Mearls Speaks of 4E
Moderator: Moderators
And Wyatt is clever enough to offer up scapegoats. Collins (and another guy, Baker, who got the early flak for the Apocalypse: FR, and will get more when it actually comes out in september) have gotten some shit, but Wyatt sits in the back and doesn't really interact with the customer base. So they ignore him in favor of the mouthpieces.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Nah, really what makes sorcerers suck is the 5 minute workday and the fact that they've got delayed progression for whatever reason. I mean if you can't just rest after every fight and have to fight like 4-5 battles a day, sorcs wouldn't be half bad if they didn't get that one level delay where they don't get higher level spells until even levels. That's really the ultimate kick to the balls of sorcerers.Voss wrote: Really, the fact that they can't quicken is one of the major factors that makes them suck ass when compared to wizards.
But...but...they don't have to memorize spells!! Don't you realize how awesomely powerful that is?? Hell, they need a delay and no class features just to keep them from overshadowing the druid!!1!
Yeah...
Yeah...
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
On a more serious note, didn't Iaimeki have a Sorceror fix in the 3.5 Junk? I seem to remember scanning a list of recommended changes to spontaneous casting...Talisman wrote:But...but...they don't have to memorize spells!! Don't you realize how awesomely powerful that is?? Hell, they need a delay and no class features just to keep them from overshadowing the druid!!1!
Yeah...
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Well, that too. I was thinking of competing at higher levels, but yes, the suckage does start at 3rd level with the delay. Tho the complete lack of feats starts at 1st. I still think 3.5 was the prefect point to make wizards the scroll/item magic guy and sorcerers the metamagic/inherent magic guy. But sadly...RandomCasualty2 wrote:Nah, really what makes sorcerers suck is the 5 minute workday and the fact that they've got delayed progression for whatever reason. I mean if you can't just rest after every fight and have to fight like 4-5 battles a day, sorcs wouldn't be half bad if they didn't get that one level delay where they don't get higher level spells until even levels. That's really the ultimate kick to the balls of sorcerers.Voss wrote: Really, the fact that they can't quicken is one of the major factors that makes them suck ass when compared to wizards.
I'm still amused, however by one of the most annoying bits- the text for the sorcerer explicitly says they don't have to spend time studying magic, so they have time for other things. But their skill selection sucks balls, still 2 sp/level and wow... simple weapons. Whatever.
Last edited by Voss on Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Absentminded_Wizard
- Duke
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Contact:
Collins was set up to take some flack because he was the hated (by lots of people on Nifty and TGD, anyway) lead designer and mouthpiece for the 3.5 revisions.FrankTrollman wrote:Mearls was not the lead developer. The lead Developer was James Wyatt, as he is the only person listed as a primary author on all three core books. Mike Mearls is listed as a primary author on just one book: the Monster Manual. And as we know, the Monster Manual is the most flippantly designed core book and the most isolated from the rest of the rules.
Mearls isn't even a listed member of their 4th edition development team (Rob Heinsoo, James Wyatt, and Andy Collins). He's just a contributing author and a member of the "final development strike team" whatever the fuck that means.
What he is, is extremely vocal about the supposedly central role that he had in 4th edition. And while we can tell from the fucking credits that this grandstanding is unwarranted, it's still annoying. And when he clams credit for systems that don't work (which he does constantly), then we are pleased to go after him.
But seriously, James Wyatt is the asshole here. He's just a relatively quiet and reserved asshole who doesn't jizz all over half the internet about what a superstar game designer he is for having worked on this steaming pile.
-Username17
Anyway, I think whoever's responsible for WotC's design and playtest process has to bear some of the hatred (if we can find out who that is). It does seem like major parts of the system (skill challenges, anyone?) weren't given any systematic thought whatsoever. On the other hand, though it's inefficient, flinging poop at a wall and seeing what sticks can produce okay results as long as you use reliable methods to figure out what sticks. It seems like WotC's playtesting process consists of throwing their shit at a wall coated with special shit adhesive so it all sticks.
Dude, it's D&D playtesters. I honestly believe that anyone they've given the boon of playtesting without having to pay is pretty much going to accept whatever Wizards throws on their plate. Just look at the free 'playtesting' that Paizo is giving.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
The trick is that "paid" playtesters tend to find too many bugs because they are trying to justify their jobs. As long as you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you are good to go.virgileso wrote:Dude, it's D&D playtesters. I honestly believe that anyone they've given the boon of playtesting without having to pay is pretty much going to accept whatever Wizards throws on their plate. Just look at the free 'playtesting' that Paizo is giving.
"Unpaid" playtesters tend to suck dick because they want to stay in the club and get free stuff.
There are exceptions, but that's the way it works (for example, I just refuted a major "bug" in DominionsIII, but I tend to want to embarrass bullies and douchebags.)
-
- Journeyman
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:40 pm
Gotta love lazy designers (to say nothing of their intelligence or competence or respect for the hobby and their audience) controlling the majority of the tabletop gaming market and shaping the perception of the hobby as a whole.virgileso wrote:I remember seeing a quote somewhere from Mearls (closer to his IH days) that stated he didn't like to make settings because it was too hard or too much work.
Last edited by Caedrus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
So maybe pay them.... half as much?K wrote:The trick is that "paid" playtesters tend to find too many bugs because they are trying to justify their jobs. As long as you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you are good to go.
"Unpaid" playtesters tend to suck dick because they want to stay in the club and get free stuff.
There are exceptions, but that's the way it works (for example, I just refuted a major "bug" in DominionsIII, but I tend to want to embarrass bullies and douchebags.)
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
QFT. I used to be a paid playtester, and I've spoken with one of the WotC volunteer playtesters, and it seemed to me that the job descriptions were completely alien to each other.K wrote:The trick is that "paid" playtesters tend to find too many bugs because they are trying to justify their jobs. As long as you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you are good to go.
