So, not wanting to start a flame war, a riot, or a case of indigestion for anyone, but where are we headed? Another year of increasingly obscure supliments? Are we going to dive into powercreep to keep the books coming out (even more than we have)? Or. . . I'll say it. . .
5th edition?
I know they usually have a big Con in Feb. when they showcase the lineup for the year. Lets start the wild speculation on what we will see.
This is all that matters to me. I believe 5th edition is coming out in the next 12 to 24 months. But until it is *released* I am not concerned.
Some epic adventure support would be great, there's been a huge outcry for it in fact.
As for 5e? maybe the year after we'll get an announcement, i think we're still inthe market research phase of development (looks at all the polls recently in Legends and Lore)
i wouldn't mind it i guess, i want to get full use out of my 4e stuff first (and i love 4e, ALOT), but eventually, i could see my self switching over, it would have to be on the promsie that 5e'd have a logner cycle though. The quality of the new edition, and my economic situation at the time would determine how soon i bother to make the switch
Of course, that won't stop 5e being announced at GenCon 2014, but that should be pretty obvious to everyone.
4e has the ability to evolve by means of errata. We dont need 5e.
We can tinker with 4e, rethink it, clean it up, make it more friendly, more efficient, make it shine.
While I agree with your sentimate, but 5e on the 40th anniversary is marketing gold.
This, nuf said.
Right now they're even scared to fix relatively easy to fix things that have been plagueing this edition from day 1. Instead they just make feats, and I dont even mean just expertise.
Lets start the wild speculation on what we will see.
Whaddaya mean, start?
I don't think WoTC would deal out the amount of errata needed to properly 'make it shine', it would invalidate far too many books.
Right now they're even scared to fix relatively easy to fix things that have been plagueing this edition from day 1. Instead they just make feats, and I dont even mean just expertise.
Yeah, but thats the point.
If 4e players are actually talking about 5e, and replacing 4e, then its time to stop being shy about errata.
You could even have your cake and eat it too.
You could do all of the errata for 4e online, digitally thru DDI, only for those gamers who want it. Then, when the time comes, this erratad version of 4e can actually become the hardcopies that you market as “5e”.
I don't think WoTC would deal out the amount of errata needed to properly 'make it shine', it would invalidate far too many books.
Right now they're even scared to fix relatively easy to fix things that have been plagueing this edition from day 1. Instead they just make feats, and I dont even mean just expertise.
Yeah, but thats the point.
If 4e players are actually talking about 5e, and replacing 4e, then its time to stop being shy about errata.
You could even have your cake and eat it too.
You could do all of the errata for 4e online, digitally thru DDI, only for those gamers who want it. Then, when the time comes, this erratad version of 4e can actually become the hardcopies that you market as “5e”.
As much as I would like to see this happen I dont think the current design team have the spine or skill to. Come on we are talking about a group that thinks bandaid feats are the height of game design.
The problem is, the designers have to stop with the “surprises”. When making any dramatic changes, the community must be aware of the proposed errata, be able to decide whether they can live with it or not, provide feedback to finetune and improve the errata, BEFORE the changes ever become official.
Its easy for the community to decide what they dont like, but difficult for the community to agree on what they do like. So identifying those fixes that most of the community can live with is a challenge.
I mean, I like your idea and all. Unfortunately I think it'd require too much change to go on at WoTC than it'd likely ever do without like, an actual edition change. You have to consider:
Distributing the errata via DDI. Does the CB support it? Are all DDI users forced to use it? What if it radically changes some peoples characters too much and suddenly there's a massive group of whiners? What if a DM who uses the CB alot doesn't want to radically update? The CB would then need some sort of optional version of the rules control, and also be able to differentiate between uh "4.x" errata and normal errata in order to fix stuff like they normally do. You also have the issue of these people knee-jerking, and have to be told, en-masse, that they can revert to the old version. Or on the flip side, that the new version exists for those who want to use the newer versions. This requires alot of fundamental changes to a CB which is still playing catch-up in some places to its predecessor.
How does this effect books that come out during the time? They use the 'current' rules and all us DDI people get errata to these too? I guess this depends how radical the changes are.
The team's current level of quality control. Theme power is all over the place, some really weak classes have been produced. Radiant and Charging for some reason continues to receive new types of support for some reason.
The team's current nastalgia trip. We get told on a weekly basis how things were better in the old days in L&L columns. How many changes would actually be made to fix 4e, rather than "restore it to its classical form"?
Would releasing it later as 5e really change enough to be considered 5e? Would the community just consider it a 4.5? Unless they really...really changed things it'd seem like its the same books again just with errata.
Is it really economically feasable? Would WoTC even consider trying it to be economically feasable? Depending on how massive an errata they do, they'd have to sift through thousands of elements without actually charging us anything extra. Their current errata format is kind of cumbersome to read through if they do do massive change, they'd probably need something closer to the 3.x SRD which further devalues buying books.
Heh. It seems Essentials was actually a (failed) attempt to errata the rules.
Essentials attempted to do alot of things. I think the only thing it truely succeeded at was providing simpler classes for beginners.
Massive eratta would be nice, but look at it from their perspective; why should they put that much investment in a condemned system, when 5E will differ enough that much will not carry over? There's a reason we are seeing less 4E products and not more.
5E's purpose is to reunite the 3E and 4E bases (read: more customers.) It absolutely will not be "4.5" or an errated 4E, the 3Ers will see through that very quickly.
Massive eratta would be nice, but look at it from their perspective; why should they put that much investment in a condemned system, when 5E will differ enough that much will not carry over? There's a reason we are seeing less 4E products and not more.
The trick to re-uniting the 3e and 4e bases it do it without alienating vast portions of either base, or else your going to get simply 3e, 4e, and 5e bases. This will be very difficult as 3e and 4e are very opposite in places.
Just as 3e fans would see a 5e close to 4e as "4.5" so would 4e fans see a 5e close to 3e as "3.75"
How do you motivate the 3e base? Pathfinder ended up not changeing a whole lot over 3.5 due to people not liking too much change.
5E's purpose is to reunite the 3E and 4E bases (read: more customers.) It absolutely will not be "4.5" or an errated 4E, the 3Ers will see through that very quickly.
Massive eratta would be nice, but look at it from their perspective; why should they put that much investment in a condemned system, when 5E will differ enough that much will not carry over? There's a reason we are seeing less 4E products and not more.
The trick to re-uniting the 3e and 4e bases it do it without alienating vast portions of either base, or else your going to get simply 3e, 4e, and 5e bases. This will be very difficult as 3e and 4e are very opposite in places.
Just as 3e fans would see a 5e close to 4e as "4.5" so would 4e fans see a 5e close to 3e as "3.75"
Forget it. The rift is too large, the ideas too divergent, and blood came.
For a while, the 3th ed/Pathfinder and 4th ed clans are opposed or just too divergent.
Accept it, and move on - by trying to please BOTH, you may loose BOTH.
I mean, I like your idea and all. Unfortunately I think it'd require too much change to go on at WoTC than it'd likely ever do without like, an actual edition change. You have to consider:
Distributing the errata via DDI. Does the CB support it? Are all DDI users forced to use it? What if it radically changes some peoples characters too much and suddenly there's a massive group of whiners? What if a DM who uses the CB alot doesn't want to radically update? The CB would then need some sort of optional version of the rules control, and also be able to differentiate between uh "4.x" errata and normal errata in order to fix stuff like they normally do. You also have the issue of these people knee-jerking, and have to be told, en-masse, that they can revert to the old version. Or on the flip side, that the new version exists for those who want to use the newer versions. This requires alot of fundamental changes to a CB which is still playing catch-up in some places to its predecessor.
