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

[Micah Sweet]

OK, designing two games that play to the same type of fun, say 5E versus Fantasy Heartbreaker # 2000, designing to appeal to as many people as much as possible is the only thing that makes sense to me. Not that Cll of Cthulu has to be appealing to fans of pulp space opera action or something. Like to like, making as much fun for as many people is the only measure for whether a game is designed "good" or "bad" that I can see.

Ok, so genre is the dividing line then? If you are making a fantasy game, it's bad design unless it's for 5e?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand what you don't understand: being "well designed" and "being fun for people" are synonymous near as I can reckon.

Its the "fun for more people = better designed" part of your argument I disagree with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what about walking around the square ifopposition, and a game that both serves more people, and better...?

But you said serving more people is the same as being better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what about a design that achieves both...?

And yes, good design is a circle, of improving user experience.

I can't see any argument in which 5e is that design. There is nothing it does better than a more focused game could do, except be "good enough" for the most people.

 

[Lanefan]

User-focused design is absolutely superior to some John Galt-ish idea of designer elites who can tell people what they like.

Only to a point, though. At some stage, if what the users want becomes somehow unreasonable (e.g. a $0 price point, or a game with no adversity whatsoever, or that one class massively outshines all the rest) one hopes the designers are empowered to say "No".

As it is, I don't think the designers have been saying "No" nearly enough through the WotC years, directly leading to casters ruling the roost and to an IMO much less evocative and flavourful game in comparison to 0e and 1e.

 

[Parmandur]

Ok, so genre is the dividing line then? If you are making a fantasy game, it's bad design unless it's for 5e?

It certainly seems a Quixotic quest unless it is better designed to appeal and be fun, honestly.

Its the "fun for more people = better designed" part of your argument I disagree with.

Yeah, but then thebquestionnis: better designed to do what? Fun for people is what a game is: how is being more fun not identical with better design...? I am honest to God serious here, I don't see what other criteria you can apply to a game.

But you said serving more people is the same as being better.

But a game can both serve more people and serve them more deeply. They are not in opposition logically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Disagree.

If I can buy one widely-useful thing to do jobs for which I'd otherwise have to buy (and then carry around) five specialty things, that feature alone makes the widely-useful thing about five times better.

Not if the specialty things do the job they're designed for better than the widely-useful thing. Specialists exist for a reason.

 

[Parmandur]

Only to a pont, though. At some stage, if what the users want becomes somehow unreasonable (e.g. a $0 price point, or a game with no adversity whatsoever, or that one class massively outshines all the rest) one hopes the designers are empowered to say "No".

As it is, I don't think the designers have been saying "No" nearly enough through the WotC years, directly leading to casters ruling the roost and to an IMO much less evocative and flavourful game in comparison to 0e and 1e.

Right, hence why they have thar 70% cutoff: they don't mind ig some people hate a design, if most people love it (70% means most respondents are giving the highest mark).

 

[Micah Sweet]

They don't have to serve everyone, as long as they can serve as many as possible. And plenty of people love 5E rather than tolerate it.

Everyone, no. Most people? Seems very doable.

I would actually love to know how many people both love 5e and have exposure to a variety of other games (and thus a basis for comparison).

 

[Parmandur]

I can't see any argument in which 5e is that design. There is nothing it does better than a more focused game could do, except be "good enough" for the most people.

Yet it seems to me that it is? They have focused all their energy on making options that most respondents live (the mean of 70% means options that make it to print are beloved by moat respondents).