# When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2008)

I kinda sorta stumbled across an interesting observation in the past few days.  I was reading (un)reason's excellent Let's Read the Entire Run thread and he mentioned this little tidbit from Dragon 66, it's in a letter from EGG:



> Gary writes in to say that the reasons firearms are not found in Official AD&D Worlds is because the physics of the universe do not allow for gunpowder and similar explosives. Burning stuff simply burns, it doesn't exert outward pressure. (so steam power won't work either) Experiments on those lines will simply do sod-all. If you want blasting effects, you'll have to use magic. And that's final.




Later, in one of the "Where has the Magic Gone" Forked Threads, there is a lively discussion about what is said in the 2e DMG:



> Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
> Here's another excerpt from AD&D 2e I thought was interesting as far as this discussion goes...from the DMG...
> 
> 
> ...




Now, a thought hit me.  What would happen if Mike Mearls had written either of these two bits in a recent Dragon magazine?  There would be a mad rush of vitriol being spilled all over the forums.  How dare he dictate my campaign world to me, would be the rallying cry.

Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow.  Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.  

At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?

Does it go all the way back to the launch of 3e?  When so many people simply refused to accept 3e as a "viable" version of D&D?  The buyout of WOTC by Hasbro?  3.5?  The end of print Dungeon/Dragon?  Announcement of 4e?  When did we stop trusting the game designers?  

Heck, in a recent thread I saw someone decrying the verbiage in WOTC design blogs.  The "Cloudwatching" blog IIRC.  To the point where they accused WOTC of editing the blog after the fact to make it look like they weren't being so negative.  The truly weird thing to me was that people actually took this seriously.  Some posters actually found it easier to believe that WOTC would, after the fact, go back and edit a blog post to remove any "incriminating" evidence rather than believe that some random anonymous person on the internet would over react.

I just find the whole thing endless facinating in a trainwreck, car accident on the side of the road sort of way.

So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 15, 2008)

People probably stopped trusting game designers around the time that games were designed by companies, not people.  It's a bit of a different mindset to think about one guy writing a book describing what he does for fun, versus thinking that a corporation spent millions of dollars playtesting, editing, revising, studying focus groups, and writing a book.


----------



## Set (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?




I had house rules back in 1st edition, and, frankly, I don't know a lot of people who *didn't* have house rules back then.

Gary Gygax was a nice guy and all, from the time I met him, but I disagree strongly with many of his ideas, and I always have.

Other ideas I like. It has nothing to do with Gary being old, or dead, or a nice guy, it has to do with my rabid irrational dislike of Vancian magic (to pick one example of something he liked out of a hat).

If there had been an internet back in the late 70s, I imagine that there would have been thousands of D&D players poo-pooing Gary's ideas as vigorously and vehemently as these people who don't enthusiastically love every single contribution Mike Mearls has made to the game.

Since Rome, at least, every single generation has whined about how the current generation is ruder and more disrespectful than the one before it. The 'golden age' always seems to be in the viewers childhood, and every generation sets it for themselves.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> ...So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?




The minute we had instant, anonymous means of expressing our thoughts in a very easy, immediately gratifying way without a need for self censoring.  You know, message boards.

You still had angry letters even back in the old days, but I'd imagine that most of the things said on boards, if they had been in a letter, would never see print in _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_.

Also, it takes more time and effort to write a letter, as opposed to an instant, stream of thought, forum post. Maybe in the end that's something for all of us to think about. If we waited and thought a bit about something before we posted, would we really have the proliferation of angry, unfounded rants that we see on forums? Probably not.

Also, the idea that gamers in general are more knowledgable now about game mechanics, world/campaign design, and different systems than they were in earlier days of RPG's. Sure, there were other games out there, but I would think most people played the king of RPG's, D&D, rather than more obscure games they only really knew about from some tiny black & white advertisement in _Dragon Magazine_. Now that people understand what they like more, and why, they are more ready to criticize that which they don't like. Couple that with the ease with which we can do that now, and it seems a natural progression, even though it may not actually be progress.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 15, 2008)

The examples provided are an attempt to prove what exactly? The FR boxed set from 1E shows that "official" worlds can and do have the possibility for firearms. Perhaps Gary was not a fan of using this kind of tecnnology at the time the article was written but that doesn't mean DM's didn't use the stuff anyway, or if they did that it meant that they didn't trust Gary as a game designer.

The reasoning for the treatment of magical items in the quoted 2E text is simply the feeling that the authors of 2E wanted for thier magic system. This is strictly a guideline for default assumptions and may be changed, just as some players changed 3E back to a similar style when it wasn't the default assumption.

I don't see anything here that has to do with trust or a lack thereof. An opinion on a given subject is just that. "Game designer"  hasn't become an icky term for me at least. Perhaps the perception of greater respect for designers in the past comes from the fact that real time discussion of thier opinions was far less common in the pre-internet era. 

If Mike had written either of these things back in the 80's I don't think there would be much difference, and if Zeb wrote that piece and posted it somewhere like ENWorld then you would see a lot of dicussion about it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow.  Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.




Well, no. Many people thought that EGG's pronouncements concerning magic items were downright stupid, and said so. Look at the letters column and forum from p;d _Dragon_ issues of the 1980s and you will find several talking about Dms who have magic items shops, or players and DMs think the attitude that magic items would never be sold is just silly. Zeb got the same criticism, for much the same reasons.

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.



> _At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?_




About five minutes after the first gamer bought a wargame. This predates RPGs by quite a bit: every gamer thinks (some rightly) that they can make the game better, and that the game designer must have been drunk when he wrote one or another rule they dislike.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 15, 2008)

Easy. 
Wotc does not design a game. They are handling a market of support of a certain product-trend: D&D. EGG holds a special position regarding this trend: he is considered his creator. If he was in charge and people did not agree with him D&D would simply lose brand name value or power. Ironically this can't happen to the same effect while someone other handles it because he is considered in no different position than anyone else. D&D brand value becomes one with its own history -the object's history.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 15, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> The minute we had instant, anonymous means of expressing our thoughts in a very easy, immediately gratifying way without a need for self censoring.  You know, message boards.
> 
> ... Maybe in the end that's something for all of us to think about. If we waited and thought a bit about something before we posted, would we really have the proliferation of angry, unfounded rants that we see on forums? Probably not.



Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.

I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is strictly a guideline for default assumptions and may be changed, just as some players changed 3E back to a similar style when it wasn't the default assumption.



This is rather the point. These same types of guidelines, printed in the 4E DMG, bring ire and vitriol from the message boards.

I blame the message boards: attitudes haven't changed, just the ability to communicate the attitudes quickly and without consequence.

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Rude Person


----------



## Mallus (Dec 15, 2008)

I can't say I ever _trusted_ game designers. I bought gaming products, used the stuff I liked, discarded or changed what I didn't, then added my own material which was sometimes better, frequently worse, but nevertheless was like the pearl of great price because _I_ made it up. 

Also, had the Dragon magazine Letters column been as efficient a tool for the dissemination of vitriol and bats*hit commentary as the Internet, you would have seen this decades ago. This is a paradigm shift in communication technology, not attitudes. 

P.S. Gunpowder, or something similar, always explodified in my D&D homebrews.

P.P.S. We always had some form of magic shop, too.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.
> 
> I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.



That's an interesting point, um...Paul, I guess?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Easy.
> Wotc does not design a game. They are handling a market of support of a certain product-trend: D&D. EGG holds a special position regarding this trend: he is considered his creator.



Mr. Gygax invented the first game of its type, which now includes more than just D&D.

To give him credit for "designing" 4E is rather far-fetched. Perhaps there is a language barrier?


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> That's an interesting point, um...Paul, I guess?



My name is Paul Maclean. I live in Bradford (UK). I own Yog-Sothoth.com. I like roleplaying games.

I stand by my words. I will admit when I'm wrong (it happens). i endeavour to be courteous and civil.

How's that?


----------



## Ydars (Dec 15, 2008)

I agree that people did say things against EGG, even back in the day.

But the answer to the OP goes alot deeper than that. The real question is "When did we stop trusting." The fact we extend this to game designers is a consequence of a breakdown in trust between people in general. In the 1980s the world was just alot less sophisticated and alot more trusting.

Back then, people were generally alot more open and the DM was much more in control of the game than most DMs are now. The problem is, most people can't give up control nowadays and are, by the standards of the 1980s, very spoilt and childish. Just look at the outrageous ways people address each other on these boards; people always have to win and be right. I am not looking at other people either; I see it in myself as well.

And we call it progress...........................


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> My name is Paul Maclean. I live in Bradford (UK). I own Yog-Sothoth.com. I like roleplaying games.
> 
> I stand by my words. I will admit when I'm wrong (it happens). i endeavour to be courteous and civil.
> 
> How's that?



Slow down. Remember that on message boards, tone is hard to read. I meant my post as a friendly jab, nothing more.

I agree with your post (my name is in my sig). Please extent me the courtesy of reading my posts in the best possible light, and requesting clarification where I am unclear, rather than assuming I am trying to insult you.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 15, 2008)

Sorry! I should have put a smiley on the end.  I didn't expect you were at all.  It made me realise that you made a very good point!

As such I've asked for my username to be changed, it seems only fair.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

PaulofCthulhu said:


> Sorry! I should have put a smiley on the end.  I didn't expect you were at all.  It made me realise that you made a very good point!
> 
> As such I've asked for my username to be changed, it seems only fair.



Since changing a username can be a PITA, do you think including one's name in one's sig is an acceptable compromise?


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 15, 2008)

I agree that gamers have always had issues with the pronouncements of game designers; letters columns and photocopied fanzines are just less convenient media. That said, my first-ever published bit of writing was a long letter to Dragon Magazine arguing against something EGG had written.

I also am a strong believer in using your real name on the internet. I wouldn't obscure my identity if I got into a conversation with you at a cocktail party, and I don't do it here on the net.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 15, 2008)

As a game designer, I find the notion of unquestioningly trusting every piece of rules that comes from any game designer troubling. If Gary wants to say that in Greyhawk, gunpowder doesn't work, which is why he didn't include guns, that's cool. If the player wants to include it, that's cool too. If Gary says that guns can's work in D&D, that attempts to take choice away from the DM. 

I'm all in favor of DMs tinkering with their own games and making decisions about what does and does not appear/work in their own games. Because these are roleplaying games, I consider any rule in the game as optional (keeping in mind that if you decide to change something, you must then deal with the ripple effect throughout the rules of all changed things). For that reason, if someone were to take a prestige class, spell, monster, or some other thing that I wrote and declare it broken, overly complicated/not complicated enough, incompatible with the flavor of your game, then I'm in favor of not including it in their game. My philosophy is that the game mechanics were tailored for you to use, not use, or modify as you see fit. Once I've done the best I can with them and put them out there, it's out of my hands and in yours.


----------



## NN (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Mr. Gygax invented the first game of its type, which now includes more than just D&D.
> 
> To give him credit for "designing" 4E is rather far-fetched. Perhaps there is a language barrier?





I think what he means is:

EGG co-wrote OD&D, wrote AD&D, and founded TSR. 

So in ye olden days, his pronouncements had an _authority_, that the interjections of todays jobbing designers can never have. 

Then, D&D players could tolerate being 'lectured' by EGG, even if they  disagreed with him.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

NN said:


> I think what he means is:



I don't think so, since the first sentence was "_Wotc does not design a game_". The context then indicated Mr.Gygax "designed" the game (D&D). So I think there's a misunderstanding in how the word "design" is being used in this thread.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2008)

Who's the "we" in the context of the OP?  Some nebulous Internet group-persona?

I never "trusted" game designers, I've tinkered with my own way of doing things from the very first moment I started playing D&D, I left D&D very quickly because there were too many things about it I didn't like, and I'm not prone to childish online temper tantrums over things that I can easily change locally to get exactly what I want.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Dec 15, 2008)

In answer to the original post, and topic.

It was sometime in the mid-late 80s.  I had grown dissatisfied with the worlds being produced, and after Forgotten Realms and the 1st Ed Oriental adventures came out I saw how you could use your own world, with the mechanics provided. Up until this time I had only ever played TSR games, D&D and Gamma World pretty much.

I discovered Champions at University in '85. A few years later, I had Champions, Danger International, Justice Inc, and others - same game system different settings. I started crossing them.

Then came 4th Ed Champions. System here. Setting there - completely independent  of each other. At that point I saw the fact that the two could be decoupled and you can tweak and massage the rules to support the campaign feel you wanted in your game.

I trusted the game designer to make balanced rules I could use with game.... but I didn't trust them to be able to give me the gameworld I had in my head. And that is the big point - I have never used a published setting in my life, every game I have ever run has been a homebrew. So, no, I ignore Gary's tirade against guns, or Zeb's comments about magic items if they don't fit my world.
It's not a lack of trust, but the fact they aren't in my brain, knowing what kind of game I want to run.


----------



## doppelganger (Dec 15, 2008)

The OP implies that Gary Gygax wrote part of the 2E DMG. Gary was long gone from TSR when 2E was released.


----------



## smug (Dec 15, 2008)

I started in 1980 or so and remember people bitching about Gygax being pretty bad back then, which increased over the years up until the car-crash that was 1e Unearthed Arcana came out. It's true that public discussion was limited to stuff like the somewhat bitter Runequest vs AD&D arguments in the White Dwarf letters page, but I don't think that Gygax got enormous trust from the general gamer (from the young gamers, sure, but young people are perhaps more inclined to trust the people making the rules).


----------



## xechnao (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> To give him credit for "designing" 4E is rather far-fetched. Perhaps there is a language barrier?



Huh? 
What I was saying is that EGG's D&D and Wotc D&D have been considered differently. In the first case EGG was a necessary part of the marketing value-perhaps an undesired one in the long run. In the second case D&D's own history is the major marketing value.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Since changing a username can be a PITA, do you think including one's name in one's sig is an acceptable compromise?



As someone who's username and real name were the same for years and years, I can tell you that there are good reasons _not_ to have your name be quite so open too.

I started getting a little worried when vanity googles took me to ENWorld posts, for instance, that I might be having some impact my ability to get a new job.

Also, if you're the kind of person who's concerned about standing by what you say on the Internet, chances are you're _not_ one of the people liable to post uninformed, clueless, needlessly vitriolic rants in the first place.


----------



## delericho (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow.  Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.




As others have noted, this isn't quite as clear-cut as it seems. I recall even in the first Dragons (at around the time of the 1st -> 2nd Ed switch) I bought there were letters in the Forum section questioning various things being done.



> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?
> 
> Does it go all the way back to the launch of 3e?  When so many people simply refused to accept 3e as a "viable" version of D&D?  The buyout of WOTC by Hasbro?  3.5?  The end of print Dungeon/Dragon?  Announcement of 4e?  When did we stop trusting the game designers?




Part of it came when I realised that, given the time and resources, I could probably put together a game that was at least as good (or, at least, the arrogance to believe that that is the case). Part of it came with the internet, where it became possible to instantly tap into a group of minds who would quickly analyse and dissect anything and everything that was written to find the flaws, and also the range of ideas and opinions to render every design simultaneously the best idea ever and the worst thing imaginable.

And, yes, a lot of it has to do with the purchase of WotC by Hasbro, and the gradual increase in corporate influence on the game. And the end of Dragon and Dungeon. And that 'Cloudwatching' blog entry, and the nature of the 4e development which seemed (accurately or otherwise) a whole lot more closed and elitist than the 3e development did.



> So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?




Never. While there is a lot I don't like about how the development and rollout of 4e was handled, and while there is a lot I don't like about 4e itself, and while there are even certain designers I don't really rate, the group as a whole still do produce an awful lot of good material that I couldn't produce myself (a large amount of which takes the form of pre-generated adventures these days), and they do it for pay that I wouldn't accept, and while taking flak from all sides for their work. I have to respect them for that.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think so, since the first sentence was "_Wotc does not design a game_". The context then indicated Mr.Gygax "designed" the game (D&D). So I think there's a misunderstanding in how the word "design" is being used in this thread.




It is the distinction among "design a game" and "design *the* game" or "design a new version of *the* game". In the first case you are regarded as a game designer, in the second case as the responsible of the status of support of something already valueable.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Since changing a username can be a PITA, do you think including one's name in one's sig is an acceptable compromise?



It's still you, either way.  It's all a matter of personal choice. Lots of people use pseudonyms for various reasons (fun or work-related, etc.) but as people have said here, anonymity + instant posting + audience can be too tempting for a very small percentage. 

In the end it's the content of your posts that matters.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 15, 2008)

Technically, I am using my real name as my handle, as Brendan in Gaelic means "little raven."



> I don't think so, since the first sentence was "Wotc does not design a game". The context then indicated Mr.Gygax "designed" the game (D&D). So I think there's a misunderstanding in how the word "design" is being used in this thread.




I always find it interesting that Dave Arneson almost never gets a mention.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 15, 2008)

xechnao said:


> It is the distinction among "design a game" and "design *the* game" or "design a new version of *the* game". In the first case you are regarded as a game designer, in the second case as the responsible of the status of support of something already valueable.



Okay, but you didn't make that distinction in your post. And the term "game designer" is not being used so literally as I think you're using it here.

I'm also not sure what your point is, given that one of the OP's examples was from 2E, and was no written by Mr. Gygax.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree with your post (my name is in my sig).



I am also now putting my name in my sig. Between that, and my location, I am now putting up DEFCON 3 defenses outside my home.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 15, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm also not sure what your point is, given that one of the OP's examples was from 2E, and was no written by Mr. Gygax.




The OP is talking about general impressions. If we try to analyze things perhaps we'll find out nothing that much but a lesser effect of what the OP is claiming to happen.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 15, 2008)

I think this is merely a case of rose-colored glasses and nostalgia trumping reality.  EGG made such pronouncements 'from on high', as it were, exactly BECAUSE many different gamers had long and voiciferuous rules and DM-ing arguments.  The letters and forums columns of Dragon, even edited as they were, would have such continued heated discussions.  I remember quite clearly many of the arguments of giving female characters -2 ST/+2 CHA, for example, or over falling damage, paladins, the alignment system, Vancian magic, "Monty Haul" games or a host of other topics...many of which persist today.

Everyone I've met in my travels had 1e house-rules, for example, so clearly EGG's RAW was not considered gospel.  Gary did, as someone points out, have a certain gravitas as the game's core co-designer and shepherd...but he was hardly considered the sole authority from which all authority flowed.  A fact he himself reinforced multiple times, pointing out that each DM's game was his own (which I believe he even points out in the 1e DMG, iirc).

People at cons, clubs and other places were just as vocal then as they are now...the only difference is one of scale, IMHO.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 15, 2008)

RPGs have always had a strong DIY ethos, and there has always been some tension between doing it yourself, and the efforts of games desingers to dictate how the game is played. (EGG, of course has many, many quotes on both sides of this). (and designers always have some "play like this", back then, and certainly now).

When did this go from politely ignoring the designers to threatning them with flame and pithforks? As noted above, the Letters and Forum of Dragon Magazine always had raging debates, and in face to face contact people certainly called out, and defended, the designers. 

But the answer is the internet. People didn't loose trust, they just found it easier to vent. On both sides. In some ways I am still suprised at the deference certain posters still show the desingers and WotC, and how agresively they defend them. It goes both ways.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 15, 2008)

The premise of the OP isn't simply flawed, it's ridiculous. 

Poor little Mike Mearls isn't given any more flack than any other designer from the hoary past. As many others have already pointed out, there was just no forum for readers to express their disagreement.

Tons of players and DMs I knew back in the eighties chaffed mightily at the Gygaxian pronouncements of official AD&D orthodoxy that became more common and more strident toward the end of 1983 *. Your quote is a perfect example of something that would drive people bonkers. This fiat against firearms, coming from the same guy who made Murlynd, the six-gun toting quasi-deity?

You could find plenty of disagreement with EGG in the pages of Dragon magazine, or even better, in White Dwarf or other magazines like Space Gamer.