"Unpaid" playtesters tend to suck dick because they want to stay in the club and get free stuff.
There are exceptions, but that's the way it works (for example, I just refuted a major "bug" in DominionsIII, but I tend to want to embarrass bullies and douchebags.)
My job as a playtester was to try absolutely everything I could think of to break the game as hard as I could in as many ways as I could per day and to record detailed feedback that accurately illustrates the bug, cause of the bug, context of the bug, and ways to recreate the bug, as well as suggestions for solutions. In fact, the default "quota" was to break the game 5 new ways per day, though it would of course vary by type of game and development phase (A bare-bones crapped-out franchise-abusing simple GBA game might have less, while you might be wanting to find like 20 or more at a time in an alpha phase for a more complex game). I was supposed to try every unique method I could think of and play the game in unusual ways in order to try to make it fvck up. They would have maybe a couple people testing "intended path," and everyone else was trying to break the crap out of the system. Some folks would find frivolous bugs ("too many" as you said) in order to try to buff their bug counts, just because if you weren't breaking the game enough, they wouldn't pay you any more.
By contrast, it didn't really seem like the volunteer playtester felt he was expected to do much more significant than, well, play the game as intended and get ignored when sending suggestions back.
Last edited by Caedrus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:16 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Pretty much. Unless someone tells them to break the crap out of a system, most playtesters will just play it is intended.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
You know it's a bad playtest when the fvcking Evoker is the best party member.Antumbra wrote:Here's a playtest "report" for the one of the Age of Worms modules, if anyone wanted an example of how bad unpaid playtesters can be.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... ytestNotes
It seriously is "Evoker and Bow Guy do smart thing, other three waste action" every turn.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
That was just sad...Antumbra wrote:Here's a playtest "report" for the one of the Age of Worms modules, if anyone wanted an example of how bad unpaid playtesters can be.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... ytestNotes
PCs with mixed in commoner and warrior levels, fighter/bard... wtf?
How is that even a good playtest when they're using NPC classes and just all around godawful builds?
- Hey_I_Can_Chan
- Master
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Funny thing is, that's the *first thing they tell you* as a paid playtester: that your job description is anything but "playing as intended."Ravengm wrote:Pretty much. Unless someone tells them to break the crap out of a system, most playtesters will just play it is intended.
The job of a playtester is primarily to break the game and identify how it gets broken. If that's not what's happening, what are you keeping these people around for? Telling you that they enjoy gameplay or something?
Last edited by Caedrus on Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:36 am, edited 5 times in total.
-
- Knight
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
That's nothing. Did you catch this line (emphasis mine):RandomCasualty2 wrote:How is that even a good playtest when they're using NPC classes and just all around godawful builds?
The Dragon uses its Frightful presence which leaves Sarah and Raven shaken. It then tries to bite Raven, but misses due to a very bad roll. (non confirmed fumble)
Whoo playtesting with house rules! Especially house rules that hand out penalties to people essentially at random. I'm sure that was super useful "feedback".
Fun fact: The 3.0 Druid got basically no screen time. Well, she got a little, but that's it. They shipped the PHBs, then realized 'Oops, the 3rd level Druid's Grizzly Bear is superior to Tordek the 3rd level Fighter in every way!' and tried to fix it in the DMG.
Despite that, in 3.5 they fucked up in much the same way again because their playtest druid was meleeing on 10 strength with a WF and Imp Crit backed Scimitar, as well as PBS and Far Shot to support throwing spears and Scribe Scroll and Track to round it off. No wonder they missed that even weaker ACs were still superior to certain entire classes, not to mention the fun of spells and/or Natural Spell and so forth.
With a history of blatant, repeated mistakes is it really any surprise 4.0 is comprised of Epic Fucking Fail?
Despite that, in 3.5 they fucked up in much the same way again because their playtest druid was meleeing on 10 strength with a WF and Imp Crit backed Scimitar, as well as PBS and Far Shot to support throwing spears and Scribe Scroll and Track to round it off. No wonder they missed that even weaker ACs were still superior to certain entire classes, not to mention the fun of spells and/or Natural Spell and so forth.
With a history of blatant, repeated mistakes is it really any surprise 4.0 is comprised of Epic Fucking Fail?
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Yeah, now we know why games have so much trouble with playtesting. Why the hell are people using house rules as playtesters anyway? Isn't that like one of the rules, that you have to use the actual rules that you're supposed to be playtesting?Jacob_Orlove wrote: The Dragon uses its Frightful presence which leaves Sarah and Raven shaken. It then tries to bite Raven, but misses due to a very bad roll. (non confirmed fumble)
Whoo playtesting with house rules! Especially house rules that hand out penalties to people essentially at random. I'm sure that was super useful "feedback".
Well then again, I guess since the 4E designers did it while playtesting 4E, that this sort of stupidity is commonplace.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
Saved for later chinrubs and lulz.Antumbra wrote:Here's a playtest "report" for the one of the Age of Worms modules, if anyone wanted an example of how bad unpaid playtesters can be.
Link
EDIT: Cleaned up link.
Those commoner levels slapped in made me raise an eyebrow, though. That looks damned suspicious.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
That - quite aside from the quality of the playtesting itself - was probably the most entertainingly awful 12th-level party I have ever seen. I'm just glad that I saw the train-wreck at one remove: had I witnessed it first-hand, I think my eyes would have melted.
I was quite impressed at the randomly-allowing-character-to-not-lose-a-level "for the sake of the playtest" though. Way to completely miss the point, or what!
I was quite impressed at the randomly-allowing-character-to-not-lose-a-level "for the sake of the playtest" though. Way to completely miss the point, or what!