A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

The Crimson Binome · Jul 24, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
I hear you. I think though that there's some room to wiggle when the designers say that 4e could be enjoyed by people who play 3e. I don't think it was deceptive marketing as much as it was an underestimation of what the most vocal 20% of the fan base could do to influence another 20-30 percent.

Some people who enjoyed 3E could also enjoy 4E, because there are a lot of similarities, but the differences were significant enough to fracture the player base. In the aftermath of 4E, fans of 3E distinguish themselves from fans of 4E on the basis of those changes; the things that 3E fans enjoy about 3E are the things that 4E killed off, like rules-as-physics and maintaining-actor-stance.

When 5E was in the later stages of development, and they said that it would have optional rules to let fans of 3E and fans of 4E keep playing they way that they liked, that feels like a lie. Those options were never included. So either they never intended to include those options (i.e. it was all a malicious lie, intended to deceive), or they tried and failed because they didn't understand what players actually enjoyed about those games (i.e. they were not competent enough to deliver on that promise).

Lanefan · Jul 24, 2018

Saelorn said:
When 5E was in the later stages of development, and they said that it would have optional rules to let fans of 3E and fans of 4E keep playing they way that they liked, that feels like a lie. Those options were never included. So either they never intended to include those options (i.e. it was all a malicious lie, intended to deceive), or they tried and failed because they didn't understand what players actually enjoyed about those games (i.e. they were not competent enough to deliver on that promise).

Or it could be that the two editions are simply so different that one game can't functionally contain both.

Lan-"and my preference would be that it try to contain neither, as I don't much like either 3e or 4e"-efan

Lanefan · Jul 24, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."

Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @Saelorn or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise?

(With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there. So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)

I'm actually not disappointed with 5e - I see it as a rather big improvement on the previous two, in fact.

And I've no complaints about WotC breaking any promises. My point was simply that 5e by design will maybe start to undo some of the damage 3e and 4e did in terms of acceptance of house rules and DM rulings.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 24, 2018

Lanefan said:
Or it could be that the two editions are simply so different that one game can't functionally contain both.

Lan-"and my preference would be that it try to contain neither, as I don't much like either 3e or 4e"-efan

So you're saying that it could be a combination of the two? They didn't necessarily intend it as a lie, but they were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task once they attempted it (i.e. their marketing wrote a check that their design skills couldn't cash)?

Arilyn · Jul 24, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
It's funny how "will appeal to fans of all editions" got interpreted to mean "will meet the strict requirements of the most extreme zealots."

Actually, because I'm curious, can you (or @Saelorn or anybody else) provide me with a specific quote from WotC that you think is evidence of a broken promise?

(With full acknowledgement that the above quote is not evidence that you are in the camp; all it actually implies is that you are disappointed with 5e, not that you think they broke promises to get there. So apologies if I made incorrect assumptions.)

I believe it started during the early days of 5e when Monte Cook had a contract with WOTC. Cook was doing weekly articles on DnD Next, and in one of those articles he stated that the game would be modular, and that players would have room to play in their preferred style, from 1st to 4th. Even at the same table, player 1 could have a 2e style character and player 2, a 4e style character. Probably not workable.

I believe he was just musing, but it was taken as the game's philosophy, and not forgotten...

Guest 6801328 · Jul 24, 2018

Saelorn said:
So you're saying that it could be a combination of the two? They didn't necessarily intend it as a lie, but they were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task once they attempted it (i.e. their marketing wrote a check that their design skills couldn't cash)?

It seems like you are determined to reach a conclusion that reflects badly on WotC.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 24, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
It seems like you are determined to reach a conclusion that reflects badly on WotC.

The game already reflects poorly on WotC. This is just a semantic question, of how to best classify their folly.

Kobold Boots · Jul 24, 2018

Saelorn said:
It's not an extreme position to suggest that players not meta-game. Not meta-gaming is literally the fundamental premise of role-playing - that you approach everything in-character, rather than treating it like a board game. It was a very, very low bar which they failed to clear.

I think I need you to step through the swimlane for me of how what you're saying regarding the metagame has anything to do with what EC was saying about the differences between 3e and 4e and how zealotry is involved with being in the center of the market for the game from the vendor's perspective.

Granted, we're on the hook for going on a tangent. However, I'm not following the metagame association besides the convo being in the thread. Might just be me.

KB

Kobold Boots · Jul 24, 2018

Arilyn said:
I believe it started during the early days of 5e when Monte Cook had a contract with WOTC. Cook was doing weekly articles on DnD Next, and in one of those articles he stated that the game would be modular, and that players would have room to play in their preferred style, from 1st to 4th. Even at the same table, player 1 could have a 2e style character and player 2, a 4e style character. Probably not workable.

I believe he was just musing, but it was taken as the game's philosophy, and not forgotten...

At the point where Monte walked away from the Next design team, anything that he mused about should have been understood to be null and void from an expectations perspective.

You're not wrong. I remember reading that and being psyched. But I also know that when people don't work somewhere anymore it's not usually because they're doing what the company wants in the way they direct.

Of course the other side of the argument is Monte saying "You guys are fubar" and walking off but the truth is somewhere in between as it always is and folks on the outside looking in should really know better.

Thanks,
KB

(edit - any tone that may be read into my reply is not directed at you, if it exists I'd be aiming that at those who are holding WoTC to an intentionally negative outcome due to the words of someone who wasn't working there by the time the product hit the shelf.)

Arilyn · Jul 24, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
At the point where Monte walked away from the Next design team, anything that he mused about should have been understood to be null and void from an expectations perspective.

You're not wrong. I remember reading that and being psyched. But I also know that when people don't work somewhere anymore it's not usually because they're doing what the company wants in the way they direct.

Of course the other side of the argument is Monte saying "You guys are fubar" and walking off but the truth is somewhere in between as it always is and folks on the outside looking in should really know better.

Thanks,
KB

(edit - any tone that may be read into my reply is not directed at you, if it exists I'd be aiming that at those who are holding WoTC to an intentionally negative outcome due to the words of someone who wasn't working there by the time the product hit the shelf.)

Yes, it was also early in the design phase. Things change. Sometimes best intentions are unworkable.

A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Arilyn

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Kobold Boots

Banned

Kobold Boots

Banned

Arilyn

Hero

Similar Threads