In fact, many of the design principles behind second edition were pretty much an explicit rejection of this one-true-wayism. It's ironic that you picked one of the very few examples in the 2e core rules that did not follow this permissive philosophy. Generally, the 2e rules were only presented as suggestions and guidelines, giving DMs arguments both for and against particular rules.
_____

* EGG's insistence on AD&D rules heterodoxy was a curious and relatively short-lived phase. See "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D System" for one of the best expressions of this impulse. However, the intro to the DMG certainly calls for DMs to make the game their own, and certainly after he left TSR he frequently stated that individual DMs could and should feel free to do their own thing.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 15, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> As a game designer, I find the notion of unquestioningly trusting every piece of rules that comes from any game designer troubling. If Gary wants to say that in Greyhawk, gunpowder doesn't work, which is why he didn't include guns, that's cool. If the player wants to include it, that's cool too. If Gary says that guns can's work in D&D, that attempts to take choice away from the DM.
> 
> I'm all in favor of DMs tinkering with their own games and making decisions about what does and does not appear/work in their own games. Because these are roleplaying games, I consider any rule in the game as optional (keeping in mind that if you decide to change something, you must then deal with the ripple effect throughout the rules of all changed things). For that reason, if someone were to take a prestige class, spell, monster, or some other thing that I wrote and declare it broken, overly complicated/not complicated enough, incompatible with the flavor of your game, then I'm in favor of not including it in their game. My philosophy is that the game mechanics were tailored for you to use, not use, or modify as you see fit. Once I've done the best I can with them and put them out there, it's out of my hands and in yours.




Exactly. 

If I don't care for a particular designers work I just dont support them. I think some of the parts of things that Mearls has done for 3E / 3.5 pretty good and I was a fan of his up until 4E. 

If I (as a GM) buy a ruleset, splatbook, whatever I'll use what I like and adjust / modify the rest. A designer has little or no bearing on what get's used at my table outside of the material that they provide. Not even Gygax. It's one of the things that I love about tabletop play.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 15, 2008)

Greetings!

Indeed, the internet has made the public's voices heard much more loudly and constantly, and the *access* to dissenting views is much more prevalent today than back in the days of old.

As for Gary Gygax, yes, even then there were ideas and rules of his that people disputed. Gary also, as noted, encouraged DM's to add to, subtract, or modify the game for their campaign.

In a general sense, though, Gary was always somewhat special, because he was the "Father" of the game. Dave Arneson is a co-designer, certainly--but for practical *consciousness*--Arneson has never been vocally involved with the game, or engaged in the public platform in nearly the same way that Gary Gygax was. Thus, Gary has always been *The Voice*. 

In addition, a condition at the time--was simply this: Gary was the designer, and also had immeasurably more experience with the rules, running campaigns, and so on, which of course added to his Gravitas and authority concerning the game.

Nowadays, well--The situation is entirely different. There are millions of intelliegent, educated, talented gamers that also have 10, 20, *30* years of experience with D&D and gaming. That's a considerably different kind of fan-base than what existed 30 years ago, when comparing the knowledge and experience of the game particulars and systems to Gary, or other designers and staff at the time.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 15, 2008)

Collectively, I trust game designers more than I trust, say, gamers posting on message boards.   Individually?  No comment! 

However, any such trust has always been somewhat guarded.  Trust, but verify.


----------



## Wootz (Dec 15, 2008)

> Gary writes in to say that the reasons firearms are not found in Official AD&D Worlds is because the physics of the universe do not allow for gunpowder and similar explosives. Burning stuff simply burns, it doesn't exert outward pressure. (so steam power won't work either) Experiments on those lines will simply do sod-all. If you want blasting effects, you'll have to use magic. And that's final.



So you could make magical handguns to the same effect then, right?


----------



## Ourph (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?



When game designers started thinking of themselves as "professionals" rather than just your average gaming-schlub who got lucky enough to land a job designing games about elves and hobbits.


----------



## smug (Dec 15, 2008)

Anyhow, you only had to look at, say, Runequest than back at AD&D to have concerns about Gygax's game design. Sure, you would appreciate that he and Arneson made the first one, but it was pretty clear to everyone by the early 1980s (Runequest came out in 1978, Rolemaster in early 80s, I think, for example) that Gygax didn't have the best design and also seemed weirdly resistant to fixing it (instead we got Unearthed Arcana...).

Also: alignment languages? I mean, really?

By the time TSR released the Greyhawk Adventures hardback (which I guess was after Gygax had left by some way, so he can't be blamed for that) and anyone had read the 0-level character rules I can't believe that faith in the designers of the material was present in more than a fraction of the people reading it.


----------



## Pramas (Dec 15, 2008)

RPGs were created by hobbyists with a do it yourself ethic and you can see this from the beginning. Look at early RPG efforts like Tunnels & Trolls, Arduin, and Palladium. What do they have in common? They were all the products of guys who said, "There's something cool in D&D but it's not exactly what I want." There's never been a rule or play style so sacrosanct that gamers wouldn't ignore, modify, or reject it.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 15, 2008)

As for those quotes:

EGG: Hmm, from the author of “Expedition to the Barrier Peaks”, who put “Six-guns and Sorcery” in the DMG…what can you say. There was (is?) a long running trend of trying to reign in D&D from its early, wild, roots, which leads to…

D”Z”C: Here I part ways with Garnfellow…one of my big problems with 2E was that, mechanically, it was still ADD, and if anything was slightly more focused. But they would say “play it like that” or you can “play it like that”, but this or that wouldn’t actually fit with the game itself. The 2E DMG gave very little advice on how to value magic items, or how to reward them, or how important they were in the game (they were very important). Just some pabulum on not having magic shops. (Fan demand led to magic item prices being released later).


----------



## Wayside (Dec 15, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> I also am a strong believer in using your real name on the internet. I wouldn't obscure my identity if I got into a conversation with you at a cocktail party, and I don't do it here on the net.



"What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing--with a rather shaky hand--a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again? I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality when we write." -M.F.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 15, 2008)

It seems to me that nowadays is the only time I've ever actually seen any idea that you should "trust" game designers! From the very earliest days everything got modded, pronouncements were laughed at if we disagreed and embraced if we agreed purely on their merits, and regardless of who wrote them. 

So if I could invert your question, I'd ask "when did (people) start trusting game designers" as against just looking at stuff and taking what works and not taking what doesn't work?

n.b. The closest thing to internet forums in the old days was probably the APAs such as "Alarums & Excusions" and "The Wild Hunt" in the US and "Trollcrusher" in the UK. Sorta like slow-motion forums, but not much different in terms of discussion topics and tone in some cases.

Cheers


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 15, 2008)

Ourph said:


> When game designers started thinking of themselves as "professionals" rather than just your average gaming-schlub who got lucky enough to land a job designing games about elves and hobbits.




I don't consider RPG designers or writers lucky, just devoted, since it's not like the industry turns them into millionaires or anything. In fact, many of them put their own money, as well as time and other resources, into the products they produce, so this disparagement by suggesting their icky or putting "professional" in quotes like they don't deserve it just strikes me as rude.


----------



## Cadfan (Dec 15, 2008)

This question has a short, easy answer.

Gamers have always disagreed with designers.

But gamer hatred is on the rise due to the aging of the D&D playing population.

Older gamers tend to feel more like D&D is "theirs."  That means that changes they don't like are somehow... theft?  Vandalism?  Some sort of attack on their property.

something positive: archive


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?




Not necessarily any point - your question is based on a premise that may not be valid.  Gygax didn't say "you can't use guns in your game", though it depends on how you interpret the phrase "Official ADnD game worlds".  The 1E DMG has rules for running DnD characters within a Boot Hill game world, AFAICT this was so you could transport DnD characters to Boot Hill or vice versa.  Don't forget the Murlynd NPC, Barrier Peaks module, etc.  IMO there's no logical reason to think that the context your giving the statement is accurate for what was intended.

Secondly, *had* Gygax meant what you're saying he meant, there was no internet to complain to.  Maybe someone could have written something to the Letters forum in Dragon, but they were probably too busy arguing about evil PCs.

Thirdly, people yik-yak much more about "game design" like RPGs are some sort of science.  I suppose this is to lend some credibility to what otherwise seems like a matter of opinion.  In the old days IME someone like Gygax could say "don't use critical tables" and everyone would pretty much ignore it.  I could write about using critical tables in my game on Usenet and not have to hear 1000 fan-boys rail at me about how I was ignoring - not just Gygax - but somehow violating natural law (or "good game design" or however they're framing their opinions these days).  But now try doing the same thing with some sacred cow in 4E, like wealth-level values.  "OMG - your PCs don't have the recommanded [sic] magic item wealth for their level!?  Why that very well could knock Earth out of it's orbit!"  

So as a consequence, when people don't think for themselves, and assume that individual DMs will apply appropriate judgement in their games, then it falls upon authority figures, like Mearles, to keep us all in line.  With this increasing (and inappropriate IMO) reliance on authority figures, then what they say takes on inflated significance, and thus what could be construed as just some gamer's (however knowledgeable) opinion suddenly is now a point of potentially bitter contention.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 15, 2008)

PaulMaclean said:


> Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.
> 
> I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.




I understand, and agree to a point, but in todays world, anonymity is protection against some very real threats.  However, it is an abuse when people hide behind that anonymity and say or do things that they wouldn't if their name was known.  In a perfect society, people would do what is right, simply because it's right.  But, we don't live in a perfect society.  Everyone has probably been guilty of this at one time or another.  God knows I have also.

Knowing someones real name can open a person up to some very real problems, anything from harrasment to full identity theft.  It's almost like our modern day is starting to mirror medieval fantasy, where knowing a creatures true name can give you power over them.  For example, I don't mind stating in my profile section that I'm retired USAF, even though there are those who may want to single me out for verbal harrasment because of my background (although that has never happened to me here at ENWorld).  If it did though, I can handle it.  But if those same people had my real name, and linked it to where I live or a phone number, then my family could become a target of that harrasment, or worse.  That's something I'm not willing to open myself up to.

But you're absolutely right, people do abuse this anonymity.  Fortunately, the forum rules provide a level of accountability, without which people would go completely off the leash.  But people will take those rules to their limit, and then bend the hell out of them, all because they are anonymous.

But, pseudonyms are just too cool.  One of the things I enjoy most about ENWorld (and other forums) is the vast range of interesting names and the creativity behind them (and sometimes the humor behind them).



Anyways, back to the OP, I think there are a lot of good reasons listed so far on this thread, and all of them are probably true to one extent or another.  For me personally, I don't distrust game designers or think they are somehow scum.  However, I don't take any game designers ideas, or any systems rules, as gospel either.  They're people just like the rest of us.  If I feel anything about designers, it's a certain amount of respect for the talent they have (even the ones who've made things I don't necessarily like) and probably a fair amount of envy that they make a living (more or less) doing something I find so much fun.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 15, 2008)

Wayside said:


> "What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much pleasure in writing, do you think that I would keep so persistently to my task, if I were not preparing--with a rather shaky hand--a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself, finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again? I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality when we write." -M.F.



Internet anonymity on message boards (and they way posters hide behind it) are not the same thing, philosophically, as the message that Michel Foucault was trying to get across when he wrote this in _The Archaeology of Knowledge_. His statement was in response to a question from a group in Brazil while on a speaking tour.
[/tangent]


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 15, 2008)

smug said:


> ... but I don't think that Gygax got enormous trust from the general gamer (from the young gamers, sure, *but young people are perhaps more inclined to trust the people making the rules*).




Heh heh, since WHEN!?  Maybe from 0-12 yrs old, but from there to about 25, not a chance.  (Okay maybe only about 13 through 18/19).


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 15, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am also now putting my name in my sig. Between that, and my location, I am now putting up DEFCON 3 defenses outside my home.




I hear that ninja pirates mounted on dinosaurs with lasers makes the best defensive perimeter.


----------



## Spinachcat (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow. Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.




Go read the editorials and letters from 1970s and 1980s gaming magazines, particularly non-TSR mags but even Dragon had lots of discussion.    Lotsa eyebrows were raised over many things.



Hussar said:


> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?




Mature gamers have always understood the game rules are malleable and immature people have always acted immature.   The internet just gives immature people a safe place to whine where they can't be slapped repeatedly by the rest of us.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 15, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> this disparagement by suggesting their icky or putting "professional" in quotes like they don't deserve it just strikes me as rude.



I put the word professionals in quotes to indicate that some designers appear to believe the word professional indicates something other than "I get paid to do this".  People who get paid to design games absolutely deserve to refer to themselves as professionals, but not necessarily as "professionals" (where the quotes indicate a special, added meaning attached to the word).  IMHO.


----------



## Jack7 (Dec 15, 2008)

Perhaps this isn't the direct expression of an opinion on the original post by Hussar, but it strikes me that the implications of the question(s) goes to the facts of determining exactly what a Game Designer is, and what is he responsible for?

What does he (a GD) do exactly, what is he responsible for, where does his authority or influence end (especially in something like an RPG, or maybe later into interactive games where the player can "refocus the environment, characters, etc. - as well as in fields like Virtual Reality, and RPGs are a form of non-technological, imagination-based Virtual Reality if you think about it), where begin, what cover, and so forth and so on?

Does he shape or create a game genre, modify it, redefine it, if so how?  Does he just operate according to pre-determined rules? Does history and prior development dictate how he should or must operate? To what degree is he free to innovate or invent? What should be the theories or principles governing design? Why is one design successful, or at least useful, and one not?

I think it would probably be easier to answer your question(s) if there was an agreed upon definition, or at least an greed upon set of principles regarding what a designer is exactly, what his real functions are, what is none of his business, how he should operate and things like that.

I have my own opinions on the matter but I reckon most everyone else does too.

Still, it would be kinda interesting to see what people think or feel on the issue and if there were any real agreement on what exactly the job of a designer is, and if there is agreement, to what degree people do actually agree about what is a game designer and his real function(s)?


----------



## NN (Dec 15, 2008)

I 'distrust' game designers in the sense that over the years I have acquired some products so bad (but yet professionally produced) that they can not have possibly been published in good faith.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 15, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Now, a thought hit me.  What would happen if Mike Mearls had written either of these two bits in a recent Dragon magazine?  There would be a mad rush of vitriol being spilled all over the forums.  How dare he dictate my campaign world to me, would be the rallying cry.



When I was a teenager my parents could tell me when I was to come home and whether or not I could drive the car.
Now that I'm adult they don't have this authority.
I still love, respect and trust them and this very fundamental change does not undermine those facts in the least.

Once upon a time, RPGs were new and Gary, amongst a very few others, led us wide-eyed youngsters into the wonders of HIS WORLD and HIS GAME.  But now I've grown up on that front as well.  I greatly respect Gary's rules for his world.  But based on many *other* things he said I think it would be crazy to claim he would presume other DMs wouldn't make there own worlds and rules to fit their own personal visions.  His world - His Rules, but if you don't eventually grow up and get a place of your own, then I see Gary saying "tsk tsk".

When did (WotC) game designers stop trusting us to leave the nest?


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2008)

BryonD said:


> When I was a teenager my parents could tell me when I was to come home and whether or not I could drive the car.
> Now that I'm adult they don't have this authority.
> I still love, respect and trust them and this very fundamental change does not undermine those facts in the least.




I also find that the older I get, the more I tend to realize that mom and dad were generaly right. They don't have the ability to "tell me what to do" anymore, but I find that their ideas and advice are usually based on experience.

This is kind of how I view game designers. (Not all of them.)

When I was younger I would read something like that and think: Man don't tell me how to play my game.

Now that I'm older, I see it less as them telling me how to play, and more of an experienced player passing on what they've found works. If I'm changing a rule these days, it's usually only after I've at least tried using the "official" rule and found it honestly doesn't mesh with our playstyle.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 15, 2008)

I think it is a few things:

1. When an edition change happens and rules are changed from what you like or are used to.

2. When new artwork really goes against "traditional" artwork some had pictured things to be (Are Kobolds bi-pedal canine cousins or lizards?!??!?!? What's with all the steroids?)

3. When WotC and Hasbro took over, it lost that "personal" touch to many. It then became a 'corporate project/product'.

4. When 3.5e followed so quickly after 3.0e's messes. That broke a lot of confidences. Some of the same problems with 3.0e reared their head in DDM 2.0 which wasn't necessarily the fault of the designers themselves (see point #2)

5. When 3rd Edition made rules for EVERYTHING it did feel like the game was taken away from the DM and its foundations to many. House rules used to be pretty common, 3rd Edition seemed to be trying to negate them (or the neeed anyway) for good or bad.

6. Whiners in a culture of spoiled victimization. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but it sure appears this is the case at times.

7. On the other hand, some times internet rants are cathartic and fun. And entertaining to read and laugh with. 

8. A culture where 'pwning n00bs' or "winning" with loopholes or rules bending to show up others is encouraged and flourishes rather than just "fun".

There are more, but I'll stop there. Like most things, any combination of the above in whatever ratio happens to exist in the person at the time of said feelings can lead to those feelings. 

Human nature, isn't it fun?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> I also find that the older I get, the more I tend to realize that mom and dad were generaly right. They don't have the ability to "tell me what to do" anymore, but I find that their ideas and advice are usually based on experience.
> 
> This is kind of how I view game designers. (Not all of them.)
> 
> ...



I completely agree with you.  Of course, your point is quite at odds with the OP point.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 15, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> It seems to me that nowadays is the only time I've ever actually seen any idea that you should "trust" game designers! From the very earliest days everything got modded, pronouncements were laughed at if we disagreed and embraced if we agreed purely on their merits, and regardless of who wrote them.
> 
> So if I could invert your question, I'd ask "when did (people) start trusting game designers" as against just looking at stuff and taking what works and not taking what doesn't work?
> 
> n.b. The closest thing to internet forums in the old days was probably the APAs such as "Alarums & Excusions" and "The Wild Hunt" in the US and "Trollcrusher" in the UK. Sorta like slow-motion forums, but not much different in terms of discussion topics and tone in some cases.



This.

I would only add that TSR initially had forums on AOL that were very active. I personally also found the usenet group rec.games.frp.dnd to be a good sounding board for quite a few years. Other than that, however, communication between gamers, or with game designers/manufacturers was pretty well limited to snail mail. For my own part I only saw a few letters each month in Dragon or perhaps White Dwarf to get any feel for the gamer-in-the-street's opinions. I tend to discount whatever communication took place at cons because there just weren't that many gamers who attended same much less engaged in extensive discussion about meta-game aspects and then acted as intermediaries with the gamer community at large.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 15, 2008)

BryonD said:


> I completely agree with you.  Of course, your point is quite at odds with the OP point.




Possibly?


----------



## Prisoner6 (Dec 15, 2008)

Deset Gled said:


> People probably stopped trusting game designers around the time that games were designed by companies, not people.  It's a bit of a different mindset to think about one guy writing a book describing what he does for fun, versus thinking that a corporation spent millions of dollars playtesting, editing, revising, studying focus groups, and writing a book.




I came here to say the same.

Specifically, I think it was sometime during the era of second edition D&D, when WotC/TSR (whatever they were back then) started printing handbooks for each and every class (The Complete Book of .... ).  These pretty much uniformly struck me as useless supplements whose only purpose was to generate revenue for WotC.  Some guy in a suit decided to get D&D players to buy 9 more books by making a book for each class, and then content was created to fill the books.

Previously, when TSR published something, it was a collection of stuff that one of the game designers - who was also a player - thought was a real cool addition to his game.  It didn't actually matter if it was cool, mind you, but that the designer honestly thought he had a cool thing to offer.  Yeah, lots of times the new rules didn't work out, but that was ok - we were smart enough to ditch the stuff we didn't like.  

In other words, the content was created for an actual game, and then compiled into a book because the the author wanted to share.  Compare this to some guy in a suit deciding to get D&D players to buy 9 more books  and then content being created to fill the books.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 16, 2008)

Prisoner6 said:


> Compare this to some guy in a suit deciding to get D&D players to buy 9 more books  and then content being created to fill the books.




