The official modules are tough, very tough. If you aren´t on your optimizing feet, you´ll see a lot of TPKs. Especially, as there´s many,many encounters you have to fight on the terms of the monster; unavoidable encounters.
The delve format reinforces that even more.

Every new option helps a lot.

Encounter based resources help a lot too, because you are actually playing encounter strings, instead of real dungeons or modules (Savage Tide and even more so: Eyes of the Lich Queen).

Once we took an NPC Ranger directly from the DMG with us, because someone lost his character, and needed something to play till the next session.

That 6th Level NPC Ranger was totally useless in combat:

1) equipment was ridiculous
2) Couldn´t deal meaningful damage (DR/cold iron enemies)
3) low HP
4) ridiculously low AC
5) no extra tactical options

But our Beguiler/Rodue, Warlock/Rogue, Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator and Druid (with ultra new sweet feats from the book of druidic improvement) saved the day, nonetheless.

I would never ever play a fighter when I can have a Warblade or something similiar if playing official adventures.

Quote from: SettembriniThe official modules are tough, very tough. If you aren´t on your optimizing feet, you´ll see a lot of TPKs. Especially, as there´s many,many encounters you have to fight on the terms of the monster; unavoidable encounters.
The delve format reinforces that even more.

I haven't found too many unavoidable encounters in Expedition to the Demonweb pits.  It's rough, though, no doubt.  My group (this is the gonzo one) had its ass handed to them in several encounters last session.

QuoteI would never ever play a fighter when I can have a Warblade or something similiar if playing official adventures.

While I see where you're coming from, PHB2 did a lot to make a plain ol' fighter a valid choice again.  Seriously, Weapon Mastery is a great feat - +2 to-hit & damage for all weapons of a certain type (P/S/B).  There are a few more from there, like Shield Specialization and all of its branches that also rock.

-O

QuoteWhile I see where you're coming from, PHB2 did a lot to make a plain ol' fighter a valid choice again. Seriously, Weapon Mastery is a great feat - +2 to-hit & damage for all weapons of a certain type (P/S/B). There are a few more from there, like Shield Specialization and all of its branches that also rock.

Yeah, and that´s what I´m talking about.
What to someone is "balanced" doesn´t even cut it in official adventures. What to some is "overpowered" is "just right" for many of the encounters.

I haven´t read Demonweb Pit, but it´s by Wolfgang Baur, so it would be just like him to include lots of avoidable or negotiatable encounters in there.
Savage Tide authors and Eyes of the Lich Queen are not like this, neither was Age of Worms for long stretches.

Addendum:

Instead of bitching and moaning, I´m actually pretty hooked by that aspect. When a new book comes out, us downtrodden veterans of many battles look with hope at it!
Every book is combed for a feat that could just make the survival of our recent character just a bit more likely.

It feels like a warm soup and ammunition delivery for "us in the trenches".
If they brought out Ecology books or Setting boxes with fancy NPCs and fluff in it, it would be like getting a box of shoeshine for "us in the trenches".
Sure, a parade uniform needs polished boots. But please let us fight and win the war first.

It´s also cool to show off a new combo nobdy expected, the DM likes this too, as do I, when I´m DMing.


Okay, I´m off planning my next level, maneuvres, spells and stances, to kick some Demogorgon ass. Or, actually, to avoid getting my ass handed to me.

Quote from: SettembriniIt feels like a warm soup and ammunition delivery for "us in the trenches".

It also means making new characters rather often. I'm neither a fan of short-lived campaigns nor of re-working characters too much.

Quote from: SosthenesIt also means making new characters rather often. I'm neither a fan of short-lived campaigns nor of re-working characters too much.

I don't mind re-working stuff.  If you want rules for this sort of thing, there's a section in PHB2 all about it.

One of the current plotlines in my Wilderlands game is from a player who wants to trade out Wizard levels for Warlock levels.  So, they're traveling to an exotic locale for the rebuilding process.  It's added something both to the setting and to the campaign.

-O

Why re-working?
You level up all the time, and must chose some spell or feat or whatever all the time.

No, as I said: ammunition, not reinforcement or replacement.

Quote from: jdrakehThe annoyance comes in the form of a game not doing a specific thing by design and its fans saying "Oh no, it does do that, you just have to write the rules yourself!". There is a very common logical fallacy that not including rules for Thing X in a game actually means said game was designed to address Thing X out of the box. And it is maddening.

Word!

Seanchai

Quote from: CaudexIn play, it turned out the authors were bang-on about the clue paths and had put almost (almost - there was some furious page-flipping at one point) everything in the right place to find it when you needed it.

Let me ask this: Is this something a person couldn't figure out from reading it or that you didn't? My understanding of these emergent qualities is that they don't really exist prior to play and thus no amount of intelligence or dilligence could uncover them.

As I've said, I, myself, have been pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised in play. But looking back, I never felt these were things I couldn't have discovered from reading and thinking about the rules, just things I didn't.

