When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[Stoat]

Like others on this post, Hussar, I find your initial premises to be flawed. First, the issue you describe seems to be less a matter of trust and more a matter of "willingness to criticize" or perhaps "degree of rhetoric used to criticize."

I think (Un)Reason's thread reviewing Dragon magazine from the beginning demonstrates that folks were willing to criticize game designers in general and Gygax in particular from the very beginning. Gamers are fractious, opinionated, and taught to tinker and homebrew their own rules. I think they've always been willing to disagree, often vehemently, with "the designers." Like others, I think the echo chamber of the internet simply amplifies pre-existing criticism.

Also, every new edition of D&D alienates some percentage of fans of the old edition -- from the moment Diaglo decided to stay with OD&D to present. Consequently, the number of folks who don't like what the current designers are doing will grow with every new edition. Over time, this will raise the amount of criticism on the board.

And the elephant in the room: A lot of people don't like 4E. They talk about it here. As sometimes happens, they may use hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point. Some of them are outright rude. Two years ago, there were people who didn't like 3E. They talked about it here. As sometimes happens, they occasionally used hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point. Some of them were outright rude. Had ENWorld been around in 1989, I'm sure we would've seen the same thing when 2E came out. So it goes.

 

[Staffan]

For example, because early 3e marketing told you that 2e became an ultra-Byzantine system divided among too many books, and because enough people here repeat that, you've taken that on faith and passed it along -- but as a line, 3e and 3.5 included an even greater rate of expansion, and 4e is projected to be comparable. See http://6d6fireball.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/imagesdndbloat-large.jpg

Two things.
1: The 2e rule supplements tended to have plenty of actual rule changes or expansions into new territory (Complete Fighter's Handbook was one of the first books released, and it had kits, piecemeal armor, weapon styles, and unarmed specialization that worked quite differently from weapon specialization). By comparison, 3e supplements tended to be more about things to do within the rules (new feats, prestige classes, spells, items). This changed somewhat in later-era 3.5, when the designers started doing weird stuff like the Tome of Magic or the Book of Nine Swords.

2: The chart you link to only covers core material, but a big portion of 2e's bloat came from settings. Not just "fluff", but also significant amounts of "crunch". For example, Dark Sun had 32 products released during its six-year span - more than the 28 books the Forgotten Realms got in nine years of 3e. And that was just one of twelve settings that got support during 2e. Out of those 32, 12 are ones I'd classify as "crunch-heavy" (not counting adventures).

 

[El Mahdi]

Warning: Rant Follows

I came here to say the same.

Specifically, I think it was sometime during the era of second edition D&D, when WotC/TSR (whatever they were back then) started printing handbooks for each and every class (The Complete Book of .... ). These pretty much uniformly struck me as useless supplements whose only purpose was to generate revenue for WotC. Some guy in a suit decided to get D&D players to buy 9 more books by making a book for each class, and then content was created to fill the books.

Previously, when TSR published something, it was a collection of stuff that one of the game designers - who was also a player - thought was a real cool addition to his game. It didn't actually matter if it was cool, mind you, but that the designer honestly thought he had a cool thing to offer. Yeah, lots of times the new rules didn't work out, but that was ok - we were smart enough to ditch the stuff we didn't like.

In other words, the content was created for an actual game, and then compiled into a book because the the author wanted to share. Compare this to some guy in a suit deciding to get D&D players to buy 9 more books and then content being created to fill the books.

Well, let's break this down:

• Complete Fighters Handbook - written by Aaron Allston (Freelance Game Designer - not TSR staff - and acclaimed Fiction Writer).
• Complete Thief's Handbook - written by John Nephew (Freelance Game Designer and later creator of Atlas Games), Carl Sargent (Freelance Game Designer - D&D, Warhammer, Shadowrun, and Earthdawn - Fiction Writer, and Doctor of Psychology and Parapsychology - no longer writes due to injuries suffered in a car accident), and Douglas Niles (Game Designer and co-creator of Dragonlance, acclaimed Fantasy Author)
• Complete Priest's Handbook - written by Aaron Allston (see above)
• Complete Wizards Handbook - written by Rick Swan (Game Designer and Adventure Author, credits here)
• Complete Psionics Handbook - written by Steve Winter (Game Designer with a very large number of RPG credits listed here)
• Complete Book of Dwarves - written by Jim Bambra (Freelance Game Designer for D&D and Warhammer, and Video Game Designer)
• Complete Bard's Handbook - written by Blake Mobley (TSR Game Designer with credits here, including Greyhawk Ruins - a labor of love obviously written by a GAMER)
• Complete Book of Elves - written by Colin McComb (TSR Game Designer and Author, credits here) - One of my personal favorites.
• Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings - written by Douglas Niles (see above) - another personal favorite, Loved the Forrest Gnomes.
• Complete Book of Humanoids - written by Bill Slavicsek (If you don't know who this guy is, then you aren't a real gamer - but just in case, his credits here) - My absolute favorite of the series - an excellent supplement, written for gamers by an undeniable gamer, with clear concise rules on how to play monstrous characters for the very first time in the history of the game.
• Complete Ranger's Handbook - written by Rick Swan (see above)
• Complete Paladin's Handbook - written by Rick Swan (see above)
• Complete Druids Handbook - written by David Pulver (Freelance Game Designer for TSR but mostly Steve Jackson Games - GURPS - and Gaurdians of Order - BESM)
• Complete Barbarian's Handbook - written by Rick Swan (see above)
• Complete Ninja's Handbook - written by Aaron Allston (see above)
• Art by various artists such as Larry Elmore (a gamer) and Jeff Easley (also a gamer).
• With special acknowledgments throughout all of them for invaluable assistance, sustenance, and creative inspiration from the likes of Richard Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Elaine Cunningham, and Ed Greenwood. Every single one an extremely respected designer, writer and GAMER.

