Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5635763" data-attributes="member: 87792">And it doesn't follow that there was anyone paid specifically to do so.&nbsp; I have no doubt that half the designers had their own homebrew worlds and did worldbuilding in them.&nbsp; But in a systematised way and paid to do it?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I don't think this likely.&nbsp;One reason I don't think this likely was that from everything I saw WoTC D&amp;D was not interested in worldbuilding.&nbsp; Not even as interested as late TSR D&amp;D.&nbsp; On what do I base this opinion?&nbsp; There was an almost complete lack of new worlds produced by WoTC.&nbsp; There was plenty of new material produced.&nbsp; But I believe the only actual new world was Eberron, the result of an external talent search.&nbsp; So we have a committee paid to do worldbuilding and no worlds come out of it.&nbsp; Right.&nbsp;&nbsp;You assume.&nbsp; That is all very well in a vacuum.&nbsp; But you aren't looking at evidence.&nbsp; For one thing, 3e isn't actually simulationist - if it was it wouldn't have hit points for one thing.&nbsp; For another we can see what the results are.&nbsp; And the results are that the Realms utterly don't make sense, Eberron makes a little sense but has huge gaping holes such as Zone of Truth even using just the PHB, Greyhawk has the same issues.&nbsp; We can illustrate that if the designers were designing for worldbuilding, they got it badly wrong.&nbsp; Ad hoc narratives on the other hand seldom break worlds - they only apply in the here and now.&nbsp;So when we get to the actual comparison, your assumption doesn't turn out to be supported.&nbsp;&nbsp;No.&nbsp; But your post was not just an opinion.&nbsp; It was speculating on matters of fact.&nbsp; Either 3e had this hypothetical committee you are talking about or it did not.&nbsp; You need to produce some evidence to back up your claim.&nbsp;&nbsp;I have evidence that if they playtested for worldbuilding, they did an utterly crap job.&nbsp; No published world, not even Eberron handles the implications of Zone of Truth being a readily available spell.&nbsp; And that's a second level Cleric spell in the PHB.&nbsp; There are plenty of others in the PHB alone.&nbsp;&nbsp;You are free to your own opinions.&nbsp; You are not free to make up your own facts.&nbsp; And claiming that WoTC had a &quot;design committee that ... are paid to spend hours and hours tinkering and playtesting with a believable semi-coherent semi-consistent system&quot; is a matter of straight fact.&nbsp; Either they did or they didn't.&nbsp;Now some WoTC designer could drop in and tell me that there was a committee of people paid primarily to world build* (that somehow had no outputs in a highly competative corporate culture).&nbsp; And I would take their word for it.&nbsp; But as things stand I consider that there's a beyond reasonable doubt case that they did not.&nbsp;And to be anything resembling effective, this committee would have had to have oversight of every book produced.&nbsp; Just one errant spell can bring down an economy (Fabricate, Shapechange, Wall of Iron), or revolutionise trading and the legal system (Zone of Truth).&nbsp; One bad spell or item can upend an economy (Wall of Stone, Lyre of Building).&nbsp; Those are just spectacular worldbuilding failures in the 3.X PHB.&nbsp; If there was such a committee it clearly didn't have the influence it needed to to be able to cover the PHB.&nbsp;* Chatting over lunch and calling yourself a committee doesn't count.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5635763, member: 87792"] And it doesn't follow that there was anyone paid specifically to do so. I have no doubt that half the designers had their own homebrew worlds and did worldbuilding in them. But in a systematised way and paid to do it? No. I don't think this likely. One reason I don't think this likely was that from everything I saw WoTC D&D was not interested in worldbuilding. Not even as interested as late TSR D&D. On what do I base this opinion? There was an almost complete lack of new worlds produced by WoTC. There was plenty of new material produced. But I believe the only actual new world was Eberron, the result of an external talent search. So we have a committee paid to do worldbuilding [I]and no worlds come out of it.[/I] Right. You assume. That is all very well in a vacuum. But you aren't looking at evidence. For one thing, 3e isn't actually simulationist - if it was it wouldn't have hit points for one thing. For another we can see what the results are. And the results are that the Realms utterly don't make sense, Eberron makes a little sense but has huge gaping holes such as Zone of Truth even using just the PHB, Greyhawk has the same issues. We can illustrate that if the designers were designing for worldbuilding, they got it badly wrong. Ad hoc narratives on the other hand seldom break worlds - they only apply in the here and now. So when we get to the actual comparison, your assumption doesn't turn out to be supported. No. But your post was not just an opinion. It was speculating on matters of [I]fact[/I]. Either 3e had this hypothetical committee you are talking about or it did not. You need to produce some evidence to back up your claim. I have evidence that if they playtested for worldbuilding, they did an utterly [I]crap[/I] job. [I]No[/I] published world, not even [I]Eberron[/I] handles the implications of Zone of Truth being a readily available spell. And that's a second level Cleric spell in the PHB. There are plenty of others in the PHB alone. You are free to your own opinions. You are not free to make up your own facts. And claiming that WoTC had a "design committee that ... are paid to spend hours and hours tinkering and playtesting with a believable semi-coherent semi-consistent system" is a matter of straight fact. Either they did or they didn't. Now some WoTC designer could drop in and tell me that there was a committee of people paid primarily to world build* (that somehow had no outputs in a highly competative corporate culture). And I would take their word for it. But as things stand I consider that there's a beyond reasonable doubt case that they did not. And to be anything resembling effective, this committee would have had to have oversight of [I]every[/I] book produced. Just one errant spell can bring down an economy (Fabricate, Shapechange, Wall of Iron), or revolutionise trading and the legal system (Zone of Truth). One bad spell or item can upend an economy (Wall of Stone, Lyre of Building). Those are just spectacular worldbuilding failures in the 3.X PHB. If there was such a committee it clearly didn't have the influence it needed to to be able to cover the PHB. * Chatting over lunch and calling yourself a committee doesn't count. [/QUOTE]

Verification