When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[Umbran]

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.

And, I wonder what kind of "special" it takes to be rude and insulting to people who post here. Unfortunately, it is the everyday, ordinary, kind of special. But that does not mean it will be tolerated.

If you want to call folks mentally deficient, do it on some other messageboards. We need that kind of special like we need spammers. Especially during the holiday season.

I hope everyone else here takes the hint - you can express your displeasure without insulting the persons involved. If you find you cannot, you'll find you won't be posting either.



I

 

[Fifth Element]

So the problem isn't people wanting to choose one term, but the game could have chosen another term. Is "weakened" a keyword in 4th? Or was the problem with using it one that makes people think that they would have their STR score reduced in some way?

"Crippled", oops that one is not PC.

"Enervated", probably too hard for new players to understand the word.

"Unnerved", That seems to fit the theme of what HP represents now as some psychological disorder that needs a healing surge pep talk to fix!

How about just half-HP then you don't need to define bloodied at all the rules state what it is.

"Debilitated" is a good word that would seem to fit.

I think "weakened" would fit best so why didn't they choose it? Because it is a status effect that DOES mean lesser strength, well what could you name that status effect instead? How about "debilitated"?

This is an amusing example, given that "weakened" is a condition in 4E.

Justanobody, I beseech you: if you're going to criticize 4E, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well armor class did come form hull ratings that the lower the rating the better, but now it doesn't follow that yet still the class of armor is its damage ratings and has nothing to do with a character class.

We know where it comes from. Are you suggesting a grandfathering rule here? If the term doesn't really describe what it's meant to describe, that's okay as long as it's been wrong for a certain amount of time?

What type of armor is it? Chain.
What class of armor is it? +4 material added to natural protection, or +4 magical added to natural protection, etc.

If armour were the only thing that granted an AC bonus, that would be fine. But you've left out all the other things that affect AC. Dexterity or (in 4E) Intelligence, various magical items (ubiquitous ring of protection, that's certainly not armour), random bonuses from other people's spells or your own feats or powers in certain situations, etc, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

This is an amusing example, given that "weakened" is a condition in 4E.

Also, "bloodied" describes the condition far better than "weakened" does, since quite a few monsters and PCs (demons, dragonborn, etc.) get stronger when they go below half hit points. All of the proposed words suggest that the creature in question is becoming less of a threat, which is often not true.

"Bloodied" conveys "this thing has taken a beating and is now looking messed-up, but still perfectly capable of pounding the living daylights out of you," which is what it ought to convey.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

"Trust" seems like a weird way to put it, anyway.

"Trust" and "distrust" are for questions like, "can I leave my wallet with this person while I go into surgery," or "can I tell this person my social security number," and doesn't have a dang thing to do with game rules, that I can tell.

For game rules, if I dislike and don't use an entire set of rules (like, for example, 4th edition D&D), it doesn't indicate any "distrust" of the people who made it, or any personal opinion of them at all. It indicates that the rules don't do for my game what I want them to do.

It's like saying if I buy a pick-up truck because I frequently haul large, heavy objects, that it means I distrust the makers of compact cars. It just doesn't compute.

I never "trusted" or "distrusted" Gygax when I played 1st edition, and nothing has changed with subsequent game designers. I don't know them personally, and trust has nothing to do with it. Even if I despise their rules, I don't distrust them -- just like I don't trust people whose rules I like. In each case, I like or dislike the rules -- I know next to nothing how trustworthy the designers are as people, and since that fact has no bearing on my life whatsoever, I can't say that I particularly care one way or another if they're Sir Reginald Forthright or Slimey Sam the Sneaky.

 

[xechnao]

It's healthy for a game designer to have a level of skepticisim about any existing rule, especially rules that are based on "this is what we've always done".

A good game designer takes a look at what's already done, tries out a few or many variations to see if it can be done better within the premise of the game he's designing.

Sometimes it validates the original design. Sometimes something new emerges.

A game designer that stops creating or considering new takes on rules, is a game designer that's lost his touch, in my book. Without a methodical approach to understanding why a rule works, how it works, and what can be done to change it to the better, the result will be less than stellar.