Who is that guy anyway?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2008)

Couple of points here.

Firstly, the examples I picked were just that.  Examples.  I picked them, pretty much at random, because they had come up on the forums in the past week or so and a fairly random thought struck me.

As far as disagreeing with my point, well, what would you say my point was?  The only thing I did was ask a question.  I see people being FAR more vehement in their disagreement with designers than they were before.  Look at the reaction to Mearl's (to pick another example, not to sanctify Mearls) conversion of the Rust Monster.  That drew all sorts of reaction.

Yet, we have examples in earlier editions where the designers flat out dictate your world to you and they are applauded for it.  Heck, in the Where Has All the Magic Gone, we've got Delta quoting chapter and verse of the 1e DMG about treasure allocation: Here.  

The rules are dictating your world to the point where they actually TELL you where to put treasure.

Now, it's more than true that we pretty much ignored most of this when we played.  I know we did.  I'm not saying that we didn't.

I guess I agree with the point that it's simply an artefact of the Internet.  Had we had the Web back in the 80's, it would be exactly the same.  

In any case, BryonD, I'm not quite sure what point you thought I was trying to make, but, whatever it was, it wasn't that.  I was simply making an observation and putting it to the community to see if anyone else had noticed the same thing.  No value judgements (other than possibly disliking the level of vitriol) attached.

Believe it or not, not EVERY one of my posts is a defense of 4e.


----------



## garyh (Dec 16, 2008)

Prisoner6 said:


> I came here to say the same.
> 
> Specifically, I think it was sometime during the era of second edition D&D, when WotC/TSR (whatever they were back then) started printing handbooks for each and every class (The Complete Book of .... ).  These pretty much uniformly struck me as useless supplements whose only purpose was to generate revenue for WotC.  Some guy in a suit decided to get D&D players to buy 9 more books by making a book for each class, and then content was created to fill the books.
> 
> ...




The 2e Complete series was completely TSR.  Say what you will about WotC from 3.e onwards, but the splatbook trend started with TSR.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 16, 2008)

Prisoner6 said:


> Previously, when TSR published something, it was a collection of stuff that one of the game designers - who was also a player - thought was a real cool addition to his game.



The implication here is that the current designers are not players. That is demonstrably false.



Prisoner6 said:


> In other words, the content was created for an actual game, and then compiled into a book because the the author wanted to share.



If that was the reason, why weren't the books sold at cost?



Prisoner6 said:


> Compare this to some guy in a suit deciding to get D&D players to buy 9 more books  and then content being created to fill the books.



Please, tell us who this guy was so we can harangue him. I find it difficult to get upset at a hypothetical person.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2008)

Just to head off any further accusations.

I'm NOT trying to prove any point.  I have no particular horse in this race other than curiousity.  I'm NOT bagging on Gygax, nor am I trying to start any sort of edition war here.  I am NOT curious in discussing the actual differences between rules.

What I am interested in is how the reaction to game designer pronouncements has changed over the years.  Prisoner6 makes a perfect test case example of what I'm talking about.  The view, that I've seen espoused more than a few times, is that previous designers were "talented amateurs" who were only interested in producing a "good game experience" while current designers are only interested in hammering your pocketbook as hard as they possibly can.

I'm simply curious when this shift occured.  Has it always been that way?  Have people always viewed designers in this way, but simply lacked a forum in which to air their views?  Or have we, as a community, become far more suspicious of designers goals?


----------



## garyh (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I am interested in is how the reaction to game designer pronouncements has changed over the years.  Prisoner6 makes a perfect test case example of what I'm talking about.  The view, that I've seen espoused more than a few times, is that previous designers were "talented amateurs" who were only interested in producing a "good game experience" while current designers are only interested in hammering your pocketbook as hard as they possibly can.
> 
> I'm simply curious when this shift occured.  Has it always been that way?  Have people always viewed designers in this way, but simply lacked a forum in which to air their views?  Or have we, as a community, become far more suspicious of designers goals?




Veteran baseball players and reporters in the 1880's were complaining about the new players only playing for money and not caring about the love of the game or playing the game the right way.  Yes, the *18*80's.

So my guess is that this sort of thing happens as soon as the second person becomes involved in something.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 16, 2008)

garyh said:


> Veteran baseball players and reporters in the 1880's were complaining about the new players only playing for money and not caring about the love of the game or playing the game the right way.  Yes, the *18*80's.
> 
> So my guess is that this sort of thing happens as soon as the second person becomes involved in something.



There's a lot of truth here. My second hobby is historical hockey research. I have personally read many accounts in newspapers from the 1900's and 1910's (organized hockey developed later than baseball, and wasn't openly professional until the mid-oughts), decrying the sad state of the game, how younger players didn't care about the game like they did "back in the day", and of course how they simply weren't the same quality of player either.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I am interested in is how the reaction to game designer pronouncements has changed over the years.  Prisoner6 makes a perfect test case example of what I'm talking about.  The view, that I've seen espoused more than a few times, is that previous designers were "talented amateurs" who were only interested in producing a "good game experience" while current designers are only interested in hammering your pocketbook as hard as they possibly can.
> 
> I'm simply curious when this shift occured.



First off, trust in the game designers specifically is inextricably linked to trust in the company that pays them and thus, in effect, gives them their sailing orders.

For me, the loss of trust came partway through the 2e years, when I bought a few TSR splatbooks and found material from one repeated verbatim in another.  It struck me then that these supplements weren't really put out to expand or enhance the game, but merely to make money.  Since then, everything I've picked up has been viewed through this lens, and that extends to basic game design in 3e and particularly in 4e where (at least going in) there's a specific intent within the design to tie in with both DDM and an online subscription-based service.

Lanefan


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> I'm simply curious when this shift occured.



Again, your basic premise is critically flawed, and people have given you plenty of examples why. There was no dramatic shift; designers have always been subject to criticism and skepticism from fans. There was no perfect Edenic state that we poor wretched gamers have fallen from. Cripes, schism and criticism was sown right there at the beginning of the hobby: Gygax and Arneson couldn't agree on what D&D should have been. RuneQuest, Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, the Fantasy Trip, heck, almost every RPG made is in some way a reaction to or repudiation of some facet of D&D.



Hussar said:


> So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?



Just as a suggestion, I wouldn't recommend opening a thread with a rhetorically loaded post and then batting your eyes and proclaiming "I really don't have an opinion on any of this! I'm just curious!" I'm sure you're completely sincere, but it reads a little disingenuous.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I am interested in is how the reaction to game designer pronouncements has changed over the years.



But you are demanding that people accept your first premise, which is that there is a difference and your second premise which is that the difference is defined by the phrase "stop trusting".


----------



## BryonD (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> In any case, BryonD, I'm not quite sure what point you thought I was trying to make, but, whatever it was, it wasn't that.  I was simply making an observation and putting it to the community to see if anyone else had noticed the same thing.  No value judgements (other than possibly disliking the level of vitriol) attached.



Fine. 
Then I am not responding to any point you are trying to make.
I am however responding to what you said.
No judgments (other than disliking the level of presumption and declaration of others position for them)


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> So, I put it to you, when did "game designer" become synonymous with "something icky I scraped off my shoe"?




I don't think has ever been synonymous with that.

I honestly think you're asking the wrong question - Is the question when we stopped trusting them, or when we stopped accepting everything they said?  If the latter - we never did.  Ever.  Trust is earned, usually based on past performance.  Trust is something that may get me to buy a product with less than average review before purchasing.  

But, in the past couple decades of gaming, I haven't taken a developer's design _just because it came form a developer_.  I take their designs because I like them, or think they are good ideas - not out of "trust".

I am a free-willed, critically thinking, analytical beast.  I can make my own choices.  I like it when someone else gives me good ideas that I can work with, but that doesn't mean I have to take everything they choose to feed me.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 16, 2008)

PaulMaclean said:


> My name is Paul Maclean. I live in Bradford (UK). I own Yog-Sothoth.com. I like roleplaying games.
> 
> I stand by my words. I will admit when I'm wrong (it happens). i endeavour to be courteous and civil.
> 
> How's that?



Brave and upstanding, though i'd caution against it becoming a trend. For someone who's income is tied to gaming, it is a decent idea. But this is a time when folks have been fired for blogging and applicants have lost job opportunities when their potential employers Googled them. Plus identity thieves don't need more ammo.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Now, a thought hit me.  What would happen if Mike Mearls had written either of these two bits in a recent Dragon magazine?




I think the only difference here is that the previous two bits occurred in a time before the internet as we know it. Firing off an angry letter to The Dragon required a fantastic amount of effort in comparison to replying on a message board. It would be fascinating to look at some of the APA magazines from that time and see if those fan-made products contained lots of invictive against the designers.

As others have said, I've never seen previous designers as immune to disdain. In fact, before the renaissance that D&D underwent with 3E, it was more popular to spit on D&D fans as losers who couldn't move on from a moribund and frankly stupidly-designed game. You think indie publishers show disdain for the more mainstream games? Feh, that is _nothing _compared to virtually all non-D&D gamers prior to 2000 and certainly nothing compared to, say, 1990. Entire marketing campaigns were built on the basis of 'this is how our game is not like *ptui* D&D'.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 16, 2008)

Gary Gygax, "From the Sorcerer's Scroll," The Dragon #16, page 21, July 1978

Excerpt from the end of the editorial:

_In recent months, I have been the target of some pretty vicious and petty attacks from some of the “APA’s” [Amateur Press Association]. Much to the attackers’ collective dismay, I am still alive and well. I’ve never made any bones about my feelings toward the field: they are unprofessional, unethical and seemingly ignorant of the laws concerning libel. Most of the so-called “authors” seem to live in some sort of fantasy world, totally unconnected with the realities of everyday life. A good many of them are incapable of even quoting correctly.

When apprised of error or inaccuracy, their usual response is an outburst of paranoia and persecution complexes. As the author mentions, there are a scant few exceptions in the field. A few have written material for this magazine in the past. Hopefully, a few will continue to do so. There is one who once wrote for TD who will never be asked to again, after he grossly misquoted something I said at Origins last year.

When I first got into this business, I felt that the APA-zines might be good for the hobby. I even reviewed a number of them for TD readers. Now I know the error of my thinking. They serve no useful purpose.
_


----------



## Spatula (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Now, a thought hit me.  What would happen if Mike Mearls had written either of these two bits in a recent Dragon magazine?  There would be a mad rush of vitriol being spilled all over the forums.  How dare he dictate my campaign world to me, would be the rallying cry.
> 
> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow.  Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.
> 
> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?



There's no change; if net access was as widespread back then as it is now, you'd have the same heated arguments about rare & precious magic items vs magic item shops that you get now (along with the other old arguments concerning playstyles).  Hell, go to Dragonsfoot and ask the 1e diehards what they think of David Zeb Cook.

Back in the stone age you only had contact with your own group - who probably shared your tastes - and only interacted with the gamer world at large via conventions or letter columns in magazines.  Now everyone gets to talk to everyone else and it's no surprise that there are disagreements.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 16, 2008)

Well, Umbran pretty much summed it up, in my opinion.

'Trust is earned.' Yes, indeed. Hence, there are writers, designers and so on, I've come to expect good things from. And there are some from whom. . . I expect something else entirely, as of a certain point in each case.

The rest? I'll judge their capability with such work by, well, _the work they do_. _When I see it_.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2008)

PaulMaclean said:


> Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.
> 
> I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.




Well, now I'm tempted to post under a real name, and be a big jerk.  Just not my real name, the real name of someone i don't like would work.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 16, 2008)

> Buying Magical Items
> 
> As player characters earn more money and begin facing greater dangers, some of them will begin wondering where they can buy magical items. Using 20th-century, real-world economics, they will figure there must be stores that buy and sell such goods. Naturally they will want to find and patronize such stores. However, no magical stores exist.
> Before the DM goes rushing off to create magical item shops, consider the player characters and their behavior. Just how often do player characters sell those potions and scrolls they find? Cast in a sword +1? Unload a horn of blasting or a ring of free action?
> ...




You know this kind of proclamation I like.

1.  It gives a guideline.
2.  It gives reasons for said guidelines.

With both 1 &2 you get to see potential pitfalls and decide whether or not its a good idea for your game to do it anyways.  

I'd of added to those reasons, why the heck would you risk life and limb in such a dangerous profession as adventurer in a dark dungeon when you can just knock over ye old magic shop.  A place has 1,000s to maybe millions of gold in inventory and it isn't getting robed on a daily basis?  Okay the really high end shops I can understand they will have insane security, but the corner magic store with 25,00-50,000 in inventory probably has good security, but not fight your way through a dungeon good security.  Maybe we play shadowrun too much but my players would be like wait,this shop has what???  Forget the kidnapped princess we can totally rob this place.  

Hence thanks to the advice and some reasons backing up the advice I can after seeing the potential pitfalls decide not to let magic shops in my games.  With a different player set, I might decide a different way.  But at least a potential problem was pointed out to me.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2008)

Hussar said:


> What I am interested in is how the reaction to game designer pronouncements has changed over the years.  Prisoner6 makes a perfect test case example of what I'm talking about.  The view, that I've seen espoused more than a few times, is that previous designers were "talented amateurs" who were only interested in producing a "good game experience" while current designers are only interested in hammering your pocketbook as hard as they possibly can.




Well, this idea fails right out of the gate. Creatives in larger companies don't usually make royalties and in smaller ones, they'd be better off doing something other than game design for money.

The thing that's difficult for people to accept is that there really is such a thing as professional knowledge in this field, and that there are things in this industry that work in very specific ways, once you get past the hobby publishing niche.

For example (and in reference to what's above), there are very few instances of "Let's make a book just to fill a release slot!" In large companies there are always more ideas for books than the budget can handle. WotC is a little different in this regard because marketing is more tightly integrated into design. It's probably the only company that can order the creation of a book called "Dragon Magic" for no other reason than books with "Dragon" and "Magic" in the title sell well. They're also the only guys who would mandate annual versions of core books for the same reason, or DDI.

But barring these sorts of things, you have proposals coming from creative staff and then, marketing and creative teams butt heads about what actually goes on the release schedule. The initial idea almost always comes from a designer/creative, not a Man in a Suit. The Man in a Suit just decides which of these ideas people might actually buy. In many, many cases the Man in the Suit *is* the creative guy, and is really looking more at how he can sell what he was going to do anyway, or decide which of a number of things we wants to do, would be a good idea for him to do.

This kind of insight isn't necessarily going to gain the most traction in any online discussion, however, because it lacks the dramatic flair of accusing game designers of being ripoff artists. And thanks to this, anybody so accused has the choice of doing nothing and letting a consensus build around a falsehood, coming in as a target, or simply relaying most things to a guy who is paid to tell you nice things abut the company.

What is most troubling from a writer/designer perspective is that the online medium kind of makes talking about RPGs a decidedly different thing than playing them, to the point where trusting what people have to say about games on a forum like this one can actually be a mistake. When I was writing for Mage: The Ascension this was a serious issue, because the fan community had become practically monopolized by people who didn't play the game. Compare this with letters and APAs, which included pauses long enough for things to naturally spring from play. Your last D&D session would inform things more than the pressure to say something about gish-builds *now*.

The fact of the matter is that most gamers use the Internet to get stuff, not talk about stuff -- so what you're left with is a community consisting of a subset of gamers that is inspired by gaming, but for which the central activity of gaming is often in the theoretical. Forums have evolved around this to devote space to documenting play, but this has its own problems, due to time and social pressure from the medium.

This means that after a while, due to company policy or self-directed searching, creatives in the field usually look for information that hits our interest: supporting and improving gameplay within a particular creative direction. I have a my own gaming group to listen to and when I can, other groups to observe face to face (I spent a few years observing and documenting games as a third party, fr example) and there are a number of online play venues I anonymously visit. The conclusions I get from this are not always going to conform to any out-of-play consensus developed here or anywhere else. This isn't spectacular but the rewards express themselves over the long run.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 16, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Well, this idea fails right out of the gate. Creatives in larger companies don't usually make royalties and in smaller ones, they'd be better off doing something other than game design for money.
> 
> The thing that's difficult for people to accept is that there really is such a thing as professional knowledge in this field, and that there are things in this industry that work in very specific ways, once you get past the hobby publishing niche.
> 
> ...




Mike Mearls was advocating the importance of the optimization boards and indie forums for his formation to design for D&D. 

On a different take -the one regarding innovation-, I believe, theory is very important. It is an effective communication method that lets us loose ourselves to perceive things not so immediate in the practical field due to our subjective bias. Theory helps you acquire a different perspective or approach that helps innovation very much if you do want to innovate. If you want to adjust or fix something then not so much I guess.
So if I want to create a new game, then I better come here to just hear the problems people are generally talking about. If I want to try to change the game they are talking about then I better go practical and see what can be done or not be done with this game. 
Sometimes a game system is limited in its ability to establish certain things and people do not immediately realize this and thus the debate they build cant really help that much in the end. It wont ever be revelating but to arrive to the conclusion of the weight of the inherent limits of the system and thus the need to address things with a totaly new system. Of course proliferation -for example the one that started with 2e- wont let things settle down and help you arrive to such a conclusion.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Mike Mearls was advocating the importance of the optimization boards and indie forums for his formation to design for D&D.




Sure. How important do you think that was compared to playtesting and internal review? 



> On a different take -the one regarding innovation-, I believe, theory is very important. It is an effective communication method that lets us loose ourselves to perceive things not so immediate in the practical field due to our subjective bias. Theory helps you acquire a different perspective or approach that helps innovation very much if you do want to innovate. If you want to adjust or fix something then not so much I guess.




I'm not against theory at all. I'm against the 90+% of theory discussion that disguises itself as unvarnished fact when it comes from one guy who is unhappy with his gaming group but instead of telling them, looks for intellectual and moral support online -- the common "agony aunt" scenario you can find on many fora.



> So if I want to create a new game, then I better come here to just hear the problems people are generally talking about. If I want to try to change the game they are talking about then I better go practical and see what can be done or not be done with this game.




The problems people are talking about are not necessarily informed by things that happened in anybody's game. In fact, I'd go as far to say that in most cases, the relationship between a given instance of play and anything here ranged from cloudy to nonexistent.

I'll give you one example ripped from 3e. There is a huge difference between the way wizards and sorcerers work in a typical game session compared to how they work as builds, because of the vagaries of player competence and scenarios. Sorcerers end up being far better than they look on paper.



> Sometimes a game system is limited in its ability to establish certain things and people do not immediately realize this and thus the debate they build cant really help that much in the end. It wont ever be revelating but to arrive to the conclusion of the weight of the inherent limits of the system and thus the need to address things with a totaly new system. Of course proliferation -for example the one that started with 2e- wont let things settle down and help you arrive to such a conclusion.




To me, this shows how faith in a certain kind of discourse leads people the wrong way. Groups develop distinct relationships with games, and not only is some agreement here about a system's "limits" hardly the last word, it may not even be representative of most people's experiences -- and it may even be factually dodgy. For example, because early 3e marketing told you that 2e became an ultra-Byzantine system divided among too many books, and because enough people here repeat that, you've taken that on faith and passed it along -- but as a line, 3e and 3.5 included an even greater rate of expansion, and 4e is projected to be comparable. See http://6d6fireball.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/imagesdndbloat-large.jpg 

But more to the point, even though in reality few people bought every book and used every rule option, there's a tendency to take this as an axiom for discussion's sake, because otherwise, you can't argue the issues around a game line's size on this forum. In fact, the real relationship between gamers and this material was, and always has been mediated by them in a variety f ways -- and many of them worked pretty well. Unfortunately, these highly individual perspectives don't allow consensus building, so they have less value to the community than making broad statements about "proliferation." 

In any event, you are right that you can't come to conclusions, but the demographics and social dynamics of the medium bear much responsibility for that.


----------



## Psion (Dec 16, 2008)

I don't know when it full stopped (probably somewhere around 4e or late 3.5), but I know where the decline began.

