Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.

RPGPundit

I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).

Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.

RPGPundit

Agreed.

20 different conditions though?  :eek:   Christ.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522044I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).

I don't expect fragmented from Mearls, and for Monte maybe not fragmented but overly-complex pieces that don't fit together or especially don't work well together is certainly on the table.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522056I don't expect fragmented from Mearls, and for Monte maybe not fragmented but overly-complex pieces that don't fit together or especially don't work well together is certainly on the table.

Complex in places with monte perhaps, but generally I find his stuff fits together pretty well. Where 3E got messy was all the supplemental add-ons that came later. Do you have any specific examples in mind since we may just be talking past one another speaking in general terms.

Quote from: CRKrueger;52205120 different conditions though?  :eek:   Christ.

That was the one piece that really gave me pause. But withut context or more information I wasn't sure what to make of it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522059Complex in places with monte perhaps, but generally I find his stuff fits together pretty well. Where 3E got messy was all the supplemental add-ons that came later. Do you have any specific examples in mind since we may just be talking past one another speaking in general terms.

1. Multiclassing--looks much better on paper than it worked in practice
2. Saving throws vs spell DCs
3. Building enemies using the same rules as PCs and the increase in DM workload that lead to.
4. Concentration Skill, Combat Casting feat, the 5ft step, and spell interruption.

ect.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;5220611. Multiclassing--looks much better on paper than it worked in practice
2. Saving throws vs spell DCs
3. Building enemies using the same rules as PCs and the increase in DM workload that lead to.

ect.

1&3 were actually the two things I thought 3e did really well. 1 was obviousoy a double edged sword and required effort by the Gm to prevent min/maxing, but it was a very smooth way to customize charaters. 3 defintiely could increase workload (though you were perfectly free to use the monsters from the MM as written or use the stock character stats in the DMG). What I loved aboutit was it allowed me to really customize opponents. I don't think that these things didn't fit together, they just demanded a but more oversight from the GM, and a group of mature players to work well.

What about number 2 didn't you like.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522044I don't know if the final game will be to my liking or not, but one thing I don't expect from cook or mearls is fragmented. Just doesn't seem to fit my experience with either. My biggest concern is them getting swept up in their own innovations more than anything else (that or just not grasping where the fault lines really are in the 4e versus pre-4e debate).

That last part in parentheses, that's been my biggest headache thus far. The former, not so much. What new mechanical innovations there are actually pretty fucking awesome.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5220631&3 were actually the two things I thought 3e did really well. 1 was obviousoy a double edged sword and required effort by the Gm to prevent min/maxing, but it was a very smooth way to customize charaters. 3 defintiely could increase workload (though you were perfectly free to use the monsters from the MM as written or use the stock character stats in the DMG). What I loved aboutit was it allowed me to really customize opponents. I don't think that these things didn't fit together, they just demanded a but more oversight from the GM, and a group of mature players to work well.

What about number 2 didn't you like.

1 tended to generate bad results without heavy min/maxing. Demanding more work from the DM and good behavior from the players is basically my point. The game didn't really fit together or work well without positive input from the people playing it. If left to its own devices or placed under any sort of stress, it broke down quickly. AD&D 1E and 2E were far more robust games.

As for #2, they really changed the mathematics behind saving throws compared to AD&D without really realizing the consequences of doing so.

What I've come to expect from Monte more than anything is things that look great on paper and sound great in theory, but cause unforseen problems when you actually start playing in the game and cause more problems than they're worth.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;5220614. Concentration Skill, Combat Casting feat, the 5ft step, and spell interruption.

ect.

i can see how some people might not like these (and combat casting feat was problematic in my opinion) but spell interuption and concentration were one of the things they did to balance out casters in the editionl if you use those it does mitigate the caster supremacy people often complain about.

Quote from: RPGPundit;522041The version I have, the real version, doesn't look fragmented at all.

I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.

Quote from: RPGPundit;522066That last part in parentheses, that's been my biggest headache thus far. The former, not so much. What new mechanical innovations there are actually pretty fucking awesome.

RPGPundit

That is encouraging, and also confirms my suspicion that they need to come to forums like this to see how some of e 4e elements drive some players nuts (though it is good to know they can do so indirectly with you as a consultant).

I wouldn't put any stock in it even if it were an official document.  It might *hint* at things, but it's not really substantial if it's just a "1.0" playtest.

Story of the head of lettuce for an amazing price (if you come back tomorrow), and all that.  My current company is working with a fairly large firm that has software that currently works -- the basic shell of the program is working, at least.  They're promising us it's going to do other things in the future, and they've even shown us some minor implementations of those ideas.  But until that piece of software is on our computers, doing everything they promised us it would do, or some variation thereof, it doesn't matter what's in their release docs or demo versions.

Similarly, WotC could have epiphanies or issues and completely rejigger some parts of the game between now and the final release.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522072That is encouraging, and also confirms my suspicion that they need to come to forums like this to see how some of e 4e elements drive some players nuts (though it is good to know they can do so indirectly with you as a consultant).

The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.