Basically the Character Builder just needs a button: press it to use the “beta test for the upcoming rules errata”.
If the beta seems to go over well, then stick with it for “5e”. Forumers will talk about any interesting changes, and even people who dont use the rules beta, can get a sense of what is going on, if they hear about something that they care about.
The thing is, the gaming company needs to know if there is a “massive group of whiners” -- or a massive group of applauders -- BEFORE the changes become official.
How does this effect books that come out during the time? They use the 'current' rules and all us DDI people get errata to these too? I guess this depends how radical the changes are.
Yeah, it depends how radical the changes are.
The team's current level of quality control. Theme power is all over the place, some really weak classes have been produced. Radiant and Charging for some reason continues to receive new types of support for some reason.
Well, if there is anything that helps quality control, its getting feedback from as many players as possible before it ever hits official print. Beta is good for quality control.
The team's current nastalgia trip. We get told on a weekly basis how things were better in the old days in L&L columns. How many changes would actually be made to fix 4e, rather than "restore it to its classical form"?
Yeah, that regression worries me. But there are sensible designers, who understand the importance of the advances that 4e accomplished.
If the designers dont “surprise” the community, and the community knows what is on its way, via public beta testing, then aspects of the “classical form” that prove unpopular wont ever happen.
Would releasing it later as 5e really change enough to be considered 5e? Would the community just consider it a 4.5? Unless they really...really changed things it'd seem like its the same books again just with errata.
This seems a nonissue. I cant tell the difference between 1e and 2e. If there are people who cant tell the difference between 4e and 5e, that would be “classical”.
Is it really economically feasable? Would WoTC even consider trying it to be economically feasable? Depending on how massive an errata they do, they'd have to sift through thousands of elements without actually charging us anything extra. Their current errata format is kind of cumbersome to read through if they do do massive change, they'd probably need something closer to the 3.x SRD which further devalues buying books.
If it is feasible to do 5e. Then it is even more feasible to renovate 4e. It is urgent to get feedback from the community to figure out what kinds of rules most players need. It is convenient to sell the renovation as 5e without even interfering with the 4e books that some gamers use exclusively without the online environment.
People get so attached to certain rulesets, and they also introduce new players to those rulesets.
Thus you get a constantly dwindling paying fanbase as you go through each new version, unless you can make up this difference with new players (which 4e tried to do with its simplicity...and essentials tried to do again) and have to compete to some degree with your prior versions. Old copies and pdfs of these books are all over the internet, an un-changing, time-tested, possibly free, system is very attractive to some people.
By changing too much, you risk losing customers due to too much. But by staying the same, you risk people getting bored, and running out of new ideas for stuff.
But yeah, WoTC is definitely not very good at pleasing "both parties". It already has issues balancing the "fluff" vs "crunch" groups, both of whom will likely continously demand more of what they prefer.
I almost wonder if D&D is self-defeating at this point.
People get so attached to certain rulesets, and they also introduce new players to those rulesets.
Thus you get a constantly dwindling paying fanbase as you go through each new version, unless you can make up this difference with new players (which 4e tried to do with its simplicity...and essentials tried to do again) and have to compete to some degree with your prior versions. Old copies and pdfs of these books are all over the internet, an un-changing, time-tested, possibly free, system is very attractive to some people.
By changing too much, you risk losing customers due to too much. But by staying the same, you risk people getting bored, and running out of new ideas for stuff.
But yeah, WoTC is definitely not very good at pleasing "both parties". It already has issues balancing the "fluff" vs "crunch" groups, both of whom will likely continously demand more of what they prefer.
You can thank Paizzo's pseudoleftist 'we fight the Man for REAL D&D' for the sore state of this communauty as well.
Instead of going on gently, they FANNED the fanrage and fueled the fires on the other side.
You can thank Paizzo's pseudoleftist 'we fight the Man for REAL D&D' for the sore state of this communauty as well.
Instead of going on gently, they FANNED the fanrage and fueled the fires on the other side.
It definitely worked out for them. It often helps being the 'new kid' (yes I'm aware they've been around for quite a while, but pathfinder hasn't) on the block, because you can find where the "old guy" has displeased certain groups and latch onto them.
Its how other MMO's have competed with WoW as well, especially recently, by latching onto aspects of the game that people feel blizzard has abandoned and focusing on making them better.
Though D&D had a rockier version of this due to more radical changes between 3e and 4e, where as WoW's changes have been a bit more gradual, due to the nature of patches, and a more frequent 'expansion' cycle compared to D&D editions.
You can thank Paizzo's pseudoleftist 'we fight the Man for REAL D&D' for the sore state of this communauty as well.
Instead of going on gently, they FANNED the fanrage and fueled the fires on the other side.
It definitely worked out for them. It often helps being the 'new kid' (yes I'm aware they've been around for quite a while, but pathfinder hasn't) on the block, because you can find where the "old guy" has displeased certain groups and latch onto them.
Its how other MMO's have competed with WoW as well, especially recently, by latching onto aspects of the game that people feel blizzard has abandoned and focusing on making them better.
Though D&D had a rockier version of this due to more radical changes between 3e and 4e, where as WoW's changes have been a bit more gradual, due to the nature of patches, and a more frequent 'expansion' cycle compared to D&D editions.
Yet, it is farsicaly hypocrital because of a few details - first, they are corporates like WOTC, only smaller, and second, they are feeding the spirit they are 'defending D&D', and the snobyness toward 4th ed and it's players. Notice how pathfinder stuff is allowed here, but Paizzo 4th ed threads are... closed shut down quick, or flamed.
And the books are, fans's rosey glasses be damned, more or less minors updates to 3,5. WOTC had the guts at least to dare and offers new ideas. Note that many posters on the web, since years, always said 'why make a new edition if it's more or less an update to the past one?' - like AD&D1 and 2.
All in all, it's a pilefest of hatred on WOTC and the 4th ed fans, and we are to 'loose' and 'fails', we are 'wrong'.
I'm actually kind of curious as to how Paizo plans to keep Pathfinder alive, or rather, profitable in the long run. They do release new things, and I hear they make great adventures, but a 'pathfinder 2" would kind of defeat the purpose of pathfinder, no?
'New' is subjective - it's spins on the older editions's tropes. THAT is the problem.
One day, they may have to put another edition, and my evil side is cackling in glee as they may start fighting inside as well, 'purists' VS 'pros'...
I almost wonder if D&D is self-defeating at this point.
People get so attached to certain rulesets, and they also introduce new players to those rulesets.
Thus you get a constantly dwindling paying fanbase as you go through each new version, unless you can make up this difference with new players (which 4e tried to do with its simplicity...and essentials tried to do again) and have to compete to some degree with your prior versions. Old copies and pdfs of these books are all over the internet, an un-changing, time-tested, possibly free, system is very attractive to some people.
By changing too much, you risk losing customers due to too much. But by staying the same, you risk people getting bored, and running out of new ideas for stuff.
