Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5960140" data-attributes="member: 32536"><p>I think I'll just reply to both of these at the same time. You both make a few similar points, and it would be easier to say the same thing to both of you.</p><p></p><p>First, SkyOdin already did a good job of replying to the idea that simplicity and good game are somehow at odds. In fact, they are not. A game can be simplicity itself, with rules that could fit on half of an index card and still be well-designed. In fact, it is generally better to have fewer rules in a better-designed game.</p><p></p><p>Also, I have little interest in talking about the relative popularity of D&D across different ages. People here on ENWorld claim it was most popular during a some early fad period, WotC claims that 3E and 4E both sold better than that and the hobby has just expanded since those years, and I don't really care which is the truth. Besides, if OD&D was a big fad a few decades ago, I wouldn't expect a return to those rules to bring back that fad any more than I'd expect disco and Pong to make a sudden return. Kids these days are different people than kids from the 70s were. They have different interests and hobbies and tastes.</p><p></p><p>Also, the people who decide what good game design is are typically fans. Usually fans who have a higher skill level, are more experimental, and have more experience with a wide variety of games within the genre tend to be a better judge than others, but generally the more people you have enjoying the game, the better. Good game design is usually proven by a widely happy and loyal fanbase, good long-term sales, and so on. In a healthier industry than the tabletop RPG market, good game design is often well-rewarded, though just like in movies and such good marketing can surpass the value of good design alone, though good design is usually the best way to maintain fan loyalty.</p><p></p><p>Whether any given person enjoys a game or not is subjective, but the quality of the game design can be determined objectively. For example, if you poll a reasonable sample group of people who have played the game, you can get an objective measure of how the game made them happy. Taking such information from playtests and applying it to improve the ratio of happy to unhappy players is pretty much the central process of good game design. The quality of a game designer can be determined rather easily based on how well they carry out the basic processes of game design (though a large part of it is built upon experience and intuition). In truth, game design isn't about making the most popular or most commercially successful game, but about making the largest group of people in your target audience happy.</p><p></p><p>The fact that so many people hated 3E, for example, indicates that it is a rather poorly designed game. It tried to appeal to many people, but D&D fans have been complaining about its horrible balance and bloated rules since it was first released, and you can pretty much blame the entirety of the current fanbase divide on the split between happy and unhappy 3E fans. 4e was mostly targeted at the unhappy 3E fans (the marketing made this as plain as day), and was very successful among that group, so I'd say it was well designed in that regard. Meanwhile, Pathfinder was aimed exclusively at the happy 3E fans, and was rather successful at that, as well, though Paizo used more marketing than game design to secure that business.</p><p></p><p>I think I'm meandering here, but I guess the basic point of all of this is that game design is a real, valuable thing, even if it is not everything.</p><p></p><p>Also, I'll say that preserving a game's "baggage" is a potential design goal, but not one that appeals to everyone. I, for one, have no interest at all in D&D's baggage. If I were to create a custom D&D variant exclusive to my preferences, then orcs, elves, dwarves, gith, beholders, rust monsters, and pretty much every other D&D sacred cow would all be on the chopping block. I think their loss would make the game more fun for me. Chasing that baggage is simple chasing fan nostalgia, which is a design goal that can often run counter to the goal of making the game appealing to a much broader audience and making the game fun and accessible. It leads to things like 5E introducing a weak Fighter and overly strong Wizard, even though that that exact choice has been hated and despised by countless D&D fans for years.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5960140, member: 32536"] I think I'll just reply to both of these at the same time. You both make a few similar points, and it would be easier to say the same thing to both of you. First, SkyOdin already did a good job of replying to the idea that simplicity and good game are somehow at odds. In fact, they are not. A game can be simplicity itself, with rules that could fit on half of an index card and still be well-designed. In fact, it is generally better to have fewer rules in a better-designed game. Also, I have little interest in talking about the relative popularity of D&D across different ages. People here on ENWorld claim it was most popular during a some early fad period, WotC claims that 3E and 4E both sold better than that and the hobby has just expanded since those years, and I don't really care which is the truth. Besides, if OD&D was a big fad a few decades ago, I wouldn't expect a return to those rules to bring back that fad any more than I'd expect disco and Pong to make a sudden return. Kids these days are different people than kids from the 70s were. They have different interests and hobbies and tastes. Also, the people who decide what good game design is are typically fans. Usually fans who have a higher skill level, are more experimental, and have more experience with a wide variety of games within the genre tend to be a better judge than others, but generally the more people you have enjoying the game, the better. Good game design is usually proven by a widely happy and loyal fanbase, good long-term sales, and so on. In a healthier industry than the tabletop RPG market, good game design is often well-rewarded, though just like in movies and such good marketing can surpass the value of good design alone, though good design is usually the best way to maintain fan loyalty. Whether any given person enjoys a game or not is subjective, but the quality of the game design can be determined objectively. For example, if you poll a reasonable sample group of people who have played the game, you can get an objective measure of how the game made them happy. Taking such information from playtests and applying it to improve the ratio of happy to unhappy players is pretty much the central process of good game design. The quality of a game designer can be determined rather easily based on how well they carry out the basic processes of game design (though a large part of it is built upon experience and intuition). In truth, game design isn't about making the most popular or most commercially successful game, but about making the largest group of people in your target audience happy. The fact that so many people hated 3E, for example, indicates that it is a rather poorly designed game. It tried to appeal to many people, but D&D fans have been complaining about its horrible balance and bloated rules since it was first released, and you can pretty much blame the entirety of the current fanbase divide on the split between happy and unhappy 3E fans. 4e was mostly targeted at the unhappy 3E fans (the marketing made this as plain as day), and was very successful among that group, so I'd say it was well designed in that regard. Meanwhile, Pathfinder was aimed exclusively at the happy 3E fans, and was rather successful at that, as well, though Paizo used more marketing than game design to secure that business. I think I'm meandering here, but I guess the basic point of all of this is that game design is a real, valuable thing, even if it is not everything. Also, I'll say that preserving a game's "baggage" is a potential design goal, but not one that appeals to everyone. I, for one, have no interest at all in D&D's baggage. If I were to create a custom D&D variant exclusive to my preferences, then orcs, elves, dwarves, gith, beholders, rust monsters, and pretty much every other D&D sacred cow would all be on the chopping block. I think their loss would make the game more fun for me. Chasing that baggage is simple chasing fan nostalgia, which is a design goal that can often run counter to the goal of making the game appealing to a much broader audience and making the game fun and accessible. It leads to things like 5E introducing a weak Fighter and overly strong Wizard, even though that that exact choice has been hated and despised by countless D&D fans for years. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top