Every single one of these people are GAMERS, with many of them considered members of the who's who of gaming. I dare you to find a single "Suit" in the bunch. Every single one of these books were written by gamers, for gamers, with a lot of excellent material (both crunch and fluff) that were used by an extremely large amount of gamers, in their games, throughout many years and campaigns. Much of the information in these books were used as the basis for a lot of standard races and classes in future editions. I'm pretty sure they all universally felt there books were very COOL. I know I sure did. Denigrating and demonizing the GAMERS who wrote these books, and the books themselves, as simply the agents and products of "Corporate Suits" is unfair and uncalled for.

TSR failed because of gross mismanagement, not because of poor products. The "Suits" of TSR didn't know a damn thing about Role Playing. If you don't believe that, read up on the history of TSR's fall and subsequent purchase by WoTC. The ideas for these books were quite obviously the impetus of creative designers at TSR. In other words, GAMERS. I dare you to prove otherwise. These are books I still use as reference in my 3E games, and will probably continue to use with 4E (if I ever actually play it). I've gotten nearly 15 years of use out of these books and I still find them usefull, and I'm sure many other gamers have and do also. I think that's a pretty good argument against "Uselessness".

Now, if you don't like splatbooks, that's a valid and understandable opinion. But demonizing them as the product of "Suits" in order to reinforce a dislike of them, come on. Yes, these products were made in order to make money for TSR, but that does not mean that they were only created for this purpose. TSR was a company that made products that people (sic. GAMERS) wanted. In order to be able to keep making products, they charged money for their products - just as every game company in the history of gaming has done. Did they need to be a completely altruistic charity and give all of their products away for free in order to not be labeled as money-grubbing suits? These were really good books used by a lot of gamers. They very thoroughly expanded on basic classes and races with class ideas from fiction and history, and races/sub-races described in Campaign books/boxes and also in Fantasy Fiction. Many of the ideas in these books ended up becoming core ideas in future editions. edit: That's not to say these books are without their problems, same as any rpg publication, but all in all, a lot of good material that shaped future designs./end My gamer friends and I got a lot of mileage out of these books. It's too bad that you weren't able to. However, that does not make them USELESS SUPPLEMENTS, they were just useless to YOU.

End of Rant

 

[billd91]

Now, hold on there, El Mahdi.

I have no doubt that the impetus for the series was probably from the creative elements working at TSR. But I think it's a far cry to assume that because gamers/game developers were involved thoughout the series that the guys in suits didn't have some input about whether or not the series would continue and under what parameters. I'd be willing to bet the same with the 3e Complete books.

Maybe there's an idea for a supplement, the guys in suits crunch the numbers, and various conditions are settled to put put the ideas. And I also wouldn't doubt that the number-crunching suits determine that there should be a schedule, how it should be paced out, and how big the tomes have to be and then leave it up to the writers to figure out which ideas go in... and to get on the idea treadmill if they don't fill the volume as initially stated up. It certainly did seem to me, from time to time, that some supplements could have used a little more time in the incubator or had more filler than I would have liked. I suspected the business case has pushed some things into the schedule to be optimal for the cash flow rather than the maturity of the creative work even if the impetus for the book was on the gamer/designer side of the office.

 

[El Mahdi]

Now, hold on there, El Mahdi.

I have no doubt that the impetus for the series was probably from the creative elements working at TSR. But I think it's a far cry to assume that because gamers/game developers were involved thoughout the series that the guys in suits didn't have some input about whether or not the series would continue and under what parameters. I'd be willing to bet the same with the 3e Complete books.

Maybe there's an idea for a supplement, the guys in suits crunch the numbers, and various conditions are settled to put put the ideas. And I also wouldn't doubt that the number-crunching suits determine that there should be a schedule, how it should be paced out, and how big the tomes have to be and then leave it up to the writers to figure out which ideas go in... and to get on the idea treadmill if they don't fill the volume as initially stated up. It certainly did seem to me, from time to time, that some supplements could have used a little more time in the incubator or had more filler than I would have liked. I suspected the business case has pushed some things into the schedule to be optimal for the cash flow rather than the maturity of the creative work even if the impetus for the book was on the gamer/designer side of the office.

