Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8447066" data-attributes="member: 7023840">A thing can be &quot;high quality,&quot; and have &quot;broad appeal,&quot; and still be forced to make compromises- in fact, I'd argue that making those compromises is part of what drives the broad appeal.Because 5e is not, and cannot be, a niche product, it has to make compromises. To use one example that I think most people can agree with is the inclusion of legacy components and lore.5e includes legacy components. It has to use &quot;parts&quot; (rules, lore) from older editions. If the game designers were designing 5e from scratch, if they were making some &quot;white room&quot; best game ever using only the &quot;best practice&quot; design that has been learned over nearly 50 years, I'm guessing some of that legacy would be ditched. Which ones- the six ability scores? The weird mishmash of classes? The half-orc? Who knows? One person's sacred cow is another person's hamburger. We've already seen alignment marginalized over time- but also the difficulty in removing it completely; I don't think it would have been possible with 5e's release.The point of this is that part of the broad appeal of the game, part of the &quot;popularity&quot; is that it retains some continuity- that it continues to have those compromises. There is something for everyone, or for most people. There is both some modern design, and some continuity with the past.You can use this with many aspects of the game. It's an incredibly tough thing to design for broad appeal. It's easy to design something when you're only designing for a small group, and don't have to worry about large sales, or broad popularity.I'm reminded of the McDonald's example I heard of some time ago- the executive chef had some serious training and chops in terms of haute cuisine- top of class from CIA, and so on. But the reason why developing new products is so difficult isn't because they can't make all sorts of tasty things in their test kitchen; it's because the sheer scale that is required means that basic logistics and sourcing is the primary challenge for new menu items- not to mention that any dish has to be either be made with pre-exiting equipment or requires a serious investment, plus anything has to be easily made by that workforce. In short, it's a look at what types of design choices have to be made in different contexts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8447066, member: 7023840"] A thing can be "high quality," and have "broad appeal," and still be forced to make compromises- in fact, I'd argue that making those compromises is part of what drives the broad appeal. Because 5e is not, and cannot be, a niche product, it has to make compromises. To use one example that I think most people can agree with is the inclusion of legacy components and lore. 5e includes legacy components. It has to use "parts" (rules, lore) from older editions. If the game designers were designing 5e from scratch, if they were making some "white room" best game ever using only the "best practice" design that has been learned over nearly 50 years, I'm guessing some of that legacy would be ditched. Which ones- the six ability scores? The weird mishmash of classes? The half-orc? Who knows? One person's sacred cow is another person's hamburger. We've already seen alignment marginalized over time- but also the difficulty in removing it completely; I don't think it would have been possible with 5e's release. The point of this is that part of the broad appeal of the game, part of the "popularity" is that it retains some continuity- that it continues to have those compromises. There is something for everyone, or for most people. There is both some modern design, and some continuity with the past. You can use this with many aspects of the game. It's an incredibly tough thing to design for broad appeal. It's easy to design something when you're only designing for a small group, and don't have to worry about large sales, or broad popularity. I'm reminded of the McDonald's example I heard of some time ago- the executive chef had some serious training and chops in terms of haute cuisine- top of class from CIA, and so on. But the reason why developing new products is so difficult isn't because they can't make all sorts of tasty things in their test kitchen; it's because the sheer scale that is required means that basic logistics and sourcing is the primary challenge for new menu items- not to mention that any dish has to be either be made with pre-exiting equipment or requires a serious investment, plus anything has to be easily made by that workforce. In short, it's a look at what types of design choices have to be made in different contexts. [/QUOTE]

Verification