Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6267254" data-attributes="member: 95493">I think you raise an interesting point [MENTION=91777]Dungeoneer[/MENTION] but give it a slant I don't really agree with.You say "I would rather they make an interesting game that tries new things then a  bland by-the-committee game that just tries to please everybody.  Because you know who will ultimately play the latter game? Nobody."Except it isn't really like that. That isn't the scale that is to be judged. So, I disagree with that.What I think is that the designers clearly have to create a game they enjoy, but for smaller companies it is vital to make one they personally will play almost to the exclusion of all others because they aren't going to be selling enough copies to make others happy anyway. However, larger companies DO have to take the concerns of their customers into account. It is vital.I guess what I'm saying is that the "bland" option will be one that is counter to the game that made D&D the RPG leader. They've already recognized this and have done what they can to recapture the classic feel as much as possible. All designers have to work for their own goals to make sure they are happy and to produce what they want. Being happy with the end result isn't one of their stated goals. No doubt it will factor in, but it isn't the game they were looking to create (by itself). Instead they were looking for a game that captures that earlier feel in a new form. They've succeeded to some extent but in many ways those who know the older feel best are more important than making themselves happy. So, counter to other RPG's goals, they should seek to make as many people happy as possible. To get that committee together to get to a game that everyone can be happy with.13age is different, they sought to make a game that was 4e 2.0 and from accounts they seem to have succeeded. If they were trying to make a 5th edition with design goals similar to what WotC has put forward then they majorly failed. Happy or not, they wouldn't have succeeded at 5e. Happy or not their game would be bland to those who didn't enjoy 4e.In fact I would wager that WotC has gotten a fairly good feel for the classic era fairly well. I'm seeing plenty of AD&D 3e comments floating around. The part that worries me is that they haven't gotten enough D&D 3e era feel and same goes for 4e feel. If it had been up to me I probably would have done the 5e the way they are but also continued with 4e. The games and styles feel so incompatible that I don't see how they could ever merge those outlooks. And for 3e? Well I think that we would have either (i) found nice common ground once the 4e era concerns were out, or (ii) been excluded in this model to play more PF (or other retroclones) as it seems has kind of ended up anyway.But yeah, for question? Reflect their POV, preferences, or whatever? Only so much as that is their intention. If you are going to try my RPG then know I am making it to please me. Not even to please my friends, just me. With that said, I have no staff, no budget, no design goals except to make myself happy. If I had staff, budget, goal of "uniting the fanbase" or even any kind of actual expertise in this to do it professionally? Then I suspect I would have to design by committee to please as many as possible. That is the problem with being on top, you have to stay there.</blockquote>

Verification