When I wrote my first house ruled ranger class in 1e that patched over the dichotomy between the ranger's fluff and crunch (i.e., lack of any special benefit in wilderness proficiencies back in 1e when it was supposedly an expert in wilderness lore.) It was then I began to have the confidence to make the game into the game I wanted it to be.

The hallmark of late 3.5 (with books like Weapons of Legacy, Tome of Magic, and Bo9S, and continuing into 4e) was the first time in D&D's history at least (long predated in Traveller by TNE) that I felt the _designers_ were actively working at making the game into something I didn't want it to be. Before this in D&D at least, most of the time the designers were doing 90% of what I felt needed to be done and I just needed to make little tweaks.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2008)

Garnfellow and others - ok, so maybe my choice of wording was a bit unfortunate.  Then again, everyone else seems to get the point and go one with it.  Why this need to jump up and down?  

I noticed something, I posted what I thought was maybe a trend based on what I observed.  This observation sort of flows with other observations but, also flies in the face of others.  That's the point of conversation.

I NEVER SAID I WAS PRESENTING FACTS.  Good grief.  I pointed to examples where the designers specifically dictate your setting to you and then point to examples where if later era designers did the same thing, they'd be crucified.  Heck, people are actually DEFENDING the 2e DMG.  Like I said, if someone at WOTC wrote that today, people would be screaming bloody murder.

So, yes, I do think there has been a shift in how we react to what the designers say.  People on the boards have become unremitingly negative about every single pronouncement.  Then again, I suppose I saw the same thing before 4e as well.  There would be people who would have nothing positive to say about any 3e book too.  

So, yeah, I guess I'm in the "blame it on the medium" camp on this one.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 16, 2008)

> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow. Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.




They never were in my group, that's for sure. How the game was supposed to be didn't matter -- it mattered how we played. All sorts of variations on the rules were done for the sake of fun and convention. What Zeb and Gary told us was sacrosanct, we kicked dirt all over.

3e was one of the first editions to really tackle how people _actually_ play, rather than how they _should_ play. And for that, WotC needs to know how we ACTUALLY play. 



> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?




They're not trying to ruin my game but when they fail to improve it, with all their research and noble goals, they fail more colossally than Gary or Zeb ever failed.


----------



## Stoat (Dec 16, 2008)

Like others on this post, Hussar, I find your initial premises to be flawed.  First, the issue you describe seems to be less a matter of trust and more a matter of "willingness to criticize" or perhaps "degree of rhetoric used to criticize."  

I think (Un)Reason's thread reviewing Dragon magazine from the beginning demonstrates that folks were willing to criticize game designers in general and Gygax in particular from the very beginning.  Gamers are fractious, opinionated, and taught to tinker and homebrew their own rules.  I think they've always been willing to disagree, often vehemently, with "the designers."  Like others, I think the echo chamber of the internet simply amplifies pre-existing criticism.  

Also, every new edition of D&D alienates some percentage of fans of the old edition -- from the moment Diaglo decided to stay with OD&D to present.  Consequently, the number of folks who don't like what the current designers are doing will grow with every new edition.  Over time, this will raise the amount of criticism on the board.

And the elephant in the room:  A lot of people don't like 4E.  They talk about it here.  As sometimes happens, they may use hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point.  Some of them are outright rude.  Two years ago, there were people who didn't like 3E.  They talked about it here.  As sometimes happens, they occasionally used hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point.  Some of them were outright rude.  Had ENWorld been around in 1989, I'm sure we would've seen the same thing when 2E came out.  So it goes.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 16, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> For example, because early 3e marketing told you that 2e became an ultra-Byzantine system divided among too many books, and because enough people here repeat that, you've taken that on faith and passed it along -- but as a line, 3e and 3.5 included an even greater rate of expansion, and 4e is projected to be comparable. See http://6d6fireball.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/imagesdndbloat-large.jpg



Two things.
1: The 2e rule supplements tended to have plenty of actual rule *changes* or expansions into new territory (Complete Fighter's Handbook was one of the first books released, and it had kits, piecemeal armor, weapon styles, and unarmed specialization that worked quite differently from weapon specialization). By comparison, 3e supplements tended to be more about things to do within the rules (new feats, prestige classes, spells, items). This changed somewhat in later-era 3.5, when the designers started doing weird stuff like the Tome of Magic or the Book of Nine Swords.

2: The chart you link to only covers core material, but a big portion of 2e's bloat came from settings. Not just "fluff", but also significant amounts of "crunch". For example, Dark Sun had 32 products released during its six-year span - more than the 28 books the Forgotten Realms got in nine years of 3e. And that was just one of *twelve* settings that got support during 2e. Out of those 32, 12 are ones I'd classify as "crunch-heavy" (not counting adventures).


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 16, 2008)

Warning: Rant Follows



Prisoner6 said:


> I came here to say the same.
> 
> Specifically, I think it was sometime during the era of second edition D&D, when WotC/TSR (whatever they were back then) started printing handbooks for each and every class (The Complete Book of .... ). These pretty much uniformly struck me as useless supplements whose only purpose was to generate revenue for WotC. Some guy in a suit decided to get D&D players to buy 9 more books by making a book for each class, and then content was created to fill the books.
> 
> ...





Well, let's break this down:

*Complete Fighters Handbook* - written by Aaron Allston (Freelance Game Designer - not TSR staff - and acclaimed Fiction Writer).
*Complete Thief's Handbook* - written by John Nephew (Freelance Game Designer and later creator of Atlas Games), Carl Sargent (Freelance Game Designer - _D&D_, _Warhammer_, _Shadowrun_, and _Earthdawn_ - Fiction Writer, and Doctor of Psychology and Parapsychology - no longer writes due to injuries suffered in a car accident), and Douglas Niles (Game Designer and co-creator of _Dragonlance_, acclaimed Fantasy Author)
*Complete Priest's Handbook* - written by Aaron Allston (see above)
*Complete Wizards Handbook* - written by Rick Swan (Game Designer and Adventure Author, credits here)
*Complete Psionics Handbook* - written by Steve Winter (Game Designer with a very large number of RPG credits listed here)
*Complete Book of Dwarves* - written by Jim Bambra (Freelance Game Designer for _D&D_ and _Warhammer_, and Video Game Designer)
*Complete Bard's Handbook* - written by Blake Mobley (TSR Game Designer with credits here, including _Greyhawk Ruins_ - a labor of love obviously written by a GAMER)
*Complete Book of Elves* - written by Colin McComb (TSR Game Designer and Author, credits here) - One of my personal favorites.
*Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings* - written by Douglas Niles (see above) - another personal favorite, Loved the Forrest Gnomes.
*Complete Book of Humanoids* - written by Bill Slavicsek (If you don't know who this guy is, then you aren't a real gamer - but just in case, his credits here) - My absolute favorite of the series - an excellent supplement, written for gamers by an undeniable gamer, with clear concise rules on how to play monstrous characters for the very first time in the history of the game.
*Complete Ranger's Handbook* - written by Rick Swan (see above)
*Complete Paladin's Handbook* - written by Rick Swan (see above)
*Complete Druids Handbook* - written by David Pulver (Freelance Game Designer for TSR but mostly Steve Jackson Games - GURPS - and Gaurdians of Order - BESM)
*Complete Barbarian's Handbook* - written by Rick Swan (see above)
*Complete Ninja's Handbook* - written by Aaron Allston (see above)
Art by various artists such as Larry Elmore (a gamer) and Jeff Easley (also a gamer).
With special acknowledgments throughout all of them for invaluable assistance, sustenance, and creative inspiration from the likes of Richard Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Elaine Cunningham, and Ed Greenwood. Every single one an extremely respected designer, writer and *GAMER*.
Every single one of these people are *GAMERS*, with many of them considered members of the who's who of gaming. I dare you to find a single "*Suit*" in the bunch. Every single one of these books were written by *gamers*, for *gamers*, with a lot of excellent material (both crunch and fluff) that were used by an extremely large amount of *gamers,* in their *games*, throughout many years and campaigns. Much of the information in these books were used as the basis for a lot of standard races and classes in future editions. I'm pretty sure they all universally felt there books were very COOL. I know I sure did. Denigrating and demonizing the GAMERS who wrote these books, and the books themselves, as simply the agents and products of "Corporate Suits" is unfair and uncalled for. 

TSR failed because of gross mismanagement, not because of poor products. The "Suits" of TSR didn't know a damn thing about Role Playing. If you don't believe that, read up on the history of TSR's fall and subsequent purchase by WoTC. The ideas for these books were quite obviously the impetus of *creative designers* at TSR. In other words, *GAMERS*. I dare you to prove otherwise. These are books I still use as reference in my 3E games, and will probably continue to use with 4E (if I ever actually play it). I've gotten nearly 15 years of use out of these books and I still find them usefull, and I'm sure many other gamers have and do also. I think that's a pretty good argument against "Uselessness".

Now, if you don't like splatbooks, that's a valid and understandable opinion. But demonizing them as the product of "Suits" in order to reinforce a dislike of them, come on. Yes, these products were made in order to make money for TSR, but that does not mean that they were only created for this purpose. TSR was a company that made products that people (sic. GAMERS) wanted. In order to be able to keep making products, they charged money for their products - just as every game company in the history of gaming has done. Did they need to be a completely altruistic charity and give all of their products away for free in order to not be labeled as money-grubbing suits? These were really good books used by a lot of gamers. They very thoroughly expanded on basic classes and races with class ideas from fiction and history, and races/sub-races described in Campaign books/boxes and also in Fantasy Fiction. Many of the ideas in these books ended up becoming core ideas in future editions. edit: That's not to say these books are without their problems, same as any rpg publication, but all in all, a lot of good material that shaped future designs./end  My gamer friends and I got a lot of mileage out of these books. It's too bad that you weren't able to. However, that does not make them *USELESS SUPPLEMENTS*, they were just useless to *YOU*.

End of Rant


----------



## billd91 (Dec 16, 2008)

Now, hold on there, El Mahdi.

I have no doubt that the impetus for the series was probably from the creative elements working at TSR. But I think it's a far cry to assume that because gamers/game developers were involved thoughout the series that the guys in suits didn't have some input about whether or not the series would continue and under what parameters. I'd be willing to bet the same with the 3e Complete books. 

Maybe there's an idea for a supplement, the guys in suits crunch the numbers, and various conditions are settled to put put the ideas. And I also wouldn't doubt that the number-crunching suits determine that there should be a schedule, how it should be paced out, and how big the tomes have to be and then leave it up to the writers to figure out which ideas go in... and to get on the idea treadmill if they don't fill the volume as initially stated up. It certainly did seem to me, from time to time, that some supplements could have used a little more time in the incubator or had more filler than I would have liked. I suspected the business case has pushed some things into the schedule to be optimal for the cash flow rather than the maturity of the creative work even if the impetus for the book was on the gamer/designer side of the office.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 16, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Now, hold on there, El Mahdi.
> 
> I have no doubt that the impetus for the series was probably from the creative elements working at TSR. But I think it's a far cry to assume that because gamers/game developers were involved thoughout the series that the guys in suits didn't have some input about whether or not the series would continue and under what parameters. I'd be willing to bet the same with the 3e Complete books.
> 
> Maybe there's an idea for a supplement, the guys in suits crunch the numbers, and various conditions are settled to put put the ideas. And I also wouldn't doubt that the number-crunching suits determine that there should be a schedule, how it should be paced out, and how big the tomes have to be and then leave it up to the writers to figure out which ideas go in... and to get on the idea treadmill if they don't fill the volume as initially stated up. It certainly did seem to me, from time to time, that some supplements could have used a little more time in the incubator or had more filler than I would have liked. I suspected the business case has pushed some things into the schedule to be optimal for the cash flow rather than the maturity of the creative work even if the impetus for the book was on the gamer/designer side of the office.




Fair enough.  But someone saying that the complete line of books is solely driven by suits in search of pure profit, and implying that those who wrote it weren't gamers writing something based on ideas and creativity they had, isn't fair at all.

That was a rather overstrong rant on my part.  And, I may have overstated a bit saying management wasn't involved at all.  I apologize for the tone.  But reading those books, it's easy to see direct correlation to ideas and concepts in earlier products, campaign sets, and even fiction books (of which it's probably a safe bet to say most of those writers are gamers themselves, also).

This isn't to say that there aren't products from TSR or WoTC that started as revenue generating product ideas by a "Suit".  But I've never read a D&D product, whether it was one I liked or not, that I didn't feel that the person who wrote it wasn't a gamer themself and was attempting to add to the collective body of creative role-playing material.  Someone saying that those writers creative work is simply page filler dictated by a suit is, to say the least, insulting to our fellow gamers who wrote those products.

Now, critiquing the products on their merits is another story.  One that probably most everyone here would feel is fair game.


----------



## Derren (Dec 16, 2008)

I can only tell you when I stopped to trust game designers.

That was several years ago when the PC gaming market picked up steam. But instead of games getting "better", many interesting games were axed in favour for uninnovative sequels. The games also became shorter and shorter ,more easier and were dumbed down so that everyone could play them without failing once so they can get instant gratification.

So, what  has the PC gaming market to0 do with D&D? Because I see WotC going into the same direction.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 16, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> TSR failed because of gross mismanagement, not because of poor products.



Actually, I don't think a list of "Complete XX" books makes a compelling case for your argument. Most of these books are terribly shoddy and well deserved their infamy.

Now, I need to back up a little bit: I am not a 2e hater. I think it is easily the most unappreciated and unjustly hated of any D&D incarnation. Its setting books are some of the best from any era. I loved the revisions to the core system -- I thought they did a great job cleaning up and consolidating 1e, and I really didn't miss much of the stuff they dropped. Yeah, excising demons and devils was a tremendous mistake, and it would have been nice to have keep many of the appendices from the old DMG. And the ring binder monster book format was nice in theory, but turned out to be not so much in practice. But overall, I was pretty happy with the changes to the core and I loved the new permissive attitude.

But I still remember the first time I read through the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and how my heart sank. Compared to the revisions to the core books, the Handbook was a pretty shoddy thing: badly edited, with big text, wide margins, lots of recycled or crappy new black-and-white art, bland writing, and wonky mechanics. It was a disaster, as were most of the other books in the line. There was no design consistency between the books in terms of the new Non-Weapon Proficiencies or kits, so you had options that varied widely in power, utility, and just plain interest.

Many of the designers who worked on these books are actually pretty good, but that didn't really shine through. The books read like they were hastily thrown together and only barely edited, with no developer review. In fact, the Complete XX books became almost the industry benchmark for shoddy splatbooks. (Which is why I was so puzzled when Mongoose introduced its Quintessential line, which so explicitly mimicked the "turd standard.")

WotC struggled at points with quality control, both early on in 3.0 and again in 3.5. But at no point did their standards drop as low as the Complete XXs. Even though there were many great 2e products, I'm afraid that TSR largely earned a reputation for focusing too much on quantity over quality. And that couldn't have been good for business.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 16, 2008)

garyh said:


> Veteran baseball players and reporters in the 1880's were complaining about the new players only playing for money and not caring about the love of the game or playing the game the right way.  Yes, the *18*80's.
> 
> So my guess is that this sort of thing happens as soon as the second person becomes involved in something.




Well, to be fair, a veteran major league baseball player in the 80s who started playing in say 1967, made as little as $6,000 a year and the average salary was $19,000.  They could have made more in just about any other field.  They had a right to bitch when Mike Schmidt made over $2 million a year. The average veteran made less than three percent of Mike's salary.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 16, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> The minute we had instant, anonymous means of expressing our thoughts in a very easy, immediately gratifying way without a need for self censoring.  You know, message boards.




We've had this means for over 25 years.  There were message boards dedicated to D&D as far back as 1982 when I first got online with a 300 baud modem on my C-64.  BBS' were full of D&D players even back then.  In fct, I'd wager D&D was second only to hardware and software forums at the time, as both computers and D&D drew a certain geekish type person - like me!


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 16, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, to be fair, a veteran major league baseball player in the 80s who started playing in say 1967, made as little as $6,000 a year and the average salary was $19,000.  They could have made more in just about any other field.  They had a right to bitch when Mike Schmidt made over $2 million a year. The average veteran made less than three percent of Mike's salary.



That's not the cause. This phenomenon is present throughout the history of the sport, even in times of relative parity in salaries.

The comments tend to include observations that none of the players today are even as good as the bench players we had back in the day, that sort of thing.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 16, 2008)

Garnfellow said:


> Actually, I don't think a list of "Complete XX" books makes a compelling case for your argument. Most of these books are terribly shoddy and well deserved their infamy.
> 
> Now, I need to back up a little bit: I am not a 2e hater. I think it is easily the most unappreciated and unjustly hated of any D&D incarnation. Its setting books are some of the best from any era. I loved the revisions to the core system -- I thought they did a great job cleaning up and consolidating 1e, and I really didn't miss much of the stuff they dropped. Yeah, excising demons and devils was a tremendous mistake, and it would have been nice to have keep many of the appendices from the old DMG. And the ring binder monster book format was nice in theory, but turned out to be not so much in practice. But overall, I was pretty happy with the changes to the core and I loved the new permissive attitude.
> 
> ...




And this is a relatively fair critique and opinion.  I don't agree with you, but it's still a fair critique.  I wasn't so much defending the quality of the books, even though I like them, as I was saying they aren't corporate driven filler solely intended to bring in revenue.

I'll agree though, that some of those books did have there issues and were by no means perfect.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 16, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:


> We've had this means for over 25 years.  There were message boards dedicated to D&D as far back as 1982 when I first got online with a 300 baud modem on my C-64.  BBS' were full of D&D players even back then.  In fct, I'd wager D&D was second only to hardware and software forums at the time, as both computers and D&D drew a certain geekish type person - like me!



Sure, and I remember chatting on Compuserve back in 1989 (and wasting LOADS of cash doing it) about D&D topics as well.

But, you have to admit, it is a speck compared to what is available now, and there's a vastly larger number of people and opportunities to scream online now.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2008)

Staffan said:


> Two things.
> 1: The 2e rule supplements tended to have plenty of actual rule *changes* or expansions into new territory (Complete Fighter's Handbook was one of the first books released, and it had kits, piecemeal armor, weapon styles, and unarmed specialization that worked quite differently from weapon specialization). By comparison, 3e supplements tended to be more about things to do within the rules (new feats, prestige classes, spells, items). This changed somewhat in later-era 3.5, when the designers started doing weird stuff like the Tome of Magic or the Book of Nine Swords.




This is a difference in the structure of each system, not the amount of new rules. How many PRCs were published? How many feats? Tons and tons. The fact that they plugged in to prior definitions more tightly doesn't take away the sheer volume of stuff.



> 2: The chart you link to only covers core material, but a big portion of 2e's bloat came from settings. Not just "fluff", but also significant amounts of "crunch". For example, Dark Sun had 32 products released during its six-year span - more than the 28 books the Forgotten Realms got in nine years of 3e. And that was just one of *twelve* settings that got support during 2e. Out of those 32, 12 are ones I'd classify as "crunch-heavy" (not counting adventures).




This leads to the error in online thinking I'm talking about. Why do you care some setting you never played in has different rules?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2008)

Garnfellow said:


> Actually, I don't think a list of "Complete XX" books makes a compelling case for your argument. Most of these books are terribly shoddy and well deserved their infamy.
> 
> Now, I need to back up a little bit: I am not a 2e hater. I think it is easily the most unappreciated and unjustly hated of any D&D incarnation. Its setting books are some of the best from any era. I loved the revisions to the core system -- I thought they did a great job cleaning up and consolidating 1e, and I really didn't miss much of the stuff they dropped. Yeah, excising demons and devils was a tremendous mistake, and it would have been nice to have keep many of the appendices from the old DMG. And the ring binder monster book format was nice in theory, but turned out to be not so much in practice. But overall, I was pretty happy with the changes to the core and I loved the new permissive attitude.
> 
> ...




