D&D 5E Convince me to Spend the Money

[Wicht]

I think you will come back to me on this - if at all - with evasion (ah, but my special tastes and situation require etc). Much as you have every other post in this thread. Basically trolling, but in a way that provokes some nice discussion so can be tolerated

Some days you can't win. I am told that its hard for people to know how to sell me on something without knowing my tastes. When I try and tell them then what will work to convince me and what won't I get accused of being a troll.

I am glad, however, that you enjoy the discussion generated by my "trolling,"

If you don't mind me asking, what are some of your credits in the field? (Are you the same vonklaude as the vonklaude at RPGG?)

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

:::Spock Eyebrow:::: Fascinating....

*Now listening intently, to see where this conversation leads*

 

[SilverfireSage]

Some days you can't win. I am told that its hard for people to know how to sell me on something without knowing my tastes. When I try and tell them then what will work to convince me and what won't I get accused of being a troll.

I wouldn't say that you're "trolling" persay, but people generally have a difficult time understanding that a person would buy a book that describes a game system without necessarily ever caring to play the game. For most, the books are a means to an end, which in this case is actually playing the game. In that regard, they get use only when the situation demands it, and are put away for the majority of time. On the other hand, for you the book is the end, where you just want to read the book for its writing, look at the art for the art's sake, and so on. To many, this is like buying a car without the intent to drive it but merely look at the interior and tinker with the engine. Which is perfectly fine, and perhaps someday you will get around to driving it, but for now you just want to look. I get that, and there's been many times when I've downloaded rules or page flipped in a store just to get a feel for a game and enjoy reading some of the mechanics and fluff, without ever actually intending to play. In that case, I would say that any of the three books are absolutely worth it. The Player's Handbook has great readability, and some interesting flavor and design mechanics that make for a fun read. The Monster Manual has stat blocks, but most of the reading is done with the flavor and history of the monsters, which can be enthralling. And the Dungeon Master's guide actually has surprisingly little mechanics to it, reading more like a campaign guide than a toolbox. The last third or so is a lot of crunch, but seeing the thought process on how they designed the monsters, the magic items, the classes, is very rewarding. So yes, I would recommend each of them, but...

probably not for $50 if its a price you're having a hard time swallowing. For some, $50 is a lot, and I can understand that, and I'm thankfully in a position to where I was able to spend that much and not be too discomforted. However, why can't you buy the books on Amazon? Your location given is Ohio, so you must be able to get deliveries there. For $35 or even $40, I can't possibly recommend these books enough, so get online and start ordering!

 

[Wicht]

... people generally have a difficult time understanding that a person would buy a book that describes a game system without necessarily ever caring to play the game.

I will humbly point out that I am apparently not alone in doing this.

And thanks for your input and mini-review of the three books. It is much appreciated.

 

[clearstream]

Some days you can't win. I am told that its hard for people to know how to sell me on something without knowing my tastes. When I try and tell them then what will work to convince me and what won't I get accused of being a troll.

I am glad, however, that you enjoy the discussion generated by my "trolling,"

If you don't mind me asking, what are some of your credits in the field? (Are you the same vonklaude as the vonklaude at RPGG?)

I co-wrote GURPS Goblins for SJGames. Then moved into videogames. I work on games and new product development almost every day and am lucky enough to make a living doing that. From a professional point of view the statement that effort doesn't correlate positively with better products causes dissonance. One can add a lot of nuance to that, of course. Effort alone is not sufficient. Nor is sustained effort at a level that causes burn out! I would point to even stronger correlation with access to playtesters and quantity and efficiency of test cycles. Having a clear vision and following best practice will make any effort pay off more. And you're right, sometimes things come in a flash of brilliance. Those are helpful! But to resolve a large, elaborate rule system you still end up back to putting in effort.

Pathfinder benefits hugely by riding on the massive pouring of effort into 3rd edition. It was a great move by Paizo to realise they could just pick all that up!

 

[Wicht]

I co-wrote GURPS Goblins for SJGames.

I suspected that was yours.

From a professional point of view the statement that effort doesn't correlate positively with better products causes dissonance.

So its a good thing that I didn't actually say that then.

What I said was that 1) the amount of time spent creating a product is irrelevant to me when deciding whether or not I like a product. Meaning, that, while it is true that the laborer will likely do better if they spend time perfecting their product, what concerns me as a consumer is the quality itself. And in contemplating that quality, the time spent creating it is not really a factor in my thinking.

and 2) Time spent in labor is not itself a guarantee of quality. The longer you work at thing, generally the better you will do as a craftsman, up to a point, but the time is only one of a number of actual factors for overall quality.

Again, I am quite cognizant, having also done design and writing of the time involved in the work, and the fact that more time produces a better polished product. But that's really only important to the producers, not to the consumers.

 

[clearstream]

So its a good thing that I didn't actually say that then.

What I said was that 1) the amount of time spent creating a product is irrelevant to me when deciding whether or not I like a product. Meaning, that, while it is true that the laborer will likely do better if they spend time perfecting their product, what concerns me as a consumer is the quality itself. And in contemplating that quality, the time spent creating it is not really a factor in my thinking.

and 2) Time spent in labor is not itself a guarantee of quality. The longer you work at thing, generally the better you will do as a craftsman, up to a point, but the time is only one of a number of actual factors for overall quality.

Again, I am quite cognizant, having also done design and writing of the time involved in the work, and the fact that more time produces a better polished product. But that's really only important to the producers, not to the consumers.

Could be a simple case of misapprehension! I didn't envision you thinking about the time to create and caring about that consciously as a factor in your decision making. Still, I wouldn't agree that it's irrelevant. It's relevance is that once we know a product has been crafted with greater effort we can guess (but not be certain) that it has greater quality. It still might not please us, but remember we're trying to decide here *without* full experience of the actual product! So we need indicators.

I think I am drawing a distinction between what is conscious in the decision-making process, and what is relevant to it. I would suggest that factors that are relevant are not always considered consciously. It sounds like we're really in agreement. You're saying it never comes up as a conscious factor for you. I'm saying it's relevant: knowing X we can infer Y. But as you say, not with certainty. There are some famous cases of games that took a long time to make but were dreadful! Often it is the design team itself that is a better predictor of quality, than the time taken. In this case we have a strong design team who have put in a lot of time and care.

Human creativity is an interesting subject. I think there's a lot of serendipity involved. The right people coming together and being fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do good work. Which often means having the funds or social support to follow a quality-focused rather than time-stressed process. I think here of the Dune/Cosmic Encounter design team. That group just seem to have been serendipitous. Or one might look at Notch and observe that he had the social support in Scandinavia to pick up the work of Infiniminer and form it into Minecraft.

 

[Wicht]

Often it is the design team itself that is a better predictor of quality, than the time taken. In this case we have a strong design team who have put in a lot of time and care.

This I would strongly agree with...

I think here of the Dune/Cosmic Encounter design team. That group just seem to have been serendipitous.

Yes.

Though... they also show that even a great team can have off-days, as witnessed by Gearworld's (Borderlands) more lackluster appeal.

 

[Morlock]

Is this thread about the guy who won't spend $12 for the starter set still going? Good lord.

 

[Capn Charlie]

It wasn't until you came in and necro-ed it. And me without any remaining turn undead uses...