But yeah, WoTC is definitely not very good at pleasing "both parties". It already has issues balancing the "fluff" vs "crunch" groups, both of whom will likely continously demand more of what they prefer.
You can thank Paizzo's pseudoleftist 'we fight the Man for REAL D&D' for the sore state of this communauty as well.
Instead of going on gently, they FANNED the fanrage and fueled the fires on the other side.
Well, yeah, but it got their product line to sell, so you really can't expect them to do anything else. I think the folks at Pathfinder would rather have a divided fanbase and be game designers than a united fanbased and have a job a the local coffee house. I recently took a look at Pathfinder, actually, and while I think I would play that before 3.x I would still want to play 4th ed first. Its still wizards who use crossbows and full on Vancian magic and fighters who don't have much interesting to do.
If its time to talk about 5th edition, then its time to talk about radical errata to fix 4th edition.
4e has the ability to evolve by means of errata. We dont need 5e.
We can tinker with 4e, rethink it, clean it up, make it more friendly, more efficient, make it shine.
Errata doesn't pay the bills. WoTC is a big company by game design standards. If your game company is three guys and someone's girlfriend who does the shipping you can put out a set of core rules and then write supliments till the cows come home, mostly in .pdf, and still keep the doors open. WoTC has a big nut, lots of people on staff. They need to sell books to survive. The 4th edition clean up, if it comes, would have to be a saleable product, which basically means 4.5, or 4th ed the ominubus edition, or the aniversary edition, or some such, which is basically 5th edition with another name and less design work.
They could clean up the feats and powers, have sub-classes (rather than builds) for all the classes, drop the classes and rcaes that aren't popular (I'm looking at you shardmind runepriest), and actually have up to date information in the books rather than total reliance on DDI. Since it is still the same sytsem, the infrastructure in place for the CB and MB is still valid, and since monsters and traps probably won't change much, most of the DM-centric books and adventures can be used without issue.
Realistically, I know the intent of a 5e would be to bring back some of the PF crowd. The Essentials was an attempt to do so as well, but since it is still 4e (and thus a bad thing in that circle) I'm pretty sure it fell short in that regard. If 5e can retain most of the 4e crowd and win back half the PF crowd its still a net gain, but if the goal is to get everyone in both camps to switch over I think they are setting themselves up to fail.
I have never, and will never, give Pathfinder a single penny. IMO, 3e was by far the worst ruleset of D&D.
I love 4e and long to see it thrive, although I can understand WOTC's need to continually generate income and therefore, new versions.
I think it's too bad WotC vowed to never make a 4.5. I think a reboot of 4e would be better than a 5e (especially if it incorporates all the nostalgic old school nonsense we are seeing in the L&L collumns).
They could clean up the feats and powers, have sub-classes (rather than builds) for all the classes, drop the classes and rcaes that aren't popular (I'm looking at you shardmind runepriest), and actually have up to date information in the books rather than total reliance on DDI. Since it is still the same sytsem, the infrastructure in place for the CB and MB is still valid, and since monsters and traps probably won't change much, most of the DM-centric books and adventures can be used without issue.
Realistically, I know the intent of a 5e would be to bring back some of the PF crowd. The Essentials was an attempt to do so as well, but since it is still 4e (and thus a bad thing in that circle) I'm pretty sure it fell short in that regard. If 5e can retain most of the 4e crowd and win back half the PF crowd its still a net gain, but if the goal is to get everyone in both camps to switch over I think they are setting themselves up to fail.
You make my shardmind and my runepriest sad.
People get so attached to certain rulesets, and they also introduce new players to those rulesets.
Thus you get a constantly dwindling paying fanbase as you go through each new version,
I don't see the latter following the former. If anything, I have found that each new editions makes it easier for me to find players. It has been my experience that more new players come into the game than there are old players sticking to the previous edition only.
- My Basic D&D games had the same five of us playing from initiation to the release of 1e. We were all the first people we new to play D&D. We never had a person familiar to the game join us and we never found someone else who played in our school.
- My 1e AD&D games involved four of the Basic group moving into AD&D. Over the 1e life, we had half a dozen different games begin and end before the release of 2e. There was a solid core of us that moved from game to game, but we always had one or two new players each time.
- My 2e AD&D games were mostly a continuation of 1e, although when we found new players for our game, they tended to be new-to-D&D.
- 3e D&D found me invited to someone else's game before I even knew there was a new edition (that was how I learned about it!). I am two others in that first game were experienced D&D players. From that point on, through 3e, the number of new-to-D&D players matched the number of old hands.
- For 3.5 D&D, similar to 2e, it seemed like a continuation of the player base, with experienced players outnumbering new-to-the-game.
- With 4e D&D, I (as DM) have introduced three different completely-new-to-D&D groups to the game -- 24 players total. But in the games I have been invited to play in, the mix was roughly a 2:1 new:old ratio. And I find games going on all over the place. My youth group (I facilitate), my former place of employment, the camp I taught at this summer, my nephews' school... everywhere has experienced 4e D&D players. And inviting new players into the fold is easier than ever.
I do not think D&D is a constantly dwindling fan base. I have found it to be ever-expanding.
Just as 3e fans would see a 5e close to 4e as "4.5" so would 4e fans see a 5e close to 3e as "3.75"
How do you motivate the 3e base? Pathfinder ended up not changeing a whole lot over 3.5 due to people not liking too much change.
Yep 3.75 would also not work. Although Wizards should have an easier time of "killing" 4E between the lack of an OGL and their control over DDI, but still, 3.75 would be a bad plan.
Indeed the solution is not easy. That's why you see Cooke and Mearls brainstorming all these crazy ideas. They seem to be inclining towards a simple rulebase/stronger DM and nonstandard rule variants or plug-in modules to let tables customize their experience more.
Truthfully, I don't know where the overall direction of D&D is going. Recent products have failed to inspire me and my expanding real life is limiting how much I play, post, or chat about D&D. I ~hope~ that 4.5 is what we'll see in the years to come. If not, I'll see what 5e looks like and go from there.
I'm actually kind of curious as to how Paizo plans to keep Pathfinder alive, or rather, profitable in the long run. They do release new things, and I hear they make great adventures, but a 'pathfinder 2" would kind of defeat the purpose of pathfinder, no?
Yeah, I've wondered about that too. It seems to me that Paizo has pretty well boxed themselves in with PF. Clearly they've come to the same conclusion, and what was the result? The Beginner Box, which if you look at it is just a slightly stripped-down version of PF. The clear conclusion has to be that their option is they'll have to recruit a whole new core of players. Notice this is pretty much the same thing that WotC or any other company selling an RPG product will have to do, add new players to replace or expand on existing ones. At some point though Paizo is going to want to refresh their system and it will be interesting to see if they can manage to keep people happy with a new version or if they will basically be stuck making 3.8 and 3.9 and 3.10 etc forever until they're irrelevant.
IMHO WotC would be better off simply continuing with 4e, maybe revising it enough to call it 5e at some point, but just continue to make a game that is pretty much like 4e and appeals to the same base and just keep making better starter sets. The way they're going to compete is the old-fashioned way, bring in more new players than the competition and make them happy with a good product. Honestly they have a huge leg up on Paizo there, they own a giant heap of brand recognition and are part of a company that has the ability to do limitless amounts of market research and branding. In the long run they'll have to really badly botch things to lose out to Paizo.
