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

[payn]

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.

When it says screwdriver in the instructions and you want a hammer instead, its not the screwdriver designer's fault.

 

[Lanefan]

That's true, but if you drive your car into the ocean, you don't have any right to complain about it being ruined just because you wanted it to be a boat.

Unless the marketing had somehow led me to believe otherwise, in which case I have every right to complain.

Fine print shouldn't (although, sadly, it often does) absolve false or misleading advertising in any realm.

 

[soviet]

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.

This analogy is getting quite tortured.

I think the person who's paid no money and done no research, and is simply blindly reaching into someone else's box of tools hoping the random thing he picks up serves the exact function he needs, is not entitled to complain about the result.

 

[soviet]

Unless the marketing had somehow led me to believe otherwise, in which case I have every right to complain.

Fine print shouldn't (although, sadly, it often does) absolve false or misleading advertising in any realm.

'It said fighting, there must be a detailed combat sequence with flanking bonuses' is the customer misleading themselves.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, I got my hopes up with that modularity piece they promised in early 5e playtests, where you could play it like any prior edition just by using the right modules, but didn't hold my breath; and sure enough by the time 5e came out that modularity was nowhere to be seen.

 

[Lanefan]

When it says screwdriver in the instructions and you want a hammer instead, its not the screwdriver designer's fault.

Except it doesn't say screwdriver, it says handheld multidirectional torque generator, which is bafflegab to most people.

 

[payn]

Except it doesn't say screwdriver, it says handheld multidirectional torque generator, which is bafflegab to most people.

 

[soviet]

Except it doesn't say screwdriver, it says handheld multidirectional torque generator, which is bafflegab to most people.

If you're talking about Masks, no it doesn't. The language used on the back cover blurb and the adverts is straightforward English.

 

[Gradine]

Except it doesn't say screwdriver, it says handheld multidirectional torque generator, which is bafflegab to most people.

Just poking my head back in here to comment that "bafflegab" is a wonderful word that is both literally accurate and deeply ironic in this exact usage.

 

[bsss]

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.

They are different considerations, yes, and can dovetail: I agree that focused design can create high utility in its specialty. However, it seems like what's being asked for is some kind of maximalist "utility", as if a game like Masks could just simply add something --- anything --- and the designer or us should "consider" it solely for the reason of casting a wider net with a broader scope. I see it as, Masks could target heroes of any age, or have detailed crafting mechanics, and yield some hypothetical net increase in "utility", but why, if that's not what the designer wants? Design isn't linearly related to breadth.