Monte Cook - Pros

[nedjer]

Videogame companies, serious gaming labs and larger companies using gamification all spend heavily on psychology, education and technology professionals working on games design.

This doesn't effect TTRPGs on the level of a Mass Effect 3. But does feed through to TTRPGs, e.g. the somewhat overplayed MMORPG influence on 4e or the language-based, modularity planned for 5e.

Today's WotC post on 'faster . . . better' would be pretty risky/ in danger of being dragged-up later if the game wasn't demonstrably 'faster . . . better' at release. So, it's maybe likely that the lexicon design and the playtests already back-up the post.

 

[Mokona]

Poll: When it comes to D&D, rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "not at all important" and 5 being "vital to the game."

Q: Professional game designers providing what they think works best

Answers:
1 - Not at all important
2
3
4
5 - Vital to the game

We now have "official" Wizards of the Coast numbers to compare with EN World.

EN World % - EN World Count - Rating - WotC Count - WotC %
23.77% - 29 - Five Stars - 529 - 10.3%
33.61% - 41 - Four Stars - 1431 - 27.9%
23.77% - 29 - Three Stars - 1989 - 38.8%
9.84% - 12 - Two Stars - 784 - 15.3%
9.02% - 11 - One Star - 389 - 7.6%

 

[Ranganathan]

Moderate. I mean they do quite literally, know best....for the game "code", that however, does not mean they know best for every iteration of the game put together by the players.

They should do what they think is best for the structure and foundation of the game, but they shouldn't do "what they think is best" for players and DMs.

I would disagree, vehemently. Look at all the powergaming loopholes, feat taxes feats, deadend choices, munchkin wet dream feats, glaringly over powered combos, the errata necessary to play the game (4E), and outright errors that have "escaped" the "professionals."

Yet, the players managed to find many / most of these within a week or two of release. Hire a "pro" to spitball it, hire a gamer to make it playable.

 

[Mengu]

I voted 5. We don't know what we want. Too many voices, too many opinions, not enough pig picture visions. The only people who can be making educated decisions are the ones behind the designing wheel. I think they are the most important piece of the machine.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would disagree, vehemently. Look at all the powergaming loopholes, feat taxes feats, deadend choices, munchkin wet dream feats, glaringly over powered combos, the errata necessary to play the game (4E), and outright errors that have "escaped" the "professionals."

Yet, the players managed to find many / most of these within a week or two of release. Hire a "pro" to spitball it, hire a gamer to make it playable.

Having "bugs" does not mean they aren't good at what they do. You notice these things in TTRPGs because it takes so long for them to update them. These kind of things are common in games of any size and shape or type, it's just easier to update quickly in a digital game. You also realize that "hiring a gamer" would make them a "pro", and therefore set up a logical fallacy.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is, of course, the issue of whether or not said pro is actually GOOD at their job.

I was a professional carpenter at one time, making money and everything, but that doesn't mean I should be writing the building code.

 

[Ranganathan]

Having "bugs" does not mean they aren't good at what they do. You notice these things in TTRPGs because it takes so long for them to update them. These kind of things are common in games of any size and shape or type, it's just easier to update quickly in a digital game. You also realize that "hiring a gamer" would make them a "pro", and therefore set up a logical fallacy.

You realize that gamer =/= game designer, right? So hiring a gamer doesn't make them a pro game designer. There's an entirely different mindset, approach, and skill set involved in playing a game as there is in designing a game.

 

[Sunseeker]

You realize that gamer =/= game designer, right? So hiring a gamer doesn't make them a pro game designer. There's an entirely different mindset, approach, and skill set involved in playing a game as there is in designing a game.

Which is why a gamer isn't going to be able to provide good feedback on the core design of a game. If they are, then they're basically no different than the designers.

 

[IanB]

What this question is really asking, I think, is "should we discard sacred cows of D&D for 'better' designed elements from the latest hot indie RPGs".

For me that's a big no; they might make a 'better' game in a vaccuum, sure, but if I wanted to play a better game than D&D I've had that option for YEARS. I like my clunky old hit points, ability scores, etc.

 

[Pour]

Am I the only one who thought this was a Pros/Cons of having Monte Cook on the design team, which I imagined would be followed up by an unqualified scale from 1-5? That would have been funny.