not in fact some slick PR guy who changes his opinions on a dime to get more of that sweet sweet profit, and it paints a rather non-secretive picture. ...and then there are things he's said that are just baffling. Like saying that 4e fans will be able to appreciate Next because there's going to be a tactical combat module...with facing rules. Or saying that he, as the lead designer, cannot tell you what HP represent because they might mean something different if you're using D&D to play Harry Potter. Just weird, nonsensical poo poo. kaynorr posted:That's fair - there certainly was a lot of slagging on 3rd edition in the runup to 4th; kaynorr posted:I can see how they were trying to draw from a position of strength when whiteboarding 5th edition (crowdsourcing! open development! draw upon the best from all previous editions!) but I don't think those are the strengths they thought they were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Because once he actually took the wheels of D&D, it sure as hell stopped looking like Iron Heroes? Yes, people sell the new edition by telling you the old edition is bad before the new edition comes out. For 4e, they made cartoons and everything! In any event, I think you guys have a loose grasp on how commercial games are designed, and how that differs from designing for yourself, or for a smaller audience. When you're designing for a broad audience, you have a responsibility to set your preferences aside. Working on a smaller game recently, the design document was still the result of a management imperative to use certain dice, character traits and other bits. With D&D, those preferences are set by market research. When market research indicates a bunch of people wanting a thing? You design it. Period. Furthermore, it's not a solitary process. It's set by a design document, and that design document is ultimately the promise you make to the folks above you. You want to break that promise? You have to have a meeting and negotiate those changes. So the idea that Essentials was Mearls making D&D his is absurd. It never was. It will never be. For better or worse, there are no auteurs, and the way they work is designed to crush that. No Warlord in the Essentials core (though it was supposed to appear in a supplement)? The chance it was Mearls hating on the Warlord is minute compared to the chance it wasn't popping up as often as other classes in data ripped from the character builder and forum discussions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Was there, really?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:Yes, people sell the new edition by telling you the old edition is bad before the new edition comes out. For 4e, they made cartoons and everything! What it comes down to, as far as I'm concerned, is that 4e was made for people who played 3e and had problems with it. 5e was made for people who didn't play 4e at all. When asked why people who liked 4e should play the new edition, Mearls floundered. quote:In any event, I think you guys have a loose grasp on how commercial games are designed, and how that differs from designing for yourself, or for a smaller audience. When you're designing for a broad audience, you have a responsibility to set your preferences aside. Working on a smaller game recently, the design document was still the result of a management imperative to use certain dice, character traits and other bits. I can only go on what I know for sure. I don't know how the company conducted market research, but I do know Mearls tossed out gems like "shouting limbs back on" in public discussions. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
The only actual insulting 3E bit I remember was talking about "The grappling rules will finally work!" which you know, was a widely acknowledged problem even by 3.x fans. The videos were mostly yeah, just sort of dumb, except a lot of people loved the poo poo out of that gnome.
unseenlibrarian fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:05
|
|