Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flying Toaster" data-source="post: 9792227" data-attributes="member: 7052563">This comment reminds me again of the Civilization games.  In a 2014 interview with Ars Technica, franchise creator Sid Meier said that the Civ team at Firaxis had a “rule of thirds” design philosophy for new Civilization entries: one-third traditional gameplay, one-third improvements on the last entry, and one-third brand new ideas.  Each new edition has introduced features that have been hailed by some as just what the franchise needed, while proving to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for players who were mostly satisfied with what they had.  The arguments between the various camps on the CivFanatics forums were remarkably similar to those seen in the D&D Edition Wars, because they involve the same core tension between fixing problems and leaving well enough alone (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”).But what happens when people disagree about what is broken and needs fixing?  Even if the game designers have a coherent philosophy, there will always be disagreement among fans about what the game should be.  Designers may not be able to accommodate all preferences even with optional rules.  Instead of chasing trends, second guessing themselves, or giving up on new editions altogether, designers ought to think about what they really want to do, because balancing different imperatives is never easy.  It might well be beneficial for the D&D design team to be more forthcoming about their goals.  I have not read them yet, but apparently the Daggerheart rules go into a surprising amount of detail about exactly what they intended to do with their game design, what kind of play you can or cannot expect from the game, what other games they drew on for inspiration, and even an admission that the game is not for everyone (something which really ought to be routine, but instead feels like bracing honesty).I was first drawn to EN World by M.T. Black’s ongoing series of articles on old Dragon magazines, and one of the recurring themes is the evolution of Gary Gygax’s ideas on game design.  There was an editorial in an early issue from the late 70’s (wish I could remember the number...) in which he expressed deep ambivalence about how the gaming hobby was turning into an industry.  He even asked whether game companies should be chasing profits by cranking out an endless series of new variants and supplements, requiring players to choose between shelling out money indefinitely or jumping off the treadmill.  He almost sounded like an old 60’s hippie, or one of my fellow 90’s Gen-Xers complaining about rock stars selling out!  Deeply ironic considering how early this was in the history of the RPG hobby, and the very commercial direction that TSR would take just a few years later.  Of course without new editions or supplements, every game would be a one-and-done, and most likely no one could even make a living making games, let alone make profits.I sometimes wonder what it is like in that alternate Prime Material Plane where mellow 70’s Wargamer Gary chose not to polymorph into uptight 80’s Corporate Gary.  Did D&D continue to dominate the industry, or did it fade into a historical footnote as some other game took over?  But then I love counterfactuals.</blockquote>

Verification