|
D&D 5E
Feb 1, 2012 16:15:38 GMT -5
Post by Aerin, the half-elf priestess on Feb 1, 2012 16:15:38 GMT -5
I must say that you have proven to be a very knowledgable person. You presented important information with patience and persistence. I truly hope to discuss, meet, and even play TIER with you one day. It's nice to talk to someone who really loves and understands D&D. By the way, the level 4 kobold who becomes a god is called "Pun Pun". I also agree with you 100% that spellcasters were too strong in D&D 3.5, which is why it took me years to balance that issue out. In TIER, spellcasting and warrior characters are about equal in terms of power, usefulness, and survival. My issue with classes is that every class has a "best" build or best way of creating the character. So even with all the different options available in D&D 4.0, there are still only a few that are the "best" while the other options are weak or not useful. However, I do agree with you that I do not know everything about D&D 4.0 and maybe I did miss things or do not know how to make great characters. With your help, I could probably make good D&D 4.0 characters. But that's the beauty of TIER. You don't have to be an expert to create a good character. The Masteries are organized into sections that are easy to understand and work with. It took me years to create and balance the Masteries. I hired players to "break" TIER so they could try and figure out the "best" character builds. Then I made corrections and improvements to make all the Masteries equally balanced and desirable. Even now I am still playtesting with my group and making small changes before publication. In the end, I hope people enjoy playing TIER. My dream is to revolutionize the entire world of D&D. I don't expect to make millions of dollars, but I hope someone else picks up my idea and creates an even better game with beautiful artwork, advertising, and etc. I would love to have the support of Wizards of the Coast, but they told me I needed an agent. I called multiple companies for agents and none returned my calls and messages. Again, it has been very nice talking with you and I can't wait to have more awesome and intense conversations. You truly are an awesome D&D rival!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 1, 2012 16:34:59 GMT -5
Post by netrpg on Feb 1, 2012 16:34:59 GMT -5
While there is theoretically a "best" build for any character in any edition of D&D, what's "best" for a character in a vacuum may not be best for the party's dynamic and, overall, the enjoyment of the party in general. A character with 26 attacks may be great because the party can set him loose to handle all the enemies in combat, while they solve more complex problems -- or simply find more ways to turn that machine of destruction into something even more dangerous. Everyone can have fun!
A character that can cast two spells and solve every single problem the party has is probably nowhere as fun for the party!
And besides, for every person's "best" build, there's another guy with a "best" build that beats the first "best" build. And then there's another one, and another one...
Right now, I'm sure your game sounds great because you have X amount of Masteries, and they all feel fairly well-balanced against each other, and you don't need a lot of "system mastery" (which is more or less what you refer to when talking about being an 'expert' to make a good character in 4.0). But what happens when more books come out and more Masteries are designed? Certain things will begin to complement each other in ways you hadn't thought of, and eventually there will be a "best way to do X" in your game.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, because a lot of options make things interesting. Look at 3.5 and 4.0 to see what I mean -- characters have a lot of ways to just do a simple thing. I can think of a ton of different ways that I can potentially build a Fighter in 4th Edition, and they would all play in incredibly different ways. Sure, there are some powers and paragon paths that are outright bad (just like there are bad feats, just like there are bad feats, classes and prestige classes in 3.5), but a little bit of reading online and messing around with a tool like Wizards' Online Character Builder (which is a godsend for people who can't buy all the books) can help you with building a ton of different characters. Hell, Fighters don't even always have to be Defenders, they can feature a lot of abilities that make them play like Controllers (a polearm build with feats that let you inflict immobilization and prone on enemies), which is what the Wizard's traditional role is. More importantly, in 4E, a character never feels "useless" in a combat encounter -- all characters are equally important to the party at any given time. I don't think 3.5 ever properly achieved this feeling. Hell, even the "best" build of a Fighter in 3.5 lost instantly to any spellcaster. What's the point?
Wizards of the Coast won't support 3.5-derived material, because they've since moved on. You would only be useful to them if you could realistically contribute to 5th Edition, and you'd need to have published something as portfolio work that was interesting for them to take notice. You'd have better luck contacting another company like Paizo if they weren't already so entrenched in Pathfinder, but most are, and no one wants to visit 3.5 right now when there's so many different game systems in the world already.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 1, 2012 19:10:36 GMT -5
Post by Aerin, the half-elf priestess on Feb 1, 2012 19:10:36 GMT -5
You present good points of information. I agree with most of it. As for other companies, I spoke with the president of Ronin and he wasn't interested in TIER due to the fact that it relies only on 1D20 dice. Ronin created a full-color book for the "True D20" game with great advertising, but they lost tons of money on it. So they were afraid of publishing my book. However, it was nice to talk with the guy and hear is full explanation. I truly hate Wizards because they won't even talk to me without an agent, which is just a lame excuse to brush people off. I would certainly love to help them create D&D 5.0, but they already have their developers and game creation team working on the game. Oh well. I'll just do the best on my own, unless you know of any agents or other companies willing to check out my website and game.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 11:24:58 GMT -5
Post by netrpg on Feb 2, 2012 11:24:58 GMT -5
You can't blame Wizards for not wanting to talk to you. You have no published material, and they get something akin to hundreds of submissions of original work per week! If they have to pay attention to you, they'd have to pay attention to everyone, and that's unrealistic.
True20 was a failure not just because it relies on one dice. Unfortunately, the system is really, really boring.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Feb 2, 2012 14:02:12 GMT -5
Post by Aerin, the half-elf priestess on Feb 2, 2012 14:02:12 GMT -5
I understand that Wizards cannot read every submission. However, it's not everyday that someone creates an entire full game with tons of unique material like TIER. Wizards could use a lot of my material to enhance D&D 5.0. They could also use my help. The fact is that D&D 4.0 did not produce the estimated or desired results. Now Wizards needs to explore new ideas in order to bring in new fans and customers.
Even if I don't currently have any published material, it doesn't mean that I don't have something worthy of their attention. Sometimes you have to look in unusual or unlikely places in order to find inspiration and new ideas.
Good companies would try and gather information and ideas from all sources and locations, not only from someone who has an agent. That's why I respect the Ronin company because they checked out my material and explained to me why they did not want to publish it. Wizards can do better if they want to, but they're looking to make easy money with as little effort as possible. I understand that Wizards is a business and they need to make money, but I still don't like how they treated me.
Hopefully Wizards will do a better job with D&D 5.0. Maybe they'll find someone else who can provide new and innovative ideas. Only the future can tell.
|
|