When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[Imban]

The only logical reason I can see for resenting a new edition (and, thereby, not trusting those designers) is for the stop of products for the current edition.

New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.

Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.

4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had me thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.

 

[El Mahdi]

Basically what I call the grandma syndrome. Your grandma comes into your house and starts rearranging things to suit her taste rather than leaving something alone that isn't hers. Likewise designers poke around and change things around to the point where people feel the direction they are taking the game is like kicking someone out of their own house...

...Crossed the line of acceptable amount of change to the game.

I have to say I'm with those that didn't understand the idea quoted above (top), and I also don't understand the second one quoted here.

I understand your allegory, I just don't understand how it applies to the situation.

This is less a case of someone coming into your house and rearanging your furniture, as it is someone came onto your block and built a new house next door to yours. It may be a house you don't like, it may even be a house you feel lowers your overall property value for your neighborhood (translation: lessens RPG's in general - although this is where the allegory doesn't work since I don't see how this could be possible). But in the end, it changes absolutely nothing about your enjoyment of your house. Also, if 4E (the new house) is really as bad as you think it is, all it can do in the long run is make your house (your favorite rules set) look better. It seems like that would be something favorable to your position. I've always been of the philosophy that quality speaks for itself. The same holds true for lack of quality. If 4E is as bad as you think, then people will see it for what it is without people having to express it so forcefully and vocally. However, I've found that being overly forceful and vocal in criticizing something, tends to have the opposite effect.

However, I don't want you to think I have a problem with your opinions. Your opinions are just as valid as everyone elses. I'm just puzzled by the logic of your approach, and the sense of animosity towards a system? I myself don't prefer 4E, which is why I stick to my houseruled 3E. But I don't have any animosity toward the system or those who designed it. My question is, what have they done to you personally, that so warrants feelings of animosity against them? I'm just curious.

Also, how can there be an "acceptable" amount of change to "the game"? Especially when "your game" hasn't changed at all? Nobody came in and erased the OGL SRD, or forcibly removed any and all trace of previous editions from online game stores, or more importantly, your own house. "Your" game, is as unchanged as it was before 4E released (that is unless you changed it, which is always your perogative). I just don't get it? Saying the changes aren't too your approval or preference is understandable. Saying changes weren't good, or were poorly thought out or executed is also understandable, along with many other stated opinions, both yours and others. But "Crossed the line of acceptable amount of change to the game."? Ehhh, I don't understand this.

 

[Siberys]

New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.

Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.

4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had me thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.

Well, okay, two things I can understand.

In fact, I'm sure there are more. I guess my poorly-put point was that many of the reasons people put forth for not liking fourth are relatively minor, and the major things - like a stop in production or the game-chilling effect - are ignored for more illogical arguments about those minor things.

 

[El Mahdi]

New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.

Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.

4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had me thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.

I'm sorry, but exactly what "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement" are you referring to?

I saw a lot of design discussion about 4E. A lot of design discussion about shortcomings in the 3E rules that they were attempting to address with changes in 4E. How does having an objective discussion about percieved shortcomings or flaws, whether real or not, or perceived universally or not, mean that what's being said is "negative advertisement"? I slavishly followed all of the online news, especially here on ENWorld and WoTC, for every tidbit of info about 4E from the moment it was anounced. Now, I won't say I saw or read absolutely everything during that period, but I caught most of it, and frankly, I just didn't see what you are saying was there.

I already had strong ideas about what I perceived as problems with 3E, and I even felt that some of the ideas and concepts put forth in 4E were better than their counterpart concepts in 3E - but I never felt that there was "negative advertisement" taking place. I don't understand this need to ascribe malevolent intent to the designers of 4E, and even to the system itself?

Don't get me wrong. Personally, I feel that 4E fell far short of what I expected it would be based on the pre-release info. And I feel that 3E is an overall, better system. But I have no negative emotions towards 4E or it's designers, same as I'm sure they have no negative emotions or intent towards me or my preferred system.

So, my question is, where does this sense of malevolent intent on the part of 4E and 4E's designers come from?

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm sorry, but exactly what "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement" are you referring to?

I saw a lot of design discussion about 4E. A lot of design discussion about shortcomings in the 3E rules that they were attempting to address with changes in 4E. How does having an objective discussion about percieved shortcomings or flaws, whether real or not, or perceived universally or not, mean that what's being said is "negative advertisement"? I slavishly followed all of the online news, especially here on ENWorld and WoTC, for every tidbit of info about 4E from the moment it was anounced. Now, I won't say I saw or read absolutely everything during that period, but I caught most of it, and frankly, I just didn't see what you are saying was there.

I don't understand this either. I am still waiting for some proof of the "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment" as well.

I just didn't see it, nor do I think that I actually happened. I do recall seeing some threads discussing the pre-4e design discussions, but these negative comments were often filled with hyperbole that were later taken as fact by other readers. One poster states that WOTC IS KILLING THE GAME and then it is considered fact by other readers.

 

[Imban]

I'm sorry, but exactly what "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement" are you referring to?

