Developer Talk = Gospel?

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment to introduce myself. I am Psychic Robot. Newbie to ENWorld. Former anti-4e troll of WotC forums, now reformed. Also former fan of the Pathfinder RPG. Still against 4e--not vehemently so, but I don't like the direction of the game.

Why do you care? You don't. But I'm new to the forums and introductions are in order, particularly if I'm to be properly flamed, yes? (That's a joke.)

Furthermore, allow me to state outright that this is not a trolling thread (despite my history). I am, however, interested in the opinions of the folks at ENWorld. I've heard them from other forums, and I want to hear your responses.

Anyway.

I've noticed something lately, something that disturbs me greatly. Up until 4e, nobody would bat an eye at the wizard having a familiar, the druid having a pet, the necromancer having undead, the conjurer having summons, and the like. However, after the developers started in with their "economy of actions"...rhetoric, everyone has jumped aboard the bandwagon. I've seen it here, I've seen it on the WotC forums, I've seen it on the Paizo forums.

Instead of people actually encouraging players to be creative and work to create things that are very core to fantasy--necromancers? conjurers? magical pets?--people are driving them away, screaming, "YOU CAN'T HAVE TWICE AS MANY TURNS AS ANOTHER PLAYER." At the best, I've seen them nerf something cool into the ground by demanding that other players have to use their own actions in place of another creature's (specifically, a golem).

This, of course, is not the only thing that I've noticed, of course, but it is the most nerve-grating thing. (Another favorite of mine is that any type of realism or grittiness = NOT FUN AT ALL, NO WAY.)

However, this thread isn't about such things, even though I know it will undoubtedly degenerate into people arguing about said things. Instead, it's about people leaping onto whatever droppings spill from the developers' lips.

So, riddle me this: why is this occurring? Why is what the developers say considered "gospel"?

(Sigh. And feel free to talk about the "economy of actions" or whatnot.)

EDIT: By the way, this thread was not made in response to the "Economy of Actions" thread on the first page. I was linked to another thread and decided to comment on it.

I've had people complain about druid companions and artificers with 50 constructs years before 4E was announced.

But more to the point of what you intend this thread to be about, i think a lot of the issues the developers brought up were genuine complaints among a good portion of the community. People thought animal companions were broken. People thought vancian casting was lame. People thought characters died to easily at 1st level. People thought fighters were underpowered. I cant think of a single thing the devs mentioned they were going to "fix" that hadn't been bitched about at some point either at my own table or on the WotC boards.

Psychic Robot said:

So, riddle me this: why is this occurring? Why is what the developers say considered "gospel"?

Click to expand...

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?

I think people tend to forget one important point: Game Designers work to build what they think their target audience wants.

I don't doubt that the average game designer spends more time and skill on games than I do - but I also doubt he or she knows better than I what's fun for me.

first Welcome psi robot...

now I have to say I complained sometimes about pet like mechanics...in one game we used old rules for summon undead and had 3 huge red dragon skeletons, and umber hulk zombie all under control of a PC necromancer and his cohort, then one followers started using Astral constructs...and I quite the game.

Howeve I always thought that was an exception...not the rule. Heck I ran a game with a Sorcerer (Summoner) as a PC, and I played in another game useing a 3rd party class called Avatar.

Then came 4e talk and I listened to the devs. Then I thought back through all the rangers who had wolves hit more then they did...to every druid who had a bear with more hp then the barbrian of the group...and it hit me they new what they where talking about.

I have not one story of a femalir being a problme, and I bearly trmrmbrt anyone useing a Paliden mount. I was bumbed to hear they would not be in 4e, but like everything else I would rather have them later but be really cool, then now and lame.

I hear that the Martial Power book gives rangers back there pets...maybe it will lead to my wizard having a raven familar again...or a Necromancer raiseing skeltal armies...coool and balanced

Ximenes088 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

By the way, I think there's a tendency in the RPG community to produce armchair designers, because it is so easy to write RPG material that resembles something working, and because RPGs often appeal to people who like to tinker. This, however, can sometimes result in self-proclaimed experts, which dislike "real" designers' opinions. Partly out of self-importance, partly because they don't want to be wrong.

There are, of course, pretty good hobbyists out there, but many of these people (though not all) have entered the PDF/freelancing business, at least partially.

But ultimately, I think, the litmus test is the general reception combined with playtesting - as many things - RPG design profits from a lively debate. If the designer talk only gets agreement, it cannot be that wrong. If people make well-reasoned arguments against it, then we can see possible difficulties - and that's why trolls are sometimes distracting: They can drown actual debates.

Cheers, LT.

Psychic Robot said:

So, riddle me this: why is this occurring? Why is what the developers say considered "gospel"?

Click to expand...

It's much more difficult to evaluate a certain to topic than recite it or apply it. (If you are interested in having that put into scientific terms, there is a short Wiki article about that.)

Furthermore we all imitiate those who we consider role models, too.


I guess, that would be the main reasons, and they are hardly limited to RPGs.

Fenes said:

I think people tend to forget one important point: Game Designers work to build what they think their target audience wants.

I don't doubt that the average game designer spends more time and skill on games than I do - but I also doubt he or she knows better than I what's fun for me.

Click to expand...

But the game isn't about YOU. The designers know much better than you do what GAMERS want and are happy/unhappy with. They don't just take a guess at what the target audience wants, they research it, in depth.

On the other subject, economy of action isn't some new concept the 4e developers thought up and shoved down people's throats. We've been talking about this problem for a long time. A familiar, animal companion, or mount may be one thing, but a necromancer with an army of undead, a conjurer with a legion of monsters, those are rather different pickles. And if you've played in a group with such a character, you've experienced the never ending turn that leaves the other three players feeling rather useless in the grand scheme of things, along with such lines as "no, don't AOE, you'll blow up my skeletons! Just stay back and let them do the work". It's not much fun for the others.

So the guy’s wife is dumb and can’t learn the rules. And she’s not confident in a game. And it’s implied that she didn’t look forward to the 3.5 games.

Click to expand...

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 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.