IMHO the worst thing they can do is simply try to imitate Paizo and go after the people playing PF now specifically. That might SEEM like some kind of wonderful plan as there are certainly quite a few people playing it, but aren't a lot of them also playing 4e already? Just how much is there to be gained? Even if they succeeded they'd just be basically where they are now, needing to continue to add new players or dwindle to nothing. Nor will the OGL go away. A limitless number of Paizo's can come along and make games that are essentially 'D&D' of some fashion. Nothing is going to change that except just continuing to perfect your game and making sure that the people that play it like it and that it is the game most new players are exposed to, because lets face it, most people tend to stick with something like what they first played.
Thankfully, they have slowed down the number of books they are releasing, it was getting far too hectic out there.
The biggest thing they should focus on is the length of combat. By far, I think that is the number one complaint.
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
Also, I would like to see an end to DDO, and a new MMO based on 4E in its place. I think this would draw in a new generation of customers that were born and bred in a high-tech landscape.
I would just like to see a revision of the rules rather than an entirely new ruleset. If they do a 4.5, I think they should focus more on how they present the info rather than actually changing the info. Instead of saying a fighter has "powers", say he has special attacks, etc.
You mean like:
Fighter Powers
Your powers are called exploits. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any power you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
power. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter powers.
I would just like to see a revision of the rules rather than an entirely new ruleset. If they do a 4.5, I think they should focus more on how they present the info rather than actually changing the info. Instead of saying a fighter has "powers", say he has special attacks, etc.
You mean like:Fighter Powers
Your powers are called exploits. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any power you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
power. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter powers.
An exploit still doesn't sound fighter-y, to me. It sounds more like something a rogue would do. What I really mean is present it in a way that doesn't mention powers at all. Also, remove the block formatting, and return to a prose format. I don't want to read a technical manual, I want to read a game manual.
Lastly, did you notice the header is "Fighter Powers." There is one throw-away line about them being called exploits, but they quickly return to calling them powers again. Why even say they are exploits if you are going to call them powers again from then on.
Here is how it should have read:
Fighter Special Attacks
Fighters use special attacks in combat called maneuvers. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any maneuver you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
maneuver. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter maneuvers.
It took me all of 60 seconds to make that paragraph 1 million times better.
PS - WotC, I am available for hire as a contract editor. My qualifications include: English degree, 10 years of teaching high school English, and a lifelong interest in fantasy literature, movies, and games. I'm also a Pisces.
I would just like to see a revision of the rules rather than an entirely new ruleset. If they do a 4.5, I think they should focus more on how they present the info rather than actually changing the info. Instead of saying a fighter has "powers", say he has special attacks, etc.
You mean like:Fighter Powers
Your powers are called exploits. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any power you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
power. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter powers.
An exploit still doesn't sound fighter-y, to me. It sounds more like something a rogue would do. What I really mean is present it in a way that doesn't mention powers at all. Also, remove the block formatting, and return to a prose format. I don't want to read a technical manual, I want to read a game manual.
Lastly, did you notice the header is "Fighter Powers." There is one throw-away line about them being called exploits, but they quickly return to calling them powers again. Why even say they are exploits if you are going to call them powers again from then on.
Here is how it should have read:
Fighter Special Attacks
Fighters use special attacks in combat called maneuvers. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any maneuver you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
maneuver. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter maneuvers.
It took me all of 60 seconds to make that paragraph 1 million times better.
PS - WotC, I am available for hire as a contract editor. My qualifications include: English degree, 10 years of teaching high school English, and a lifelong interest in fantasy literature, movies, and games. I'm also a Pisces.
Besides renaming everything from exploits have you even read the rest of the fighter entry? every level of "Powers" reads:
Level 1 At-Will Exploits
Level 2 Utility Exploits
etc...
In fact in most of the book there are no fighter "powers" but Fighter Exploits.
Personally I also disagree with moving away from the powerblock. It makes every class easier to transition into. with the standard layout I dont have to worry about keywords getting lost in the prose or confusion on what a power is actually doing.
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
You expect people to stick around if you refer to them as poisonous, hateful children?
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
At-wills are more maneuvers... but even some of them might be presented as a circumstantial exploit since after a few levels and when you have a human with 3 or so dont get used that often either.
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
You expect people to stick around if you refer to them as poisonous, hateful children?
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
Explain the bolded section of your reply to me, please.
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved.
You're kidding, right? Because I distinctly remember people telling someone who insisted on playing 2d that he was a dinosaur who somehow managed to survive the asteroid and it was best he got out of the way because now it was the age of mammals.
Spite and pissantry is as old as the internet. And 3e players were by no means a polite fraternity who welcomed all views.
I have a lot of 4e now and I really like it. New to it, but I like it.
WoTC is a company. They don't care about anything but the all might dollar.
Every edition they change so much it makes it difficult to move to the new one. And the cost...
Every Edition has good and bad points, but it will always be about the money for them.
They need to focus on adventures. I usually do my own, but buy them to run or help with the creative juices.
Give us 10 years between editions please...
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
You expect people to stick around if you refer to them as poisonous, hateful children?
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
Explain the bolded section of your reply to me, please.
As usual, it show my point - that the 4th ed fans and WOTC are 'wrong' and deemed responsible of this.
Pathfinders and 3ed fans are 'designed' 'good guys'. 'Victims'.
Rolls eyes. Urgh. We can not defend ourselves.
where does anyone think the overall direction of the game is heading these days. I haven't played any tabletop games in the last six months (group broke up, or rather I broke it up, but that is another story) but I had been playing DnD pretty consitantly since 4th can out before that. I really enjoyed 4th and enjoyed seeing the system grow. Essentials didn't freak me out, I honestly saw it as more options amond many that already existed. But this year there has not been many products that got me excited. The Shadowfell/Feywild books were a bit meh for me, and the Neverwinter book was a poor subsitute for a setting. I have no interest in the boxed games they have put out. To me, the product line is feeling very full, at least in terms of core rules, and WoTC is to big a beast to survive on splatbooks and adventures like a smaller game house can. They need to sell hardbacks, and a bunch of them. To me it feels like the product cycle is coming to an end.
So, not wanting to start a flame war, a riot, or a case of indigestion for anyone, but where are we headed? Another year of increasingly obscure supliments? Are we going to dive into powercreep to keep the books coming out (even more than we have)? Or. . . I'll say it. . .
5th edition?
I know they usually have a big Con in Feb. when they showcase the lineup for the year. Lets start the wild speculation on what we will see.
Considering alot of the old school gamers that made D&D what it kinda is is getting older and is spending less time on it, and D&D is starting to be more about the "Quick" Campain with these short quick starters and eveything Im not surprized groups are dieing off, It was small problem started back in 3E kinda grew and keept Growing the new peeps who came into Wizards are a bit Money Hungry and I fear they may take things WAY out of hand. AD&D Was a good edition but there where faults, 3E had faults to much randomness so on so forth 4E is pretty darn well balanced but becouse 3E started getting some more of the younger "Lets shout out our option" Group 3E is considerd "Good Guys/Victims" When in fact 3E had ALOT of problems I played AD&D, Ya I played 3E (And I Count 3E both 3.0/3.5 and even some PathFinder) theres FAULTS and problems in 4E Theres alot more Diverity with weapons better balance, But there are still a few ... faults, To me Traps and some races / Some things lost feel and is gone for good, Reason why I didnt state such things in 3E is becouse of the pure randomness that happins in 3E which is total BS.