I don't understand this either. I am still waiting for some proof of the "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment" as well.

I just didn't see it, nor do I think that I actually happened.

Pretty much every single 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.

That's negative advertisement, since all it's designed to do is call something out as being terrible and drag it through the mud in the public discourse, which is exactly what I felt happened.

And furthermore, I don't really feel it necessary to prove to you that it happened, because I'm not attacking WotC or even 4e over it. I'm stating that it happened and as a result I nearly stopped playing D&D altogether because I was being told that what I liked was a pile of radioactive baboon crap.

I've seen a lot of other people claiming they felt the same way; the whole "stop saying 'cool'" thing came out of this, because while they were talking trash about 3e, they refused to say anything about 4e other than that it was going to be cool.

So, my question is, where does this sense of malevolent intent on the part of 4E and 4E's designers come from?

I'm not ascribing malevolent intent, I'm describing what I felt happened. If you feel that negative advertisement cannot exist without malevolent intent... well, I'm not going to make that accusation here.

 

[Fifth Element]

Pretty much every single 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.

So, as proof you offer...what, exactly?

The one thing I can think of that could be construed as negative advertising is that video with the guy with the ridiculous accent, where they make fun of the grapple rules.

But "we think 4E does this better than 3E" is not negative advertising. And we're still waiting for an example where a designer said "these 3E mechanics are dog doo-doo", where a large proportion of 3E players would not agree. (So grappling's out, because many players had a problem with it to begin with.)

 

[El Mahdi]

. . .as a result I nearly stopped playing D&D altogether because I was being told that what I liked was a pile of radioactive baboon crap.

Wait a minute! You are actually saying that you almost quit playing YOUR PREFERRED EDITION OF D&D because someone making a new edition denigrated it, and you feel IT'S THEIR FAULT.

WOW! If there's never been a perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face, I'd say we now have one.


However, in your defense, I did actually have a DM attack one of my characters with radioactive baboon crap once. So, I completely empathize on that score. I still hate that DM. (the saving throw DC on that one was pure hell)

And furthermore, I don't really feel it necessary to prove to you that it happened

You are absolutely right. It's not necessary and by no means are you required to. But, you didn't need me, to tell you that. However, in the absence of such, I, and I'm sure others, will simply continue to believe that no such examples exist.

 

[justanobody]

This is an amusing example, given that "weakened" is a condition in 4E.

Justanobody, I beseech you: if you're going to criticize 4E, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

I beseech you to learn to read what you quote. Follow the link in this post to the one I am quoting from you and read the section directly above where you began typing. But it is much easier to troll when you don't read the words you are quoting that state: "Because it is a status effect", isn't it?

@El Mahdi: The house is the ruleset, and terminology and systems are the furniture. There is only so much messing with that furniture that you will allow before it crosses the line of acceptable.

 

[El Mahdi]

The house is the ruleset, and terminology and systems are the furniture. There is only so much messing with that furniture that you will allow before it crosses the line of acceptable.

So, let me make sure I have this straight. "The house is the ruleset"...so, the house is the 3E ruleset (or whatever ruleset you prefer). With you so far.

"...and terminology and systems are the furniture"...so, terminology and systems of 3E (or any ruleset you prefer) are the furniture. Okay, still with you.

However, this is where it doesn't make sense to me.

WoTC didn't go in to your house (3E or any other preferred system) and rearrange the furniture (terminology and systems of 3E or any ruleset you prefer), in any manner, including an unacceptable manner. That is of course, unless you are referring to other 3E supplements, such as Book of Nine Swords or it's equivalent.

What WoTC did is build a new house (the 4E ruleset), that kind of has the same basic framework and style as your house (the 3E ruleset or any ruleset you prefer), but added on some pillars to the entrance, and a big, gawdy bay window, and nothing but Ikea furniture. But, since they were designing the house, it was completely within their perogative to design it, and furnish it (terminology and systems), the way they liked.

Now, when I, others, and I'm assuming you, drive down RPG Street (NW), and see the houses at the addresses of 3E and 4E, we think the house at 3E is more aesthetically pleasing. The house at 4E is just too modern/overstated/ostentatious/rustic/simple (...insert adjective of choice). And that is a completely valid, fair and personally subjective opinion.

But, your allegory seems to be saying that the guys building the new house at 4E, came next door into your home and rearanged all of the furniture. Or worse, they came next door to your home one day, and completely remodelled it while you were away at work. And that would definitely suck if it happened. However, the house at 3E is still there, unchanged, unmodified, same as it always was and always will be. That is unless you decide to remodel it yourself.


So, I guess I still don't get it.


edit-P.S.: I think my house at 3E is way cooler than that house at 4E. The house at 4E still has stickers on the windows, and the yard still has that patchy sod look with anemic little saplings and bushes for landscaping. My house at 3E has landscaping that's all grown in and perfectly manicured (but still looks natural), an awesome white picket fence, and the backyard has the most awesome custom tree house in an old oak tree and a custom built wood deck and brick barbecue pit. Yeah, way cooler than the house at 4E.