Monte Cook speaks ... and he doesn't hate 3.5!

[Olive]

Re: Re: Monte Cook speaks ... and he doesn't hate 3.5!

Since I'm the only one who used the phrase "sour grapes" in the closed thread I must assume that quote was addressing my post.

It's a pretty common phrase, I wouldn't take it personally...

 

[rounser]

Even with his remarks on 3.5, Mr. Cook said nothing that is surprising, but in fact reciprocated much of the community outlook, "Hey, there is some good and some bad."

Why don't the designers air their revisions in a forum like this to sound out the general feeling about them, instead of taking for granted that their taste is everyone elses'? It's not like it's a complete overhaul of the ruleset - it's a revision of a game we all know. Is it for reasons of practicality, professionalism, tradition, arrogance, expertise, or a combination of all of these? Or, have they successfully sounded out gamers on the ideas through correspondence with the playtesters?

 

[Kai Lord]

Re: Re: Re: Monte Cook speaks ... and he doesn't hate 3.5!

It's a pretty common phrase, I wouldn't take it personally...

Yes but its a term I coined in the 80's, along with "Pardon my French."

Seriously though, since it is such a common phrase, the fact that he put it in quotes suggested it was a direct reference, and I just wanted to clarify.

 

[The_Gneech]

Why don't the designers air their revisions in a forum like this to sound out the general feeling about them, instead of taking for granted that their taste is everyone elses'? It's not like it's a complete overhaul of the ruleset - it's a revision of a game we all know. Is it for reasons of practicality, professionalism, tradition, arrogance, expertise, or a combination of all of these? Or, have they successfully sounded out gamers on the ideas through correspondence with the playtesters?

1. That leads to "design by committee," which sucks
2. That leads to long, pointless flamewars about design minutiae
3. That leads to people glomming on to some half-baked, untested rule and going off about how broken the new system is
4. Would you want every troll on the internet to look at YOUR work before you were finished?
   [/list=1]
   
   -The Gneech

 

[BryonD]

deleted

 

[TiQuinn]

1. That leads to "design by committee," which sucks
2. That leads to long, pointless flamewars about design minutiae
3. That leads to people glomming on to some half-baked, untested rule and going off about how broken the new system is
4. Would you want every troll on the internet to look at YOUR work before you were finished?
   [/list=1]
   
   -The Gneech

1. 
   
   All of which leads to a product that takes 5 years to complete, if it ever gets completed at all, and some very disenchanted game designers.

 

[BryonD]

1. That leads to "design by committee," which sucks
2. That leads to long, pointless flamewars about design minutiae
3. That leads to people glomming on to some half-baked, untested rule and going off about how broken the new system is
4. Would you want every troll on the internet to look at YOUR work before you were finished?
   [/list=1]
   
   -The Gneech

1. 
   
   You are dead on there.
   
   And, if you think we have bickering now, imagine how it would be if everyone was saying "Obviously it sucks. I offered them MY great idea and they just ignored me."

 

[rounser]

That leads to "design by committee," which sucks

That leads to long, pointless flamewars about design minutiae

That leads to people glomming on to some half-baked, untested rule and going off about how broken the new system is

Would you want every troll on the internet to look at YOUR work before you were finished?

Reductio ad absurdum on your part, methinks...not 1000 internet trolls trying to design the game, hell no. Just a list of changes in flavour that you can point at and say "that idea sounds sucky, please don't include archetype-less mystic theurges and lame magic paladin horses" and "that idea sounds good, spontaneous casting for druid and three types of special weapon types sounds like a keeper". We'll do that anyway, but by then it's too late.

Of course, it'll never happen. We'll get what we're given.

 

[TiQuinn]

Reductio ad absurdum on your part, methinks...not 1000 internet trolls trying to design the game, hell no. Just a list of changes in flavour that you can point at and say "that idea sounds sucky, please don't include archetype-less mystic theurges and lame magic paladin horses" and "that idea sounds good, spontaneous casting for druid and three types of special weapon types sounds like a keeper". We'll do that anyway, but by then it's too late.

Of course, it'll never happen. We'll get what we're given.

How is that any better than what's happening with 3.5? For every person that says one idea is bad, there's another that says it's great. You still get the split consensus, and you still get the bickering.

 

[rounser]

You still get the split consensus, and you still get the bickering.

I know what you're getting at, large groups of people will never agree totally, and you shouldn't expect them to, but they can flag things as questionable or potential problem areas which might get through a small group of opinions without a ripple...most especially when it comes to the concepts and flavour surrounding mechanics and what they imply (autosummoning paladin mount, druid with even more furries), rather than the mechanics themselves.