When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[El Mahdi]

More than a lifetime. I think the greatest source of animosity towards the latest edition of any game is not so much the product support but rather the difficulty (real or imagined) of finding people to play the older editions.
Such players can be found but it increases the difficulty of the seach check.

This may very well be true. I don't subscribe to this myself, but I understand how some may feel this way.

I certainly hope that I'm a good enough GM that my players like my games, and keep coming back for more, regardless of the system I'm using. As long as that happens, I'll use the system, and pieces of systems, that work best for me. In the end I think that's all that really matters.

Now we need a new thread titled "WoTC and 4E stole my players . . . and I want them back!"

 

[Darrell]

Not that either way of running a game is wrong, but the "official" way of "no magic items for sale, ever" was never thought of as something to truly take seriously.

Hmmm....no offense intended, but this comes as news to me. I distinctly recall running games with "no magic items for sale, ever" many times; actually, make that every time...no matter what variant of D&D I was using, including 3.X edition...and for pretty much the reason cited above. The PCs never sold any of their magic items, so why would anyone else?

In my campaigns, a "magic shop" sells common components and ritual items...much like "New Age"/Pagan/Wiccan supply shops in the real world...and are few and far between (think, "voodoo shops in New Orleans").

 

[Lizard]

It is worth noting, by the way, that people didn't "trust" game developers in the 1970s either. Many of the first wave of RPGs were, in essence, critques of the perceived flaws of D&D. And there were ENDLESS battles over all of Gygax's pronouncements about the "right" way to play, they just take place in letter columns and APAs instead of on the Internet. The idea that gamers today are somehow more fractious/petty/obnoxious/whatever is not born out by the facts.

 

[El Mahdi]

It is worth noting, by the way, that people didn't "trust" game developers in the 1970s either. Many of the first wave of RPGs were, in essence, critques of the perceived flaws of D&D. And there were ENDLESS battles over all of Gygax's pronouncements about the "right" way to play, they just take place in letter columns and APAs instead of on the Internet. The idea that gamers today are somehow more fractious/petty/obnoxious/whatever is not born out by the facts.

But now you're taking away all of the fun of debating it. Party Pooper!

 

[justanobody]

More than a lifetime. I think the greatest source of animosity towards the latest edition of any game is not so much the product support but rather the difficulty (real or imagined) of finding people to play the older editions.
Such players can be found but it increases the difficulty of the search check.

Finding people to play either the new or old. You have people wanting to play the old and someone hellbent on playing the new version yesterday, and trying to get those players from your old version game to quit playing it and play the new one.

I was in a store running a 2nd edition game a few years back to try to get people to try D&D that weren't quite sure about playing and I wasn't going to DM 3rd....Some random guy in the store saw us playing and tried to start convincing everyone to play 3rd because it was better. The owner quickly stepped over and "asked" the guy if he was ready to pay for his purchases.

It was a surprising twist to the usual LGS of play the newest, but the store just wanted people in the store having fun rather than silent comic readers making the store seem like a library.

While this all seems off topic....The designers in a way egg on this behavior with that lack of support in any way for the recently ending edition. They can step up and say, HEY we want everyone playing and spending money so we need to offer something for the game being shown the door.

I think the designers aren't totally the ones at fault, but are a big obstacle because they wont stand up to the corporations that make the games these days.

Like I said in another thread, form follows function. Is your purpose for designing to make a good game or to make money for shareholders? I hope the designers are allowed to design a good game, but with D&D specifically under the thumb of HASBRO........

 

[Hussar]

It is worth noting, by the way, that people didn't "trust" game developers in the 1970s either. Many of the first wave of RPGs were, in essence, critques of the perceived flaws of D&D. And there were ENDLESS battles over all of Gygax's pronouncements about the "right" way to play, they just take place in letter columns and APAs instead of on the Internet. The idea that gamers today are somehow more fractious/petty/obnoxious/whatever is not born out by the facts.

Yeah, I think this point has come up a few times here as well. It's much more simply an effect of the medium than any substansive difference in how designers are perceived.

On a side note, Ydars? Edition war? Huh? How is this an edition warz thread? I was thinking this has remained pretty civil and not a whole lot of crapping on anyone's game has gone on.

On another side note, the reason I used the word trust is because trust can mean "have faith in the idea that the other guy is acting in good faith". This is an attitude that I do see from time to time, and have seen in this thread. That "gifted amateur" is somehow inherently more trustworthy in the "acting in your best interests" sense than "professional".

I'm not sure I buy the argument to be honest. I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between "gifted amateur" and "gaming professional". To me, the only difference is one of how well organized is the individual.

 

[Ydars]

Hi Hussar!

Most of the thread was quite good debate, until page 7-8; please re-read that page 8 in particular and tell me it was on topic and nothing to do with edition wars. I agree it is not a particularly bad example, but I just got fed up with the same old people going over the same old ground.

On the up side, after I posted, the thread seemed to skew back on topic, though it was probably coincidence.

I just wish there was a bit more creativity and a bit less argument, that's all, but apologies if my impatience gets the better of me at times.

 

[Lost Soul]

It is worth noting, by the way, that people didn't "trust" game developers in the 1970s either. Many of the first wave of RPGs were, in essence, critques of the perceived flaws of D&D. And there were ENDLESS battles over all of Gygax's pronouncements about the "right" way to play, they just take place in letter columns and APAs instead of on the Internet. The idea that gamers today are somehow more fractious/petty/obnoxious/whatever is not born out by the facts.

I agree with your statement. I never met Gygax but some of my friends who did completely disagreed with him about DMing, espceially wehn it came to adjuticating illussions! I am not saying that 4E is an abomination, I am saying that it radically changes concepts inherent in all previous editions. Everything is totally for balance. See my response to the heck with balance thread running. All the classes are interchangable. It's like opening your fridge and finding all you can eat are apples. Apples are great, but if all you can eat are apples, it will get boring real quick> I just wish that there were more crunchy differences between 4E classes and less fluff.

 

[garyh]

The designers in a way egg on this behavior with that lack of support in any way for the recently ending edition. They can step up and say, HEY we want everyone playing and spending money so we need to offer something for the game being shown the door.

I think the designers aren't totally the ones at fault, but are a big obstacle because they wont stand up to the corporations that make the games these days.

Like I said in another thread, form follows function. Is your purpose for designing to make a good game or to make money for shareholders? I hope the designers are allowed to design a good game, but with D&D specifically under the thumb of HASBRO........

If there was a way to make enough money to keep people employed on the old system, they'd have stuck to the old system (plus all the "How much more 3.x material do you need?" angle). And expecting "the designers" to fight "the suits" that pay them? Given how hard it is to break into the field in the first place? And how often we see layoffs from WotC? I'm guessing as much as a designer might love a departing system, they love keeping their job and feeding their family more. As well they should.

For us, RPG's are fun. For the companies that produce them, they're a business. For the designers and developers, they're both. I don't see how it can be any different, unless you want nothing but indie free PDF's created by fans in their part time. And that sort of thing can't sustain an industry or a hobby.

 

[RFisher]

If there was a way to make enough money to keep people employed on the old system, they'd have stuck to the old system (plus all the "How much more 3.x material do you need?" angle).

Wizards has never depended upon D&D to stay afloat.

Note also that after each new edition comes out, they have lay offs.

And that sort of thing can't sustain an industry or a hobby.

The industry needs the hobby more than the hobby needs the industry.