Mearls Speaks of 4E

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:29 pm

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.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:45 pm

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.

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.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:02 pm

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...

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:08 pm

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...

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...

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:20 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
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.
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.

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...

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.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:04 am

Maxus wrote: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...

Yeah. No delay in spell levels, more spells known, fewer per day, and bonus feats. It's not bad.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:15 am

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

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.

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.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:02 am

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.

K · Post by K » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:13 am

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.

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.)

Tydanosaurus · Post by **Tydanosaurus** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:59 pm

I wonder if WotC has heard of the term "beta test?"

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:47 pm

The current folks play WoW a lot [apparently when they should have been working], so yeah, they have.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:08 am

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.

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.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:41 pm

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.)

So maybe pay them.... half as much?

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:11 pm

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.)

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.

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.

Antumbra · Post by **Antumbra** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:55 pm

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.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:02 pm

Pretty much. Unless someone tells them to break the crap out of a system, most playtesters will just play it is intended.

K · Post by K » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:42 pm

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

You know it's a bad playtest when the fvcking Evoker is the best party member.

It seriously is "Evoker and Bow Guy do smart thing, other three waste action" every turn.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:08 pm

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

That was just sad...

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 · Post by **Hey_I_Can_Chan** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:15 pm

Antumbra, fix your link. The page is out of control.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:31 am

Ravengm wrote:Pretty much. Unless someone tells them to break the crap out of a system, most playtesters will just play it is intended.

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."

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?

Jacob_Orlove · Post by **Jacob_Orlove** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:57 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:How is that even a good playtest when they're using NPC classes and just all around godawful builds?

That's nothing. Did you catch this line (emphasis mine):

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".

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:07 am

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?

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:14 am

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".

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?

Well then again, I guess since the 4E designers did it while playtesting 4E, that this sort of stupidity is commonplace.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:25 am

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.

Saved for later chinrubs and lulz.
Those commoner levels slapped in made me raise an eyebrow, though. That looks damned suspicious.

Amra · Post by **Amra** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:04 pm

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!