Developer Talk = Gospel?

[BeauNiddle]

I sometimes pick up lingo and thoughts from designer articles and blogs, and I guess I should try to explain why.

As a kid one of the things I loved to do was design boardgames. I know I had about 20 of them in a closet somewhere, no clue where they are now. One of the things that you pick up designing games, no matter how old, how educated, or how clever you are is that there are certain underlying things that make some game mechanisms successful, others risky or swingy and some others downright boring.

The problems with discussing those things with others is that I lack terminology. I often feel that I have spotted something in a game that is good, bad or very swingy, but it is hard to explain why. One example of such a thing is the problem with summoning spells and animating the dead in D&D games. Really fun and creative mechanisms, that can give flavour and memorable moments. The problem is just that they need to be contained as they are just too good otherwise and can make one character into a whole party. This is stuff me and my friends talked about back in 2nd edition, 3rd made things better, but the problem was still there. Familiars and companions could also be problems, but not as big.

We never used the phrase "economy of actions", because we had never heard of it. When I saw it used it was something I picked up at once, because it helped describe common problems in games. And when people use the same terminology it just gets easier to talk about stuff. Kind of what language is all about, isn't it? So if people pick up phrases that developers and designers use, it can be because they want to make sure that others understand what they mean.

I agree with this a lot - it's all down to the terminology.

I've had gaming sessions that didn't work, something was just that little bit off that at the end you sat there going 'why did I waste 6 hours of my life'. The problem is I haven't had the words to explain what I was feeling nor the knowledge to work out the root cause.

When I read some of the designers comments / blogs / articles I suddenly get clarity and realise what it was that bothered me all those sessions ago. It should also be noted sometimes I think they are waffling about things that can't really effect the game but they've been right enough that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[vagabundo]

Linky to thread

This is you, regarding Massawyrm's wife, right? (in relation to his review of 4e)

If it isn't I apologize in advance, but I have got to say, you picked a really bad name.

But since I do not believe in coincidences this big, welcome to my ignore (grats, you are the first in 8+ years to make it)

I knew I recognised his name from somewhere.

Wow.

 

[The_Fan]

I found the problem in 3e, playing a bard of all things. I spammed summoning right before a big encounter, and then managed to steamroll a giant skeletal dragon with a herd of celestial bison. We all agreed that was horribly anticlimactic and I agreed never to do it again, but it displayed a major problem with the system.

 

[clearstream]

For me it's about understanding how they meant their rules to play. I feel free to cross out those parts of the book that don't please me, but equally these guys spent a long time expertly contemplating and testing their system. That's worth something.

It's also about having a way to weigh arguments. You can't always spell out (or even know) every reason why X is done that way, so in any process of rational thinking you look for shortcuts. Giving weight to designer comments is a good shortcut.

Sometimes the designers are wrong. Game systems tend to be complex and complicated; humans are not great at predicting all the states of complex accretions of systems. However, the designers tend to have more test data to draw on.

-vk

 

[Ulthwithian]

I have to agree that it's not that the issue wasn't there before (I mean, when OotS makes a joke about it...source: The evil gnome druid saying, in effect, "Foolish Rogue! I have class abilities that are stronger than your entire class!"), it's that the terminology describing the issue has been promulgated. As such, if someone wants to talk about the 'economy of action' issue, they now have a term that both describes exactly what they mean, and everyone else will know what they mean by the issue.

It seems clear that the 4E mechanics are designed to facilitate fun for all. I believe that most people would start to get increasingly irritated if some one character was responsible for 90% of what the party was doing. You can see this in many places, and the 'action economy' is only one of them.

One example: Commander's Strike. WotC wanted a Martial Leader class. They developed the Warlord. They realized that 'telling people what to do' was a gamer personality that generally lowered the fun of the other players. They co-opted this personality with Commander's Strike. The bossy guy gets to boss people around, and the other players get to do something for being bossed around. I can say from personal experience that the situation has turned from (at best) win-lose to win-win.

The action economy is a very similar issue. It's almost hypocritical for the game designers saying that you should try to design encounters, adventures, and campaigns to showcase the characters equally when the mechanics doesn't support that. Further, the 'pet' mechanics can be seen with certain powers in the PHB. It takes actions on the part of the master to have the pet perform an action. Now, the actions may not be equivalent (e.g., you may be able to move your pet with a Minor Action rather than a Move action), but the basic economy is preserved.

I could imagine Ranger pets being allowed to shift closer to the Ranger's Quarry as a free action, but that would probably be the extent of the 'free' actions allowed.

 

[darkdragoon]

The developers have insight on what they developed.


As far as the latter...

While each on their own may not do much (a single skeleton is actually pretty weak etc.), it's more that you could build an army, or get access to abilities you normally would not have, or in the case of a familiar transform it into something more formidable via Polymorph.

 

[gnfnrf]

I think that you might be approaching this backwards, or possibly you just picked a poor example of your thesis.

In my view, people are not embracing the "economy of action" theory because the developers said it. They are embracing it because it encapsulates a flaw everyone knew about, and suffered from, and the idea that it has been fixed is welcome relief.

The designers just happened to hit the combat oriented fantasy gaming zeitgeist perfectly with that one, which is why it is such a strong meme. Other developer creeds, like "equality of options" don't seem to be as strongly absorbed, or treated as gospel in the same way.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah...even as early as 7th level I was polymorphing myself and my familiar into trolls and just ripping everything apart in melee. The barbarian was like "why am I even here?"

 

[Regicide]

Also: The designers are more ingrained into theory and playtests - and make good reasonings.

That is an assumption that often is not true. Does a corporate environment "evolve" a quality game designer, or does it "evolve" someone that can shovel a lot of words on a page and meet corporate deadlines which involve easy to gauge metrics like size and time but ignore the more important metrics like quality, or who can suck up to the boss?

I think some may take it as "gospel", but I think even more people listen to it because of one reason: It sounds well-reasoned.

How about, because it comes from an "official" source and people have better things to do like putting food on the table than to spend lots of time thinking about it.

 

[LowSpine]

Game developers work very hard every day thinking, playtesting, and revising their games. Most of them are very clever people, who have been selected for their jobs out of many potential applicants and who have proven their ability to get strangers to pay for their ideas about how games should work. If they do poorly, they will lose their jobs and suffer financial hardship. They have a large incentive to think hard about these things.

I, on the other hand, do none of these things as anything but a hobby. I don't think it a wound to my towering ego to suspect that these people are much better game designers than I am, and I ignore their advice at my peril. Even if it is advice on making a kind of game I don't want to play, it is apt to be very _good_ advice for making that kind of game.

If I start playing a fiddle for love of folk Americana and Itzhak Perlman decides to come by and give me some advice, I can either complain that he spends too much time playing that Paganini trash or I can be quiet and pay attention. What he tells me may not be immediately useful to my ends, but what he tells me will almost certainly be useful to someone.

What the 4e designers have told me so far is much better game design advice that I could have come up with myself, and is also very applicable to my needs. So why shouldn't I pay attention to them?

Just because some schmuck pays another schmuck money and they all pat each other on the back and tell each other how clever they all are does not necessarily make it so.

Saying that - they are okay at their jobs. Are they the best at what they do? No. I am sure there are others out there that are as good if not allot better. With any luck I.. er I mean they are posting their brilliant insights on these boards.