Monte Cook - Pros

[GM Dave]

I'm afraid that I am the opposite of the majority.

I take at least 80% of the magic items, monsters, and DCs for hazzards as presented in the rules and usually toss them in the trash.

When supplements come out, I review the impact of player chosen options before approving. I often find things from 'Designers', especially in the power creep books, that need consideration before allowing.

I know of several 'holes' in 3e and 4e that require a GM to 'fix' the problems that were missed by the game designers. The GM has to make a ruling on what will be allowed by the players in their character creation to avoid a player taking too much advantage of a design or a designer's choice of words.

Right now, I play a mixture of PF and 4e. My players use PF which I limited to the core book, advanced player's guide, and ultimate books (stating Psionics was not in a Paizo product). I use 4e style for making up the monsters, their abilities, and their roles in combat.

There is not a rule system around currently that would 'sanction' this behaviour but this is how I found that I save game prep time and allow players to play the characters that they want.

 

[Umbran]

Do I think the designers should provide what they think is lousy? Or that I want the game to not be designed by professionals? This question means nothing without context!

No, it simply has multiple meanings without context. One of them is pretty silly. If anyone doing design is giving stuff they think works poorly, they probably shouldn't be on the project.

But yes - maybe you don't care if the game is designed by "professionals". Is being a professional any guarantee of getting a good result?

I am perfectly happy to get a good design from a talented and bright amateur.

 

[Hassassin]

5 if it means: "Should we give you the rules we think work the best instead of the ones that don't?"

1 if it means: "Should we only publish rules written by our professional designers and ignore any good ideas playtesters come up with?"

Seems like a silly question.

 

[Tehnai]

I voted 2.

Although it is important to have some input by the designers (not all of us have what it takes to build a game from scratch), roleplaying games are fundamentally about the gaming group. A game should try to encompass a vague group of "feels" to be adapted however a given group wants, and possibly suggestions on how to implement that.

For example, let's take Savage Worlds, a game that attempts to emulate "pulpiness" in any genres. The system itself is pretty simple (delivering on it's "fast, furious, fun" motto), and is complemented with a bunch of different setting books for people who want to play fantasy pulp, or western horror pulp, or sci-fi pulp.

The interesting problem Dungeons and Dragons is facing is defining exactly what D&D is. I myself believe that D&D is it's own "feel". Hell, I've used 4E to, quite successfully, run a modern dark fantasy game about the world slowly mashing into a shadowfell-like counterpart. It still felt, to me and to my group, as D&D. Basically, the designers need to figure out the essence of what is D&D, and let me do the work.

They are the theory, we are the practice. Theory is fun and all, but it's useless without the public putting it to use.

All in all, the designers have to give us a system that let's us do whatever we want with.

 

[pauljathome]

Seems like a silly question.

I really disliked this article. I disagree with pretty much all of his assumptions

In the survey at the end I answered 5 to all the questions. ALL aspects of the game should be decided by GM AND players (with, admittedly, the GM opinion often being more important than any individual player).

And I doubt that there is ANYTHING that we all (or even 90% of us) think essential to "D&D".

 

[Incenjucar]

Clearly what we need are ametuers, or professional designers providing what they think is worst.

 

[Mokona]

Monte failed to summarize last week's poll results when he posted Uniting the Editions, Part 3. We're left to wonder if these EN World poll results are at all close to what Wizards of the Coast saw over at Wizards.com.

 

[scadgrad]

I voted for #1 since these great new designers keep moving us away from that numbskull Gygax's version, riddled as it is with all these glaring problems.

WotC seems to be going down the tried-and-true Ford Edsel school of design. I am teh depressed.

 

[Herschel]

The key is for the professional designers to put forth the gamne they want while giving the amateurs the impression their view counts. The end goal is to put out the best game possible while actually framing it as no big change (especially as it isn't a big change anyway) for the comfort of the existing fanbase.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I think it's important to keep in mind that this poll does not address, in any way, the value of non-professional designer contributions. And what does it really mean to be a pro? Should we stick to the Olympic standard and count someone as a pro if they're making money for their game designs?

I'm grateful that there are people who spend their work days working on games for me to play. I think their contributions as vital (I voted 1). As a DM I appreciate that I don't have to review every power, every choice my players make, trusting that in 99% of the cases the items/powers/feats/choices are balanced and work well with the rest of the system. I don't have time for the alternative, so I'm damn glad they're there.

At the same time, I think it's great to have non-professional contributions, and I think we have a huge variety of that already. The act of DMing is an intrinsically creative endeavor, even if you're DMing something that was written by someone else. So it's no surprise that there's a continuum that includes all kinds of contributions -- from boards like these where people kick ideas around, to open submissions for articles and adventures, writing adventures for LFR and other living campaigns -- and all kinds of 3rd party options as well, both 3rd and 4th edition. Sure, there's less third party contribution to the 4e world than there was for 3rd edition, but it's still out there.

So, anyway, I'm damn glad there are pros out there making our games. And I'm damn glad there's a whole continuum of other people out there making their contributions, too. And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.