Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Boots" data-source="post: 5651722" data-attributes="member: 92239">There's a difference between game design and content development.&nbsp; Design usually is the result of a recognized need to improve sales on a product line, course correct a product line to be more in demand and correct issues perceived with a previous product.&nbsp; Design will usually result in a new edition and for the most part that edition will be re-balanced.&nbsp; Yes, there's some content development in design, but it's built with the design focus on balance.&nbsp; Playtesting is usually more in depth.Content development's purpose is to add options to the game.&nbsp; Usually this content is in response to player feedback but it may also be due to a need to fill in a missing piece from a previous edition.&nbsp; Depending on what it is, it might be balanced or not balanced against the original game and playtesting is often not deep enough to catch all the nuances.Ironically, post launch content development is probably the number one reason why new editions need to be designed and developed, sales issues notwithstanding.&nbsp;This is a chicken/egg scenario.&nbsp; Are challenges sliding towards specialists because everyone is specializing or are people specializing because of challenges?Note I'm not an advocate of generalists or specialists.&nbsp; I'm just saying that both need to be on a team to ensure that the party has the best chances of survival when a DM mixes up the punch bowl.&nbsp; Too much of either creates risk.&nbsp;I will call you on attempting a circular argument. If that point were completely true, the posts leading to this conversation would not have happened.&nbsp; Specialists can not do everything well, and generalists aren't as good as specialists at what they do.&nbsp; Whether being a generalist is pointless has much to do with the individual player's preferences.KB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Boots, post: 5651722, member: 92239"] There's a difference between game design and content development. Design usually is the result of a recognized need to improve sales on a product line, course correct a product line to be more in demand and correct issues perceived with a previous product. Design will usually result in a new edition and for the most part that edition will be re-balanced. Yes, there's some content development in design, but it's built with the design focus on balance. Playtesting is usually more in depth. Content development's purpose is to add options to the game. Usually this content is in response to player feedback but it may also be due to a need to fill in a missing piece from a previous edition. Depending on what it is, it might be balanced or not balanced against the original game and playtesting is often not deep enough to catch all the nuances. Ironically, post launch content development is probably the number one reason why new editions need to be designed and developed, sales issues notwithstanding. This is a chicken/egg scenario. Are challenges sliding towards specialists because everyone is specializing or are people specializing because of challenges? Note I'm not an advocate of generalists or specialists. I'm just saying that both need to be on a team to ensure that the party has the best chances of survival when a DM mixes up the punch bowl. Too much of either creates risk. I will call you on attempting a circular argument. If that point were completely true, the posts leading to this conversation would not have happened. Specialists can not do everything well, and generalists aren't as good as specialists at what they do. Whether being a generalist is pointless has much to do with the individual player's preferences. KB [/QUOTE]

Verification