When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[Spatula]

The Complete series was envisioned way back in the beginning of 2e as a way to add a single emphasis to the base rules set -- it was discussed this way in Dragon while 2e was still being designed. They were never supposed to be "splatbooks" in the sense that each character used a different book. And in isolation, most of them were good -- and some of them were great. And again, you were *trusted* to define how you used them and negotiate your own connections.

What I'm reading a lot of is a desire for a stronger editorial/line development stance, which is pretty much the opposite of wanting game designers to experiment and innovate, because basically, y'all are saying you *want* a Guy in a Suit who puts the beatdown on independent ideas that don't fit a core conception of the line.

What were the innovate, independant ideas that lead to the 2e Complete Priest book giving us rules to make clerics with barely any spells to cast, and why would I want to preserve them?

 

[Ahglock]

What were the innovate, independant ideas that lead to the 2e Complete Priest book giving us rules to make clerics with barely any spells to cast, and why would I want to preserve them?

Um the idea to custom build the cleric class to different Gods, hmmn where have i heard requests for that... Oh wait every time a discussion of 3e and 4e clerics comes up. Yes, you could build a near spell less priest, you could also build a priest focused even more on spell casting. I think skills and powers, or the magic one form that series did it better, but the idea behind custom priests is great.

I think over all the complete books were really good. The complete book of elves I did not like, but other than that the books went form average to great.

 

[Fifth Element]

It boggles the mind. I mean, it takes a certain kind of "special" to take the word control, and think, 'damage several things at once.' The kind of "special" that usually involves riding in the little bus with all the safety padding.

This is decidedly not awesome.

Also, can we move beyond the "trust" wording already? The OP has clarified his point and admitted the wording was poor.

 

[justanobody]

@Cryptos:

Yeah a big problem is trying to redesign the English language to something for the game rather than use words correctly. I don't trust anyone that is unable to communicate in the most basic of ways and needs to redefine a word to suit them rather than have a large enough vocabulary to choose a word more appropriate for the situation.

There is only one "controller" of a D&D combat encounter, and that is the DM. Such misnomers is a big reason to have little faith in game designers to produce a quality product that is pretty much words to convey a thought or idea.

Bloodied not having to do anything with being covered in blood, or even bleeding anyone?

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't trust anyone that is unable to communicate in the most basic of ways and needs to redefine a word to suit them rather than have a large enough vocabulary to choose a word more appropriate for the situation.

....

 

[billd91]

Ok, here's a topical example: the recent revelation by Mearls that for a while, they thought that the definition of controller would mean "doing damage to multiple targets at once." Only to have them later realize that that's not what 'controller' means or should mean.

I think you're missing some aspect of what a "controller" may mean to gaming. On the wargame side of things, some units may exert a "zone of control" in which they interdict movement... generally because they'd annihilate it if the rules allowed it.
The controller term for an artillery-blasting wizard never bothered me because they're controlling safe access to terrain, forcing to opponents to maneuver carefully or suffer the consequences. A byproduct of being able to control territory with area spells is... the ability to damage multiple targets at once.

 

[Siberys]

I think justanobody was being a little tongue-in-cheek there, or at least I hope he was.

Yet another example of how difficult proper communication is over the 'net, what with not being as able to show irony, etc.

 

[Staffan]

More than a decade after fantasy computer games and MMO RPGs had established buffers, debuffers, mezzers, stunners, and so forth... and classes that, for the most part, just did those things and were light on the damage side.

The problem is reconciling that with not wanting "save-or-lose" spells in the game. You don't want the wizard just casting his Hypnosis spell and take the target out of the fight completely.

 

[justanobody]

....

What? A game designer is OK to be to lazy or cheap to purchase a thesaurus and dictionary?

Shall we discus bloodied, or an even hotter topic of the misnomer variety the "hit points" and "damage", or have they been discussed enough for you?

The first step taken to simplify the system to streamline it should have not be redesigning a language to fit some keyword system, but finding the correct words to use in the first place.

What is a controller? One who controls. Does controlling always dictate killing? Can one person on the combat field "control" the battle? If they can, then what are all the other people of the party needed for?

Likewise defining "role" as combat position rather than what the term was intended at the games inception as the simple thing of making the decisions for a fictional entity. You assume the role of that entity within the game.

I could list mountains of bad choices from 4th edition alone in terms of terms used that were bad choices where another word could have been used better to prevent flawed design via flawed concepts and ideas due to using the wrong words to describe them.

No wonder the published adventures don't have much in the way of descriptive elements outside of combat because the descriptions are lost to current designers who cannot figure out how to use the language.

DM: You stumble across a bloodied corpse.
PC#1: So it is dead or just below half hit points?
PC#2: Look out! Its an undead and may recharge its encounter power soon!

Sheesh!

What will people think when they read someone is bloodied in a Greenwood or Salvatore novel in the future?

"Drizzt lifted himself from the crevasse bloodied from the fall."

So was he just covered in minor scrapes and scratches that caused him to be covered in blood, or did he take damage equal to or more than half his hit points?

....

@Siberys:

I do think they could have chosen many terms more carefully, as proven by the whole lead up to 4th edition by always saying its "cool", and people around here stuck on the term "awesome".

One of the things lost from Gygax prose...the prose.

 

[RodneyThompson]

What? A game designer is OK to be to lazy or cheap to purchase a thesaurus and dictionary?

I think that's just a bit condescending, don't you? Game designs often use terms in new ways, because there may not be a concise word that perfectly sums up a game concept. It's not exclusive to game design, either; look how many technological terms we use today because someone used an existing term in a new way.

I think that "armor class," "saving throw," and "feat" are on the same level as "bloodied" or "controller." The importing thing is that they have an analogous concept, not that they match the definition exactly. We accept that "armor class" means "a numerical bonus that represents how well you are protected you from attacks," nevermind the fact that it is not a classification of armor and, in many cases, has little or anything to do with armor. What does the term "saving throw" even have to do with the actual function, except that you throw a die? Feats aren't always actual feats--meaning a noteworthy act--but we accept that the term represents enhancements to the things that you do. My point isn't that there is anything wrong with these things, but rather that sometimes, in order to communicate a concept, you sometimes have to appropriate a term.

Similarly, the "controller" issue isn't one as far as I am concerned. Area attacks are a form of battlefield control: they discourage the enemy from bunching up into small groups and ganging up on single targets, they eliminate entire clusters of enemies simultaneously and create temporary "safe zones" through which one can move, and they create "areas of control" in which enemies know that they can be attacked simultaneously and, thus, discouraging enemies from entering those zones. Mike's point wasn't that area attacks don't make you a controller, but rather that it's not enough of a hook to hang your role on. Area attacks are a form of battlefield control, but they are not the sole form; I agree with Mike that the controller role can do many more interesting things, but that doesn't involve changing the controller role's function, just the emphasis of it's powers. Think of it like a pie chart: right now, the wizard powers look a lot like a pie chart with a large wedge of area attacks; I think we might want to balance it out so that area attacks, special effects, zones, conjurations, etc. all take up more equal pieces of that same pie.

Mods, if this is too much of a threadjack, feel free to fork.