So 4E is a great / Better E then 3E. Pretty much close to fact BUT I can see why ppl like 3E it was to many people there starting Version of D&D its what kinda got em into D&D in the first place. More Relibile you can still pretty much do anything you wanti n 4E like in 3E but in a different / Less unreligible way so on so forth, Example AC/Saves in 3E where boogus LOL At that among alot of other random total BS.
But Some people are just unable to change like AD&D/2E Folks did along with the 1E Folks so on so forth . Ya Im not as old as many of my other AD&D players, I Admited i started playing AD&D when I was 6 Years old ... well ok shortly BEFORE my 6th B-Day and I insta became hooked. and it was about 4 years before 3E Came out. just about (A Little less) and pretty much eveyone eles playing AD&D where 16+ Years of age. a full 10 years older then me.
But 4E Is suffering becouse of the ECONIMICS / Time of Age going on, USA and other countrys not doing so well we cant spend / waste money on alot of books and things that we use to be able to on 3E Like minutures MORE Dice so on so forth. WE all suddenly have to watch our purces/coin book/wallets and D&D can be costly/expensive at times and eveyone has to spend more time doing things besides fun, Job Secruity isnt that high so on so forth spending more time at work just so we can keep our job with layoffs that constent threat of being jobless and such has alot of us somewhat scared.
Becouse of that me and my group no longer play evey single weekend for 18+ Hours (Friday night go hang out / spend night at friends house or such get ready for Satudays D&D Game, Satuday Get up at 8 AM Have Breakfest play for 12 hours its dinner time eat, Maybe have a lunch break, play another 4-6 Hours Go to bed Sunday. Do Play a bit during the morning like 8 AM to 2 PM go back home finish homework or do Work around the house or whatknock get rdy for work/school on Monday) now its about once maybe twice a month a Days worth maybe half a day Via 6 Hours worth and thats it realy So Becouse 4E Came out during a Decline in the Econimics its going to not have a very high Rep for D&D But to me it will go down as one of the better/best well though of Versions/Most Balance game / Version of D&D.
Ya I Admit I'll play 3E/AD&D Still provided we can I have to re-learn some of the rules in AD&D I dont remeber eveything as i was a wee kid when last i played but still. And I Do remeber some of the unbalance even in AD&D but at least it had MORE Balance then 3E Did.
AC/SAves and such matterd/SR and special abilitys matterd as well having LA Hurt like heck, while in 3E Who realy cares that much. Drow where HARDCORE not Whimps like in 3E/4E tho in 4E there less Whimpy then what they use to be, No more CR/LA negitive, Now if only there SR where as beefy as it was in AD&D when SR Stacked with just about anything. / Got HIGHER then Snot
Aww I Remeber Drow Wizard Slayers -.- You couldnt touch them with Spells/Magic at all Pss ... (FYI Wizard slayer was a Form of Fighter Class)
I Miss the "Kensai/Wizard Slayer/Inquesitor/Dragon Hunter" Type feels to classes like Fighter/Paladin/Barbian/Bard/Ranger and such. I Remeber "Fighter/Ranger/Wizard/Cleric/Paladin" Was a BASE Line of a class and you got extra abilitys kinda based on the "Sub/class" you kinda went with, 3E kinda didnt have it, It kinda lost it, 4E dosnt realy have it as well.
but 3E/4E Did offer more Choices for just being the "Base Line" class. something I do like about 3E/4E over my AD&D Version
but becouse I started off as a AD&D Gamer to me AD&D is the best Version, But thats a PERSONAL Taste, Professionaly I have to give it to 4E it got Balance down pact and made Veristy pretty darn good you can do X Y or Z and such.
I Guess some people dont like the fact they cant Go online or something and Copy/Paste the best build and go Victory anymore. But some of us are happy you cant do that -.- Make your own bloody character for a change! THERE ALL GOOD! no more of this "But But my Wizard kills your fighter by X your fighter only wins becouse of ITEMS" (Of All things ITEMS! I Lol at that arguement each time i heard it Type of arguements / Pitty/childish.
Ya I Remeber AD&D Both good and Bad I remeber crying as a kid when my first character died ... then remeberd growing up and dealing with it considering it allways going to happin ... ah AD&D the game that made / turned me into more of a mature gamer but with a Wicked/Weird sence of humor.
If 4e players are actually talking about 5e, and replacing 4e...
People have been talking about 5E since before 4E was released. Just because people on the internet fortell doom and gloom, which is their favourite passtime, doesn't mean that we should start building up sandbags for the imaginary storm they see a brewin'.
I personally like the idea brought up that the 40th anniversary of D&D will be when 5E is announced, and that seems just fine. It is inevitable that there wil eventually be a new edition, and I don't think we should waste the time we have with this one fretting about trying to "save" it.
An exploit still doesn't sound fighter-y, to me. It sounds more like something a rogue would do. What I really mean is present it in a way that doesn't mention powers at all. Also, remove the block formatting, and return to a prose format. I don't want to read a technical manual, I want to read a game manual.
Lastly, did you notice the header is "Fighter Powers." There is one throw-away line about them being called exploits, but they quickly return to calling them powers again. Why even say they are exploits if you are going to call them powers again from then on.
Here is how it should have read:
Fighter Special Attacks
Fighters use special attacks in combat called maneuvers. Some work better for
great weapon fighters and some work better for guardian
fighters, but you can choose any maneuver you like
when you reach a level that allows you to choose a new
maneuver. The choice of weapon you make also provides
benefits to certain fighter maneuvers.
It took me all of 60 seconds to make that paragraph 1 million times better.
PS - WotC, I am available for hire as a contract editor. My qualifications include: English degree, 10 years of teaching high school English, and a lifelong interest in fantasy literature, movies, and games. I'm also a Pisces.
Except now any feat that involves "powers" now has to say Exploits, Manouvers, Spells, Prayers, Evocations, Bloodthirsts, Invocations, Talents, Emulations, Transmutations, Illusions, Mysteries, Bindings, etc.
They wrote it all as powers for a very good reason.
The biggest thing they should focus on is the length of combat. By far, I think that is the number one complaint.
I think the best way to handle that is to embrace alternate victory conditions. Use combat rules as elements of scenes, rather than having every every encounter be a pit fight in which you dump the party in a room with monsters and don't let them out until everything is dead.
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
You expect people to stick around if you refer to them as poisonous, hateful children?
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
Explain the bolded section of your reply to me, please.
As usual, it show my point - that the 4th ed fans and WOTC are 'wrong' and deemed responsible of this.
Pathfinders and 3ed fans are 'designed' 'good guys'. 'Victims'.
Rolls eyes. Urgh. We can not defend ourselves.
Well it makes for comical reading at least.
Warpig - Yes, WotC/Hasbro cares only about the mighty dollar. However, I think WotC has realized they can't make much money unless they produce really stellar products. Thus, slowing down the release cycle, etc. The problem they are running into now is the massive amount of bickering about which direction the game should go(forward, backward, left turn, right turn, veer right, etc..). What worries me is the idea they may be so inundated with differing opinions, the result of which is a hodge podge of a game where nothing really works.
