Honestly if Melan is ok with it I can do a wait and see with optimism. Like I said before, without real opinion I have been pretty depressed about it. But Melan knows rpg's.

I am not okay with it yet, I am moderately hopeful. There is a difference.

Quote from: Melan;564118I am not okay with it yet, I am moderately hopeful. There is a difference.

Good enough for me to do my "wait and see". I am in the playtest and we're giving our feedback.

Quote from: jibbajibba;564113....but there is also a desire to offer a unified play experience through the RPGA , or whatever its latest iteration is. This latter element is perhaps what colours the debate.

I think "organized play" is a large part of the problem. For years, organized play was handled by having special rules for organized play that only those interested in organized play ever saw, let alone bought (e.g. the Living Greyhawk stuff). This kept the focus of the actual general rules on "home" play where they did not need to be so iron-clad and unfriendly to GM Fiat, house rules, optional rules, and the like. The idea that the general rules need to be usable as is for organized play (or even that organized play is the main purpose of the game so the rules need to be designed around its needs) seems common at WOTC -- at least since the design of 4e started and they can't quite seem to shake it.

IMHO, stressing organized play over "home" play is bad for the RPG hobby (and even bad for the long-term good of the RPG industry), although it might be good for the RPG industry over the short term.

Quote from: RandallS;564126I think "organized play" is a large part of the problem. For years, organized play was handled by having special rules for organized play that only those interested in organized play ever saw, let alone bought (e.g. the Living Greyhawk stuff). This kept the focus of the actual general rules on "home" play where they did not need to be so iron-clad and unfriendly to GM Fiat, house rules, optional rules, and the like. The idea that the general rules need to be usable as is for organized play (or even that organized play is the main purpose of the game so the rules need to be designed around its needs) seems common at WOTC -- at least since the design of 4e started and they can't quite seem to shake it.

IMHO, stressing organized play over "home" play is bad for the RPG hobby (and even bad for the long-term good of the RPG industry), although it might be good for the RPG industry over the short term.

The problem is Organised play is good for WotC.

Quote from: RandallS;564126I think "organized play" is a large part of the problem.

You are correct.

Even if organised play has a larger role in their business model than TSR's, there is a need for a distinction between home play and organised play, just like there needs to be an acknowledgement that roleplaying games (especially a game as broad, as diverse and as rich in its traditions as D&D) need to address significant differences in play styles, player involvement and rule intensity. As you note, home games and the RPGA have different needs and different problems.

Here is one area where the so far nebulous "modules" can make a major difference: develop a package for tournaments, and do not force the assumptions of heavily formal, often partially competitive models on peoples' home games. There can be no unity without an acceptance of diversity.

Quote from: Melan;564144You are correct.

Even if organised play has a larger role in their business model than TSR's, there is a need for a distinction between home play and organised play, just like there needs to be an acknowledgement that roleplaying games (especially a game as broad, as diverse and as rich in its traditions as D&D) need to address significant differences in play styles, player involvement and rule intensity. As you note, home games and the RPGA have different needs and different problems.

Here is one area where the so far nebulous "modules" can make a major difference: develop a package for tournaments, and do not force the assumptions of heavily formal, often partially competitive models on peoples' home games. There can be no unity without an acceptance of diversity.

Yarp.

The state of things is that WoTC received a gigantic amount of feedback, as well as detailed reports from both paid consultants and in-house playtesters/reviewers, and are now processing it all and working on changes to the system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;564746The state of things is that WoTC received a gigantic amount of feedback, as well as detailed reports from both paid consultants and in-house playtesters/reviewers, and are now processing it all and working on changes to the system.

RPGPundit

This second iteration will probably so different that all the complaints are pretty much baseless. But really given they are taking so long this is exactly what I thought was happening hence I just don't listen to the furor anymore and just give my feedback when they ask.

Quote from: RPGPundit;564746The state of things is that WoTC received a gigantic amount of feedback, as well as detailed reports from both paid consultants and in-house playtesters/reviewers, and are now processing it all and working on changes to the system.
 
RPGPundit

And hilarity ensues. By the time they finish incorporating changes from the first half of the feedback, the second half won't make much sense...or they'll be making changes to fix things that aren't problems anymore.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;564943And hilarity ensues. By the time they finish incorporating changes from the first half of the feedback, the second half won't make much sense...or they'll be making changes to fix things that aren't problems anymore.

I think you seriously underestimate their capabilities.  Of course, a lot of people have a vested interest in doing so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;565330I think you seriously underestimate their capabilities.

Well to be honest, they have given us all the reasons in the world in the past few years to be doubtful about their actual understanding of the game, and their ability to design its new iteration thereof.

Quote from: RPGPundit;565330I think you seriously underestimate their capabilities.  Of course, a lot of people have a vested interest in doing so.

RPGPundit

I don't so much have a vested interest as I like to watch a good train wreck, and really, perfect rules or pure shit, the derailment is going to be awesome.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;5639114e whiner: "Argh, vancian magic is an option, this is going to suck!"

Just a nitpick, cause honestly, I'm not a fan of vancian magic (not a 4venger either, as I'm kind of disillusioned with the 4e system as well, and lets be honest, 4e wizards with their spellbook feature were semi-vancian anyway), vancian magic is not an option if Mearls is to believed. According to his tweets, All Wizards Are Vancian. So it isn't an option, its core.

(Unless they somehow make another class, that has the exact same fluff... but isn't vancian, which seems silly.)

Quote from: Gib;565338I don't so much have a vested interest as I like to watch a good train wreck, and really, perfect rules or pure shit, the derailment is going to be awesome.

+1

I would however point out that having playtested, if it derails it's going to be into a swamp of pure molasses.  Just sort of ...gshhhhhhhhhglorp