Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5413993" data-attributes="member: 15538">I think of RPGs as being like opera. They have a select audience, they are no longer as popular with the masses as they once were and probably never will be again, and the audience is absolutely remorseless in its criticism. And justifiably so. When the lead soprano misses a note, it's not like there's anyone else who can sing it for her.It probably didn't matter that TSR printed however many thousands of pages of stuff that is basically precycled paper. On the other hand, when a writer in a much smaller field turns out stuff that is almost, but not quite, good, expect criticism. Sometimes this is characterized as a sense of entitlement, but I think it's just a matter of judgment. It's a sense of sense of entitlement to say, "I made this game to be FUN, and I made out of love, for YOU!" and then complain when people don't like it. People are allowed not to like it. Wizards seem to have done a great job of fostering an environment of creativity, collegialism, and affection. However, i think the whole design process has been tainted from the beginning by a priori business decisions. There is nothing about 4e's overall design goals, on broad outlines, I particularly object to, I just object to the staggering majority of decisions made about each and every path to those goals. Ultimately, 4e was about D&D back into Target and Toys R Us, which is a laudable goal, but I think real compromises were made that plenty of people are probably feeling remorseful about now. Further, I think Wizards was way optimistic about getting technology done that could match their crackerjack approach to game design; Mearls et al. are some of the best hired guns you could get for game design, but anyone designing software for an outfit like Wizards is probably a lower-earning developer, assisted by several abused interns. I think Paizo took the right approach, and Wizards, the wrong one. Does anyone else remember Little Caesar's foray into the delivery business? It wasn't a crazy idea; it's not like they were not allowed to do what other pizza businesses did. The problem was this: Little Caesars's existing customers were takeout customers, and although they might take delivery at other times, they wanted something specific from LC. Hot n Ready, on the other hand, was successful, because it reinforced their existing customers, who wanted something cheap that required no advance planning and entailed no unexpected delays. Simply because some, perhaps most, LC customers said, "Wouldn't it be nice if you could get this delivered?" did not mean that their loyal base wanted to give up what they had, and people who insist on delivery are already ordering elsewhere. Cheap, tasty, delivery... pick two.Wizards was trying to design something fun and boardgamey, which, while theoretically appealing to many people, didn't really have any advantages over, say, boardgames, especially strategy or miniature games, they already owned and played, in addition to RPGs. Trying to create an accessible game is great, but I think it's just a mistake to think of D&D as a sort of product you can sell to people the way you do Scattergories, or even Settlers. It's not like J. K. Rowling sat down one day and said, "Hm, what if instead of a last Harry Potter book, I wrote a script for a PC game that would allow you to play it?" In general, companies do not do well that try to make products other than what they have always made, unless the new direction is obviously demanded by the current business situation. Bottom line: Who really thinks D&D should play like Savage Worlds and sell like Civilization?</blockquote>

Verification