Developer Talk = Gospel?

[NaturalZero]

PCs are as "cool" as their creators make them. Combat efficacy does not a character make.

Except when you play a game where 90%+ of the rules revolve around combat, like every edition of DnD. Characters with no combat efficacy can be plenty cool in a comic or novel but have a much harder time of it in a universe where "hit points", "base attack", and "armor class" are basic components of a character's existence and he gets better at whatever he does by stabbing things in the face.

 

[HeinorNY]

I remember one of the designer saying something about "pets" in one D&D podcast. They are going to show up in future books and are going to be a lot more abstract.

 

[Psychic Robot]

Except when you play a game where 90%+ of the rules revolve around combat, like every edition of DnD. Characters with no combat efficacy can be plenty cool in a comic or novel but have a much harder time of it in a universe where "hit points", "base attack", and "armor class" are basic components of a character's existence and he gets better at whatever he does by stabbing things in the face.

This is the "tactical wargame" mindset that I don't buy into. I don't have to have a character who is awesome at combat to have fun or be "cool," and I know the people I play with don't need me to have a combat-centered character to enjoy his company.

 

[NaturalZero]

This is the "tactical wargame" mindset that I don't buy into. I don't have to have a character who is awesome at combat to have fun or be "cool," and I know the people I play with don't need me to have a combat-centered character to enjoy his company.

I can play chess and make one of the pawns a "cool" character. This has no bearing on the rules of chess or the balance of the pieces with one another.

Feel free to try to make a commoner as cool as youd like. Likewise, feel free to play Fighter20 in a party of wizards in a one-shot 3E game. Please dont infer that because you can roleplay your character to be amiable fellow, a measure of coolness completely external to the ruleset, that the game balance is fine as is.

 

[Psychic Robot]

I can play chess and make one of the pawns a "cool" character. This has no bearing on the rules of chess or the balance of the pieces with one another.

Feel free to try to make a commoner as cool as youd like. Likewise, feel free to play Fighter20 in a party of wizards in a one-shot 3E game. Please dont infer that because you can roleplay your character to be amiable fellow, a measure of coolness completely external to the ruleset, that the game balance is fine as is.

Would you care to set up any more strawmen while you're at it, or do you think that you've knocked down your share today?

 

[Scribble]

I've noticed something lately, something that disturbs me greatly. 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. However, after the developers started in with their "economy of actions"...rhetoric, everyone has jumped aboard the bandwagon. I've seen it here, I've seen it on the WotC forums, I've seen it on the Paizo forums.

Same has been true for any number of systems. (Though it became more apparent in 3e I'd say since the internet made gamer to gamer speak much easier. )

And despite what you think I did in fact notice it... I ran a game for a number of years where most of the "power gamers" had some sort of pet.

"Ok, those are all MY actions, and the actions of my summoned creatures... Now my follower gets his actions, first he summons a..."

Drove me nuts. Add to the fact that the size of the group was large to begin with... Meant several players wandering away from the game while they waited for the others to finish their seven bazillion actions.

The real problem though, amounts to it being a tricky way for a power gamer to sneak in more power. Ok, I can only do this much damage hrmm... How can I solve that... I know... I'll just add more actions!

Instead of people actually encouraging players to be creative and work to create things that are very core to fantasy--necromancers? conjurers? magical pets?--people are driving them away, screaming, "YOU CAN'T HAVE TWICE AS MANY TURNS AS ANOTHER PLAYER."

Somewhat true, but I've seen an equal number of people simply saying you need to find a way to do it that falls within the rules, and doesn't just create a sneaky way to get more actions.

At the best, I've seen them nerf something cool into the ground by demanding that other players have to use their own actions in place of another creature's (specifically, a golem).

You only play one character. Not really nerfing something cool, so much as nerfing a cheap power gamer trick.

This, of course, is not the only thing that I've noticed, of course, but it is the most nerve-grating thing. (Another favorite of mine is that any type of realism or grittiness = NOT FUN AT ALL, NO WAY.)

Personal opinion. Sure, you're allowed your own view. I happen to agree with the designers... Save or Die tended to suck. D&D has always been somewhat schizophrenic about this as well... Some stuff was gritty, others weren't... No real rhyme or reason t it either. I say choose one path, or the other. Don't bounce around.

However, this thread isn't about such things, even though I know it will undoubtedly degenerate into people arguing about said things. Instead, it's about people leaping onto whatever droppings spill from the developers' lips.

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

Because they do it for a living. Yeah I know others have said just because they're paid for it doesn't mean they're better... But at the same time.. I have a friend who works with computers. He's paid for it, and does it everyday. When I have a computer question I trust his answer more then I do joe on the street. (Despite whether he's psychic, or a robot.)

