This includes an Editorial Calendar for December.
According to that list, we're getting the following in December:
- Monday Dec 1st: Playtest - The Druid
- Monday Dec 8th: Playtest - Mercykillers
- Monday Dec 15th: Playtest - The Invoker
There's also a rather odd listing on the 8th:
- Monday Dec 8th: Playtest - Adventurer's Vault 2
Really not sure what to make of that one. I'm assuming it was some sort of placeholder? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
In the meantime, let the cheering, booing, and wild rumormongering begin.
[EDIT]Fumble-thumbed. Meant to post this in RPGA General. Having it moved. Bad VCL!
Anyways, slightly different topic, but on the Editorial Calender, the RPGA report isn't listed as one of the free articles. Are these going to be behind the paywall in the future? If so, does the RPGA plan to release any important information this way?
Speaking of typos - turns out that the listing of "Adventurer's Vault 2" is a playtest of magic items and stuff from AV2.
- Monday Dec 1st: Playtest - The Druid
- Monday Dec 8th: Playtest - Mercykillers
- Monday Dec 15th: Playtest - The Invoker
I have no idea about the last two but I'm looking forward to the Druid playtest.
As a DM I am getting a little sick of the playtests. It seems like every week some weird new combination shows up at a table and half the play time is spent getting the new mechanics straight without enough of the class available to give real context to the powers.
I have to second this. I do like options and new stuff, but the rate at which its coming out is well making my head swim at public events. I have no problems as a player, but am finding it increasingly difficult to DM. I like the new stuff and do want to learn it but find it challenging. The last 1-4 level game I ran featured 80% content from Dragon or Martial Power.
I am planning on only judging level 4 and above modules in the near future, that will hopefully give me time to gain a better knowledge of the newer content before I have to adjudicate it.
I'm really looking to the Druid though I have no idea what the hell the Mercykiller is about can anyone enlighten me?
That's compared to the December playtests where I am going to have situations where three new sets of rules are coming out in little fragments and if a build shows up at the table chances are that I won't be familiar with the details and neither will any of the other players. Having that kind of thing on an occasional basis is one thing, but having to deal with that multiple times a month is a royal pain in the ass, end of the month legal or not.
I have to second this. I do like options and new stuff, but the rate at which its coming out is well making my head swim at public events. I have no problems as a player, but am finding it increasingly difficult to DM. I like the new stuff and do want to learn it but find it challenging. The last 1-4 level game I ran featured 80% content from Dragon or Martial Power.
I am planning on only judging level 4 and above modules in the near future, that will hopefully give me time to gain a better knowledge of the newer content before I have to adjudicate it.
Mis-read your post. Disregard my reply.
It's not always a question of making sure I read through the material before the players play it. It's a question of my own time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read and memorize everything that Dragon puts out and should not have to just for the privilege of DMing games. When a new splat book like MP comes out, that's fair enough. There may be new mechanics and such, but it comes out in a chunk and everyone is getting up to speed at the same time.
That's compared to the December playtests where I am going to have situations where three new sets of rules are coming out in little fragments and if a build shows up at the table chances are that I won't be familiar with the details and neither will any of the other players. Having that kind of thing on an occasional basis is one thing, but having to deal with that multiple times a month is a royal pain in the ass, end of the month legal or not.
I think this is best alleviated by requiring players to bring their rules sources with them. In this case, they'd have to bring the Playtest article(s) from Dragon.
You're right in that it isn't fair to require the GM to know the ins, outs, and details of every class, feat, power, feature, build, etc. That's why the RPGA doesn't requires such in-depth knowledge.
What you should do is trust, but verify. Trust your player(s) to know their class (even a Playtest class) before they bring it to the table. When something seems fishy, Verify that they're doing it right by referencing their copy of the rules source. If they can't/don't/won't provide you a printed copy of the rules - you have the right, as the DM to rule the power in a way that seems more balanced to you. If the player doesn't like it, remind them to bring the rules with them next time.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to read and memorize everything that Dragon puts out and should not have to just for the privilege of DMing games.
Why in the world would you feel obliged to do this?
I require my players to know what their characters can do. As long as they give out the right key words ("Attack against Will", "XX psychic damage and dazed, save ends", "slide target 2 squares", etc.) then as a DM I could care less where they come from.
as for gming the Platests they aren't allowed until the Dragon is finalized at the ned of the month. So either you have a little while to read it yourself or if the char shows up before the compilied magazine you can just say no.
I'm really looking to the Druid though I have no idea what the hell the Mercykiller is about can anyone enlighten me?
Well in the 2E Planescape campaign setting (which, by the way was awesome), Mercykillers were one of the factions. Since Manual of the Planes is on the horizon I am hoping that some of the incredible awesomeness of that setting will be coming back. This could have something to do with that. Or it could be completely unrelated, and simply using the name.
Here's stuff on the Mercykillers of old. http://www.mimir.net/factions/mercykillers.html
I think this is best alleviated by requiring players to bring their rules sources with them. In this case, they'd have to bring the Playtest article(s) from Dragon.
You're right in that it isn't fair to require the GM to know the ins, outs, and details of every class, feat, power, feature, build, etc. That's why the RPGA doesn't requires such in-depth knowledge.
What you should do is trust, but verify. Trust your player(s) to know their class (even a Playtest class) before they bring it to the table. When something seems fishy, Verify that they're doing it right by referencing their copy of the rules source. If they can't/don't/won't provide you a printed copy of the rules - you have the right, as the DM to rule the power in a way that seems more balanced to you. If the player doesn't like it, remind them to bring the rules with them next time.
I think this is quite fair. The onus, I think, should fall on the individual who's bringing the new content to the table. I always try to make a point of having a verbatim printed copy (if not direct firsthand source) of any non-core material for DM perusal, personally. Though, as time passes, the definition of "core" will probably broaden to include major supplements like Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, etc. It provides enough info that I could be reported easily for an infraction if the DM were to double back and check up on it post-session and discover the content doesn't exist or was misrepresented. Not only does it help make the DM's job easier, but it's also convenient for when I need to reference or double-check it for my own sake. The inconvenience involved is minimal at worst, and the extra smoothness it adds to the play process is considerable. I would greatly encourage anyone who hasn't adopted this policy to do so, unless anyone finds specific fault with it besides laziness.