The Complete series was envisioned way back in the beginning of 2e as a way to add a single emphasis to the base rules set -- it was discussed this way in Dragon while 2e was still being designed. They were never supposed to be "splatbooks" in the sense that each character used a different book. And in isolation, most of them were good -- and some of them were great. And again, you were *trusted* to define how you used them and negotiate your own connections.

What I'm reading a lot of is a desire for a stronger editorial/line development stance, which is pretty much the opposite of wanting game designers to experiment and innovate, because basically, y'all are saying you *want* a Guy in a Suit who puts the beatdown on independent ideas that don't fit a core conception of the line.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

When game designers stopped designing games and corporations started designing them. Also when game designers ideas started to diverge from our own ideas. Each edition of D&D has had things people have thrown out or altered, but when too many things had to be thrown out or altered it means the ideas we no longer the same for designers and gamers. The thread connecting them had been stretched too thin.


----------



## Mark Chance (Dec 17, 2008)

Here's my belated 2 cents worth:

Trust has nothing to do with it. I don't know Mike Mearls. I don't know Monte Cook. I didn't know Gary Gygax. To me, they're little more than names on products. If I like those products, I might buy and use them. If I don't, I won't, no matter whose name is on the cover.

I reserve trust for people I actually know. When it comes to shelling out money for a product, it's always _caveat emptor_ for me.


----------



## Delta (Dec 17, 2008)

Stoat said:


> And the elephant in the room: A lot of people don't like 4E. They talk about it here. As sometimes happens, they may use hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point. Some of them are outright rude. Two years ago, there were people who didn't like 3E. They talked about it here. As sometimes happens, they occasionally used hyperbole, exaggeration or inflated rhetoric to make their point. Some of them were outright rude. Had ENWorld been around in 1989, I'm sure we would've seen the same thing when 2E came out. So it goes.




ENWorld ("here") is in a really awkward position, because it was explicitly founded as being dedicated to one specific edition: 3E ("Eric Noah's 3E Site"). 4E threw that mission statement into a tailspin, because you can't both be the current edition and 3E at the same time anymore (like it was up until this year).

So, the splitting of the customer base has made for a really different environment on ENWorld, and I doubt it will ever recapture that. As long as it seeks to now welcome multiple very different editions, we'll always have these edition wars from now on.

Part of me wishes that ENWorld had chosen to go either (a) 3E only, or (b) 4E only, and not try to straddle everything at the same time, and hence host ongoing edition wars forevermore.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 17, 2008)

Delta said:


> ...Part of me wishes that ENWorld had chosen to go either (a) 3E only, or (b) 4E only, and not try to straddle everything at the same time, and hence host ongoing edition wars forevermore.




How about two separate pages: 3ENWorld and 4ENWorld. Of course then we'd need another server drive.

edit: I am just joking, I like ENWorld's setup. I think it has room for all editions equally. I don't think it's the setup as much as it is peoples behavior which is causing problems. I just don't understand hating an edition or the wars that have to ensue because of it. I very definitely have my preference when it comes to editions, but I don't hate the others, or have a problem with those who play them. That is, unless they have a problem with me...


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I just don't understand hating an edition or the wars that have to ensue because of it. I very definitely have my preference when it comes to editions, but I don't hate the others, or have a problem with those who play them. That is, unless they have a problem with me...




It evolves form the same place all other wars do, when boundaries are crossed and someone's space is invaded. Gamers like countries have their own boundaries that they feel shouldn't be crossed, and when they do they are not very happy about it. This also comes from other gamers who play differently in the same edition as well as what people feel towards game designers when something is changed within the game that disassociates them from the game from moving the boundaries.


----------



## Cryptos (Dec 17, 2008)

Ok, here's a topical example: the recent revelation by Mearls that for a while, they thought that the definition of controller would mean "doing damage to multiple targets at once."  Only to have them later realize that that's not what 'controller' means or should mean.

More than a decade after fantasy computer games and MMO RPGs had established buffers, debuffers, mezzers, stunners, and so forth... and classes that, for the most part, just did those things and were light on the damage side.

All the while many pen-and-paper roleplaying games had for years encouraged or allowed non-damage, 'controlling' builds.  You could build a character in systems like HERO or M&M that was perfectly viable with just powers such as Hypnosis, Snare, Stun or Illusion.  Or even games like Vampire, which had several character archetypes that manipulated crowds with their voice or their mere presence, or were only strong in combat because they could stop someone that was actually dangerous in their tracks.  Heck, even Werewolf, the game of biting things to death, had character types that were more about the manipulation of things than the killing of things.

Let alone that, in fiction, for decades (even centuries and millenia) you had characters, types of characters and things that weren't necessarily dangerous because they could chomp on you but because they could turn you to stone or lure you to your doom.

And finally, long, long after the English language gave us:


> con⋅trol  /kənˈtroʊl/ n-trohl
> verb, -trolled, -trol⋅ling, noun  –verb (used with object)
> 1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
> 2. to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.
> ...



Note the general lack of killing things in the meaning of the word.

I think that, on some level, I stopped trusting the judgment of (certain) game designers when they started designing with blinders on, as though they were the first ones to ever try to do something, or when they are trying to reinvent the wheel.

It's less a trust issue and more an "Are we speaking the same language?" issue.

For my example above, while it's probably true that Role (as in D&D4e) has never been so prominent and deeply rooted - or perhaps just as formalized - in the design of D&D, it's not like the concept of combat roles didn't exist previously.  What they were trying to accomplish had been done dozens upon dozens of times.

So, for something that is not a new concept to millions of gamers, they for some reason had to figure out what the term meant and how to design it.

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.

But overall, I feel it's healthy to have a level of skepticism about everything.  Historically, I never considered the issue of "trusting" a game designer.  There were game systems I liked, and game systems where I thought, "ok, that's just ridiculous."

So it's not that I suddenly stopped 'trusting' game designers.  It's more that I'm probably just more skeptical of some of the bigger RPG companies' abilities to speak the same language as the gamers.  There have been a lot of "what were they smoking?" moments in the last couple versions of D&D.

Now, I respect the fact that he admits this.  It answers a lot of questions and opens WotC up to a lot of potential criticism.  But 'trust' isn't something I would apply as a term to 'someone who writes books.'  I might decide whether or not to trust a doctor operating on my head... I don't really think in terms of 'trust' for roleplaying games.  I don't know the person from Adam and I don't have to trust them, just agree or disagree with what the rules say.  It seems bizarre to me that anyone would say they do or don't trust an artist in relation to his art.  That said, if I think they've done something boneheaded or unfathomable, I'm going to call them on it.  If they repeatedly do things that are boneheaded or unfathomable, I'll probably give their work a hairier eyeball than usual.  But trust isn't the word I'd use to describe that.  I tend to evaluate all rules regardless of who wrote them.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 17, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> The Complete series was envisioned way back in the beginning of 2e as a way to add a single emphasis to the base rules set -- it was discussed this way in Dragon while 2e was still being designed. They were never supposed to be "splatbooks" in the sense that each character used a different book. And in isolation, most of them were good -- and some of them were great. And again, you were *trusted* to define how you used them and negotiate your own connections.
> 
> What I'm reading a lot of is a desire for a stronger editorial/line development stance, which is pretty much the opposite of wanting game designers to experiment and innovate, because basically, y'all are saying you *want* a Guy in a Suit who puts the beatdown on independent ideas that don't fit a core conception of the line.



What were the innovate, independant ideas that lead to the 2e Complete Priest book giving us rules to make clerics with barely any spells to cast, and why would I want to preserve them?


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 17, 2008)

Spatula said:


> What were the innovate, independant ideas that lead to the 2e Complete Priest book giving us rules to make clerics with barely any spells to cast, and why would I want to preserve them?




Um the idea to custom build the cleric class to different Gods, hmmn where have i heard requests for that...  Oh wait every time a discussion of 3e and 4e clerics comes up.  Yes, you could build a near spell less priest, you could also build a priest focused even more on spell casting.  I think skills and powers, or the magic one form that series did it better, but the idea behind custom priests is great.  

I think over all the complete books were really good.  The complete book of elves I did not like, but other than that the books went form average to great.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 17, 2008)

Cryptos said:


> 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.



This is decidedly not awesome.

Also, can we move beyond the "trust" wording already? The OP has clarified his point and admitted the wording was poor.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

@Cryptos:

Yeah a big problem is trying to redesign the English language to something for the game rather than use words correctly. I don't trust anyone that is unable to communicate in the most basic of ways and needs to redefine a word to suit them rather than have a large enough vocabulary to choose a word more appropriate for the situation.

There is only one "controller" of a D&D combat encounter, and that is the DM. Such misnomers is a big reason to have little faith in game designers to produce a quality product that is pretty much words to convey a thought or idea.

Bloodied not having to do anything with being covered in blood, or even bleeding anyone?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I don't trust anyone that is unable to communicate in the most basic of ways and needs to redefine a word to suit them rather than have a large enough vocabulary to choose a word more appropriate for the situation.



....


----------



## billd91 (Dec 17, 2008)

Cryptos said:


> Ok, here's a topical example: the recent revelation by Mearls that for a while, they thought that the definition of controller would mean "doing damage to multiple targets at once."  Only to have them later realize that that's not what 'controller' means or should mean.




I think you're missing some aspect of what a "controller" may mean to gaming. On the wargame side of things, some units may exert a "zone of control" in which they interdict movement... generally because they'd annihilate it if the rules allowed it.
The controller term for an artillery-blasting wizard never bothered me because they're controlling safe access to terrain, forcing to opponents to maneuver carefully or suffer the consequences. A byproduct of being able to control territory with area spells is... the ability to damage multiple targets at once.


----------



## Siberys (Dec 17, 2008)

I think justanobody was being a little tongue-in-cheek there, or at least I hope he was.

Yet another example of how difficult proper communication is over the 'net, what with not being as able to show irony, etc.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 17, 2008)

Cryptos said:


> More than a decade after fantasy computer games and MMO RPGs had established buffers, debuffers, mezzers, stunners, and so forth... and classes that, for the most part, just did those things and were light on the damage side.



The problem is reconciling that with not wanting "save-or-lose" spells in the game. You don't want the wizard just casting his Hypnosis spell and take the target out of the fight completely.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> ....




What? A game designer is OK to be to lazy or cheap to purchase a thesaurus and dictionary?

Shall we discus bloodied, or an even hotter topic of the misnomer variety the "hit points" and "damage", or have they been discussed enough for you?

The first step taken to simplify the system to streamline it should have not be redesigning a language to fit some keyword system, but finding the correct words to use in the first place.

What is a controller? One who controls. Does controlling always dictate killing? Can one person on the combat field "control" the battle? If they can, then what are all the other people of the party needed for?

Likewise defining "role" as combat position rather than what the term was intended at the games inception as the simple thing of making the decisions for a fictional entity. You assume the role of that entity within the game.

I could list mountains of bad choices from 4th edition alone in terms of terms used that were bad choices where another word could have been used better to prevent flawed design via flawed concepts and ideas due to using the wrong words to describe them.

No wonder the published adventures don't have much in the way of descriptive elements outside of combat because the descriptions are lost to current designers who cannot figure out how to use the language.

DM: You stumble across a bloodied corpse.
PC#1: So it is dead or just below half hit points?
PC#2: Look out! Its an undead and may recharge its encounter power soon!

Sheesh!

What will people think when they read someone is bloodied in a Greenwood or Salvatore novel in the future?

"Drizzt lifted himself from the crevasse bloodied from the fall."

So was he just covered in minor scrapes and scratches that caused him to be covered in blood, or did he take damage equal to or more than half his hit points?

....

@Siberys:

I do think they could have chosen many terms more carefully, as proven by the whole lead up to 4th edition by always saying its "cool", and people around here stuck on the term "awesome".

One of the things lost from Gygax prose...the prose.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> What? A game designer is OK to be to lazy or cheap to purchase a thesaurus and dictionary?




I think that's just a bit condescending, don't you? Game designs often use terms in new ways, because there may not be a concise word that perfectly sums up a game concept. It's not exclusive to game design, either; look how many technological terms we use today because someone used an existing term in a new way. 

I think that "armor class," "saving throw," and "feat" are on the same level as "bloodied" or "controller." The importing thing is that they have an analogous concept, not that they match the definition exactly. We accept that "armor class" means "a numerical bonus that represents how well you are protected you from attacks," nevermind the fact that it is not a classification of armor and, in many cases, has little or anything to do with armor. What does the term "saving throw" even have to do with the actual function, except that you throw a die? Feats aren't always actual feats--meaning a noteworthy act--but we accept that the term represents enhancements to the things that you do. My point isn't that there is anything wrong with these things, but rather that sometimes, in order to communicate a concept, you sometimes have to appropriate a term. 

Similarly, the "controller" issue isn't one as far as I am concerned. Area attacks are a form of battlefield control: they discourage the enemy from bunching up into small groups and ganging up on single targets, they eliminate entire clusters of enemies simultaneously and create temporary "safe zones" through which one can move, and they create "areas of control" in which enemies know that they can be attacked simultaneously and, thus, discouraging enemies from entering those zones. Mike's point wasn't that area attacks don't make you a controller, but rather that it's not enough of a hook to hang your role on. Area attacks are a form of battlefield control, but they are not the sole form; I agree with Mike that the controller role can do many more interesting things, but that doesn't involve changing the controller role's function, just the emphasis of it's powers. Think of it like a pie chart: right now, the wizard powers look a lot like a pie chart with a large wedge of area attacks; I think we might want to balance it out so that area attacks, special effects, zones, conjurations, etc. all take up more equal pieces of that same pie.

Mods, if this is too much of a threadjack, feel free to fork.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 17, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> I'd of added to those reasons, why the heck would you risk life and limb in such a dangerous profession as adventurer in a dark dungeon when you can just knock over ye old magic shop.



In the longest running 1E game I was in this is precisely what we, the PC's, did do.  Not sure _when_ it first started, but I know it was the _existence_ of magic item shops, potion shops, and even jewellers and gemseller shops that lured PC's to a life of crime.

It is eminently logical that if the PC's are SELLING magic items that means that someone is BUYING them.  We habitually turned miscellaneous magical loot in for cash.  We took the cash and habitually bought large/valuable gems for portability.  We turned moneylenders into BANKS - and then robbed the banks.  It took a long time and concerted effort on the part of the DM to get us focused again more on _adventures_ than on fantasy-world crime sprees.  He had to establish that the magic shops, jewellers and moneylenders had defenses and protections that were not just difficult but EXPENSIVE for our characters to overcome - adventuring became an EASIER way to get money and magic and was more profitable.

It was, of course, quite ludicrous.  But that's what logical thinking gets you in FRPG's.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

@Moridin:

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.

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.

Some work better than others, but just all of 4th seems to have tried to use fewer similar words to make it less wordy, and this can be a problem.

It would be like just calling all swords swords, but some do different damage. This is where slight variation in terms by the use of adjectives comes in handy, and in regards to the things like controller, just picking a more fitting word or even phrase.

I guess calling it a "mass effect specialist" was a bit too wordy for the combat position.

I am glad that you, Rodney Thompson, braved to enter such a thread and specifically responded to one of my, as a severe critic of 4th design philosophy, posts.

It is just that it seems much of the wording tries to be concise but is ambiguous in where it crosses the line of in game and out of game like bloodied as shown above. Would the DM be telling the players the creature is at a certain hit point percentage, or just what the creature appears to look like?

I stand by the fact that looking at the language used should be a key way to resolving many issues in all editions of D&D. Maybe it is why I am so for the ability to "redefine" some terms with the GSL, because I don't think the proper terms are used.

I am sure Mike, Dave, Rich, yourself, et all have dictionaries, and collegiate vocabularies, but was frustrated at trying to say something so light that the context would not be taken serious without the exaggerated example that you quoted.

The language used is one of the reasons some see the game "dumbed down" in parts.

So when you designer something make sure that what looks, walks, and quacks like one, is called a duck from the normal usage, rather than making it some new keyword that will confuse casual talk with technical speak within the game, again aka "bloodied" as one of the better recent examples.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 17, 2008)

I probably stopped trusting game designers c. 1985.

I started trusting them again c. 2004.



PaulMaclean said:


> Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.
> 
> I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.




Nah. I’m just as big an idiot when I post under my real name as when I post under a pseudonym. ^_^


----------



## Spatula (Dec 17, 2008)

Ahglock said:


> Um the idea to custom build the cleric class to different Gods, hmmn where have i heard requests for that...  Oh wait every time a discussion of 3e and 4e clerics comes up.



Perhaps you've never read the Complete Priests' Handbook...  The whole bit with the spheres and whatnot that allowed you to customize clerics' spell lists to their religion is in the 2e PHB (building off of concepts introduced in the 1e Dragonlance hardcover).  The Complete book doesn't have any new ideas on that front, but rather has a system for designing custom priests mechanically that always results in a class vastly underpowered compared to the standard cleric & druid.  I seem to recall one gem of an example priest that had minor access to a sphere that had no 1st-3rd level spells...  I felt robbed that I had paid money for that one.

Not that there weren't good Complete books (the Bard one is stunning), but the choice isn't between "imaginative but zero editing" and "heavily edited but dull."  Allowing freelancers to produce supplements with no editing, no overall vision, and no coordination was and is a mistake, and that was the big problem with the 2e books.  The 3e splats were somewhat hit & miss, but at least the game material in them was generally usable as-is.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

Now to be fair most kit designs were meant to give more diversity with reduce power output than the core classes. That was the give and take idea behind the "complete" series from 2nd wasn't it?

For someone well versed in 3rd how does this translate to how Prestige Classes work? Were they just additional options or did they also change power levels one way or the other?

Also does a change have to add power to something rather than flavor?

Off to dig out my priests handbook to look over it.


----------



## Greg K (Dec 17, 2008)

Overall, I prefer the 2e Complete Handbooks to the 3e Complete Books.  However, imo, many 2e kits suffered mechanicaly, because of the patchwork nature of AD&D itself and would have been better if done under 3e mechanics(as per customizing a character from the PHB and UA style class variants).

Now, as far as no longer trusting designers,  the first time was probably either after seeing the original Cavalier and Barbarian classes or discovering non-TSR games which gave me alternative perspectives on game design. More recently, it has been the majority of WOTC offerings which followed the release of the core 3e books to the present (with some noteable exceptions including Unearthed Arcana, Fiendish Codex I, Heroes of Horror, and d20Modern).


----------



## Maggan (Dec 17, 2008)

Cryptos said:


> So, for something that is not a new concept to millions of gamers, they for some reason had to figure out what the term meant and how to design it.




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


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2008)

Re:  Bloodied.

I'd like to thank JustaNobody for providing yet again such an excellent example of what happens when you decide to use one and only one definition of a word, refuse to accept any other definition and then claim that there are huge understanding issues because of the word chosen.

I think JustaNobody, just to pick on him again, also demonstrates what I was trying to get across in my original post.  That people have always disagreed with the designers, regardless of who, is obvious.  I wasn't trying to say that we never disagreed.  However, I wonder when it happened that we went from, "Hrm, I don't like that, I'm going to do something else." to "What kind of a moron are you for even trying to bring this to the table?  Get yourself a decent thesaurus you horrible little person you!"


----------



## Maggan (Dec 17, 2008)

Hussar said:


> However, I wonder when it happened that we went from, "Hrm, I don't like that, I'm going to do something else." to "What kind of a moron are you for even trying to bring this to the table?  Get yourself a decent thesaurus you horrible little person you!"




I've been thinking about this for while, and it was also prompted by me reading (un)reasons excellent thread where he reads through Dragon.

The conclusion I have come to is that since the Internet is such a wellspring of opinions, I have tended to assign multiple viewpoints to persons who disagree with me, thus creating in my mind a collective that's furthering the same ideas.

This has created the bogeyman of "they".

