Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Chrono22]

^@ Cannis
That's strange, because every group I've played in is heads and shoulders above what Hussar's position is.
Statistically, the odds I stumbled into such awesome groups by chance is very low. Does that mean most gaming groups are awesome?

I also strongly debate that somehow being a casual gamer makes you less likely to post online. My experience with forums have proven to me time and time again, anyone that can type on a keyboard (and a few that can't) can be found on the internet. If anything, the internet has just as many dumb people as smart people. Do smart people self-organize? I dunno, but I hardly see a majority position for playing casually or hardcore on this forum.

 

[BryonD]

If it's the type of game he and his players want to play, by all means. Great DMs can be great DMs without much support. But if there is another game that better meets the group's desires, then that game would be preferable.


Indeed. Which means it's absolutely, 100% okay that there are some systems that do cater to middling DMs.

I agree 100% and have never hinted at anything to the contrary.

Again, is "And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution." an absolute or not?

(Also, a pet peeve about your sig: Perseus was a Christmas Tree with divine interventation, and was a demigod to boot. Winged sandals, a cap of invisibility, a sword from Hermes and a reflective shield from Athene. Medusa never stood a chance.)

Medusa never had a chance for the same reason Darth Maul never stood a chance. The story was written that way.

From a gaming point of view... you have failed to make a case.
The combat was swingy and the the math didn't work. And it is a great story and one piece of the bedrock foundation of gaming. If you want to experience that story, then it is best done by simulating the kinds of conditions that were in play in the events.

Non-swingy combat and working math are great for some gaming experiences. I've no remote dispute for that. But there are other gaming experiences for which they are inimical.

 

[Chrono22]

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.

Actually, there is a point. The redesigners are very often also the ones that end up GMing. If you want to expand your player and GM base, do it through the hardcore niche. Just like with any other viral media, the hardcore contingent of gamers are the ones that spread it to the wider audience. They are the ones that lead the way in fashion, game design, and just about any other popular media.
Sure, you'll have fewer casual players in the short term. But considering what percentage of D&D players are lapsed, are they worth it? I don't think so. They may be playing now, but in two or three years they'll have moved on to some other fad, hobby, or entertainment. The dedicated customers are the ones you want to keep.

 

[Fifth Element]

Again, is "And why "GM fix it" is a poppycock non solution." an absolute or not?

I'll have to let he who you are quoting respond to that.

Medusa never had a chance for the same reason Darth Maul never stood a chance. The story was written that way.

Indeed, which makes it a poor comparison for an RPG experience, one way or the other.

 

[BryonD]

I would put it to you all that Hussar's position is more common among the general population and even the general run of gamers than the position that the GM would want or need to step seriously into a design arena.

I disagree with the extent to which you make this claim, but I certainly agree that there are plenty of poor to middling DMs out there.

I'm 100% content with all poor to middling DMs exclusively playing games that assume they are poor to middling DMs. If that makes them happy, there is nothing further to discuss.

Warning: pure opinion ahead
That said, if you want my completely non-binding and fully disposable advice, poor and middling DMs will improve much more by doing a substandard job DMing a more advanced game than they will perpetually accepting middling as good enough.

Getting better is not required. In some cases, maybe it isn't even possible. I personally doubt that it is even difficult in the great majority of instances, but I can only generalize. But, regardless, there is zero obligation to even try.

I've said it before, but the GM commitment around here is leaps and bounds beyond anything I've ever seen in real life.

I'm sorry. Seriously.

Either most people who post regularly here are several deviations better than the mean for engagement and skill, or every single person I've played with in real life is several deviations below the mean.

The odds that I've stumbled into that many bad groups by chance are low. The odds that an online community has attracted a niche group of relatively hardcore gamers.... much higher.

From my point of view, my perception of gamers as peers has declined in the post internet age. I knew some crappy DMs before I ever heard of ENWorld. But the snap prejudices I have developed over the years regarding someone I met as a GM have dropped substantially.

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.

Based on what you described as your experience, how could you possibly be in a position to know this?

 

[BryonD]

I'll have to let he who you are quoting respond to that.

What is your opinion?

Indeed, which makes it a poor comparison for an RPG experience, one way or the other.

BINGO

You and I are not playing REMOTELY the same games or seeking REMOTELY the same experiences.

Which is FINE!!!!!! But our perceptions have no more bearing on each other than someone who loves knitting and someone who loves skydiving.

 

[Psion]

There is no point in designing games towards people who are willing to re-design. Design to someone a bit less skilled than that and let the re-designers do what they will do anyway.

I seriously disagree there, to the extent that I am reading "re-design" as "tweak".

I'd much rather tweak a game built with flexibility or a toolkit approach in mind than one built for a single play experience. Elsewise it becomes too much effort to build the gaming experience I want.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Based on what you described as your experience, how could you possibly be in a position to know this?

Couple of reasons... Among them that I've worked with people on other types of games who are very good at what they do. I know competence when I see it, I just rarely see it in my D&D groups. I've seen competent D&D groups, but they live in other cities or are full and insular.

I watched awful 2e DMs become competent 3e DMs, based on the CR system alone, even with its warts. I'm a competent DM myself, but haven't had the time to do it since 2003, and before that the last time was before 1996.

DIY is DIY. You don't assume everyone can build their own radio if you are trying to make money in the field of selling radios. You don't even need to make niche products available for the hardcore anymore, because they will go out and find them on their own, create their own newsletters and websites, and be nice and hardcore all amongst themselves. Generally, they will, in fact, spit on your attempts to make radios accessible to normal people.

Logic is logic. There are fewer DIYers than there are "give me the car/radio/game/whatever and let me run with it" people. History shows that you don't become a mass market phenomenon catering to the DIYer.

EDIT:
Psion, that's a semantic grey area. I've seen people call something a tweak around here that is basically a re-build from scratch, and I've also seen minor re-skins called major overhauls. Assume I'm talking about some moderate lifting.

 

[Chrono22]

DIY is DIY. You don't assume everyone can build their own radio if you are trying to make money in the field of selling radios. You don't even need to make niche products available for the hardcore anymore, because they will go out and find them on their own, create their own newsletters and websites, and be nice and hardcore all amongst themselves. Generally, they will, in fact, spit on your attempts to make radios accessible to normal people.

That's a terrible analogy. A radio is a terrible metaphor for a game. With a radio, you are selling a product. With a game, you are selling the experience.
But let's run with this and see where it takes us.

Logic is logic. There are fewer DIYers than there are "give me the car/radio/game/whatever and let me run with it" people. History shows that you don't become a mass market phenomenon catering to the DIYer.

Then the iPod is a failure? How about customizable vehicle purchases? Illumination adjustable lightbulbs? WoW? Windows xp?
The big sellers are the ones that let the user customize the tool or their experience.
One-size-fits-all is a perfect fit for nobody.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The ipod is not a DIY device. It is a very mass market device. The ability to make a playlist does not make it DIY. That's like saying making mix tapes on your shelf stereo back in the 80s made you an audiophile.

Also, the first ipod, which was less a pure music player than a small portable hard drive, didn't sell anywhere near as many units as the dedicated music devices that came later.