Janx - Good point on the feats wording. The wording is not overly crucial to me, just a blocker that I think is hard for some people to get past. It makes the game sound less fantasy and more superhero. Plus, as I understand it, there are lots of powers that essentially mimic each other for no particular reason(I may be wrong about this, as I am a novice to the game). Slimming this stuff down might help, too.
baronspam - When I play, this is generally left in the hands of the DM, and it works out pretty well. It took us a while to get to the point at which we started playing that way. Even a paragraph or two in the combat section about controlling combat length would go a long way.
Another thing I would like to see is more focus on adventures and less focus on re-skinned core classes, powers, etc. I think this is one of the things AD&D did really well. There was only 1 book that introduced new classes(Unearthed Arcana), but 3 total books for monsters, and dozens of adventures. Now there are more class books than adventures(hyperbole).
As for the PF v 4E war - I say, the best revenge is living well. Look for new players, and please the ones you have. Work on making what you have the best it can be. The 3.x crowd left with such sound and fury that it seemed a bigger problem than it actually was. The success of PF will slowly die down and level out, simply because the fervor of its fans will start to wear off. Their hatred will slowly subside, and they won't be buying to teach anyone a lesson anymore.
The people that stormed out, taking their toys with them are not really the kind of people you want to attract back as customers - if they come back, they will bring their poison with them.
You expect people to stick around if you refer to them as poisonous, hateful children?
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
Explain the bolded section of your reply to me, please.
As usual, it show my point - that the 4th ed fans and WOTC are 'wrong' and deemed responsible of this.
Pathfinders and 3ed fans are 'designed' 'good guys'. 'Victims'.
Rolls eyes. Urgh. We can not defend ourselves.
Well it makes for comical reading at least.
Not funny for me. To be called directly or implied "brainless corporate slaves morons" by edition warriors...
The problem they are running into now is the massive amount of bickering about which direction the game should go(forward, backward, left turn, right turn, veer right, etc..). What worries me is the idea they may be so inundated with differing opinions, the result of which is a hodge podge of a game where nothing really works.
It always seemed to me that the real way to make money of a RPG would be to make a system that was acceptable and then devote your efforts into making good enough adventures that people would rather buy yours than spend time making their own. If the system doesn't get in the way and you have fun with prepublished adventures, people will keep buying them. If you have no fun with the prepublished adventures/such adventures betray a misunderstanding of basic game mechanics, then you won't stick with the system, because the company hasn't demonstrated that they believe the system is fun/worth learning.
The problem they are running into now is the massive amount of bickering about which direction the game should go(forward, backward, left turn, right turn, veer right, etc..). What worries me is the idea they may be so inundated with differing opinions, the result of which is a hodge podge of a game where nothing really works.
It always seemed to me that the real way to make money of a RPG would be to make a system that was acceptable and then devote your efforts into making good enough adventures that people would rather buy yours than spend time making their own. If the system doesn't get in the way and you have fun with prepublished adventures, people will keep buying them. If you have no fun with the prepublished adventures/such adventures betray a misunderstanding of basic game mechanics, then you won't stick with the system, because the company hasn't demonstrated that they believe the system is fun/worth learning.
Wizard's sales would disagree. Developers have mentioned before that adventures are usually the worst selling supplement, because only one person out of the group is ever buying one. Core? Everyone needs one of those. Setting supplement with player's options (ie Dark Sun)? You'll probably get a few copies into a group, depending on players. Single play adventures? Yeah, that's only going to the DM. I think the best model is what WotC has been doing; big player based books, the occasional setting boxset that's only useful for the DM, and combo-books that are themed and offer things for everyone at the table.
Honestly I think the best way to go selling stuff is Insider. Good tools are worth money. My group has Insider and it's awesome. The Compendium, the Character Builder, the Monster Builder, that's great stuff. It's a shame they have so much trouble keeping it working but the idea is really amazing.
The problem is that D&D is supposedly a 'small' part of WOTC, and WOTC is probably not the largest side of Hasbro... If D&D was at least the size of Magic or the boardgames departments and sales...
Now, if the tools were much better, even so good that everyone would want one, they could potentially get at least 6 sales out of my group (since it's mostly couples playing). But, they'll have to give us a reason to, first.
It's a two sided problem. If the tools were better, more people would buy them. You have to invest to get the pay-off. People don't buy something and then have you build it. Right now, the tools they provide run at 1/12th of their possible capacity. I have a subscription and I let other people use my char builder.
Now, if the tools were much better, even so good that everyone would want one, they could potentially get at least 6 sales out of my group (since it's mostly couples playing). But, they'll have to give us a reason to, first.
My point was, D&D is NOT the most important part of WOTC, so the funding and manpower, well, suffer...
I realise that. They should also be aware that D&D will never becomes the most important part if they don't invest in it. The two issues are related. If they're bothered by D&D's current market share, they need to invest to make it bigger. If they don't care, well, they can just keep doing what they're doing now. But it'll be harder and harder to keep their market share.
To be fair, maybe they have some right - maybe tabletop rpgs like D&D will always be more niche than even board games or CCG - the first is thought of familly gaming, and while somes can be complex (germans are masters of making them), they are easier to get than D&D MAYBE. And so CCG, along tje collectible and cash factor kicking in...
where does anyone think the overall direction of the game is heading these days. I haven't played any tabletop games in the last six months (group broke up, or rather I broke it up, but that is another story) but I had been playing DnD pretty consitantly since 4th can out before that.
Recently, things have started to turn around. HotFW did not repeat all the mistakes of HoS, which gives the impression that, maybe, someone at WotC was paying attention to the, ahem, 'feedback' HoS generated.
The longer term out-look is less sanguine, with Mearls & Cook going back and forth trying to out-do eachother in retro-nostalgic ways to ruin the game going forward. 5e apears to be on track to be an abomination combining the very worst bits they can dig out of prior eds.
Or not, who know who'll actually work on 5e...
To me, the product line is feeling very full, at least in terms of core rules, and WoTC is to big a beast to survive on splatbooks and adventures like a smaller game house can. They need to sell hardbacks, and a bunch of them. To me it feels like the product cycle is coming to an end.
Recently, things have started to turn around. HotFW did not repeat all the mistakes of HoS, which gives the impression that, maybe, someone at WotC was paying attention to the, ahem, 'feedback' HoS generated.
The longer term out-look is less sanguine, with Mearls & Cook going back and forth trying to out-do eachother in retro-nostalgic ways to ruin the game going forward. 5e apears to be on track to be an abomination combining the very worst bits they can dig out of prior eds.
Or not, who know who'll actually work on 5e...
To me, the product line is feeling very full, at least in terms of core rules, and WoTC is to big a beast to survive on splatbooks and adventures like a smaller game house can. They need to sell hardbacks, and a bunch of them. To me it feels like the product cycle is coming to an end.
Yeah. They pushed the pace too hard at first, burned out, and are only just now starting to get some steam again. The same thing happened with 3.0 - it came out with a lot of crap fast, imploded, and was replaced by 3.5 which ultimately got a whole lot more crap than 3.0 ever dreamed of. Same phenomenon, same timing, different labels.