"They" think that everything was better in the heyday of AD&D.
"They" think that everything Gary Gygax wrote is gospel.
"They" hate 3rd and 4th edition because it's not D&D.
"They" are convinced WotC are lying to them.
"They" claim that there are no multiclassing rules in D&D4.
"They" claim that Castles&Crusades is the only true D&D published.
"They" hate WotC for moving Dragon and Dungeon to digital.
"They" don't trust the WotC game designers.

The crux is that "they" don't exist. Individuals might hold the opinions I've written as examples above, but there is no nefarious collective mind that hold each and every one of these in a pure undistilled perfect storm of opinions.

So, the answer to your question (paraphrased here) "when did we go from just doing our thing to spewing our guts out" is "we've never done that. Some individuals have done that forever and ever. But it's only today you get the opportunity to listen to so many of them, that you risk conflating many people's opinions into one huge meta-opinion that doesn't exist."

On the specific point of dictating fun, which has been a hot topic where WotC have drawn flack and past similar messages from e.g. Gary Gygax have been ignored, I think that it is basically a situation where most of us not having read everything that's been written about D&D.

So when someone is saying "WotC are dictating our fun and I hate it", I take it to read "someone is dictating our fun and I hate it!". The person would hate it if it was TSR who said it, and in all probability did hate it if they read the words in Dragon you are referring to*. 

But there are few left now who have the knowledge of D&D to remember all the things that have happened on the way to today, and thus the ire is projected on the latest active publisher.

Anyhow, that's my take on it. 

/M

* Of course there are some who will think it stellar advice coming from Gary Gygax, and spiteful bile coming from WotC, but hey that's human nature.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 17, 2008)

As I said, when the prose become so watered down it bored people to read the books was one step int hat direction, as well my bloodied example where a game mechanic term can be confused with a colorful descriptive term.

But I stopped agreeing with game designers when they decided that MTHAC0 should exist to try to somehow fit a class into the game that never really fit well.

Basically what I call the gradma syndrome. Your grandma comes into your house and starts rearranging things to suit her taste rather than leaving something alone that isn't hers. Likewise designers poke around and change things around to the point where people feel the direction they are taking the game is like kicking someone out of their own house.

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.

When you used the term bloodied to someone and that start spouting game mechanic functions of the term rather than a colurful descriptor you will understand, and it shouldn't require time to stop and clearify what you mean because of a few bad term choices.

That is just my favorite because it has come up often and is a term my group likes to describe things and we shouldn't have to change our descriptors because the term was arbitrarily used for a game mechanic that doesn't even fit the mechanic since HP are not representitive of physical damage or a state in which someone is even bleeding.

Mike Mearls' blog has a bit of fix for that, so it seems I am not the only one thinking the term should have a more substantial meaning to it.

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"?

The entire keywording of conditions and everything is what I don't like. I got tired of it from Magic the Gathering and it was merged to D&D because all the MMOs needed a word to show on screen to show status effects. :yuck:

@Maggan: I was corrected once where Gary said "you must play AD&D the way it was written or you aren't playing it right" was to the terms of the RPGA, which would make sense. For a long time I held that phrase in disgust until either himself or Frank Mentzer corrected people on it from the Dragon issue in the Forum or Sage Advice, whichever it was.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2008)

Cryptos said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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?



justanobody said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2008)

"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 (Dec 17, 2008)

Maggan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 17, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:


> "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 (Dec 17, 2008)

...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*)



Greg K said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2008)

Imban said:


> ..
> 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 (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Imban (Dec 17, 2008)

Siberys said:


> 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.




New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.

Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.

4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had *me* thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 17, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Basically what I call the grandma syndrome. Your grandma comes into your house and starts rearranging things to suit her taste rather than leaving something alone that isn't hers. Likewise designers poke around and change things around to the point where people feel the direction they are taking the game is like kicking someone out of their own house...
> 
> ...Crossed the line of acceptable amount of change to the game.




I have to say I'm with those that didn't understand the idea quoted above (top), and I also don't understand the second one quoted here.

I understand your allegory, I just don't understand how it applies to the situation.

This is less a case of someone coming into your house and rearanging your furniture, as it is someone came onto your block and built a new house next door to yours.  It may be a house you don't like, it may even be a house you feel lowers your overall property value for your neighborhood (translation: lessens RPG's in general - although this is where the allegory doesn't work since I don't see how this could be possible).  But in the end, it changes absolutely nothing about your enjoyment of your house.  Also, if 4E (the new house) is really as bad as you think it is, all it can do in the long run is make your house (your favorite rules set) look better.  It seems like that would be something favorable to your position.  I've always been of the philosophy that quality speaks for itself.  The same holds true for lack of quality.  If 4E is as bad as you think, then people will see it for what it is without people having to express it so forcefully and vocally.  However, I've found that being overly forceful and vocal in criticizing something, tends to have the opposite effect.

However, I don't want you to think I have a problem with your opinions.  Your opinions are just as valid as everyone elses.  I'm just puzzled by the logic of your approach, and the sense of animosity towards a system?  I myself don't prefer 4E, which is why I stick to my houseruled 3E.  But I don't have any animosity toward the system or those who designed it.  My question is, what have they done to you personally, that so warrants feelings of animosity against them?  I'm just curious.

Also, how can there be an "acceptable" amount of change to "the game"?  Especially when "your game" hasn't changed at all?  Nobody came in and erased the OGL SRD, or forcibly removed any and all trace of previous editions from online game stores, or more importantly, your own house.  "Your" game, is as unchanged as it was before 4E released (that is unless you changed it, which is always your perogative).  I just don't get it?  Saying the changes aren't too your approval or preference is understandable.  Saying changes weren't good, or were poorly thought out or executed is also understandable, along with many other stated opinions, both yours and others.  But _"Crossed the line of acceptable amount of change to the game."_?  Ehhh, I don't understand this.


----------



## Siberys (Dec 17, 2008)

Imban said:


> New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.
> 
> Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.
> 
> 4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had *me* thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.




Well, okay, _two_ things I can understand. 

In fact, I'm sure there are more. I guess my poorly-put point was that many of the reasons people put forth for not liking fourth are relatively minor, and the major things - like a stop in production or the game-chilling effect - are ignored for more illogical arguments about those minor things.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 17, 2008)

Imban said:


> New editions can have a game-chilling effect in a way new games can't.
> 
> Like, I'm pretty sure the release of Exalted 2e didn't make too many 3e D&D players into ex-players who declare that they've seen the light and shall never ever play such a benighted, backwards mockery of an RPG again.
> 
> 4e, up until slightly before it came out and I realized I didn't really like it at all, nearly had *me* thinking that about 3e - quite a lot of that being due to the IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment in the leadup to 4e's release. In addition, it caused several people who had been previously enjoying the game to quit my currently-running 3e game entirely, stating a desire to move completely to the new edition.




I'm sorry, but exactly what _"IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement"_ are you referring to?

I saw a lot of design discussion about 4E. A lot of design discussion about shortcomings in the 3E rules that they were attempting to address with changes in 4E. How does having an objective discussion about percieved shortcomings or flaws, whether real or not, or perceived universally or not, mean that what's being said is _"negative advertisement"_? I slavishly followed all of the online news, especially here on ENWorld and WoTC, for every tidbit of info about 4E from the moment it was anounced. Now, I won't say I saw or read absolutely everything during that period, but I caught most of it, and frankly, I just didn't see what you are saying was there.

I already had strong ideas about what I perceived as problems with 3E, and I even felt that some of the ideas and concepts put forth in 4E were better than their counterpart concepts in 3E - but I never felt that there was _"negative advertisement_" taking place. I don't understand this need to ascribe malevolent intent to the designers of 4E, and even to the system itself?

Don't get me wrong. Personally, I feel that 4E fell far short of what I expected it would be based on the pre-release info. And I feel that 3E is an overall, better system. But I have no negative emotions towards 4E or it's designers, same as I'm sure they have no negative emotions or intent towards me or my preferred system.

So, my question is, where does this sense of malevolent intent on the part of 4E and 4E's designers come from?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 17, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm sorry, but exactly what _"IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement"_ are you referring to?
> 
> I saw a lot of design discussion about 4E. A lot of design discussion about shortcomings in the 3E rules that they were attempting to address with changes in 4E. How does having an objective discussion about percieved shortcomings or flaws, whether real or not, or perceived universally or not, mean that what's being said is _"negative advertisement"_? I slavishly followed all of the online news, especially here on ENWorld and WoTC, for every tidbit of info about 4E from the moment it was anounced. Now, I won't say I saw or read absolutely everything during that period, but I caught most of it, and frankly, I just didn't see what you are saying was there.



I don't understand this either.  I am still waiting for some proof of the "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment" as well.

I just didn't see it, nor do I think that I actually happened.  I do recall seeing some threads discussing the pre-4e design discussions, but these negative comments were often filled with hyperbole that were later taken as fact by other readers.  One poster states that WOTC IS KILLING THE GAME and then it is considered fact by other readers.


----------



## Imban (Dec 18, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm sorry, but exactly what _"IMMENSE amount of negative advertisement"_ are you referring to?






catsclaw227 said:


> I don't understand this either. I am still waiting for some proof of the "IMMENSE amount of negative advertisment" as well.
> 
> I just didn't see it, nor do I think that I actually happened.




Pretty much *every single* 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.

That's negative advertisement, since all it's designed to do is call something out as being terrible and drag it through the mud in the public discourse, which is exactly what I felt happened.

And furthermore, I don't really feel it necessary to prove to you that it happened, because I'm not attacking WotC or even 4e over it. I'm stating that it happened and *as a result* I nearly stopped playing D&D altogether because I was being told that what I liked was a pile of radioactive baboon crap.

I've seen a lot of other people claiming they felt the same way; the whole "stop saying 'cool'" thing came out of this, because while they were talking trash about 3e, they refused to say anything about 4e other than that it was going to be cool.



> So, my question is, where does this sense of malevolent intent on the part of 4E and 4E's designers come from?



I'm not ascribing malevolent intent, I'm describing what I felt happened. If you feel that negative advertisement cannot exist without malevolent intent... well, I'm not going to make that accusation here.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

Imban said:


> Pretty much *every single* 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.



So, as proof you offer...what, exactly?

The one thing I can think of that could be construed as negative advertising is that video with the guy with the ridiculous accent, where they make fun of the grapple rules.

But "we think 4E does this better than 3E" is not negative advertising. And we're still waiting for an example where a designer said "these 3E mechanics are dog doo-doo", where a large proportion of 3E players would not agree. (So grappling's out, because many players had a problem with it to begin with.)


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 18, 2008)

Imban said:


> . . .*as a result* I nearly stopped playing D&D altogether because I was being told that what I liked was a pile of radioactive baboon crap.




Wait a minute! You are actually saying that you almost quit playing *YOUR PREFERRED EDITION OF D&D* because someone making a new edition denigrated it, and you feel *IT'S THEIR FAULT*.

*WOW!* If there's never been a perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face, I'd say we now have one.


However, in your defense, I did actually have a DM attack one of my characters with radioactive baboon crap once. So, I completely empathize on that score. I still hate that DM. (the saving throw DC on that one was pure hell)





Imban said:


> And furthermore, I don't really feel it necessary to prove to you that it happened




You are absolutely right. It's not necessary and by no means are you required to. But, you didn't need me, to tell you that. However, in the absence of such, I, and I'm sure others, will simply continue to believe that no such examples exist.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> 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.




I beseech you to learn to read what you quote. Follow the link in this post to the one I am quoting from you and read the section directly above where you began typing. But it is much easier to troll when you don't read the words you are quoting that state: "Because it is a status effect", isn't it? 

@El Mahdi: The house is the ruleset, and terminology and systems are the furniture. There is only so much messing with that furniture that you will allow before it crosses the line of acceptable.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The house is the ruleset, and terminology and systems are the furniture. There is only so much messing with that furniture that you will allow before it crosses the line of acceptable.




So, let me make sure I have this straight. "_The house is the ruleset_"...so, the house is the 3E ruleset (or whatever ruleset you prefer). With you so far.

_"...and terminology and systems are the furniture_"...so, terminology and systems of 3E (or any ruleset you prefer) are the furniture. Okay, still with you.

However, this is where it doesn't make sense to me.

WoTC didn't go in to your house (3E or any other preferred system) and rearrange the furniture (terminology and systems of 3E or any ruleset you prefer), in any manner, including an unacceptable manner. That is of course, unless you are referring to other 3E supplements, such as _Book of Nine Swords_ or it's equivalent.

What WoTC did is build a new house (the 4E ruleset), that kind of has the same basic framework and style as your house (the 3E ruleset or any ruleset you prefer), but added on some pillars to the entrance, and a big, gawdy bay window, and nothing but Ikea furniture. But, since they were designing the house, it was completely within their perogative to design it, and furnish it (terminology and systems), the way they liked.

Now, when I, others, and I'm assuming you, drive down RPG Street (NW), and see the houses at the addresses of 3E and 4E, we think the house at 3E is more aesthetically pleasing. The house at 4E is just too modern/overstated/ostentatious/rustic/simple (...insert adjective of choice). And that is a completely valid, fair and personally subjective opinion.

But, your allegory seems to be saying that the guys building the new house at 4E, came next door into your home and rearanged all of the furniture. Or worse, they came next door to your home one day, and completely remodelled it while you were away at work. And that would definitely suck if it happened. However, the house at 3E is still there, unchanged, unmodified, same as it always was and always will be. That is unless you decide to remodel it yourself.


So, I guess I still don't get it.


edit-P.S.: I think my house at 3E is way cooler than that house at 4E. The house at 4E still has stickers on the windows, and the yard still has that patchy sod look with anemic little saplings and bushes for landscaping. My house at 3E has landscaping that's all grown in and perfectly manicured (but still looks natural), an awesome white picket fence, and the backyard has the most awesome custom tree house in an old oak tree and a custom built wood deck and brick barbecue pit. Yeah, way cooler than the house at 4E.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 18, 2008)

For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.




Okay, okay.  I can see this.  Maybe that's why I've been doing so much tinkering with my rules lately.  I'm working on re-landscaping.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 18, 2008)

Yeah it isn't that often your house gets moved without your permission, but grandmothers seem to have a tendancy to fiddle with your stuff when they visit. Old people just have no respect these days!  So I figured that analogy would work best.

At least now we are closer to an understanding of where the disconnect in designers ideas and gamers ideas is coming form a bit for us two at least.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I beseech you to learn to read what you quote. Follow the link in this post to the one I am quoting from you and read the section directly above where you began typing. But it is much easier to troll when you don't read the words you are quoting that state: "Because it is a status effect", isn't it?



I'll resist the lure to be rude in return, but my reading of this:

"_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?"_

Made me think you were arguing the term "weakened" should have been used in 4E, but was not.

Okay, I just reread your post 3-4 times and finally parsed your meaning. You're saying "bloodied" should be called "weakened".

And, following from your previous post, the fact that it isn't means the designers need a thesaurus.

I could get behind the first point, if I didn't think the specific mechanical terms used are largely irrelevant. (They can call it Doohickey for all I care, as long as they clearly define what they mean by Doohickey.)

As to the second point, your preference of one term over another says nothing whatsoever about the designers. They are not lazy because they thought "bloodied" and "weakened" were good terms where they are. That was just their preference, which differs from yours.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.



I still can't see how that's an apt analogy. How did WotC move your house? How is the old house on a new property? What is missing from your old house?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> Wait a minute! You are actually saying that you almost quit playing *YOUR PREFERRED EDITION OF D&D* because someone making a new edition denigrated it, and you feel *IT'S THEIR FAULT*.




I kind of have to agree here.  At some point, you have to be considered responsible for your own opinions.  If you're swayed by weak arguments, that's not the fault of the one who offers the weak argument.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 18, 2008)

Imban said:


> Pretty much *every single* 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.
> 
> That's negative advertisement, since all it's designed to do is call something out as being terrible and drag it through the mud in the public discourse, which is exactly what I felt happened.
> 
> And furthermore, I don't really feel it necessary to prove to you that it happened, because I'm not attacking WotC or even 4e over it. I'm stating that it happened and *as a result* I nearly stopped playing D&D altogether because I was being told that what I liked was a pile of radioactive baboon crap.



OK, so I just read a few of them, and not once did I see negative advertising about 3.5 and I most certainly didn't see anyone say that it was a radioactive pile of baboon crap.  Either we read different words, or our understanding of the English language is wildly different.

I didn't see one article say "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" or anything like it.  Go ahead, read them, and tell me where.  I just did, and didn't see anything of the sort.

They wrote about some of 3.x's shortcomings, which there were some well documented ones - just read the loads of threads here on EnWorld - and they were pointing out how 4e would help take care of the many things that players were complaining about.

If you want to believe that's what happened, that's cool.  I just don't see it that way (and neither did the four other people here, non-D&D players, who read the same past articles that I just read).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.



Yea, I don't get this analogy either.  I still play in a 3.5 game, and it's the same way we played two years ago.  Nothing has changed for me.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 18, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I'll resist the lure to be rude in return, but my reading of this:
> 
> "_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?"_
> 
> ...




More to the point that there are two actual weakened states. One deals directly with HP in that when your a lowered to a certain level you gain new abilities and powers, and the other is a status effect that halves damage done. It is where I find a problem with the keywording of things that has gotten worse with 4th. weakened should be used and it is, but I think the status effect isn't really needed or should maybe come with what is considred "bloodied". Bloodied is a term related to appearances, not functionality. Someone could be bloodied and not be harmed at all for it could be someone else's blood they are covered in.

I don't like the rules taking away descriptive terms that add to the story elements because they are used as game mechanics.

I focus on bloodied because all that it could mean and the mountains of examples I can provide off the top of my head for it.

"The man in fornt of you is bloodied."

A: He is at half HP or less?
B: He is covered in blood?
B1: His own blood meaning he is weaker than his norm?
B2: Someone else's blood?
B2a: If was not intended and this person is not a threat?
B2b: He covered himself in someone else's blood to feign weakness?

That one word can mean so many things, but including it to a game mechanic was not good. I also wouldn't mind it being called doohickey, or thingamajig.

You are several post behind and stuck there and need to follow after that to where the discussion has lead beyond the thesaurus reference.

For whatever reason, the word is the problem. Didn't they change the name of something else prior to print because the community said the naming convention was dumb for it from its preview?

Also I question now with recent events, the playtesting of the material for what is seen in the beta of DDI, because it seems they leave big gapping holes in the beta/play testing of things because they are neglected and should be testing everything including the specific reader response to the wording where books are involved. Maybe it isn't the designers fault, but the editors, but we won't know unless we know what process WotC uses, and it seems with DDI beta at least they are using a different testing method than others have been using for years, so it is possible with the D&D products they are using a different method as well that may not be catching these things that need to be fixed, or just not testing them enough to catch them in the case of a complete new product which 4th edition is.

The same was a problem with 4th as well wasn't it? I mean how long did it take for 3.5 to come around because of poor design, editing, or testing to not catch the problems with it?

Look at all the errata for Magic the Gathering cards. Some have more than a page of corrections for a card with but a paragraph of text on it.

It seems a systemic problem within WotC though.

Anyway....The words are just one disconnect from gamers and designers, and it is funny the more technology allows for communication, the more the lines of communication break down.

The house reference, is all about the lines that gamers have within a game to where it is something they want to play versus something that no longer interests them such as moving someone else's furniture in a house.

Like I said somewhere if the names of the products were switched for Warhammer and D&D would people still play the one named D&D, or the one with the D&D rules? That tells you what is important to each of those people depending on what they chose and what real priority you should put on their opinions.

The ones playing the game named Warhammer that are the D&D rules are the ones you would be interested in seeking ideas and advice from, while those playing the game named D&D that has the Warhammer rules, are not going to provide you with any useful information to doing something with D&D as they are just playing the name, not the game.

It has been asked many times before so in the vein of "trusting designers", would 4th edition be as good a game and have as many profit if it did not carry the name D&D? The answer is no, not yet. The reason is above, and those that disagree with design elements from any edition are the ones playing the game, not the name and found something in that game that they liked and gave them a reason to play D&D instead of Warhammer, Rifts, Vampire, etc....

