Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5738893" data-attributes="member: 177">Um, no.&nbsp; And, in particular, I don't think anyone in the know has said that WotC used such techniques.It isn't the class or character's goals we are talking about.&nbsp; We are talking about the *player's* goals.&nbsp; If WotC used such tools in their design, they'd be looking at what players wanted to do in games, and designed characters that allowed them to do those things.&nbsp; Some players do want to stand and deliver, toe to toe with the BBEG.&nbsp; Hence, the Fighter, and Defenders in general.&nbsp; It is important to note that the goals here are pretty low-level, rather than high-concept.&nbsp; This is common in the approach.&nbsp; &quot;I want to colonize a new continent,&quot; is not something easily supported by rules design, being too broad an activity to design directly to.&nbsp; If you were writing word-processing software, you would not design directly to, &quot;I want to write the great American novel&quot;.&nbsp; You'd write to lower-level tasks required to accomplish that higher goal (like not having your program barf on files approaching 100,000 words).Now, clearly, there are player goals that are not represented by the current game.&nbsp; That's because, to put it simply - you cannot please everyone.&nbsp; It is not possible to build a game (or any product) that meets *everyone's* goals, and attempting to do so is taking the fast road to failure.&nbsp; Whether you're making software, fabric softener, or RPGs, you have to pick what you're going to aim for.Contradicts?&nbsp; Because adventurers oh so rarely incite or engage in violence?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Sorry, I don't buy that at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5738893, member: 177"] Um, no. And, in particular, I don't think anyone in the know has said that WotC used such techniques. It isn't the class or character's goals we are talking about. We are talking about the *player's* goals. If WotC used such tools in their design, they'd be looking at what players wanted to do in games, and designed characters that allowed them to do those things. Some players do want to stand and deliver, toe to toe with the BBEG. Hence, the Fighter, and Defenders in general. It is important to note that the goals here are pretty low-level, rather than high-concept. This is common in the approach. "I want to colonize a new continent," is not something easily supported by rules design, being too broad an activity to design directly to. If you were writing word-processing software, you would not design directly to, "I want to write the great American novel". You'd write to lower-level tasks required to accomplish that higher goal (like not having your program barf on files approaching 100,000 words). Now, clearly, there are player goals that are not represented by the current game. That's because, to put it simply - you cannot please everyone. It is not possible to build a game (or any product) that meets *everyone's* goals, and attempting to do so is taking the fast road to failure. Whether you're making software, fabric softener, or RPGs, you have to pick what you're going to aim for. Contradicts? Because adventurers oh so rarely incite or engage in violence? Really? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification