http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140623

Basically plans for how they intend to handle errata, living documents and rule updates.

Several things I liked in that.  It seems they are basically saying, "There has always been errata, there will always be.  We're just trying to organize it better."


But this is very pleasing to read:

QuoteWe’ll make actual rules changes (as opposed to updating a FAQ) only when absolutely necessary. If players and DMs feel they need to replace their books because of these changes, we’ve gone too far.
....

To start with, we’ll assess the issue’s impact on the game. Let’s say a number of players complain that a class is too weak and refuse to play it. But at the same time, people who play that class enjoy it and give it high marks. In this case, we won’t change anything. But if no one is playing the class even though they want to, then we need to look at different options.

I really like it how that seems to imply they won't be catering to the charoppers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;760547I really like it how that seems to imply they won't be catering to the charoppers.

Yep. It's nice to see the designers recognize that a lot of stuff that might be a problem in theory is not a problem in practice for most players. Because if they try to keep the charoppers and theory-wanks happy, there will be no end to the errata.

Quote from: Haffrung;760564Yep. It's nice to see the designers recognize that a lot of stuff that might be a problem in theory is not a problem in practice for most players. Because if they try to keep the charoppers and theory-wanks happy, there will be no end to the errata.

I couldn't agree more.  It seemed like with 3e, it became an arms race of sorts.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;760547Several things I liked in that.  It seems they are basically saying, "There has always been errata, there will always be.  We're just trying to organize it better."


But this is very pleasing to read:



I really like it how that seems to imply they won't be catering to the charoppers.

Or forum users at all. As been mentioned already too many are just theorists not actually CharOP types. They're not exclusive even though there is overlap at times.

The 3e arms race started at the end of 2e.

Quote from: Haffrung;760564Yep. It's nice to see the designers recognize that a lot of stuff that might be a problem in theory is not a problem in practice for most players. Because if they try to keep the charoppers and theory-wanks happy, there will be no end to the errata.

I always liked to think about "gross balance" and "fine balance".

"Gross balance" is stuff like "can the fighter take more of a punishment than the wizard?"  It's relatively important.  If the wizard is actually better than the fighter at what the fighter's supposed to be good at, then what's the point of playing a fighter? (note: presumption of what a fighter's supposed to be good at.  It's an example for discussion purposes.)

"Fine balance" is stuff like "oh, the fighter can take eight rounds of hits from a CL level 3 critter, when he should actually take seven."  Not super important.

I really, really, hope they don't overly focus on the "fine balance" points.

Like so many other things that have been spouted about the upcoming edition, the devil will be in the details. How are they going to determine who it's a problem for and how much of one it is?

This would be what you actually want to see pulled off...

QuoteA revision significant enough to require serious changes to printed books should offer multiple obvious improvements to the game. If you’re buying new books, it should be because you want to—not because we’re twisting your arm. In an ideal world, updates to our printed products should simply capture the incremental updates and revisions that have proven widely popular.

Any big revisions aren't going to be just because some loudmouth on a forum says it is. This would require a community wide consensus through actual play not theory. This is why the year lead time and other steps.

Quote from: Bobloblah;760585Like so many other things that have been spouted about the upcoming edition, the devil will be in the details. How are they going to determine who it's a problem for and how much of one it is?

Polls, louts and lots of polls... like they did for the playtest, the art, all the polls for crunch vs. fluff.

They took more polls leading into this version than a presidential campaign.

I'm not complaining,  at least they are asking for feedback. What they do with it is up to them.

But that would be my presumed answer to your question.

Quote from: Marleycat;760591This would be what you actually want to see pulled off...Any big revisions aren't going to be just because some loudmouth on a forum says it is. This would require a community wide consensus through actual play not theory. This is why the year lead time and other steps.

Who are you replying to? If it's to me, nothing in that quote actually states how they're going to determine what is "a community wide consensus through actual play not theory" and what isn't. That inability to do so led to the problems many now see as listening to the online theorycrafters.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;760597Polls, louts and lots of polls... like they did for the playtest, the art, all the polls for crunch vs. fluff.

They took more polls leading into this version than a presidential campaign.

I'm not complaining,  at least they are asking for feedback. What they do with it is up to them.

But that would be my presumed answer to your question.

Let's hope the playtest has raised the profile of such an online, interactive relationship enough to make it work, long-term. Even so, the number of participants is going to be a small fraction of the actual player-base.

Quote from: Bobloblah;760598Who are you replying to? If it's to me, nothing in that quote actually states how they're going to determine what is "a community wide consensus through actual play not theory" and what isn't. That inability to do so led to the problems many now see as listening to the online theorycrafters.

Nobody in particular, did I quote anything but part of the article? It's just something I noticed is all. Because last time it was just a flood of errata sometimes just not needed or actually an issue for all sorts of people. It looks like they really would rather not make gamechanging revisions without really going through a process that involves everybody and only then if it really impacts actual play for the vast majority because one table's bug may be 5 table's feature, or the reverse. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

Quote from: Bobloblah;760598That inability to do so led to the problems many now see as listening to the online theorycrafters.

I'm pretty sure WotC recognize that was their big mistake with 4E (and to some extent, with 3.5). The 5E devs have come out and said, on multiple occasions, that for too long WotC listened to hardcore players and placed their concerns above casuals. That's why the whole approach to 5E has been radically different. They have relentlessly polled the player base, and solicited feedback from tens of thousands of playtesters.

Maybe they will slide back to their old ways. But seeing as the driving goal of 5E is to broaden the appeal of D&D, I'm willing to take them at face value here. And it may have escaped your notice, but this approach of soliciting popular input and eschewing finely calibrated math has earned the 5E devs the scorn and hatred of the theorycrafters and hardcore 4E fanbase.

Quote from: Haffrung;760606And it may have escaped your notice, but this approach of soliciting popular input and eschewing finely calibrated math has earned the 5E devs the scorn and hatred of the theorycrafters and hardcore 4E fanbase.

It has not. Their anguish sustains me.

But, seriously...Mearls and co. have said lots of things. The proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating.

Quote from: Bobloblah;760627But, seriously...Mearls and co. have said lots of things. The proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating.

Exactly.  That's not hostile, that's just "okay, cool.  We'll see."