Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9282981" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think that there is an essential problem with this analysis (and with what [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] is presupposing).Design does not exist in a vacuum. Design has a purpose. In other words, something can be perfectly designed (in some abstract sense) but not be well-designed for a particular use, or for the market.Imagine the car market in the United States. I can rightfully say that the Porsche 911 manual coupe is a beautifully designed car in the abstract, and even for me. I could argue that it's a much better designed vehicle than the Ford F-150.But for a variety of reasons, the Ford F-150 is a better-designed vehicle for the American market, in terms of consumer preferences. It's a pickup truck, which people like. It's an automatic transmission. It's less expensive. It has better cupholders. And so on.This isn't to say that the design of 5e is perfect, but when people argue about the design of 5e vis-a-vis other games, they often forget two major things-1. It's not designed to be any TTRPG. It's designed to be the current version of D&amp;D, which has it's own advantages, and drawbacks, when it comes to designing the product.2. It's designed to be as widely appealing as possible, not to be the &quot;best&quot; or most &quot;cutting-edge&quot; or controversial. That's why, for example, the designers approached 5e (and the most recent revision) with a lot of humility, sacrificing aspects that might be &quot;better&quot; to the designers in order to appeal to more people.A lot of the time, I think that people forget that designing a product, especially a mass-market product, necessarily involves compromises. To quote Hemingway, &quot;Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place then come down and shoot the survivors.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9282981, member: 7023840"] I think that there is an essential problem with this analysis (and with what [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] is presupposing). Design does not exist in a vacuum. Design has a [I]purpose. [/I]In other words, something can be perfectly designed (in some abstract sense) but not be well-designed for a particular use, or for the market. Imagine the car market in the United States. I can rightfully say that the Porsche 911 manual coupe is a beautifully designed car in the abstract, and even for me. I could argue that it's a much better designed vehicle than the Ford F-150. But for a variety of reasons, the Ford F-150 is a [I]better-designed vehicle for the American market, in terms of consumer preferences[/I]. It's a pickup truck, which people like. It's an automatic transmission. It's less expensive. It has better cupholders. And so on. This isn't to say that the design of 5e is perfect, but when people argue about the design of 5e [I]vis-a-vis [/I]other games, they often forget two major things- 1. It's not designed to be any TTRPG. It's designed to be the current version of D&D, which has it's own advantages, and drawbacks, when it comes to designing the product. 2. It's designed to be as widely appealing as possible, not to be the "best" or most "cutting-edge" or controversial. That's why, for example, the designers approached 5e (and the most recent revision) with a lot of humility, sacrificing aspects that might be "better" to the designers in order to appeal to more people. A lot of the time, I think that people forget that designing a product, especially a mass-market product, necessarily involves compromises. To quote Hemingway, "Critics are men who watch a battle from a high place then come down and shoot the survivors." [/QUOTE]

Verification