So what's gold gonna be for?

[SpiderMonkey]

Of course, heroin sells pretty well too, but I don't think anyone thinks its a good idea to promote that.

Just because something sells doesn't mean it's actually good for the players, or the hobby. In my experience the overdone PCs who are dripping with powers and magic items get seriously boring very quickly. Players think they want to play those characters, but if they have any maturity at all they'll get bored at the lack of challenge. Extreme super-powers are addictive, but ultimately game-destroying.

False analogy: just because you don't like an element of the game does not make it like heroin. Not analogous at all.

Just because something sells, from a business standpoint, is reason enough to sell it. WOTC is not a social service organization. Whether or not it's "good for the players or hobby" is not relevant. You seem to be using these terms to conflate your opinion with what is good for the hobby. Again, not analogous.

 

[AllisterH]

"Awesome."

Sometimes known as Chiang-Quai, meaning "the genre that is better than all the others."

Less commonly referred to, by infidels, as "4X" - Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate.

HEH. Thanks.

So what is Masters of Orion 3 and Star Control 3 then called? The Uwe Bolls?

re: Sell things players want

I'm not so sure this is a good thing and WOTC itself recognizes that. For example, in MTG, there's a restricted list of cards that they'll never reprint even though they would sell like gangbusters but for the lonterm health of M:TG, WOTC will never reprint them.

So, no, what sells wonderfully might NOT be in the best interests of WOTC.

 

[Clavis]

False analogy: just because you don't like an element of the game does not make it like heroin. Not analogous at all.

Just because something sells, from a business standpoint, is reason enough to sell it. WOTC is not a social service organization. Whether or not it's "good for the players or hobby" is not relevant. You seem to be using these terms to conflate your opinion with what is good for the hobby. Again, not analogous.

But my hobby is not a business. And I don't have to buy something just because it would be good for WOTC's business if I did buy it. I will choose to buy something based on whether or not it's good for the game. Furthermore, I am more likely to want to buy game materials written by people who I believe care about the game, and not their bottom line.

My original point was that just because somethings sells doesn't mean it's right to sell it. My analogy wasn't false at all. Yes, I'm one of those who believes corporations ought to care about things other than money. I care about whether or not game-destroying materials are sold as official, because it directly impacts the expectations of new players.

 

[Kraydak]

I personally think that Empire building is a bad match for table top RPGs. The demand on the DM is far greater than in a dungeon crawl campaign (who needs to run many non-allied factions simultaneously, with far more power at his immediate disposal). Such games run a far greater risk of becoming a mother-may-I or railroads. While there may be individual DMs and groups up to it, empire building is a niche market at best.

The obvious solution is splitting the DMing load by going to an MMORPG system with every faction being run by players. It has been tried, and to my knowledge (I haven't made a detailed study) the only succesful one is EVE-Online. Which, market scale-wise doesn't even register as a blip on WoW's bootkicking scale. Some of that is EVE's mediocre design, mind, but the difference in numbers is striking, as has been the failure of every other PvP based player run faction MMORPG I've ever heard of.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

But my hobby is not a business. And I don't have to buy something just because it would be good for WOTC's business if I did buy it. I will choose to buy something based on whether or not it's good for the game. Furthermore, I am more likely to want to buy game materials written by people who I believe care about the game, and not their bottom line.

My original point was that just because somethings sells doesn't mean it's right to sell it. My analogy wasn't false at all. Yes, I'm one of those who believes corporations ought to care about things other than money. I care about whether or not game-destroying materials are sold as official, because it directly impacts the expectations of new players.

And if there are enough people who agree with you, their buying practices will impact those sales, and the vendor will have to react accordingly. I like having options. I don't want somebody deciding what's good for me or my hobby, and getting rid of options based on those subjective *value judgements*

However, *my* point is that conflating your opinion with what is "good for gaming" (whatever that means) is a false analogy, and pretty much labelling other playstyles as wrong.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Players think they want to play those characters, but if they have any maturity at all they'll get bored at the lack of challenge.

Are you trying to suggest that butt-kickers are either deluded or immature? That's the way it sounds to me, and either way you're being insulting.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No. A DM that fails to take into the capabilities of the characters when designing challenges is not doing their job. If necessary, the DM should be making adjustments to fit their game. One wouldn't expect a DM of a low magic campaign to be throwing in monsters only capable of being hit only by +5 weapons if the best item in the party is +1 unless either there is some other way to defeat the monster or the monster serves some purpose other than to fight. So, why shouldn't the DM be adjusting the challenges for a party in which all or some of the characters are not optimized to the default assumption of core?

Sometimes you run into the catch-22 in which either the optimized characters can just walk through every monster without a scratch, without needing the non-optimized characters at all, or else the non-optimized characters are in over their heads and keep dying in fights that challenge the optimized characters.

 

[Clavis]

Are you trying to suggest that butt-kickers are either deluded or immature? That's the way it sounds to me, and either way you're being insulting.

Action is what the game is about, so there's certainly nothing wrong with players who want to kick some monster butt.

In my experience, however, the game breaks down when PCs have too many powers. It becomes more and more difficult from a DM to create thrilling challenges. Furthermore, the player loses the thrill of acquiring power when power comes easily. So, to maintain the player's thrill of kicking butt, the PC's power level needs to increased only slowly. It's human nature to want a lot of power quickly. In my experience, however, players have a more satisfying game experience when they are constantly acquiring small power increases, rather than getting a lot of power quickly.

 

[gizmo33]

False analogy: just because you don't like an element of the game does not make it like heroin. Not analogous at all.

Why not? It's his analogy. If I don't like heroin, and I don't like a game element, then the two have that in common and the analogy stands. Granted, it's a bit exaggerated. Just because you don't like the implications of an analogy doesn't make it a false analogy. If he's trying to suggest that an element of DnD is unhealthy for you the way heroin is, then it's a simple matter of saying "I don't agree".

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Action is what the game is about, so there's certainly nothing wrong with players who want to kick some monster butt.

In my experience, however, the game breaks down when PCs have too many powers. It becomes more and more difficult from a DM to create thrilling challenges. Furthermore, the player loses the thrill of acquiring power when power comes easily. So, to maintain the player's thrill of kicking butt, the PC's power level needs to increased only slowly. It's human nature to want a lot of power quickly. In my experience, however, players have a more satisfying game experience when they are constantly acquiring small power increases, rather than getting a lot of power quickly.

Now if you'd have worded it this way, I wouldn't have taken umbrage. I actually agree 100%. Because you've limited your claims to your experience (which syncs with mine), your statements here are more valid than in previous posts.

I just tend to take exception to claims of badwrongfun, regardless of how they're worded. The funny thing is, I actually agree with your point: I prefer slow increases in power, and I'd like a game where money is usuable outside of combat concerns without worries for sub-optimization.

The key word here is "prefer." I apologize about the rather polemic nature of my previous replies to your statements.