Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DDNFan" data-source="post: 6312280" data-attributes="member: 6776483">.Whatever one thinks of Gary's game design chops in the fine details, he knocked it out of the park. What matters most? The tiny parts that are easily updated? Or the overall concept, putting all the pieces together to make a compelling experience. That's the difference between a master and a worker, or an architect and a day laborer. The worker might be (probably is) better at putting up drywall, and that's what I believe you guys are focusing on instead of the big picture. None of the TTRPG games or designs that I've seen since have come up with a better core idea, core vision, that can't be reduced to mere iteration on D&D.As I wrote before, name one designer who came up with a new unique vision, regardless of the fine details, that is compelling enough to not only play for fourty years, but to iterate on endlessly and build other games on. Build an entire hobby on. Make TV shows about. Write endless books about. It grabbed people and didn't let go. I'm playing tonight and tomorrow too. It has me in its stingy grasp, never letting go.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and based on the amount of imitations of D&D with minor cosmetic or mechanical alterations, the core concept is the same. Every other TTRPG designer owes Gygax not only their respect, but virtually their entire career.I stand by this, by reading the opinions of many game designers who think that where D&D erred in the past two editions was striving for structural innovation rather than innovate on the core concept. But why fix what isn't broken? The core idea of D&D is terrific, it's only the fine details that can and should be updated occasionally, but only to the extent that they make the central gameplay better.  In that sense, building simple rules that encapsulate the essence of what D&D is, and stripping out the useless cruft that doesn't focus on the core game experience, is what Mike Mearls and so on did. They do deserve a lot of credit for that, and is an admission that they can't really come up with a better core gameplay idea of what D&D is or could be. Not only because players rejected it last time (and the time before, I know several groups who hate anything 3rd ed or later), but because D&D is the rocketship. Chopping off dead weight and going back to a lean machine closer to 1st and 2nd ed (even leaner, less tables and finicky stuff) is what's going to make 5th edition a big success in my opinion. I can't really give huge credit to the game designers since, since many of their ideas are now being flushed or reverted or at least greatly toned down to fit within the context of what D&D is trying to be. The core concept. The big picture hasn't changed. Monte Cook, for example, admitted that rewarding system mastery was a design goal of his. That's probably why micro-feats from 3rd and 4th are being combined or even made entirely optional. Because that's not what makes D&D a good game.Everything we've seen are relatively small details, stamp collecting if you will. I don't pay homage to stamp collectors, maybe a passing tip of my hat. Lots of game designers you see are just playing in Gygax' sandbox, and should be reminded of that as often and as emphatically as possible, lest they forget their place in the grand scheme of things and their egos grow bigger than their breeches.A genius is defined as someone who creates something new and unique, outstanding and game-changing. You could say all kinds of bad things about this or that bad mechanic in the original D&D game, and improve on those. But the worst you can say about Gygax' design skills is that he was a one-hit wonder. If there are any better game designers out there, why are we all still talking about D&D instead of their brilliant new idea? Because they don't have anything truly substantially different, and they are all still just imitating Gygax and following in his footsteps.</blockquote>

Verification