Sean Reynolds' new company press release
- Thread starter Greatwyrm
- Start date
BlackMoria
First Post
I have followed Sean K Reynolds' prose over the years from various discussion groups and his website.
There is nothing sinister here...nor is any insult offered.
Sean is a blunt, straight up writer and may have 'roughier edges' than you or others may like. Of course he knows that there are gamers who can tell good design from bad. But there is a larger number who don't know - those whose basic assumption is that if it is in print, then it is balanced and well thought out.
Remember the Mystic Theurge discussions on this board? The number of people who thought the mystic theurge was 'broken' or too over the top. And the number who thought that it wasn't. If we all inherently recognize good design and balance, then why the number of Mystic Theruge threads? Or the number of 'this is broken' threads I have seen over the years.
You are finding offence where none is offered.
There is nothing sinister here...nor is any insult offered.
Sean is a blunt, straight up writer and may have 'roughier edges' than you or others may like. Of course he knows that there are gamers who can tell good design from bad. But there is a larger number who don't know - those whose basic assumption is that if it is in print, then it is balanced and well thought out.
Remember the Mystic Theurge discussions on this board? The number of people who thought the mystic theurge was 'broken' or too over the top. And the number who thought that it wasn't. If we all inherently recognize good design and balance, then why the number of Mystic Theruge threads? Or the number of 'this is broken' threads I have seen over the years.
You are finding offence where none is offered.
Krieg
First Post
*shrug*
For whatever reason Sean often comes off as an ass when expressing his opinion.
For whatever reason Sean often comes off as an ass when expressing his opinion.
Do you mean Fast Forward Entertainment or Fantasy Flight Games? If it is the latter I will have to respectfully disagree about the quality of their products, however if it is the former then I will happily shut up.Remathilis said:
Agreed 100%
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
A press release is one thing, good product is another. Sean's had a good track record, one that deserves a shot, no matter what one thinks of a press release. If his new company turns out poor or uninspiring material, THEN there's something to be turned off about.
(And incidentally, I would have liked the name "Skreyn Games" for his company myself - more of a play off the term "Brain Games"...)
P.S. - I wonder what he means by "the tools to recognize what's good and what's not?" Will they be including the whys and wherefores behind hte mechanics as well as the mechanics themselves - something I've been begging WotC to do regularly for years?
(And incidentally, I would have liked the name "Skreyn Games" for his company myself - more of a play off the term "Brain Games"...
)P.S. - I wonder what he means by "the tools to recognize what's good and what's not?" Will they be including the whys and wherefores behind hte mechanics as well as the mechanics themselves - something I've been begging WotC to do regularly for years?
edbonny
Explorer
I am not getting that at all. His press release speaks to enriching the gaming community via enlightenment with his unique perspective. Not all gamers will require such a service but I know of many who could do with such lessons. I also cannot fault someone seeking to cull out the bad gaming materials out thereGreatwyrm said:
Overall, Sean appears to be looking to raise the bar... a goal which I find to be worthy and admirable.
- Ed
green slime
First Post
Altamont Ravenard said:
?? Rapid shot I have heard of. Where did Rapid Rapid Shot come from?
UniversalMonster
Explorer
I was kinda bothered by it too, but I stopped reading SKR when he got all political a couple of years ago. Stick to pictures of Barenaked Ladies fighting over the PHB, Sean!
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
The proof will be in the (black) pudding. Sean is often abrasive, opinionated, and often wrong, in my opinion. So are a lot of other people. He's written some good stuff, too, though, and if he can put out some quality material and keep the ego in check (especially in dealing with people here and elsewhere), I'll give his new company a serious look. When you are speaking for yourself, you can get away with a lot of crap that won't fly when you are trying to run a business.
I tell you what, though. If I read anything similar to that press release in the foreward of one of his books, I'd put it back on the shelf and never look at their stuff again.
I tell you what, though. If I read anything similar to that press release in the foreward of one of his books, I'd put it back on the shelf and never look at their stuff again.
I have a theory about "bad" game design and why the online RPG community is so forgiving of it. It has two parts. The first part addresses what makes a "bad" game and why one person's crap is another person's treasure. The second part delves into the history of RPG design.
An RPG can hook you into it in one of two ways. Either the surface elements - the setting, the art, the concept - are so compelling that you want to play it, or the mechanics offer a more efficient, interesting, or fun way to do something.
Games with objectively bad design but good sales usually have a very compelling setting, good art, and/or a concept that happens to hit the current definition of cool right on the nose. These games stand out as "bad" because people play them despite poorly designed rules. The reward in terms of feel outweighs the mechanical hindrances.
I think the Internet amplifies these games' popularity, since a lot of people on the 'net read but don't play games. In these cases, the bad mechanics never even become an issue. There's two games I can think of off the top of my head that have vocal followings online, but I've never met a person in meatspace who bought and liked them.
So that's my first theory - the surface elements of a design can prove so compelling that a gamer will ignore poorly designed rules. The prospect of playing a super-intelligent ham sandwich outweighs the poor rules used to model the world of super-intelligent ham sandwiches.
So how did we get to this point? How can surface issues mask bad game mechanics?
I think that, historically, AD&D 1 and 2 were so muddled and confused that people expect bad mechanics. If the fastest car in the world can go 15 mph, a design that can shudder along at 17 mph is a breakthrough. I also suspect that a lot of people houserule or revise material without a second thought. I've seen plenty of games of, for instance, Feng Shui where the health and initiative systems were kicked out the door and replaced with a spur of the moment adjustment to the game. Despite having unwieldy mechanics in those spots, Feng Shui is still a fun game.
