WotC "dumbs-down" stuff? What's bad with it?

[diaglo]

There was no "Golden Age" where the game was 100% right, and everything since is crud. At least, not in any absolute sense. Maybe you don't like it, but your statement that the experiment was an overall failure is countered by the grand sales fo the products. If it really stank, people wouldn't be still buying it seven years later.

that is your opinion. and a valid one.

my opinion differs.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Maggan]

I'm talking about something that's going to keep people playing for 25 more years. That's what I think has not been delivered on account of moving away from a proven design philosophy for one based on more 'modern' principles... of niche games that have never been as popular as D&D.

Well, there's not very much we can say about that until 25 more years have passed. And as long as people haven't stopped playing D&D3e, the available evidence does not support your claim of it being a failure.

It aint dead yet, basically, which is all that needs to be said to counter your claim. It might be dead in 25 years, it might not. But today it is very much alive.

Let's revisit this topic when everyone actually has stopped playing D&D3e, and see how long the run was.

/M

 

[jasin]

That's how I'm defining failure. The older versions never had these kinds of problems, except maybe 2e toward the end.

You sure? Or did the older versions not have ENWorld to provide people with a place where they can complain and argue and trade ideas?

I'm not talking about moving units in the short term. I'm talking about something that's going to keep people playing for 25 more years.

But what is this "something"?

Gamers are a hard to please lot.

We don't want dumbing down, but we don't want complexity. We want support, but we don't want product bloat. We don't want just bland, dry rules with no flavour text, but we hate it when they waste pages on PrC organization descriptions.

What should D&D be like so that those generalized "people" will want to keep playing for 25 more years?

That's what I think has not been delivered on account of moving away from a proven design philosophy for one based on more 'modern' principles... of niche games that have never been as popular as D&D.

What is this proven design philosophy for RPGs?

 

[Shade]

Huh? Examples please?

Nashrou = vulnerability to criticals is sole ability, and it's a weakness

Howler wasp = inciting pherome is sole ability

Bloodhulk = fragile (another weakness) and its other ability is simply that it gets max hp/HD

Nagatha = one ability that just lets it go faster

Spawn of Tiamat = most of these are "one-trick ponies"

 

[jasin]

For instance, I dislike the new design philosophy of simplifying the abilities of monsters to one or two abilities, even at high CRs.

My impression was that most people feel that high CR monsters are too complex, with a heap o' immunities, buffs, attacks they need to use at least relatively intelligently to present the challenge they promise.

Standard "not that there's anything wrong with either" disclaimer applies, but this illustrates my point about gamers being hard to please.

 

[jasin]

i play the newest edition, but my hat of d02 know no limits.

playing it doesn't mean i like it. i just like the group with which i play.

just sayin'

And it could be argued that in the end, that's what it's all about.

I'd rather have a so-so game I can play with many of my friends and have fun, than this totally awesome game no-one has heard about or can be bothered to try.

 

[hong]

And it could be argued that in the end, that's what it's all about.

I'd rather have a so-so game I can play with many of my friends and have fun, than this totally awesome game no-one has heard about or can be bothered to try.

Speaking of which, I thought I'd mention that I picked up a copy of Qin: The Warring States the other day. It's gorgeous, the ruleset is simple and elegant, and the background material is meticulously researched.

It was also probably the only copy left on sale in the eastern states of Austria.

 

[Piratecat]

Good. Really, it's time to just take the old farts, stick them in a corner and let them sourly chew at their own bellies until they expire.

As one of the old farts - and I look so youthful, too! - let me remind people to please avoid language that slams a whole group of people. I have no doubt that you can make your point without insulting folks in the process.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Perhaps, but a lot of people do seem to bring a pretty elitist attitude. As far as I'm concerned, anyone using the actual term "dumbing down" as a criticism is waving that elitism flag pretty strongly. There are ways to make a critique about over-simplification or the removal of figurative prose without making implications about intelligence.

That's always been my problem with that term. Especially since, and I'm fairly certain that someone has already said this, that one persons dumbing down is another persons easier to use.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Hmm... sometimes, I read that on boards, that WotC tends to "dumb-down" material, like with the new statblock. And usually, this is used to complain. And I'm curious... why are people complaining about "dumbing-down" or simplifying stuff?

After all, ease of use is usually seen as accessibility, thus as something good, since complexity for complexity's sake is definitively not a virtue.

Actually, I've head a certain politician saying "A good tax reform should fit on a beer mat!" (okay, that's actually somewhat muddy in translation, but you get the gist)

Yet I hear people saying stuff is "dumbed-down" or "made for those kiddies"... so I'm curious: Where's the problem?

Whats truly delightful is when the same people gripe that 3rd edition is too complicated. I think many older gamers are confusing good internal design consistency (ie, you always want to roll high on a d20 when performing an action) with dumbing down.