PDA

View Full Version : My idea to make later D&D books less cheesy



Melamoto
2009-08-28, 12:22 PM
Before release of any new books for D&D, especially new editions, here's what WotC needs to do:


Get a few copies of the "Completed" book.
For 1 week, a group of Powergamers/Optimizers/Munchkins in a room with the new book, computers with internet access for all of them, a copy of every other sourcebook, and some Mountain Dew.
Modify book based on results.


How many horrors of imbalance would be gone if this had been thought of?

Of course, this is already being done by players. It's called "Homebrew". But it would still be better if it was all RAW.

Yuki Akuma
2009-08-28, 12:24 PM
This implies that Wizards of the Coast understands any of the problems with their material, or that they playtest anything other than what they assume classes should be used for, thereby finding no flaws because they didn't test anything else.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-28, 12:25 PM
They did this with the 4e core rules, actually. I'm not sure how well it worked.

See, step 3 is problematic. Building replacement mechanics is hard, especially when you have a deadline to adhere to. So is hiring these powergamers.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-28, 12:28 PM
They did this with the 4e core rules, actually. I'm not sure how well it worked.

See, step 3 is problematic. Building replacement mechanics is hard, especially when you have a deadline to adhere to. So is hiring these powergamers.

Plus, the D&D hobby shop is dying out, so it's getting harder and harder to actually do step 1.

Melamoto
2009-08-28, 12:29 PM
See, step 3 is problematic. Building replacement mechanics is hard, especially when you have a deadline to adhere to. So is hiring these powergamers.

Maybe this could be solved by having the WotC employees actually practice their own system and maybe with a few of them being powergamers as well. Even if it was too late for Core, surely if there were D&D optimizers working there, one of them would have looked at Celerity and thought "Wait, what? How did this get in here?".

shadzar
2009-08-28, 12:30 PM
Well Scott Rouse resolved the problem of cheesy books when the 1st 4th edition books went out after the first print run. Since the forums have recently undergone a change, and the relevant post has probably been lost, and searching on ENWorld is also not likely to turn up anything on the subject I will paraphrase it here:

On page smudging:

Gamers have really oily hands and when you also have snacks like Cheetos on them these oils are more likely to cause the pages to smudge.

In other words to reduce how cheesy the D&D books are, gamers shoudl wash their filthy hands. :smallcool:

They just need better layout teams, and to get at least a few playtesters to make sure the material works...

Tyndmyr
2009-08-28, 12:31 PM
My belief is that this already happens, with the following exceptions:

Replace mountain dew with tequila, and powergamers with hookers.

JMobius
2009-08-28, 12:32 PM
I thought the thread title was referring to a more traditional definition of 'cheesy'.

My initial reaction was "good luck with that". :smallwink:

bosssmiley
2009-08-28, 12:33 PM
Oh dear Melamoto. You're assuming that any meaningful playtest was done at all, rather than the latest batch of content just being eyeballed by someone higher up the totem pole, then sent for layout.

The pre-release playtesting that is done is usually undertaken by people within the echo chamber (or at least by those who resonate with its vibrations). This is a bad thing as the implicit assumptions of the designers are never meaningfully tested, and thus the design blind spots of the game are never exposed. How else do you think the unmitigated junk of 3E's Epic Level Jokebook got loose, or the mathematically backwards clusterhumping that was 4E's Skill Challenges got published as-is?

As the Pathfinder braytest recently showed us that there are also some game designers out there who have large-but-fragile precious snowflake egos that do not take well to have their creations constructively criticized; let alone destruct-tested. Call them on it and they'll banhammer you. :smallannoyed:

RAW as a stamp of quality? That countermands the codex creep/inbuilt obsolescence philosophy of game-as-product design that WOTC and GW have raised to an art form. Selling one single self-contained, working and mechanically coherent product is no good for their future cash flows.

Optimystik
2009-08-28, 02:00 PM
My belief is that this already happens, with the following exceptions:

Replace mountain dew with tequila, and powergamers with hookers.

What? No blow? :smallwink:

@ OP: Giving a roomful of powergamers your unreleased sourcebook is a great way of enriching the pdf market.

AstralFire
2009-08-28, 02:02 PM
This should have been done to Core. The issues in splatbooks are largely easy to resolve for any DM.

Sinfire Titan
2009-08-28, 02:58 PM
This should have been done to Core. The issues in splatbooks are largely easy to resolve for any DM.

Yeah. The Core 3 have more cheese than all of the OWoD books (minus Mage, which is a whole different level of cheese) put together.


The latter releases are fairly balanced, except for ones that published a large number of spells for the Core 3 classes (PH2, CM, CS, and CC are partial subversions, but even they have moderate cheese).

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-28, 03:12 PM
Various CharOp people got 4e core copies before release, for playtesting. Tempest Stormwind was one, I believe. Unfortunately, the reason this didn't work as well as it might have been expected to IMO is that not enough time was allotted to creating functional new mechanics to replace the broken ones. But it seems to have worked decently.

valadil
2009-08-28, 03:30 PM
This implies that Wizards of the Coast understands any of the problems with their material, or that they playtest anything other than what they assume classes should be used for, thereby finding no flaws because they didn't test anything else.

This also assumes that WotC wants the material to be balanced with what's already out there. Power creep sells books. I'm sorry but it's true. The M:tG business model is working out pretty well for WotC and I don't see them changing it for D&D.

Jack Zander
2009-08-28, 03:55 PM
This also assumes that WotC wants the material to be balanced with what's already out there. Power creep sells books. I'm sorry but it's true. The M:tG business model is working out pretty well for WotC and I don't see them changing it for D&D.

+1 Words of Truth.

Powercreep in splatbooks is what gets more players to buy them. "If I owned book x, I'll be able to do y!" I don't believe there is a character concept that can't be found in core with the 11 classes provided + the prestige classes + reflavoring of abilities. They don't make new books to give you more character concept options, they print new books to give you more mechanical options. And if those options are just as good or weaker than your previous options, why would you buy the new book?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-28, 03:59 PM
I don't believe there is a character concept that can't be found in core with the 11 classes provided + the prestige classes + reflavoring of abilities. They don't make new books to give you more character concept options, they print new books to give you more mechanical options. And if those options are just as good or weaker than your previous options, why would you buy the new book?

Because reflavoring is annoying? Because reflavoring might not fit as well? Because weaker, yet new options can supplement existing strong options? Because equal, yet new options can add variety for the powergamer?

AstralFire
2009-08-28, 03:59 PM
+1 Words of Truth.

Powercreep in splatbooks is what gets more players to buy them. "If I owned book x, I'll be able to do y!" I don't believe there is a character concept that can't be found in core with the 11 classes provided + the prestige classes + reflavoring of abilities. They don't make new books to give you more character concept options, they print new books to give you more mechanical options. And if those options are just as good or weaker than your previous options, why would you buy the new book?

For a very very very wide value of character concept, this is true, but I submit that several of the concepts are handled poorly flavor-wise and not just mechanically, such as the Sorcerer and 'inner power'.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-28, 04:00 PM
Supposedly 2 or 3 of the mid-to-late 3e books were given to CharOp folks to test, but the majority of their feedback was ignored, which turned off many COers from volunteering for other tests; I wouldn't be surprised if the 4e playtest worked the same way, with some feedback being accepted (and not fixed fast enough) and most of the rest ditched.