The Parable of the Toaster | When "It's a Player Issue" is no excuse

[Thomas Shey]

I am not an arbiter no, that is not a role I have, it isn't a decision i have power over, nor does it suggest I would exercise that power if I was given it. Its just a value that I encourage others to hold because I believe its good to hold it.

Yeah, I think people need to seriously learn the difference between "I demand this be done in this way" and "I think it would be a good idea if something was done this way". They aren't the same statement.

 

[Umbran]

Ah so some preferences must be accomodated but others can be disregarded, and you are the arbiter of that. OK.

Also, we can note that this approach falls apart when the desires are more complicated, or in conflict.

Take that steakhouse, and instead of the question being about veganism, what if it is about being Kosher or Halal? Or the food is being prepared for someone who is incredibly allergic to nuts? These things can impose requirements on the kitchen that impact how it performs as a basic steakhouse.

There are times when a particular goal is best served with specialization. And so long as it doesn't infringe on others, some games should be allowed to fulfill those goals with specialization.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Changing your game to appeal to the complaints of people can lead to bad things. After all, D&D 4E was designed to address various complaints like combat balance, resource attribution/management, and over simulation that leads to excessive bookkeeping.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You have opinions? Cool. Say, "For me, it would be better if this game had X." That puts it solidly in the realm of your own needs.

There's not a lot of "For me..." in your position as stated. In effect, you've seemed to claim that what's good is good for everyone (which is false), and more of what's good for everyone is better for everyone (also false), and you know what is and isn't good for everyone (which remains to be seen, but I am skeptical, to say the least).

And the rest of us seem to be chopped liver. I am referring less to control, and more to the fact that your position has given no space to anyone else's thoughts on what is good, useful, or desirable.

This is about my speech not being suitably deferential?

For us, Masks was like this from the other side, the teenage supers premise very much wanted to center the situations a superhero gets put into, but the game thought it could get away with glossing over it, and I watched it break down at the table in a way that I can't really just blame my players for.

There were more in the rest of the post preceding it as well about the viewpoint i was describing.

 

[soviet]

Changing your game to appeal to the complaints of people can lead to bad things. After all, D&D 4E was designed to address various complaints like combat balance, resource attribution/management, and over simulation that leads to excessive bookkeeping.

4e was the best designed WotC edition.

 

[Lanefan]

What part of the marketing captured your imagination?

The pre-books - Worlds and Monsters and (I forget the other one now) really caught my eye, along with some things the developers said that, in hindsight, I probably interpreted a bit too optimistically.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The pre-books - Worlds and Monsters and (I forget the other one now) really caught my eye, along with some things the developers said that, in hindsight, I probably interpreted a bit too optimistically.

Reminds me of how i felt about the pre-5e legends and lore columns describing a simple base with modular systens layered atop it to support different styles of play.

i thought it was going to be like 4e, but in reverse where they would start with essentials-like classes and build the complexity back in atop them.

Except with different routes that would give you radically different end products-- e.g. survival systems vs. Domain play vs. 4e anime-esque powers, each as an optional add on for the same base.

 

[Lanefan]

The designer's intent doesn't sanctify, but it does signify.

I know the issues of analogies, but I will use one here, and I will use a colorful word in it, to express my frustration at this conversation:

If my neighbor and I are both working on projects outside, and he comes over and asks if he can borrow the screwdriver on my bench, and brings it back a few minutes later saying, "This sucks, it didn't drive nails for crap!" my response should not be, "Well, the designer's intent to make a screwdriver does not sanctify...". My response should be more like, "What kind of dumbass are you?"

Thing is, to make this analogy work your neighbour doesn't see the screwdriver on your bench, he sees a box. You know what tool is in the box but he doesn't, he needs to borrow a tool and so you hand him the box in hopes the contents will be of any use. Not until he opens the box and tries to use the contents does he realize just how unsuitable that tool is for the job at hand. Who's at fault? Him, for not specifying his needs more clearly; or you, for not giving him what he needed; or both, or neither?

Games can be like that, except there's three voices rather than just two. The marketing says one thing, the game rules (i.e. the designer(s)) say another, and actual end-use play says a third; and some or all of those voices may be quite obscure in what they're trying to say.

 

[Lanefan]

One might consider that, but those people would be wrong. Just look at the broad universe of specialized games that are designed well. If this is what your "feedback" rests on, it's no wonder you feel slighted.

Utility and specialization are different considerations.

One of the redeeming features of that "broad universe of specialized games that are designed well" would be, I would think, that they're also designed (and marketed!!!) with utility in mind: the rules are clear, the design goal is clear, and play expectations are clear.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread is not about simple feedback and commentary, its about designers having a responsibility to design according to a set of external principles.

If there is a hierarchy, though, I absolutely do assert that the designer's preferences trump any given potential user in design. Conversely, when deciding whether to buy or how to use the product, the end user reigns supreme.

And when the designer's preferences and the end user's how-to-use-it disagree, who is right? That's the whole question here, it seems.