So the designers took the game in a direction and some gamers disagreed with that direction and don't agree with it so don't play 4th edition D&D, or didn't play 3rd, 2nd, whatever.


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 18, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Perhaps you've never read the Complete Priests' Handbook...  The whole bit with the spheres and whatnot that allowed you to customize clerics' spell lists to their religion is in the 2e PHB (building off of concepts introduced in the 1e Dragonlance hardcover).  The Complete book doesn't have any new ideas on that front, but rather has a system for designing custom priests mechanically that always results in a class vastly underpowered compared to the standard cleric & druid.  I seem to recall one gem of an example priest that had minor access to a sphere that had no 1st-3rd level spells...  I felt robbed that I had paid money for that one.
> 
> Not that there weren't good Complete books (the Bard one is stunning), but the choice isn't between "imaginative but zero editing" and "heavily edited but dull."  Allowing freelancers to produce supplements with no editing, no overall vision, and no coordination was and is a mistake, and that was the big problem with the 2e books.  The 3e splats were somewhat hit & miss, but at least the game material in them was generally usable as-is.




It has been a while but I read the complete priests handbook, so I may be miss remembering it but we made fairly effective priests from it, and sometimes it went really wrong and we made crappy priests with it. 

 The entire purpose of it was if you wanted to make priests that were not the standard from the PH.  I think one of the builds involved giving them crappy unarmed combat skills or something.  They may have erred a bit on the side of caution when making a more free form system to reduce potential abuse, but you could use it to make effective characters.  

I think the spells and magic/skills and powers books did it much better, but the priest book was not bad.  I'd put it in the average range of books, and I'd likely rate it above the adventurers vault or the completely too long list of the same thing with different mods over and over again.  

Complete books I thought were 
great books.
Wizards
Bard
Good books
Dwarves
Fighters,
Thieves
Average books
Rangers/whatever
Priests
Bad books
Elves
Gnomes/halflings


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 18, 2008)

Imban said:


> Pretty much *every single* 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.




People exactly the same hyperbole about 2nd when 3rd came out, so why wouldn't they use it again?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.




No, it's like you already own a house, and somebody's selling other houses you don't care for. It doesn't affect you, the owner of a perfectly serviceable house, but when you talk to people who like those houses and people who are selling them, it annoys you that they boost them, or say bad things about your house. That's the difference between play and community discussion.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 18, 2008)

Spatula said:


> Perhaps you've never read the Complete Priests' Handbook...  The whole bit with the spheres and whatnot that allowed you to customize clerics' spell lists to their religion is in the 2e PHB (building off of concepts introduced in the 1e Dragonlance hardcover).  The Complete book doesn't have any new ideas on that front, but rather has a system for designing custom priests mechanically that always results in a class vastly underpowered compared to the standard cleric & druid.  I seem to recall one gem of an example priest that had minor access to a sphere that had no 1st-3rd level spells...  I felt robbed that I had paid money for that one.




  Given the design advice on the cleric hidden in the book (it's at the end of the Roleplaying chapter, where it strongly suggests you reduce the cleric to All and two other major spheres and two minor spheres), and the way other priestly classes looked when they were apparently designed to balance with the core cleric (I'm thinking of the crusader and what I heard about FR specialty priests), I think the CPH's priest design was not a mistake, but a deliberate attempt to kill CoDzilla in its cradle.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Dec 18, 2008)

I can't help but note that this thread has wandered far afield from the original topic ....


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I focus on bloodied because all that it could mean and the mountains of examples I can provide off the top of my head for it.
> 
> "The man in fornt of you is bloodied."
> 
> ...



What's wrong with using the word "bloodied" as a term describing a game condition or mechanic?  I mean, we have "level" with a lot of meanings.

And if the word bloodied is bothering you, then why can't a DM use his expanded vocabulary that you insist the designers use.

Why doesn't the DM just say:  "You see a man soaked in blood." instead of saying "the man is bloodied"?

If Bloodied is a game term, then there are loads of other perfectly good descriptors a DM can use to describe a man soaked in blood, or cut up.  If he uses the term "bloodied" then he means the "Bloodied" condition? 

It really makes it easy that way.  See?  Wasn't that simple?

I mean, 4e bugs you a lot.  So why rail against it?  Why not just play your game and let us enjoy ours?  Dude, you always have something negative to say.


----------



## Lost Soul (Dec 18, 2008)

It is interesting that I stumbled on this thread. I think my sig says it well enough for me. 
 I remember getting the red box D&D as a kid and rapldly moving to AD&D 1E. It felt great. 1E in my mind was far superior to Basic D&D. (This thought would change a bit with the later Basic line expansions.  ) When 2E came out I was all for it at first except that most of my 1E fun was initially absent. No demons or devils to vanquish.  (Hey, when your fav char is a paladin that hurts more than u think!) High level rules were non-existant or poorly conceived.  By the time TSR collapsed my group was hardly playing D&D at all. We drifted away to play Vampire or Ars Magica. It was pretty sad actually. Both Vamp & Ars were great games but the problem with them was that they didn't really inspire great heroism like D&D used to.
 3E saved my gaming group! The rules were interesting and different. It was not just a rehash of the old. My group played the heck out of the monsters that were included in the back cover of the PHB on its release because the monster manual was a month away! It was great fun and everyone got the chance to try different classes.
 I have been so disappointed with 4E. I feel that it was conjured up by corporate hacks to market to the masses. I feel that some of the old kindred rivals from my vampire games have come around looking for payback. I just feel uninspired. How could Mike Mearls think up a great game like Iron Heroes and then drudge up 4E. Was he behind the concept of the 4E wizard? The one letdown of Iron Heroes was the spellcaster class which Mike even admitted was an afterthought that was rushed into the game at the last minute. 
 If I am rambling, I apologize. I just feel that D&D is in the hands of "the man" and that it is meant to be dumbed down and sanatized for mass consumption like some cheap beer. I dunno. maybe I am just not relevant on the gaming perspective anymore. That could be the case as well....


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 18, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Yea, I don't get this analogy either. I still play in a 3.5 game, and it's the same way we played two years ago. Nothing has changed for me.




In the spirit of compromise, and the fact we seemed to just be beating a dead horse, I partially agreed with that last analogy.  I read it as: WoTC changed the RPG landscape with the release of 4E.  Not necessarily a bad thing, and I don't ascribe any evil intent to them for it, but I can understand how it may have disillusioned some.

But also, I was starting to feel what Carnivorous_Bean pointed out, that I think we've started to drift a bit afield of Hussars OP.

So, I'm surrendering the field of battle to the rest of you gentleman (cough cough).  Peace out, I'm going to bed.


----------



## SHARK (Dec 18, 2008)

Greetings!

Gang, come on, now. When the poster--or any poster, really--says "4E has ruined my game!" or "WOTC...or those bastards! They've ruined D&D with this new edition! D&D is screwed now!" etc, etc, in the same way that they have made the analogy of the *House* or the *neighborhood*--by pointing out that they can still use their rules, and their particular *home game* isn't effected, well, really now.

You're being needlessly specific--and avoiding the more obvious and reasonable interpretation of what the writer intends.

You all know--or should certainly know--that such a writer means the overall game for themselves, their *collective* game, in the general sense.

If you really insist of being hyper-specific, and need the writer's unstated implications spelled out to you...come on. I know you guys are smarter and sharper than that.

Yes, 4E could be seen to ruin many people's D&D, from all of the many specific systemic critiques, to the more generalised:

(1) The continuous history of the game progressing through various similar *editions*--has now taken a radical departure. This vast transformation of not merely some rules clean-up, and modification, but rather sweeping changes to the whole foundational *system* makes many people feel that it is unconnected with the previous editions of the game, and it feels so hugely different, that it no longer feels like D&D to them.

(2) Discontinuation of future products for the edition they are currently playing; It's a general principle that when a particular game ceases to have main-line, *official* game support, the particular game essentially becomes marginalised, and withers in the general consciousness, and extending accessibility to other gamers. This reality can, for many--make it very difficult if not impossible, to run any future campaigns with anyone other than their specific current group.

(3) With the aforementioned dynamics, one's current library of vast 3E products then become in a sense *obselete* and dated, essentially limiting their use to such *retro* games. Only people interested in playing in such a *discontinued* and unsupported game, will now allow full use of such material. I'm perplexed at how to explain this precisely, but it becomes a sort of "closed loop" creatively for future campaign miliues.

I hope this clarifies and helps a bit. Personally, I really like 3x, and I am still running 3.5 campaigns. I am enthusiastic about 4E, and am researching it for future adoption at a later date, as I deem appropriate.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 18, 2008)

Your experience matches mine pretty much exactly.  Good first post, by the way!

Ken



Lost Soul said:


> It is interesting that I stumbled on this thread. I think my sig says it well enough for me.
> I remember getting the red box D&D as a kid and rapldly moving to AD&D 1E. It felt great. 1E in my mind was far superior to Basic D&D. (This thought would change a bit with the later Basic line expansions.  ) When 2E came out I was all for it at first except that most of my 1E fun was initially absent. No demons or devils to vanquish.  (Hey, when your fav char is a paladin that hurts more than u think!) High level rules were non-existant or poorly conceived.  By the time TSR collapsed my group was hardly playing D&D at all. We drifted away to play Vampire or Ars Magica. It was pretty sad actually. Both Vamp & Ars were great games but the problem with them was that they didn't really inspire great heroism like D&D used to.
> 3E saved my gaming group! The rules were interesting and different. It was not just a rehash of the old. My group played the heck out of the monsters that were included in the back cover of the PHB on its release because the monster manual was a month away! It was great fun and everyone got the chance to try different classes.
> I have been so disappointed with 4E. I feel that it was conjured up by corporate hacks to market to the masses. I feel that some of the old kindred rivals from my vampire games have come around looking for payback. I just feel uninspired. How could Mike Mearls think up a great game like Iron Heroes and then drudge up 4E. Was he behind the concept of the 4E wizard? The one letdown of Iron Heroes was the spellcaster class which Mike even admitted was an afterthought that was rushed into the game at the last minute.
> If I am rambling, I apologize. I just feel that D&D is in the hands of "the man" and that it is meant to be dumbed down and sanatized for mass consumption like some cheap beer. I dunno. maybe I am just not relevant on the gaming perspective anymore. That could be the case as well....


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 18, 2008)

*obsolescence*

Oh, and SHARK,

You're right.. the obsolescence of 3.X is what I fear... I played RuneQuest throughout the 90s when it was more or less not a supported system, and it was difficult to get players, to say the least.

My hope for 3.X is that either

1) Pathfinder will be good enough to carry the torch 

or 

2) the continued existence of the online SRD will make the fact that 3.X is no longer supported by WoTC less significant.

I certainly have enough 3.X stuff to play for years...definitely until 5E comes out!

Ken


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> No, it's like you already own a house, and somebody's selling other houses you don't care for. It doesn't affect you, the owner of a perfectly serviceable house, but when you talk to people who like those houses and people who are selling them, it annoys you that they boost them, or say bad things about your house. That's the difference between play and community discussion.



To be fair, there is at least one legitimate concern: if someone builds a new shiny house, and none of your friends want to come over and play at your house anymore; they want to party at the new house. Now, I don't think it's fair to blame the house builder for this, and if they're your friends then the house you party at shouldn't really matter.

If you normally party with people you would otherwise not spend any time with (ie, not friends), then you're pretty much stuck. Your best bet is to find some more people who also don't like the new shiny house, and party with them. Since you weren't partying with friends anyway, it shouldn't matter too much.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 18, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> It is interesting that I stumbled on this thread. I think my sig says it well enough for me.



What sig?


----------



## Ydars (Dec 18, 2008)

Oh Goodie! ANOTHER edition wars thread! I just can't get enough of them these days. It is such a pleasant surprise when you can open a thread on seemingly ANY topic and find it has drifted down this road. I particularly enjoy the originality of the arguments as well.


----------



## Lizard (Dec 18, 2008)

I think it was when game design articles started beginning with "According to our marketing surveys..." and began including bafflegab like "enhancing the core play experience". 

Gary never felt like he was expecting to be taken seriously. He was the crazy old uncle ranting on about Gandalf and gunpowder and what not, and he was amusing, and then you ignored him and had orcs with machineguns  and Ye Olde Shoppe Of Magicke ANYWAY.  (And beardless female dwarves, the horror!)

I've actually come to like 4e and appreciate a lot of what it does, but it was a long fight through marketroid spew to get there. (Being told how much all the older editions sucked didn't help, either.)


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 18, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> My hope for 3.X is that either
> 
> 1) Pathfinder will be good enough to carry the torch
> 
> ...



Now, don't get me wrong - I think the online SRD(s) and Pathfinder are both great things, but. . .
I just find it odd whenever I read these kinds of things. I mean, what happens with everyone's books? They don't work, all of a sudden? 

Seriously, that whole 'supported' thing. . . I do find it odd that anyone at all _requires_ it. The game (and tons of supplementary material) exists already, you've got what you need, you can still play it. Hm.




> I certainly have enough 3.X stuff to play for years...definitely until 5E comes out!



Exactly!

Or longer, possibly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 18, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> *snip*



For a moment I confused you with LostSoul, and expected a different "punch line". Might want to duke it out with LostSoul and the moderators if your names are to similar...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For a moment I confused you with LostSoul, and expected a different "punch line". Might want to duke it out with LostSoul and the moderators if your names are to similar...




Yeah that was weird. Before I checked the post count I thought our old buddy LostSoul had been hit with orbital mind control lasers.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Dec 18, 2008)

It's not that _I_ need any more 3E books.  I don't.

It's what happens when I get a new player for a game I am running, and they are either new to gaming, or they come from a Vampire or Gurps background or whatever, and they don't have the 3.X books as a result.

The first time that happens, I will probably have to restrict my 3.X game to core rules/SRD only, because it won't be fair to the new player to let the others use a zillion splatbooks that he doesn't have access to.

When 4E is dropped for 5E,  4E players will be in an even more difficult position, because there won't be an online SRD to fall back on as a rules reference. 

Ken



Aus_Snow said:


> Now, don't get me wrong - I think the online SRD(s) and Pathfinder are both great things, but. . .
> I just find it odd whenever I read these kinds of things. I mean, what happens with everyone's books? They don't work, all of a sudden?
> 
> Seriously, that whole 'supported' thing. . . I do find it odd that anyone at all _requires_ it. The game (and tons of supplementary material) exists already, you've got what you need, you can still play it. Hm.
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> The first time that happens, I will probably have to restrict my 3.X game to core rules/SRD only, because it won't be fair to the new player to let the others use a zillion splatbooks that he doesn't have access to.




If I trust him or her enough to have them at my table, I trust them enough to loan a gaming book to them.  It isn't like they need constant access to things outside the core rules every day between sessions, or something.

I find SHARK's argument about continuing support weak.  The editions changed up because the revenue stream was winding down - the market was saturated with content, such that it was getting difficult to sell more content.  Thus, the world has a surplus of support for the original system, sufficient for a lifetime of play, I should think.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> I find SHARK's argument about continuing support weak. The editions changed up because the revenue stream was winding down - the market was saturated with content, such that it was getting difficult to sell more content. Thus, the world has a surplus of support for the original system, sufficient for a lifetime of play, I should think.




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.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 18, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2008)

Storm Raven said:


> 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 (Dec 18, 2008)

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 (Dec 18, 2008)

Lizard said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2008)

Lizard said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2008)

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 (Dec 21, 2008)

Lizard said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 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 (Dec 22, 2008)

garyh said:


> 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.


----------



## carmachu (Dec 22, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Now, a thought hit me. What would happen if Mike Mearls had written either of these two bits in a recent Dragon magazine? There would be a mad rush of vitriol being spilled all over the forums. How dare he dictate my campaign world to me, would be the rallying cry.
> 
> Yet, EGG flat out dictates your world to you and no one raises an eyebrow. Zeb Cook does the same thing and is lauded by some for maintaining the mystery of magic items.




Now see, there's a flaw in your premise, or two.

First, while I like alot of what Merles has done, his work, he's not GG. *shrug* Gary is the grandfather of D&D so thats different ball parks.

Second? Many people i know also just flat out ignored his "there's no gun powder in D&D back in the day. And thought he was a bit crazy for that logic. Same with Cook. In fact arguements over it if I recall.


Another issue is? Merles and company has burned more bridges lately with the fans-depending on which side of the edition fence your on, with the comments in the hype up to 4e and trashing 3.x and its fans and such. Gary's and Zeb's burned bridges are much farther in the past.....


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

garyh said:


> 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.




Who is talking about 3.anything D&D? Who cares about that crap. Wrong tree here to be barking that at!

I am talking about anything done since A/D&D was in WotC hands. 2nd edition that was blamed for killing T$R without looking at all the other screw ups done to the company lasted for 11 years. What has WotC done in the RPG world that has lasted that long? Kept Bill Slavesick and Rich Baker around? Is there anyone else other than those two left that came from TSR?

Ethics should be something important to designers especially if they have kids. What are you teaching your kids if your own ethics are not up to par. How long should you work on something you don't believe in just to say you are working? There are other jobs out there so don't be a one trick pony and have some other skill until you can find a job at a company with better ethics.

The problem is as you described and I bolded. RPGs have become more about making money for the companies than making good games. Why did D&D go far beyond the initial 5000 photocopied versions of the white box and Chainmail in ziplock baggies? Because it was good designers making games rather than companies. Now they sell because some marketing engine is bigger than the design power. This marketing engine could be selling dog poo for vegetable garden fetilizer and people buying it even though it offers zero nutrients for plants and can be harmful to humans that eat the veggies.

The designers are what the entire process revolves around and must make a stand. But they have to do it together. Do you think the writer's strike did nothing? It caused some TV shows to end early because of lack of interest, and caused some lacking movies with substandard writers, but it got things done and a change effected that would make things in the future better. I mean if all the D&D designers went on strike from WotC, do you think WotC would be able to just grab other people to replace them in the interim of the strike being solved? Sure they could hire freelancers to take up some slack, and Hasbro could decide to drop D&D....or can they? Only if they wish to dissolve WotC after dumping all their games into it, because WotC needs D&D as a name bigger than Magic as a property to make money, so Hasbro would be foolish to drop it and cripple WotC which is basically the Hasbro game makers right now.

So yes designers do have something to say and can stick up for any older thing and against change if they choose to do so. The question is what is more important to them.

Personally I wouldn't hire a person wanting to just make money to support their kids where thinking is involved. Someone to just lift and move things, sure, but if you are at your job with just money at home on your mind, you may not be fully focused on your job which requires calm thinking and creativity. I would rather have that employee fight me over something that they feel is more important because they, the designers, should know better than me or a marketing team as they are the ones creating the thing and know how to make it work.

One of the reasons DDI will not and has not worked yet, because the designers there at least have tried to stand up to silly people that don't know what is going on and wouldn't listen with ridiculous time tables for things to get done because those people don't understand how to write computer code or even how to make it work. It is why they hired those designers afterall so these companies should start to listen to the people they hired because before then the company didn't know how to do the thing they hired these people for....

Maybe the remaining T$R leftovers need to be gotten rid of in the game making department and get all new people.

I mean it is pretty bad IF the designers aren't fighting for something and the Brand manager has to do all the fighting to prevent something from becoming crap. And the way it seems right now Scott Rouse is the only thing keeping D&D aloive or giving any substantial information to the people about it.

If PHB2 with Mearls in the lead has his new "optinal" damage rules in it, then I will think the designers fought to get something in hard enough, but we really don't know and can only guess it to be the designer doing, because the execs hide behind them and never come out in the open to accept fault for their doings prior to Randy Buehler. Ken Troop ran and hid real fast!



RFisher said:


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



Exactly!


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

RFisher said:


> Wizards has _never_ depended upon D&D to stay afloat.
> 
> Note also that after each new edition comes out, they have lay offs.




