Obryn
Hero
Alright, so let's talk about D&D Next and design for a minute.
For starters, though, just to be clear, at this point I don't have much of a horse in this race. Even though I was pretty enthusiastic about the August packet, my group didn't much enjoy it during our pretty lengthy playtest, though in fairness it might have been the fault of Murder in Baldur's Gate. I dunno, but regardless, right now I'm very likely to buy the core set and play other games that aren't D&D Next - whether it's more 4e (starting a Zeitgeist game soon!), RC D&D, Savage Worlds, AD&D 1e, some variety of Fate Core, Dungeon World, 13th Age, etc. What I was mostly hoping for in Next was innovation in some way, but it's clear that not only is there not enough of it to win me over at this point. And, what's even scarier (IMO) is that there may yet be less and less of it, driven not by surveys but by - basically - shouting. Or the internet version thereof.
So I've seen a "pizza analogy" tossed around when it comes to mechanics like Damage on a Miss (which holy crap I am scared to even mention, but bear with me). More or less, it goes like this: I will eat pizza with or without pepperoni. You will only eat pizza without pepperoni. Therefore, we should not order pizza with pepperoni because then everyone wins!
I think that's not just a bad analogy, but a terrible approach towards game design. First because an RPG is way more complex than a pizza with a lot more ingredients, and second because only including stuff that nobody objects to is a completely godawful approach towards making a game. That approach towards design no longer has a goal of making a good game with strong design goals. It's to make a bland one. The least objectionable game possible.
So let's go back to the shouting. While we all make fun of the D&D Next 'polls' on their site (which truly are terrible) the actual playtest surveys were insanely detailed and not too shabby. The trend I'm seeing - and the pizza analogy above - resembles stuff like the so-called "open letter" posted here a few days ago. If you were masochistic enough to go to the WotC boards of late, you know pretty well that it's been a poop-show of craziness. And it's more of the same - several very vocal people trying very hard to overturn the designers' goals and make themselves louder than the survey results and the designers' own vision.
And it's terrible. Game design should not be driven by the loudest objectors, because there are other important voices who happen to be quieter. Objectors' concerns should be taken into account (heck; I wish I had been re: Warlords), but you don't make a good, innovative, new, exciting game by just ripping out anything that some people don't like. You're going to be left with very little that's bold, experimental, or progressive. And it's a shame.
Anyway, that's my two cents about the state of things these days. I hope that the game that's released is one that's riskier, and more exciting than we've seen, and that it has brand new, innovative stuff in it that I'll object to.
For starters, though, just to be clear, at this point I don't have much of a horse in this race. Even though I was pretty enthusiastic about the August packet, my group didn't much enjoy it during our pretty lengthy playtest, though in fairness it might have been the fault of Murder in Baldur's Gate. I dunno, but regardless, right now I'm very likely to buy the core set and play other games that aren't D&D Next - whether it's more 4e (starting a Zeitgeist game soon!), RC D&D, Savage Worlds, AD&D 1e, some variety of Fate Core, Dungeon World, 13th Age, etc. What I was mostly hoping for in Next was innovation in some way, but it's clear that not only is there not enough of it to win me over at this point. And, what's even scarier (IMO) is that there may yet be less and less of it, driven not by surveys but by - basically - shouting. Or the internet version thereof.
So I've seen a "pizza analogy" tossed around when it comes to mechanics like Damage on a Miss (which holy crap I am scared to even mention, but bear with me). More or less, it goes like this: I will eat pizza with or without pepperoni. You will only eat pizza without pepperoni. Therefore, we should not order pizza with pepperoni because then everyone wins!
I think that's not just a bad analogy, but a terrible approach towards game design. First because an RPG is way more complex than a pizza with a lot more ingredients, and second because only including stuff that nobody objects to is a completely godawful approach towards making a game. That approach towards design no longer has a goal of making a good game with strong design goals. It's to make a bland one. The least objectionable game possible.
So let's go back to the shouting. While we all make fun of the D&D Next 'polls' on their site (which truly are terrible) the actual playtest surveys were insanely detailed and not too shabby. The trend I'm seeing - and the pizza analogy above - resembles stuff like the so-called "open letter" posted here a few days ago. If you were masochistic enough to go to the WotC boards of late, you know pretty well that it's been a poop-show of craziness. And it's more of the same - several very vocal people trying very hard to overturn the designers' goals and make themselves louder than the survey results and the designers' own vision.
And it's terrible. Game design should not be driven by the loudest objectors, because there are other important voices who happen to be quieter. Objectors' concerns should be taken into account (heck; I wish I had been re: Warlords), but you don't make a good, innovative, new, exciting game by just ripping out anything that some people don't like. You're going to be left with very little that's bold, experimental, or progressive. And it's a shame.
Anyway, that's my two cents about the state of things these days. I hope that the game that's released is one that's riskier, and more exciting than we've seen, and that it has brand new, innovative stuff in it that I'll object to.