Seanchai

Quote from: PGivertyFor this reason, non-playtest reviews are far less valuable to me than ones based on actual play. You can tell something from the rules, but it's like reading the script of a film - you really need to watch it to get an idea of what it's like, particularly if you want other people to take your opinions more seriously.

A review based on actual play is like a movie review that reads, "The theatre was crowded and smelled. Someone threw popcorn at me. The movie's pacing was bad. So I'm giving it two stars."

Your play experience will be different than mine. Simply because things go smoothly for you or don't go smoothly, etc., isn't indicative of how my experience will be.

Given that, why should I factor your play experience into my expectations?

Seanchai

The idea that I can't properly review the text of an rpg without playing it strikes me as akin to the suggestion that in order to write criticism of Shakespeare I have to produce/direct/perform all his plays.  Performing Macbeth might very well yield valuable insight, but that doesn't prevent the review of the play as text.  And given the large number of rpgs on the market that are read but never played, one could construct an argument that insisting on playtesting actually disserves a large segment of the audience.

Quote from: SeanchaiYour play experience will be different than mine. Simply because things go smoothly for you or don't go smoothly, etc., isn't indicative of how my experience will be.

No, and that's why I don't necessarily want to hear stories about how a session went.  I do, however, like to see things like, "To read it, combat seems cumbersome.  However, our experience was that it went pretty smoothly."  Sure, it's an opinion, just like the rest of the review is an opinion.  It also might not mesh with other peoples' play experiences.  That doesn't make it useless - it just puts a data point up on the chart.  It doesn't necessarily make it true for your group, but neither will you necessarily agree with the rest of the review.

QuoteGiven that, why should I factor your play experience into my expectations?

Seanchai

Well, it depends.  "We had a lot of fun with this!" is of very questionable value, unless you know the reviewer's tastes.  There are a lot of judgment calls figured in to a statement like that - the players' tastes, the mood they were in, etc.  It's interesting, sometimes, but it's of questionable relevance.

OTOH, experiences of the way various rules interact & power balance among characters & abilities is much more valuable.  Much like in the real world, there are complex interactions that may not be apparent if you're just going from a read-through.  I'm not going to say it's completely impossible to armchair whether or not a 3.5 monk is overpowered, but I will say I'd rather see several actual play experiences than a few guys arguing about it.  Any armchair analysis can be every bit as biased & personal as any actual play account.

Take the case of the mystic theurge from the 3.5 dmg.  The requirements are basically the ability to cast 2nd-level Arcane and Divine spells.  The class after that is very boring - basically, they increase in caster power in both classes.

When it was released in 3.5, many responses were (to paraphrase) "omfgbroken!!1!".  Seriously, the Theurge Debates rolled all over every D&D-affiliated message board out there.  To eyeball the class, it has some benefits (humongous spell selection) and deficits (behind single class in power, need multiple abilities to stay competent, trade off classes' perks for raw spellcasting).  I'd be hard-pressed to say which would be more important and under which circumstances, much less whether or not they compare reasonably to clerics or wizards individually.  I'd much rather see a collection of anecdotes about how the class worked out in several peoples' games than I would someone's opinion on how they think it would work out in play.  There's no guarantee I'd find the same in my games, but it gives me a starting point.

-O

Quote from: jrientsThe idea that I can't properly review the text of an rpg without playing it strikes me as akin to the suggestion that in order to write criticism of Shakespeare I have to produce/direct/perform all his plays.  Performing Macbeth might very well yield valuable insight, but that doesn't prevent the review of the play as text.  And given the large number of rpgs on the market that are read but never played, one could construct an argument that insisting on playtesting actually disserves a large segment of the audience.

The soloution of course is to review a system both as a publication and as an artefact of play. Appraising the text only is like reading the shooting script of a tv show-- you're only getting a portion of the drama and dynamism intended by it's author. Of course different directors and actors will give it their own unique spin, but they will always be informed by the original material.

To be honest I think this a lot of fuss over nothing. RPG's simply require the same reviewer courtesy that would be extended by an active customer. Buy. Read. Play. It's really that simple.

Don't get me wrong - I still find a lot of value in non-playtest reviews.  I like to know, for instance, if the production values are shoddy, the stat blocks suck, the rules are ill-thought, and the artwork sucks.

What I don't get is how either playtest or non-playtest reviews can be anything other that the reviewer's personal opinion and experience (apart from sheerly factual stuff like pagecount, stat blocks, and so on).  They're both editorials, and both contribute to my understanding of a potential purchase in complementary ways.

-O

Quote from: DrewRPG's simply require the same reviewer courtesy that would be extended by an active customer. Buy. Read. Play. It's really that simple.

Thing is, most game products are bought, read, then put on a shelf. If your goal is to require reviews to conform to the reality of how the product will be used, then playtest reviews aren't the way to go.

Seanchai