A good designer challenges what he knows.

And the road to good design is paved with failed designs that's been tried out to learn what works, and what doesn't.

/M

To me you are talking here about the adjusting "designer". That is the designer that wants to adjust or fix an allready made design.
An innovating designer should instead go much deeper and start building his own structure. This means that ultimately innovative design is purely about goals and not about "design".

 

[Greg K]

"Trust" seems like a weird way to put it, anyway.

"Trust" and "distrust" are for questions like, "can I leave my wallet with this person while I go into surgery," or "can I tell this person my social security number," and doesn't have a dang thing to do with game rules, that I can tell.:

Trust to buy their product unseen with the confidence that it will be a product that fits my needs and idea of quality design.

 

[Imban]

...wait, we ever trusted game designers, using trust in the sense that we believe them when they say their rules are good as written?

Nonsense. There are names (Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Peter Schaefer, Rebecca Borgstrom, Michael Goodwin, Ari Marmell, probably a few others) which make me inclined to think their rules may be good as written, but even when they write stuff I take the book and read it over and think about what I'd use and what I'd change first. Then I use it.

Uhm, except for Borgstrom, but that's just because her work often doesn't make any sense whatsoever until you've given it a test run or four. Even when it's a system for relatively straightforward combats. (*shakes fist at Weapons of the Gods*)

Trust to buy their product unseen with the confidence that it will be a product that fits my needs and idea of quality design.

On the other hand, we've always had that kind of trust, I think. Otherwise we wouldn't buy RPG books very often at all.

 

[Greg K]

..
On the other hand, we've always had that kind of trust, I think. Otherwise we wouldn't buy RPG books very often at all.

Well, considering that I don't buy many rpg books unseen, (and never WOTC books unseen)... ;P

 

[Siberys]

Also a if it ain't broke don't fix it kind of feeling compiled with a throw out the old rubbish (including players) for the new concept that started with 3rd edition, then 3.5, and now 4th.

2nd adventures could easily be used for 1st with slight modification, and even 3rd with some tweaks.

4th came along and rather than move the furniture around it threw it out to bring in new furniture of its own liking and caused for many the final straw situation where some feel they need to step up and say to the designers "you have gone to far!"

Crossed the line of acceptable amount of change tot he game.

I really don't get this sentiment. 4e can't come in and rearrange your furniture unless you let it. You think 1/2/3e was great? Keep playing, and don't play 4e. I won't stop you, and no one else will, either. (I happen to be in a running 3e game 'cause the GM doesn't like 4e.) If people feel the designers have gone too far with 4e, those people don't play 4e.

Plus, many, MANY people felt 3e WAS broken. I was among them; my house rules were so complex, I was considering releasing them as a seperate game under OGL just to get them all in a convenient place. 4e made many of the changes I'd made, and wrapped the system more professionally than I ever would have. It might help to think of 4e as a whole new game, as opposed to the new D&D. They didn't throw the furniture out of YOUR house; they bought a whole new house and began furnishing it themselves.

The only logical reason I can see for resenting a new edition (and, thereby, not trusting those designers) is for the stop of products for the current edition. But we all saw 4e coming ages ago; I remember an old home-made 4e icon having been on the front pages of ENWorld for AGES as a joke. And 5e will be here eventually, too. And if I don't like it, there will be no "grandma"ing - I just won't use it.

Anyways, as for the original topic... caveat emptor, as others have said. I trust a designer to do his best, because if he doesn't I won't buy his stuff. Beyond that, I change stuff I like but don't think works, sometimes just for the sheer fun of houseruling. And the stuff I don't like, I ban. Simple.

Another example of this I've seen is poeple pissed about the new cosmology. I can understand not liking a change to your favorite setting (I'd be pissed if Eberron did advance two years, for example), but with fluff, like the planes, you can just say "We don't use the new stuff. The planes operate like the Great Wheel." I've seen people do it with alignment; and if Eberron did advance two years, I'd still run my games in 998 YK.

Anyways, that's my 2 coppers. And I'm sorry for the over-extended metaphor