So, the idea here would be to move forward with 4E's mechanical design, but cut out all the extraneous junk. Get "back to basics." On top of that, give it an old school veneer. Make the books look more like the old school(AD&D) books - less tech manual, more fantasy role-playing game. Less stat blocks, more prose. Less reference to "powers", more talk about "abilities." Introduce the standard fantasy races in the core books, and add things like dragonborn as options.
Let me be clear - this is not a mechanical/design change to the system. It is a stylistic change to how the material is presented. If you really want to draw back in people that left, choose those people that left because they were confused rather than angry. I know several people that don't want to play 4E, because they feel like it is an MMO. This is a matter of presentation, rather than actual mechanics. They aren't angry at WotC, just confused by the material. If it were presented differently, they would likely be on board.
This kind of idea gives the best of both worlds. It satisfies the current players by moving the design forward rather than backward, but also satisfies the desire for nostalgia. If you don't believe me, take a look at the current Camaro and Mustang - fuel-injected, computer-controlled engines with a retro inspired styling. Past meets present in a fusion that can only be described as pure awesome.
we never played standerd campain setting always home made.
4th is so much cheaper to play then 3.x
get dm guide players handbook and maybe rules compenduim don't bother with any of the splat books as 90% of what is inthem is also on DDI.
you only lose out on some fluff.
during 3.x i would spend a avarage 75 euro per month on official products not to mention what i spent on 3.x books from other publishers,
now it is just my DDI payments.
a 5th edition might be even more digitized.
maybe toward pad or e-readers /smatphone that have internet connection instead of paper.
Splat books would only be accesible when you have internet connectionand would be the patch notes of the montly patch with the extra fluff people are now uded to having in dragon articles and plat books.
campain setting books would be available online only and might have a small one time payment as they contain a lot of history and fluff that would not find it's way into the character builder.
published adventures could be bought as one time payment or upgrade your DDI to a Dm account and get full acces to published adventures included.
So, the idea here would be to move forward with 4E's mechanical design, but cut out all the extraneous junk. Get "back to basics." On top of that, give it an old school veneer.
...
Let me be clear - this is not a mechanical/design change to the system. It is a stylistic change to how the material is presented. If you really want to draw back in people that left, choose those people that left because they were confused rather than angry. I know several people that don't want to play 4E, because they feel like it is an MMO.
They tried this already. It's called Essentials. The result is a failure that produced a redundant half-system and created a quagmire between players who were already dedicated to the existing edition and their new mutt.
I haven't bought a single product since Essentials came around. I don't own any of it, and never will. I know I'm not alone in this.
I've also been a dedicated player since 1979 with a real passion for each edition up until Essentials. (I do consider Essentials to be a failed half-edition.) I'm not quite a collector but I've purchsed many products made by both TSR and Wizards over the decades. I'm talking anything from minis and books to video games and other "extras" related to the game and system.
Given the direction they've appeared to have chosen for 4th edition, I'm no longer a customer. A DDI subscription is the only thing I have that earns them money right now, and because they aren't aggressive about updating their VT (and giving customers control over aspects such as custom map and art uploads, etc.), even that is probably not going to be long-lived. There are better options out there.
WotC needs to come to terms with the technology available and run with it--and I don't mean doing things like add Facebook to their questionable VT. *rolls eyes* I'm talking about a robust VT, an edition with a singular vision and a plethora of online tools for players and DMs alike.
That includes making PDF versions of their products available. And high quality video games that mirror the game system, not ignore or parody it. They're only hurting themselves with their current approach. Badly.
Beyond that, and sadly, if 5e is anything like Essentials it will be the first edition that I don't buy into since I started to play D&D. If they're trying to drive gamers like me from the system, they're doing a pretty good job of it. This half-minded approach they've embraced doesn't make much sense, business or otherwise.
But I guess we'll see.
Back in 3rd edition, we were one large group of brothers and sisters, all sharing ideas for the game we loved. They didnt leave out of spite, they left because they were forced to, or felt unwelcome. It's a sad thing they moved on and uniting the community would be a very good thing. It starts with a bit of tolerance, understanding and cutting out those venom filled views.
Cut out the entire crowd who have said 4th edition isnt D&D even once I am sure the rest are welcome.... note I think you would be gone
I do not think skipping an edition is the end of the world.
There are plenty of people around here that missed one or two editions.
Some times designers just "jump the shark" and you just have to wait for the pnedulum to swing (jump?) back again.
People get so attached to certain rulesets, and they also introduce new players to those rulesets.
Thus you get a constantly dwindling paying fanbase as you go through each new version,
I don't see the latter following the former. If anything, I have found that each new editions makes it easier for me to find players. It has been my experience that more new players come into the game than there are old players sticking to the previous edition only.
Well, I started playing 3.0, pretty much right before the release of 3.5. So I bought the new 3.5 books because they seemd to be a marginal improvement over 3.0 (I tended to play Rangers, who got next to no class features in 3.0). It took a few months for 3.5 to catch on with the group and even then we were playing more of a hybrid between the two half-editions (think about THAT one for a second), and I eventually recruited some new players into 3.5, so I had 2 basic groups (which occasionally crossed over).
I tended to gravitate toward spellcasters, because the "martial" characters were too boring. However, we would almost always play at very low levels (usually 1-3), which was equally frustrating because it's at those levels that casters suck magnificently. But at least they had some semi-cool things to do every once in a while. Being new to RPGs, I simply accepted this as "the way it was."
Enter 4E. I was introduced to it through a completely different group, and was extremely skeptical at first. It was unfamiliar, and I'd already acquired a decent amount of 3.x material. But shortly after I played a couple of times, I was hooked. D&D could be done better. Needless to say I left 3.x in the dust. Some members of my original group have given 4e a couple of half-hearted tries (with constant complaints about how it "wasn't D&D"), but by and large they stuck with 3.5 until they discovered Pathfinder, which is what they now play. My second main group has fully converted to 4E, and we all like it a lot better.
I tried introducing brand new players to 3.5 exactly 1 time in college, and it was pretty much a disaster. Perhaps not entirely the system's fault, but 1 guy did pretty much throw a tantrum because his beefy Fighter was KO'd in 1 hit during a night-time ambush. It was overly fiddly for everyone, and the ones that did try to get into it didn't feel heroic enough I guess. Teaching newbies 4E has gone over much better, and I've either done it or seen it done a few times. Most notably was 1 friend who was bored out of her mind when we tried including her in a 3.5 game, but who actually got into it when she randomly played in one of our 4E sessions.
So what's my point? Some people will convert to a new edition if they feel that it's actually better (me). Some people can be introduced to multiple versions of the game, and dismiss one while being engaged with the other. The most recent edition of the game is always going to attract the most new players, especially with programs like Encounters. I don't see the fanbase as constantly dwindling at all.
I can only speak for myself here.
I have never, and will never, give Pathfinder a single penny. IMO, 3e was by far the worst ruleset of D&D.
Same here. I gave it a couple of tries with my original group. I appreciated that some minor 4e elements were introduced to it (I'd hoped that would make it more palatable to me, as I was really just playing as a compromise). It wasn't enough, though. Overall, the play experience was still 3.x. For whatever reason I decided to play a Ranger. We were in the level 5-7 range so the casters and martial characters were probably as balanced as they would ever be with each other. I was bored out of my mind in combat, constantly saying "I use Power Attack." Heck, even 4e's Slayer or Thief (some of the most boring classes in the edition, IMO) are more interesting with their movement options and stances. A few of the players were noticeably under-optimized, which obviously causes MUCH more of a problem in PF than it does in 4e, even at low levels. Combat took forever because of the 1 or 2 "dead weight" PCs, and even those of us that performed well (myself included) weren't necessarily enjoying these long combats because it was all just stand-and-bang. Say what you will about 4e's combat length (though one particular PF combat lasted longer than ANYTHING I've played in 4e, and it wasn't even a complicated encounter), at least you get a variety of things to do and plenty of tactical decisions to make.