Fair enough. But someone saying that the complete line of books is solely driven by suits in search of pure profit, and implying that those who wrote it weren't gamers writing something based on ideas and creativity they had, isn't fair at all.

That was a rather overstrong rant on my part. And, I may have overstated a bit saying management wasn't involved at all. I apologize for the tone. But reading those books, it's easy to see direct correlation to ideas and concepts in earlier products, campaign sets, and even fiction books (of which it's probably a safe bet to say most of those writers are gamers themselves, also).

This isn't to say that there aren't products from TSR or WoTC that started as revenue generating product ideas by a "Suit". But I've never read a D&D product, whether it was one I liked or not, that I didn't feel that the person who wrote it wasn't a gamer themself and was attempting to add to the collective body of creative role-playing material. Someone saying that those writers creative work is simply page filler dictated by a suit is, to say the least, insulting to our fellow gamers who wrote those products.

Now, critiquing the products on their merits is another story. One that probably most everyone here would feel is fair game.

 

[Derren]

I can only tell you when I stopped to trust game designers.

That was several years ago when the PC gaming market picked up steam. But instead of games getting "better", many interesting games were axed in favour for uninnovative sequels. The games also became shorter and shorter ,more easier and were dumbed down so that everyone could play them without failing once so they can get instant gratification.

So, what has the PC gaming market to0 do with D&D? Because I see WotC going into the same direction.

 

[Garnfellow]

TSR failed because of gross mismanagement, not because of poor products.

Actually, I don't think a list of "Complete XX" books makes a compelling case for your argument. Most of these books are terribly shoddy and well deserved their infamy.

Now, I need to back up a little bit: I am not a 2e hater. I think it is easily the most unappreciated and unjustly hated of any D&D incarnation. Its setting books are some of the best from any era. I loved the revisions to the core system -- I thought they did a great job cleaning up and consolidating 1e, and I really didn't miss much of the stuff they dropped. Yeah, excising demons and devils was a tremendous mistake, and it would have been nice to have keep many of the appendices from the old DMG. And the ring binder monster book format was nice in theory, but turned out to be not so much in practice. But overall, I was pretty happy with the changes to the core and I loved the new permissive attitude.

But I still remember the first time I read through the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and how my heart sank. Compared to the revisions to the core books, the Handbook was a pretty shoddy thing: badly edited, with big text, wide margins, lots of recycled or crappy new black-and-white art, bland writing, and wonky mechanics. It was a disaster, as were most of the other books in the line. There was no design consistency between the books in terms of the new Non-Weapon Proficiencies or kits, so you had options that varied widely in power, utility, and just plain interest.

Many of the designers who worked on these books are actually pretty good, but that didn't really shine through. The books read like they were hastily thrown together and only barely edited, with no developer review. In fact, the Complete XX books became almost the industry benchmark for shoddy splatbooks. (Which is why I was so puzzled when Mongoose introduced its Quintessential line, which so explicitly mimicked the "turd standard.")

WotC struggled at points with quality control, both early on in 3.0 and again in 3.5. But at no point did their standards drop as low as the Complete XXs. Even though there were many great 2e products, I'm afraid that TSR largely earned a reputation for focusing too much on quantity over quality. And that couldn't have been good for business.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Veteran baseball players and reporters in the 1880's were complaining about the new players only playing for money and not caring about the love of the game or playing the game the right way. Yes, the 1880's.

So my guess is that this sort of thing happens as soon as the second person becomes involved in something.

Well, to be fair, a veteran major league baseball player in the 80s who started playing in say 1967, made as little as $6,000 a year and the average salary was $19,000. They could have made more in just about any other field. They had a right to bitch when Mike Schmidt made over $2 million a year. The average veteran made less than three percent of Mike's salary.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The minute we had instant, anonymous means of expressing our thoughts in a very easy, immediately gratifying way without a need for self censoring. You know, message boards.

We've had this means for over 25 years. There were message boards dedicated to D&D as far back as 1982 when I first got online with a 300 baud modem on my C-64. BBS' were full of D&D players even back then. In fct, I'd wager D&D was second only to hardware and software forums at the time, as both computers and D&D drew a certain geekish type person - like me!

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, to be fair, a veteran major league baseball player in the 80s who started playing in say 1967, made as little as $6,000 a year and the average salary was $19,000. They could have made more in just about any other field. They had a right to bitch when Mike Schmidt made over $2 million a year. The average veteran made less than three percent of Mike's salary.

That's not the cause. This phenomenon is present throughout the history of the sport, even in times of relative parity in salaries.

The comments tend to include observations that none of the players today are even as good as the bench players we had back in the day, that sort of thing.