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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5547486" data-attributes="member: 18280">I've played far too many games to simply buy that anymore.Game design is hard work, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that the people who wrote Game X are "smarter than you" (let alone "a lot").The other part is true, though -- any game that uses "knife edge" balance (as opposed to "broad-based" balance, and including all WotC-D&D games) requires a bit of thought before tinkering with the core concepts.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say "More thought than some of those smarter than you game designers put in some of the time."For instance, I would argue that many of the problems with 3e (that I have, anyway) came from ill-considered changes to the TSR-D&D model.  Likewise, the problems I have with 4e come from (what to my mind are) ill-considered changes to the previous WotC-D&D models.That the 4e model wouldn't solve the 15-minute adventuring day problem, for example, was discussed on EnWorld by myself and others based on the designer blogs.  It was obvious (to me) that the designers had mis-identified the source of the problem.  There were others (Mutrum_Ridiculy in particular) who demonstrated that the 4e design strategies could work, depending upon how they were implemented.So, do I accept that game designers are talented?  Sure.  Some of them are very talented.  Do I accept that they are smarter than me, or that they know better what I want in a game?  Not remotely.  And that isn't ego, either, because I don't accept that they are necessarily smarter than anyone else, either.But that does lead to an important maxim:  If you want to tinker with the rules, broad-based balance games are more likely to suit your purpose than knife-edge balance ones.  But, as people like LostSoul and the Jester demonstrate amply, you can tinker with knife-edged games, too, giving them a much wider base to balance on.RC</blockquote>

Verification