Developer Talk = Gospel?

[Psychic Robot]

Interesting responses. My point is, the developers might have good ideas, but I don't believe that they should be taken as some sort of objective truth about RPGs. That is what started the whole 4e marketing mess: "We know what YOU want, and YOU'RE going to love it."

Linky to thread

This is you, regarding Massawyrm's wife, right? (in relation to his review of 4e)

If it isn't I apologize in advance, but I have got to say, you picked a really bad name.

But since I do not believe in coincidences this big, welcome to my ignore (grats, you are the first in 8+ years to make it)

Even though I'm on your ignore list--some great loss, I'm certain--allow me to respond to this:

Yes, of course, that is something I wrote. What can I say? I was a dick. I'm not going to deny it, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Sorry, but Massawyrm [insert sexual act here] all over 4e's [insert sexual organ here]. I was also trolling. I did not realize at the time that Massawyrm was part of the WotC forums, and I specifically requested the thread closed when I learned of this. I then created another thread that was much...nicer in tone.

Does this excuse me? Nope. Are you more interested in talking about my character than talking about the topic at hand? Yes. And while I'm flattered that someone would become so incensed/offended by what I have to say that he'd put me on his ignore list, I really think that we ought to stick to talking about the developers rather than me. While I am vain enough to admit that I'm more interesting than they are, I realize that this messageboard is not for talking about me, but rather 4e.

I think that you might be approaching this backwards, or possibly you just picked a poor example of your thesis.

In my view, people are not embracing the "economy of action" theory because the developers said it. They are embracing it because it encapsulates a flaw everyone knew about, and suffered from, and the idea that it has been fixed is welcome relief.

The designers just happened to hit the combat oriented fantasy gaming zeitgeist perfectly with that one, which is why it is such a strong meme. Other developer creeds, like "equality of options" don't seem to be as strongly absorbed, or treated as gospel in the same way.

--
gnfnrf

Hmm. I suppose that makes sense.

 

[generalhenry]

Because they solved problems most of us didn't realize we even had.

Face time balance was a real struggle for a DM in previous editions. A lack of face time equity can lead to sour players.

With 4E if you go along with the design, face time is something you simply don't have to worry about anymore.

Yes we give up some things, but that's ok if the game is better for it.


Death to pets.
Death to uber casters.

Long live equity.

 

[Stogoe]

I can tell you I had lots of the same problems that the designers talk about (dominating spellcasters, hour-long summoners turns, everybody has the same six items or they're unable to contribute) years before 4e was announced.

Also, it helps that I had abandoned 3e for exactly the problems they were tackling.

 

[generalhenry]

Form my experience you don't notice it that much as a DM. But as a player I've been on both sides of the inequity.

It just plain sucks to not get face time.
And I feel guilty when I dominate the action.

 

[Logos7]

actually as a dm for my last game i ran with no pets, purely for this reason. the stuff that wizzies pointed out in their marketing campeign (whether or not it was well thought out )wasn't news to most people

Logos

 

[ThirdWizard]

So, riddle me this: why is this occurring? Why is what the developers say considered "gospel"?

Some people are swayed by a well reasoned argument, especially from people who live and breath game design. 4e is singular in that a lot of the design philosophy behind it has been made public, much moreso than I've ever seen before. This has lead to a lot better understanding of Dungeons & Dragons design than previously understood, a lot more "behind the curtain" revealed in other words. This means that we have a far better appreciation for why these changes have been made than we otherwise would have had, and a lot of them are very sound and have changed people's opinions. I think this is a great thing!

 

[Thasmodious]

That is an assumption that often is not true. Does a corporate environment "evolve" a quality game designer, or does it "evolve" someone that can shovel a lot of words on a page and meet corporate deadlines which involve easy to gauge metrics like size and time but ignore the more important metrics like quality, or who can suck up to the boss?

Considering that the designers are gamers themselves, many of whom got their start doing third party stuff, I don't think this can be seen as anything approaching an accurate view of the situation. The designers weren't hired as younglings and trained under the watchful eye of The Corporation. Most were designers and writers before they came to WotC; Mearls designed Iron Heroes, for example.

 

[Terwox]

If you've ever sat around waiting on the druid and his zoo to act in 3.5, you already understand.

And I don't think having summons be sustain standard / etc is remotely out of line or unbalancing. It can be balanced by making the summoned creatures actually as powerful as a player character, instead of sort-of as powerful because of the extra actions.

That said, I wish they would have found a system earlier... I have a true20 game that is virtually impossible to convert because two of the characters are entirely focused on summoning.

And sheesh, if summoning bugs you, read mounted combat.

 

[Wormwood]

Up until 4e, nobody would bat an eye at the wizard having a familiar, the druid having a pet, the necromancer having undead, the conjurer having summons, and the like.

Yeah, not so much.

I remember bitching about how the party Druid got something like three turns to every one of mine.

I also remember being subsequently delighted to discover that the 4e developers agreed with me on this point.

So forgive me if I disagree with your premise.

 

[Wormwood]

And sheesh, if summoning bugs you, read mounted combat.

Good point---two crappy subsystems that suck worse together.