|
Vire posted:Wizards basically has no idea how to do software development and I don't think Hasbro gives the DnD franchise enough capital to hire a competent department or outsource it to a software development company.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:45 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:09 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:They did do that. The lead developer on the project was the victim of a murder suicide which killed any momentum the project had. On top of that they actually did the smart thing and actually used one of the open source programs of the foundation of the project that got canceled. Okay I can understand that delaying things but derailing a project for four years because some one died?
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:49 |
|
|
Vire posted:Okay I can understand that delaying things but derailing a project for four years because some one died?
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:50 |
|
|
Also you don't need a VTT when you have the TOTM.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:51 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:It wasn't. The project was effectively dead at the point. But it clearly wasn't because they kept promising it would come and it did make it to beta. So people where being paid to work on it.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:55 |
|
|
Vire posted:But it clearly wasn't because they kept promising it would come and it did make it to beta. So people where being paid to work on it.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 02:59 |
|
|
homullus posted:You guys are at the point where you're falling over yourselves to find ways to hate on the column. He's talking about the presentation of the effects, and yes, they really do diverge. Yeah after reading the first paragraph I was ready to comment "This is a false dichotomy, like saying "This is a poorly written article, or Mearls is a bad designer."" However he quite clearly says it's a false dichotomy in the second half of the article and both fluff and crunch have roles in the game. Of course I think Cirno was pretty right about this point: ProfessorCirno posted:I think the main reason is that Mearls absolutely, 100% believes everything he has written. D&D Next is absolutely going to unite the fanbase and be the wonderful edition for everyone. D&D fans don't hate each other and nobody hates other editions, they're just misinformed about things. We're all one big happy family and by golly his edition will be the holiday dinner that unites us all!
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 03:00 |
|
|
It is definitely part of his job to be publicly optimistic about it and to sound sincere about it, whether he believes it or not. Developers Of Things as well as People At The Helm have to do that. While you may appreciate greater honesty about its feasibility or a more nuanced view of 5e's future, 5e's future is still even worse if he comes out and says "ehhhh . . it's probably not gonna work, sorry guys, but we gotta make rent somehow."
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 03:44 |
|
|
I'm honestly wondering a little if the true thesis of the article wasn't "Crap, it's Monday and we have nothing new to show anybody. Let's just say nothing very elaborately."
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 04:58 |
|
|
Well if you want them to say something, in a more straightforward fashion, there's a new Rule of Three, as if by magic, here to say "gently caress you fighters." http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120710 quote:Is the plan with D&D Next for different classes to have different attacks/actions they can do when using the tactical rules modules? Or is the plan for the module not to really add any more options/complexity to characters? Daily spells: A tracking metric on par with "has more HP."
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 05:04 |
|
|
Also, Wizards having at-will spells will somehow make them not want to cast their encounter-winning spells at every opportunity, and rest as early and as often as the DM will permit them.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 05:30 |
|
|
No, see, that's the thing. Wizards will be able to memorize as many daily spells as an adventuring day contains encounters, because they will only ever need to cast one per encounter, by design.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, see, that's the thing. Wizards will be able to memorize as many daily spells as an adventuring day contains encounters, because they will only ever need to cast one per encounter, by design. This... makes way too much sense. Yes, that's exactly the rationale.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 05:35 |
|
|
Necrofamicom posted:Over the course of its lifespan, Magic: The Gathering has only had two real rules revisions. The first was was with Sixth Edition and was fairly major, eliminating an entire card type and folding it into another, and changing the way the new category of spells interacted as they were being cast. The second was more minor and just elimated a bit of combat cheese and clarified some rules, but also added a bunch of new types to old, out of print cards. Yeah here's the thing. Two major overhauls of the rules since 1993 isn't really that different from D&D. That's AD&D -> 3.x -> 4e.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 05:53 |
|
|
fosborb posted:Yeah here's the thing. Two major overhauls of the rules since 1993 isn't really that different from D&D. That's AD&D -> 3.x -> 4e. Those "major overhauls" are incredibly minor compared to those edition changes. MTG has remained basically the same game throughout its history. AD&D, 3.X, and 4E are much different games. The significant thing is that cards from 1993 still work basically the same way in the modern game. Whereas splat-books from AD&D and 3.X are worthless in 4E as anything but fluff inspiration.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 06:13 |
|
|
eth0.n posted:Whereas splat-books from AD&D and 3.X are worthless in 4E as anything but fluff inspiration. So they work about the same now as they did then.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 06:48 |
|
|
Rule of Three posted:if the DM wants to run a single, massive combat encounter that eats up the whole budget for the adventuring day, that's fine! However, thanks to the XP budgeting system and the adventure design guidelines, this should mean that the single massive encounter lasts about as long as a more traditional adventuring day with several smaller skirmishes, thus keeping adventures paced correctly and the classes balanced against one another. "Rolling several encounters worth of monsters into one just means that the battle will just last longer, no other effects, no sir" DnD Next: Design by Wishful Thinking.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 07:00 |
|
|
IGNORE THIS I AM DUMB
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 07:08 |
|
|
Vire posted:We are just going back to the dumb well you ran into an ancient wyrm in a level 1 cave you where not suppose to fight him. It's not my fault he lives there. Lemme say this as a hex crawl GM. I will include high level creatures around the area in a hex crawl right from the bat. But there will be ways for the party to find out since it's well the strongest dude in the area, everyone talks about it. And it has reasons for being there, namely being a threat the players need to avoid or perhaps run away from if they meet it to early. Necrofamicom posted:I think this is the model they want to use on D&D. Create an underlying structure and find a way to monetize it with new products. Every new Magic set introduces new rules and changes the metagame, but the underlying rules are relatively unchanged. Here is the thing, mtg doesn't sell itself on new content(rules/cards/feats/powers), that's what you buy sure. But what the game is selling is new enviroments. It's selling a game where cleric, fighter and thief are banned, but their roles are filled by battlemind, ardent and hexblade.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 08:45 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 15:09 |
|
|
What a wretched pile of poo poo this thread is. It is time for the 2nd Edition of this thread, because the threadshitting creep has spread all over this one.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 12:55 |
|