People who are paid to do something spend their time learning about said things, and being trained in said things. Ina ddition they have a much more enormous amount of resources to spend on said thing. (WoTC has mathematicians at their disposal that do things like study probability and statistics, and then put together pie charts, and power points about how they effect the game... I don't have that, and I doubt many joe average gamers do either.)

Also as I said this has been occuring for a long time... What Would Monte Do? was almost a mantra of 3e... (And rightly so, he designed some damn good stuff.)

 

[Keenath]

I've noticed something lately, something that disturbs me greatly. 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. However, after the developers started in with their "economy of actions"...rhetoric, everyone has jumped aboard the bandwagon. I've seen it here, I've seen it on the WotC forums, I've seen it on the Paizo forums.

It's not really a new concept, a new "rhetoric". It's just a new name for it that's very accurate. In discussions of boss battles, I've always heard comments about how bosses have to be super tough because they only get one move to each four or five the party gets, and I've always heard comments about how necromancers were hard to balance because they tend to either have one or two awesome monster servants that make them better than everyone else, or they have a dozen minions who get smashed in one shot and they suck. I've always heard complains about druids with bear companions that make the party fighter look pathetic.

I will say -- to be honest, I don't think familiars count as far as this goes. They aren't expendable and have few or no significant combat powers. Their issue isn't in economy of actions, but that they're ridiculously painful to lose and often forgotten when you have them.

Instead of people actually encouraging players to be creative and work to create things that are very core to fantasy--necromancers? conjurers? magical pets?--people are driving them away, screaming, "YOU CAN'T HAVE TWICE AS MANY TURNS AS ANOTHER PLAYER." At the best, I've seen them nerf something cool into the ground by demanding that other players have to use their own actions in place of another creature's (specifically, a golem).

Can't both the the case? That's kind of a false dilemma. It's not "creative core fantasy concepts" over here and "only one set of actions" over there. It's just a question of finding a way to represent the former without wrecking the latter.

So yes, while there probably SHOULD be some running-the-other-way in terms of one guy getting lots of actions, that doesn't necessarily mean we can't have animal companions and undead slaves.

This, of course, is not the only thing that I've noticed, of course, but it is the most nerve-grating thing. (Another favorite of mine is that any type of realism or grittiness = NOT FUN AT ALL, NO WAY.)

Actually, that's not the issue. Grittiness or realism aren't terrible, but they also aren't a ruleset.

Be careful about confusing "gritty, realistic" gaming with "the game must accurately model reality". Normally what you see as "no, that isn't fun" is a response to a suggestion for something that's realistic but makes the game a mess.

Grittiness is a flavor question -- making the world feel dangerous and dirty and morally ambiguous. That has little to do with the way we decide whether you can jump a chasm or how far you can move each turn. Blade Runner is gritty, and that has nothing to do with whether or not Rick Deckard hits or misses his next gunshot or what kind of skill check is necessary to enhance a photo enough to see a face in an eyeball's reflection.

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

It's not 'gospel', but it's an insight into the authors' intent. When there's a question "why did the devs do THIS!?" or "What does this rule text mean?" or "How should I do this particular thing?", the intent is important, and we get so little of it -- when we do get some, it's treated seriously.

So when you look at the game and say, "Why did they pull out all the friendly monsters?", the answer is certainly going to be, "The explanation is here in this 'economy of actions' article."

 

[NaturalZero]

Would you care to set up any more strawmen while you're at it, or do you think that you've knocked down your share today?

You care to read that post you were replying to when i first replied to you (you know, the one about fighter vs wizard balance which) and try this again. I really didnt bring up any arguements that werent raised specifically in the post you were responding to.

 

[Psychic Robot]

You care to read that post you were replying to when i first replied to you (you know, the one about fighter vs wizard balance which) and try this again. I really didnt bring up any arguements that werent raised specifically in the post you were responding to.

1. Chess isn't a role-playing game.
2. I didn't say that horrendously overpowered/underpowered things were good; I specifically said "not to the extent that they were in 3e."

 

[Zil]

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.

And that last line is the important thing : IF the game is better for it.

Getting back to the OP, and the question of why people put their blind trust in experts, look no farther than popular culture for more examples. How many people read particular books because Oprah recommends them? Many people consider the WoTC design team to be game design experts, certainly more so than themselves, so they give great weight to what these people say. If these experts are putting forth the "theory of balanced economy of actions" then many people will just accept the word of the experts as a law of game design without necessarily thinking through all the implications on their own as to the types of games that will result.

I'm personally not convinced the new design centered around the strictly enforced economy of actions is a good thing. You can no longer use a number of the traditional fantasy tropes in the game in the name of maintaining balance, and that makes me more than just a little bit sad.