I wasn't saying WotC relied on D&D to keep the whole company afloat.  But the D&D division has to bring in enough money to make it worthwhile or the brand will be hibernated or sold off, and all the current D&D designers will be out of jobs.

And yeah, I know about the post-new-edition-cycle layoffs.  If anything, that puts the designers in a more precarious situation.



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




Certainly.  I don't recall saying otherwise.  But I don't think it'd be healthy for the hobby if WotC and official D&D disappeared and all that was out there was fan-produced PDFs.  Not a way to grow the hobby, not a way to have a critical mass of people sharing the same game.


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Who is talking about 3.anything D&D? Who cares about that crap. Wrong tree here to be barking that at!




So are you saying WotC should still be actively supporting BECMI/RC/1E/2E?  Really?  You think that would be a wise use of staff time and development budget and produce a reasonable return on investment?



> I am talking about anything done since A/D&D was in WotC hands. 2nd edition that was blamed for killing T without looking at all the other screw ups done to the company lasted for 11 years. What has WotC done in the RPG world that has lasted that long? Kept Bill Slavesick and Rich Baker around? Is there anyone else other than those two left that came from TSR?
> 
> <snip>




I'm not sure where this is all going.  All I can extract is that you seem to like neither how TSR or WotC has handled D&D.  In which case, I can only ask, how did you become a fan if you think it's been grossly mismanaged the entirety of the game's existence?

Also, you seem to have a lot of idealistic notions about employment that I can hardly follow, but from what I can gather seem to amount to "screw the Man!" and "if you care about getting paid, you don't really care about what you're doing."  Which is just absurd, if that's actually what you're trying to say.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 22, 2008)

garyh said:


> Also, you seem to have a lot of idealistic notions about employment that I can hardly follow, but from what I can gather seem to amount to "screw the Man!" and "if you care about getting paid, you don't really care about what you're doing."  Which is just absurd, if that's actually what you're trying to say.



I'm getting the same impression.

I can say that I very much care about my work, about my clients, I want to make sure they get the best out of me that I can give them. I also want to get paid. I need to get paid, in fact, because I have a family to support. Regardless of the pride and satisfaction I might get from my work if I did it for free, I would not be able to do it for free.

Talking about fantasy is fine when you're talking about what happens in the game. But outside the game, reality is king.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

@garyh:

WotC could do like they seem to be going to do most other things. Hire freelance authors and pay them like they pay for submissions for ANY older edition, and own the work, and then give writing credits tot he freelancers while retaining all the rights and profits form the sales.

They have very little resources to put into it IF they wanted to support any older edition. The most they could lose is their 6 cents per word from the freelancer/submission.

With 3rd they wouldn't even need to do that as 3rd edition support was freely given away under OGL.

But how hard would it be to take submissions for older editions except for the fact they don't want to support it?

T$R =/= TSR. I do like things in AD&D, but not the way it was handled that let WotC get their nasty hands on it. 

I simply do not worship money like most other people do. The paper currency says "In God We Trust", not "In Money We Trust". But this is getting into politics and religion, so will not say further about that.

I just prefer people doing something they enjoy and are happy doing to get quality work and quality product from, rather than someone working just for the money and getting subpar or worse quality because they do it just to get the money and get it done rather than do it to get the thing done right. Too many things are made today by cutting corners that lower quality of things.

Gary et all did it because they truely enjoyed it, but now under big industry, people are doing it to support the companies, rather than the game. It isn't just the RPG industry either, but I guess that also is politics so must be dropped.....

So it comes down to which you prefer designers to do things? Do you want quantity or quality? Then which does the company those designers work for want? 

Personally I will take quality over quantity any day!


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 22, 2008)

garyh said:


> ...I don't think it'd be healthy for the hobby if WotC and official D&D disappeared and all that was out there was fan-produced PDFs. Not a way to grow the hobby, not a way to have a critical mass of people sharing the same game.




I really don't see this as a bad thing. The cream always rises to the top. If people have good ideas, and post them on the internet, the best will get the most attention. I don't think it would be any harder to sift the wheat from the chaff than it is right now.

Now, I'm not saying I wish WoTC would close up and that this very scenario becomes reality. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone who relies on the RPG Industry for their livelyhood. But if it did happen, I feel the hobby itself would go on without any major handicap. As long as there is an internet, and good RPG fansites like ENWorld, I think the future of the hobby is in no danger whatsoever.

edit: Besides, we all don't share the same game right now (and I'm not just talking about a 3E / 4E thing).  There are 100's of games out there right now that we all play.  We all have our preferences, and they are extremely varied.


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> @garyh:
> 
> WotC could do like they seem to be going to do most other things. Hire freelance authors and pay them like they pay for submissions for ANY older edition, and own the work, and then give writing credits tot he freelancers while retaining all the rights and profits form the sales.
> 
> ...




Well, they would still have to pay the people providing work, freelance or not.  Then they'd have to pay for editing and typesetting/layout.  And would it get playtested?  If not, then who can vouch for the quality?  Oh, and any professional product should have illustrations.  Then, once it's tested, edited, illustrated, and laid out, you have to do some sort of advertising to let people know it exists, and you have to pay something to distribute it (even RPGNow takes their slice).  All of those things cost money.  Do you really think enough people are going to buy stuff for older editions that WotC should spend that money to bring this hypothetical product to market?  And meanwhile, this hypothetical product is competing for gamer dollars with the current edition releases.



> T =/= TSR. I do like things in AD&D, but not the way it was handled that let WotC get their nasty hands on it.
> 
> I simply do not worship money like most other people do. The paper currency says "In God We Trust", not "In Money We Trust". But this is getting into politics and religion, so will not say further about that.
> 
> ...




This, again, seems to get back to the, well, naive idea of what industry, employment, and commerce should be.  And another healthy dose of "back in the old days, (generic topic) was better!"


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

El Mahdi said:


> I really don't see this as a bad thing. The cream always rises to the top. If people have good ideas, and post them on the internet, the best will get the most attention. I don't think it would be any harder to sift the wheat from the chaff than it is right now.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I wish WoTC would close up and that this very scenario becomes reality. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone who relies on the RPG Industry for their livelyhood. But if it did happen, I feel the hobby itself would go on without any major handicap. As long as there is an internet, and good RPG fansites like ENWorld, I think the future of the hobby is in no danger whatsoever.
> 
> edit: Besides, we all don't share the same game right now (and I'm not just talking about a 3E / 4E thing).  There are 100's of games out there right now that we all play.  We all have our preferences, and they are extremely varied.




Very true on the "not all on the same page right now" point, but it's still a much larger pool of shared experience than if D&D disappeared.  But at some level, I think there needs to be some sort of leader that serves as a relatively common shared game and an entry point to the hobby.  Without the giant, I think the fringe/niche/splinter games would be really hurt as new players stopped entering RPG's via the game that's synonymous with the hobby.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I just prefer people doing something they enjoy and are happy doing to get quality work and quality product from, rather than someone working just for the money and getting subpar or worse quality because they do it just to get the money and get it done rather than do it to get the thing done right. Too many things are made today by cutting corners that lower quality of things.



This, plus your earlier post upthread, seems to presuppose one or both of the following: (i) that the 3E and 4e designers don't think they're doing their best work, but are just in it for the money; (ii) that 3E and 4e are low-quality, corner-cutting game design. Is there any real evidence for either of these? I'm no big fan of 3E, but not because I think it's corner-cutting. That is a bizarre suggestion in relation to such highly-designed, highly-developed, highly-playtested RPGs.



justanobody said:


> Personally I will take quality over quantity any day!



Likewise. That's why the whitespace in the 4e books doesn't bother me.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

@garyh:

Who says the current stuff form WotC is getting *proper* playtesting?


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> @garyh:
> 
> Who says the current stuff form WotC is getting *proper* playtesting?




Um, yeah.  Great job at ignoring the main point of my post to make an unsubstantiated dig at 4e and the current WotC designers.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

garyh said:


> Um, yeah.  Great job at ignoring the main point of my post to make an unsubstantiated dig at 4e and the current WotC designers.




The rest of your post such as "typesetting", a term that should be deprecated in this day and age of printing processes, has little to do with designers and the ability to support older editions.

Feel free to fork it to a new thread, and I will respond to it there and give others the chance to do so without derailing this one.

Freelancers are the current model WotC set up and mentioned with the latest round of layoff in that they plan to outsource "things". Who says design or writing cannot be outsourced to freelancers just as could things like editing, etc?


----------



## garyh (Dec 22, 2008)

Production costs versus expected revenue has EVERYTHING to do with supporting older editions.  And pardon me if I use an out-of-date publishing term, it's not my field, but I can take a fair stab at guessing the sorts of costs that go into a professional gaming product, and it's more than the "freelancer submits manuscript = ??? = PROFIT!!!" approach you seem to be suggesting.

And yes, this has little to do with designers other than that you seem to think designers should "stick it to the Man" and not produce new products you don't like instead of continuing to support older editions you prefer despite all the economic factors at the individual (wanting to earn a living) and industry (generating profits to sustain the company) levels.

I suppose if you had it your way all designers would be providing free 2e (or whatever your out-of-print edition of choice is) material out of a simple love for the game.  Heck of a plan there.  I'm sure that'll grow the hobby and put food on the tables of the designers.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 22, 2008)

Seems to work for OSRIC....


----------



## RFisher (Dec 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> RPGs have become more about making money for the companies than making good games.




I’d be willing to entertain this thought, but only for a minority of RPGs.



garyh said:


> Certainly.  I don't recall saying otherwise.  But I don't think it'd be healthy for the hobby if WotC and official D&D disappeared and all that was out there was fan-produced PDFs.  Not a way to grow the hobby, not a way to have a critical mass of people sharing the same game.




First of all, let’s be clear that there is a long distance between D&D disappearing and there being nothing but fan-produced PDFs. All I have to do is count the number of in-print RPGs on my Amazon wish list (none of which are produced by Wizards) and then remember the number of in-print RPGs out there that I didn’t add to it.

You know, I never thought the free/open software movement would create a decent GUI. There are at least two now. I never thought fans of AD&D would manage to finish a clone as close as the law allows. Now we have OSRIC. Now we have Labyrinth Lord. Now we have OSRIC 2. Et al. So even if it did come down to only fan-produced PDFs, I’m no longer convinced that would be so bad.

Truthfully, I’m already living in a world without official D&D. Sure, the 4e PHB is over there on my shelf. We’ve talked about someday giving it another try, but I can’t say I’ve seen any enthusiasm for it from anyone in the group.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 22, 2008)

Heck, and through most of the 1990s I lived in a world effectively without official D&D.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 22, 2008)

RFisher said:


> You know, I never thought the free/open software movement would create a decent GUI. There are at least two now.




I'm curious what two GUIs get your vote in this regard.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 22, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> I'm curious what two GUIs get your vote in this regard.




^_^ The key word, of course, is “decent”. Meaning simply much better than I ever expected, even if they largely blindly ape commercial systems rather than truly aiming for best-of-breed. I was thinking of Gnome and KDE specifically. Which last I looked had reached that “decent” mark.

If I took some time to consider individual applications instead of environments I might be able to come up with some better examples.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 23, 2008)

RFisher said:


> I’d be willing to entertain this thought, but only for a minority of RPGs.




That's fair. Sadly those few are the bigger named ones at times and dwarf the existence of other RPGs.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Seems to work for OSRIC....



Does anyone make a living off of OSRIC? I honestly don't know, but I rather doubt it.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 23, 2008)

RFisher said:


> ^_^ The key word, of course, is “decent”. Meaning simply much better than I ever expected, even if they largely blindly ape commercial systems rather than truly aiming for best-of-breed. I was thinking of Gnome and KDE specifically. Which last I looked had reached that “decent” mark.




I was mostly just curious, since for now my familiarity is limited to the current version of Ubuntu Linux (which is what my Dell Mini9 shipped with) and I was curious what are considered the 'best in breed' these days.  I haven't played with generic Gnome or KDE in a couple of years.


----------



## Lost Soul (Dec 24, 2008)

To be honest. I think my negative view of game designers started back in 2E. I was much younger back then and my favorite world then and still is Dragon Lance. I saw support for it completely shrivel up and die out and the reason for it from the talking heads was always the same. "DL does not sell as a D&D world." I really felt that some people in the office had an agenda and they were trying to stamp out my game. By the end of TSR i was pretty much ambivilant about TSR's demise. I still read Dragon and such but by that time I had moved onto other games. I was very glad that WOTC bought TSR and resurrected D&D. The owner of WOTC (the guy who created Magic: The Gathering.  That little card game that TSR believed would never work.) was a fan of DL and worked hard at bringing it back.  Suffice it to say that DL did arrive at 3E and every one in my gaming group rejoiced. It really seemed like WOTC was on the right track.

Now I am just not sure. There are Major Changes with the new 4E. These are just not different from 3E but they are SIGNIFICANTLY different from any previous edition. It's alot like seeing a Ferrari being made into a family sedan and still being marketing as a sports car. Something just dosen't jive. For this I do blame game designers because they designed the game.  I just don't trust the quality of the work as much as I used to. When they provide a high quality product that stands up over time I'll gladly back them. All of my fondest memories of modules are all either basic or 1E such as Ravenloft, Keep on the Borderlands. The Isle of Dread, Palace of the Silver Princess, original DL series of mods, Against the Giants series and a few others. I cannot say that there are and 2E or 4E modules that inspire fond memoires. The 4E modules have been very uninspiring so far to say the least.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 24, 2008)

I like 4e.

I also trust the designers.  Not to say I won't make changes for my own game, but I think what they've done works well.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 24, 2008)

PaulMaclean said:


> Seth Godin has some interesting thoughts on that. Essentially, he believes people should post with their real names and stand by their words for just the kind of reasons described above.
> 
> I know some people on Yoggie have requested their username changed to their real names. It can be easy to see that people would attach more weight to posts attributed to real names than pseudonyms.




That's an interesting concept. 

But to keept it on topic.

I've never "trusted" game designers to know what's fun for my group.

Back in the day I had a campaign in a city state called (oh so cleverly by my younger self) the City Scape and it was simply, The Dungeon. A Fallen demi-god used it to test heroes to pass them on to further trials by the name of Smitty, an old bald wrinkling man who was always able to use those resevers of primal energy to take care of any would be thieves. Go into the dungeon or go home.

For those times when playing D&D, gold pieces were of astonishing levels. I had Moot Fruble, an alchemists (From one of the old Bard Games expansions) that could pretty much make any magic item, but didn't want his time wasted. It was 50K in gold just to get his attention.

I've often used a mix of rules, official, house, and unofficial, to make the game as close to mine as I could.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 24, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The rest of your post such as "typesetting", a term that should be deprecated in this day and age of printing processes, has little to do with designers and the ability to support older editions.




Dude, call it 'typesetting,' 'formatting,' or whatever you want (in the publishing business, from what I can tell from my friends who are in said business, 'typesetting' is still proper terminology), people still have to be paid to do it.  This has everything to do with the ability to support older editions, since a company (any company, not just WotC) has to decide if supporting said editions will be financially worth the while.



justanobody said:


> Freelancers are the current model WotC set up and mentioned with the latest round of layoff in that they plan to outsource "things". Who says design or writing cannot be outsourced to freelancers just as could things like editing, etc?




Again, outsourced or not, it still has to be paid for.  Personally, I'd rather see a lot of support for B/X D&D, but WotC isn't going to pay money out of their yearly budget for a freelancer to write a B/X module jst to suit me when they could pay that same money to that same freelancer to do the next 4e splatbook.  It just isn't going to happen.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 24, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> To be honest. I think my negative view of game designers started back in 2E. I was much younger back then and my favorite world then and still is Dragon Lance. I saw support for it completely shrivel up and die out and the reason for it from the talking heads was always the same. "DL does not sell as a D&D world." I really felt that some people in the office had an agenda and they were trying to stamp out my game. By the end of TSR i was pretty much ambivilant about TSR's demise. I still read Dragon and such but by that time I had moved onto other games. I was very glad that WOTC bought TSR and resurrected D&D. The owner of WOTC (the guy who created Magic: The Gathering.  That little card game that TSR believed would never work.) was a fan of DL and worked hard at bringing it back.  Suffice it to say that DL did arrive at 3E and every one in my gaming group rejoiced. It really seemed like WOTC was on the right track.
> 
> Now I am just not sure. There are Major Changes with the new 4E. These are just not different from 3E but they are SIGNIFICANTLY different from any previous edition. It's alot like seeing a Ferrari being made into a family sedan and still being marketing as a sports car. Something just dosen't jive. For this I do blame game designers because they designed the game.  I just don't trust the quality of the work as much as I used to. When they provide a high quality product that stands up over time I'll gladly back them. All of my fondest memories of modules are all either basic or 1E such as Ravenloft, Keep on the Borderlands. The Isle of Dread, Palace of the Silver Princess, original DL series of mods, Against the Giants series and a few others. I cannot say that there are and 2E or 4E modules that inspire fond memoires. The 4E modules have been very uninspiring so far to say the least.






LostSoul said:


> I like 4e.
> 
> I also trust the designers.  Not to say I won't make changes for my own game, but I think what they've done works well.




You guys confuse me.  Maybe you two could make an "Edition Duel" - the survivor gets to keep his user name?


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Dec 24, 2008)

If, as was suggested earlier in the thread, trusting game designers means that you'll buy a book by them sight unseen, just because it has their name on it, then I'm afraid I've never trusted *any* of them, and probably never will. 

There have been maybe 2 occasions when I've bought a game book  sight unseen. Otherwise, I've got to thumb through it, or at least read about 5 or 6 independent reviews of it that suggest it's what I'm looking for, before I'll shell out any cash for it.


----------



## Lost Soul (Dec 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You guys confuse me.  Maybe you two could make an "Edition Duel" - the survivor gets to keep his user name?




That's funny. I wrote what I did not to start an edition duel because I think 4E is a radical departure from the D&D concept as a whole. Every class having a total of 12 powers. Magic items with a "daily" use. All monsters being on a similar footing in terms of powers and abilities. Hit Points of party members being very close to each other due to fixed numbers. A wizard being just as skilled as a fighter in weapons with the only difference being physical strength. Saving throws being completely different, etc.
 I just don't see how you can honestly compare 4E to any previous edition and decide that one or the other is "better" because it seems to me to be a whole different animal. It would kind of like comparing dogs and cats. Some owners will prefer one pet to another but comparisons really aren't fair becuase the animals are so different from one another. I liken this comparison to 4E and all previous editions. 4E dosen't seem to me to be an attempt to clear up or expand upon previous rules. It seems to be a very different game that happens to have the Dungeons & Dragons logo slapped on it.


----------



## Mkhaiwati (Dec 25, 2008)

Hussar said:


> At what point did game designers go from "Guys who want to make my game better" to "Those bastards who are trying to ruin MY game!"?




It happened when Santa became a stalker.

He knows when you are sleeping, or awake. He knows if you have been bad or good.

That is just creepy.


----------



## Calithena (Dec 26, 2008)

I'm sure this has been said already, but people stopped trusting game designers in RPGs immediately upon publication of the first D&D books.

That doesn't mean we didn't respect what they did or learn from them. But the cars didn't run back then until you put them in your garage and worked on them for a while. I actually liked that better than the cars we have now, that do seem to clunk along by themselves off the showroom floor but are much harder to chop to spec.


----------



## Ulrick (Dec 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> 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.




I agree, but I've also experienced the opposite.

When game designers keep coming out with a new edition every few years it adds to the problem. I liked 3.5e, but I was content with 3e. I switched to 3.5e because I didn't want to get left out of a social group.

Back when 3e came out and I joined a gaming club, nobody in that club would play 3e.  They liked 2e.  It got so bad that one DM ended up running a 20 player game one day (partly his fault for not saying "no" to people).  Meanwhile, I tried to syphon off some players from that game, but I had no takers because they didn't want to convert to 3e.


----------