Really, that's what it comes down to. Is the game fun? In some cases, the fun of being an intelligent ham sandwich is enough to make you put up with poorly designed rules. If a gamer develops an emotional attachment to a game, which is entirely possible given how personal running an RPG campaign can be, he might even grow to like them. He's like the young couple with a newborn. Of course their kid is the smartest, cutest, healthiest baby in creation. It's *their* kid. I've never met anyone who had an average kid. By the same token, it's the rare fan of a niche game who's willing to admit it has flaws. Usually, you hear the same, tired line about "D&D is popular because people are too dumb to know any better" or something similar.
The games that link surface coolness with good or adequate mechanics are games that go on to become breakout hits. IME, games with a cool setting and poor mechanics tend to develop a fanatical, niche following or flare up and die in a short cycle.
Personally, I think this process is in the midst of breaking down. D&D 3e is such a slick design that non-WotC publishers are going to have a lot of trouble competing with it on design terms. Making a game that was better than 2e was like outrunning a cripple. Trying to outdesign D&D 3e is like bringing a soapbox derby car to the Indy 500. Other companies lack the respect for game design and the resources that WotC puts towards creating stuff.
BTW, the only reason that WotC stuff seems more "broken" than the typical d20 publisher is because:
A. The typical WotC book has at least 20 times as many people buying and reading it.
B. The "baby effect" I described above prevents many people who follow d20 companies from seeing the flaws in their products.
Oh, there's one final thing I forgot about - RPGs are a social activity. As long as you're having fun, the rules can be as bad as you want them to be. A lot of games like Munchkin or Grave Robbers from Outer Space aren't very good designs when compared to boardgames like Puerto Rico or Carcasonne, but the act of playing them is socially enjoyable. It's fun to knock you buddy down a few levels in Munchkin, even if the game is heavily based on luck and tends to take too long. It's a social game. RPGs fall into the same category.
An RPG can hook you into it in one of two ways. Either the surface elements - the setting, the art, the concept - are so compelling that you want to play it, or the mechanics offer a more efficient, interesting, or fun way to do something.
Games with objectively bad design but good sales usually have a very compelling setting, good art, and/or a concept that happens to hit the current definition of cool right on the nose. These games stand out as "bad" because people play them despite poorly designed rules. The reward in terms of feel outweighs the mechanical hindrances.
I think the Internet amplifies these games' popularity, since a lot of people on the 'net read but don't play games. In these cases, the bad mechanics never even become an issue. There's two games I can think of off the top of my head that have vocal followings online, but I've never met a person in meatspace who bought and liked them.
So that's my first theory - the surface elements of a design can prove so compelling that a gamer will ignore poorly designed rules. The prospect of playing a super-intelligent ham sandwich outweighs the poor rules used to model the world of super-intelligent ham sandwiches.
So how did we get to this point? How can surface issues mask bad game mechanics?
I think that, historically, AD&D 1 and 2 were so muddled and confused that people expect bad mechanics. If the fastest car in the world can go 15 mph, a design that can shudder along at 17 mph is a breakthrough. I also suspect that a lot of people houserule or revise material without a second thought. I've seen plenty of games of, for instance, Feng Shui where the health and initiative systems were kicked out the door and replaced with a spur of the moment adjustment to the game. Despite having unwieldy mechanics in those spots, Feng Shui is still a fun game.
Really, that's what it comes down to. Is the game fun? In some cases, the fun of being an intelligent ham sandwich is enough to make you put up with poorly designed rules. If a gamer develops an emotional attachment to a game, which is entirely possible given how personal running an RPG campaign can be, he might even grow to like them. He's like the young couple with a newborn. Of course their kid is the smartest, cutest, healthiest baby in creation. It's *their* kid. I've never met anyone who had an average kid. By the same token, it's the rare fan of a niche game who's willing to admit it has flaws. Usually, you hear the same, tired line about "D&D is popular because people are too dumb to know any better" or something similar.
The games that link surface coolness with good or adequate mechanics are games that go on to become breakout hits. IME, games with a cool setting and poor mechanics tend to develop a fanatical, niche following or flare up and die in a short cycle.
Personally, I think this process is in the midst of breaking down. D&D 3e is such a slick design that non-WotC publishers are going to have a lot of trouble competing with it on design terms. Making a game that was better than 2e was like outrunning a cripple. Trying to outdesign D&D 3e is like bringing a soapbox derby car to the Indy 500. Other companies lack the respect for game design and the resources that WotC puts towards creating stuff.
BTW, the only reason that WotC stuff seems more "broken" than the typical d20 publisher is because:
A. The typical WotC book has at least 20 times as many people buying and reading it.
B. The "baby effect" I described above prevents many people who follow d20 companies from seeing the flaws in their products.
Oh, there's one final thing I forgot about - RPGs are a social activity. As long as you're having fun, the rules can be as bad as you want them to be. A lot of games like Munchkin or Grave Robbers from Outer Space aren't very good designs when compared to boardgames like Puerto Rico or Carcasonne, but the act of playing them is socially enjoyable. It's fun to knock you buddy down a few levels in Munchkin, even if the game is heavily based on luck and tends to take too long. It's a social game. RPGs fall into the same category.
Similar Threads
