D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Parmandur]

Well, @hawkeyefan referred to other forms of entertainment. I think there are many Marvel movies that are more popular than (say) Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal. I'm pretty confident that Bergman's film is better, as a work of art, than any of those Marvel movies.

I'll leave it to hawkeyefan to say something about what makes a game better - elegance, or coherence of play experience, or challenge, or something(s) else - but the basic contention doesn't seem contradictory at all.

I suppose, but unlike with a film, I am not sure what the criteria for judgement besides play and fun to as many people as possible could even be.

 

[Parmandur]

Enjoyment is subjective.

While on the one hand, sure, but thst doesn't mean that larger demographics can't share enjoyment, or something can't be designed to be enjoyed in different modes by different people.

Not everyone can be pleased.

No, nor does WotC aim for that: the rating they are using to get stuff past surveyband into the game is 70% a C. That means that many people can dislike an option, but along as rhe median satisfaction is high...that is a good game, because it satisfies it's audience.

If I’m going to design a game, or anything really, I’m going to try and design it well.

What measurements constitute "well" is not user engagement and satisfaction...?

If I design a good game, then it will appeal to people.

But to do that, won't the design have to account for what is appealing?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I suppose, but unlike with a film, I am not sure what the criteria for judgement besides play and fun to as many people as possible could even be.

Really? I mean, I enjoy checkers. Millions of people do. So D&D should just be checkers, right? Checkers is fun!

A game should be fun, yes. But that's not what a game designer is doing. You don’t design fun. You design rules and processes that you expect will be interesting and create a dynamic game, which will therefore be fun.

D&D and checkers are both fun. But they’re radically different. Obviously, they are very different games and so have very different rules and processes.

 

[Parmandur]

The game (mostly) works as intended. 5e is mushy. It doesn’t really work until the individual play group (or very likely, just the DM) decides how it works. It’s vague in many spots, some of which are surprisingly fundamental… it leaves too much open to interpretation. Some folks are happy with this. And that’s fine of they prefer to fill in those blanks themselves… but from a design standpoint, it’s incomplete.

I agree, those are features of 5E. It is a game, that does not have have form until given one at the table. That is probably one of it's greatest strengths.

It’s not even really arguable, I’d say.

Not really sure what there is to argue? 5E is an incredibly flexible tool for DIY gaming, yes.

As to comparisons to art...RPGs are not like TV shows or movies, they are like cookbooks. The actual art happens in the kitchen.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? I mean, I enjoy checkers. Millions of people do. So D&D should just be checkers, right? Checkers is fun!

A game should be fun, yes. But that's not what a game designer is doing. You don’t design fun. You design rules and processes that you expect will be interesting and create a dynamic game, which will therefore be fun.

D&D and checkers are both fun. But they’re radically different. Obviously, they are very different games and so have very different rules and processes.

I mean, first, yes checkers is juat about perfect. That's why it hasn't changed appreciably for centuries. Same with Backgammon and chess. Because they are refined and evolved fun engines.

Second, yes, a game designer is designing fun. That's the job...?

That's why they do these "Does This Spak Joy?" survey playtests, to gather as much data as possible as to what is fun for people. Thwt is probably WotC major advantage over any other RPG company, as much as brand name: data to inform design as to what constitutes a good game, i.e. a game people will find fun.

 

[Echohawk]

To be fair, since by far the most important metric to WotC for the surveys success is sales (which is doingbpretty well), what would it matter to them if the survey is poorly representative of the community? They're getting what they want (more money) right now.

You appear to be making assumptions about WotC's motivations here.

It may be true that WotC's overall goal is to make profits (which I'll assume you mean when you say "sales", since maximizing sales of unprofitable products is a bad idea (cf TSR)).

However, it does not follow that the most important metric WotC has for the success of a survey is "does it increase profits". It is much more likely to be something more directly related to the actual survey, such as "how many people responded" or "is the feedback more positive than the last survey" or (slightly more cynically) "has doing a survey increased brand awareness even if we toss the results in the bin".

A successful survey might eventually indirectly contribute to more sales/profits, but that isn't going to be how WotC decides if their surveys are beneficial right now.

 

[Parmandur]

You appear to be making assumptions about WotC's motivations here.

It may be true that WotC's overall goal is to make profits (which I'll assume you mean when you say "sales", since maximizing sales of unprofitable products is a bad idea (cf TSR)).

However, it does not follow that the most important metric WotC has for the success of a survey is "does it increase profits". It is much more likely to be something more directly related to the actual survey, such as "how many people responded" or "is the feedback more positive than the last survey" or (slightly more cynically) "has doing a survey increased brand awareness even if we toss the results in the bin".

A successful survey might eventually indirectly contribute to more sales/profits, but that isn't going to be how WotC decides if their surveys are beneficial right now.

I honestly cannot think of a better example of a virtuous profit cycle than a toy company needing to make their customers happy in order to make money over time.

 

[pemerton]

RPGs are not like TV shoes

This seems fairly uncontroversial.

 

[Parmandur]

This seems fairly uncontroversial.

RPGs are also not like breadboxes.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly cannot think of a better example of a virtuous profit cycle than a toy company needing to make their customers happy in order to make money over time.

My understanding is that video game design incorporates a fair bit of "addiction research" (and not with an eye to avoiding addiction). And "gotta have them all" was part of the marketing strategy for Star Wars collectables back when I was a kid.

More generally, a big part of how a consumer-based economy works is by producers creating the "needs" that they then satisfy via sales.

I'm not saying that selling games or toys is evil - I have shelves of games and game books, and my kids have toys - but I don't think the cycle is necessarily as straightforward as you suggest.