| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m just hoping resonance is one of those systems where they put out the extreme version so it can be walked back.There's no extreme version here. This is not extreme in any way. If people want to overthink every aspect and think about all things that physically may go wrong, I'm not able to stop it. But that's just non-sense. It's a great mechanic that a bunch of people are screaming for reasons that don't exist.
I'm tired of this. Let the playtest begin so we may talk about it later.
It isn’t things that ‘may’ go wrong, it’s wrong that is inherent in the design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn’t things that ‘may’ go wrong, it’s wrong that is inherent in the design.I’m just hoping resonance is one of those systems where they put out the extreme version so it can be walked back.There's no extreme version here. This is not extreme in any way. If people want to overthink every aspect and think about all things that physically may go wrong, I'm not able to stop it. But that's just non-sense. It's a great mechanic that a bunch of people are screaming for reasons that don't exist.
I'm tired of this. Let the playtest begin so we may talk about it later.
Except that there is NO REASON to think your so-called "flaws inherent in the design" will ever happen, let alone being unsolvable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason to think that are the statements about resonance and the structure of how it works. It’s kind of baked into the mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason to think that are the statements about resonance and the structure of how it works. It’s kind of baked into the mechanic.
Yes, I've read all of that, and NOTHING ever points toward your worries.
It's all theory crafting, really. I think we should wait until we actually PLAY the mechanic instead of thinking about the incomplete information we have of it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It pretty much either works that way, or the pool is so large that it’s meaningless.
How does negative CON + LEVEL work in those simulations?
You can look it up in the results I posted earlier. Presuming 15th level against the 16d6, that would give about a 72% chance of survival instead of 28%. Definitely an improvement, and a houserule I endorse, but more of a bandaid than a solution to the problem.
See, the present value of happiness now seems much greater than the future value of happiness later.
It's not a matter of 'happiness'. It's excitement or not: I can't fake happiness or invent excitement I'm not feeling: this is especially true when it JUST for the benefit of others here in the playtest section.
Disappointment later is also mitigated by playtest feedback, which I can only expect will be more satisfying than griping on the forums.
Assumes facts not in evidence. I went through the ENTIRE 5e playtest and the entire thing was very soul crushing as each and every survey I filled out seemed to take the game further and further away from a game I wanted to play... If you'd have assumed that the 5e playtest was "more satisfying than griping on the forums" you'd have been VERY, VERY wrong.