Edition-war fuel aside, I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm also not sure how PF is going to fare long-term. If my old group is fairly representative (which internet discussion suggests that it is), they don't want any major changes, and once they've bought a bunch of books they'll want to keep using them regardless of what else comes out. Paizo may have trouble selling much of anything to these guys in the future. As for recruiting new players, 3.x was extremely newbie-unfriendly, and I think its overall lack of balance and lack of options for martial characters gives it less mass appeal. 4E's simplicity, balance, and tactical complexity give it an advantage here, and 5E will certainly have to compete with that to be viable. Assuming the designers learn from the mistakes of 4E and continue to push the envelope with new innovations they'll succeed. If they try to please the 3.x/PF crowd, they probably won't.
Either way, I don't much care. I like 4e enough that even if 5e is appealing enough to purchase, I'll probably play both. If 5e is a dud, I'm happy continuing to play 4e.
I'm actually kind of curious as to how Paizo plans to keep Pathfinder alive, or rather, profitable in the long run. They do release new things, and I hear they make great adventures, but a 'pathfinder 2" would kind of defeat the purpose of pathfinder, no?
Yeah, I've wondered about that too. It seems to me that Paizo has pretty well boxed themselves in with PF. Clearly they've come to the same conclusion, and what was the result? The Beginner Box, which if you look at it is just a slightly stripped-down version of PF. The clear conclusion has to be that their option is they'll have to recruit a whole new core of players. Notice this is pretty much the same thing that WotC or any other company selling an RPG product will have to do, add new players to replace or expand on existing ones. At some point though Paizo is going to want to refresh their system and it will be interesting to see if they can manage to keep people happy with a new version or if they will basically be stuck making 3.8 and 3.9 and 3.10 etc forever until they're irrelevant.
Paizo has hardly boxed themselves in with Pathfinder, in fact as well as the new Beginner Box they also have a new Pathfinder based MMORPG in the works, so it looks like they are really making the most they can of their brand.
The real difference between WotC and Paizo is that one is a privately held company and the other a publicly held company, so if Lisa Stevens decides that she wants to do something then it gets done whereas Mike Mearls has to report back to his manager and is at the mercy of company politics. I mean at the same time as WotC is pulling their minis, Paizo is pushing theirs out, WotC claims there is no money in adventures and yet Paizo publishes them monthly.
I remember reading that Pathfinder was supposed to have a ten year edition run so probably about the time that 6e comes out, they will have to start working on Pathfinder 2.0 - plenty of time yet.
IMHO the worst thing they can do is simply try to imitate Paizo and go after the people playing PF now specifically. That might SEEM like some kind of wonderful plan as there are certainly quite a few people playing it, but aren't a lot of them also playing 4e already? Just how much is there to be gained? Even if they succeeded they'd just be basically where they are now, needing to continue to add new players or dwindle to nothing. Nor will the OGL go away. A limitless number of Paizo's can come along and make games that are essentially 'D&D' of some fashion. Nothing is going to change that except just continuing to perfect your game and making sure that the people that play it like it and that it is the game most new players are exposed to, because lets face it, most people tend to stick with something like what they first played.
Although you are theoretically correct that there could be a "limitless number of Paizo's" coming along, in actual fact firstly the RPG industry is a tough nut to crack and many people have crashed and burned (including branded companies - TSR is the most famous one) and secondly Paizo has positioned themselves in a market that thrives on supporting other RPG games - currently they have over 24,000 products available to purchase from their online store (including pdf's - hint hint WotC).
I dont know, but it seems that the conventional wisdom of WotC just does not apply to other companies.
4e is a fantastic system with a few major problems that could be fairly easily addressed with revisions and errata that they are reluctant to do. I also think that Essentials is roughly as good as the original and adds a lot to the overall system, but there have been major issues in the way they've handled the integration of the two that are undermining the quality of the whole package.
If 5e is essentially a cleaned up version of 4e with some improvements to subpar elements like the skill system, I'll be a pretty happy camper. Having said that, I don't at all think that 5e is necessary at the moment. What they need to do is focus on the presentation and cohesion of 4e's material with the following priorities in descending order of importance:
1. Errata the math and do something about the awful superfeats and masterwork armor.
2. Clean up the presentation of existing material and the integration of Essentials and Standard stuff (HotFW was a good start). Deal appropriately with thematic and mechanical inconsistencies in naming conventions(subclasses, domains) and class/subclass distinctions.
3. Fix overtly weak classes like Binders, Ossassins, and Vampires. Perhaps convert some older undersupported classes like Runepriests and Seekers into subclasses.
4. Introduce some modular subsystems that could help customize game complexity to individual players' likings, such as crafting and injuries.
Its easy for the community to decide what they dont like, but difficult for the community to agree on what they do like. So identifying those fixes that most of the community can live with is a challenge.
It's not even easy for the community to decide what they don't like. Taking in to account what the market wants is good, but if you take in to account what the "community" wants you'll be sitting with them soon enough.
Its easy for the community to decide what they dont like, but difficult for the community to agree on what they do like. So identifying those fixes that most of the community can live with is a challenge.
It's not even easy for the community to decide what they don't like. Taking in to account what the market wants is good, but if you take in to account what the "community" wants you'll be sitting with them soon enough.
Pandering to the fans - the hardcore fans - is a dangerous trap, and may block out less deeper, casual fans and players.
I think the common mistake that a "lot" of people made is that they believe since "they" didn't enjoy 3rd edition then most everyone else didn't. That's not true because you have Paizo that proves it.
I know companies take gambles everyday but there was some bit of information that Paizo knew that would give them the insight to take on an edition that had been dropped, improve on it and make their own version.
A new edition will come, this I can promise you. Logically you can take any current product, keep the same title, edition, name etc..., make adjustments to it and keep it going. In the world of business, the consumer likes to buy shiny new things so new editions, new models etc... are always going to come out.
3rd edition/Pathfinder and 4th edition are two separate games. What makes one or the other better is purely opinion based. It's not like choosing between an old and used toothbrush versus a brand new one. it's like choosing between a Colgate and an Oral-B.
I just want to say that if 3rd edition D&D was so bad then how come Pathfinder is doing so well?
I'd just like to add in the same vain, if smoking is so bad for you, why is it a multi billion dollar industry?
Clearly... there's... uhm... wait that doesn't follow.
I just want to say that if 3rd edition D&D was so bad then how come Pathfinder is doing so well?
I'd just like to add in the same vain, if smoking is so bad for you, why is it a multi billion dollar industry?
Clearly... there's... uhm... wait that doesn't follow.
Fanboyism.
And Xvun, it is not just subjective - it can be debated and researched which is the better game,
If you ask me, it's 4th ed.
I just want to say that if 3rd edition D&D was so bad then how come Pathfinder is doing so well?
I think the common mistake that a "lot" of people made is that they believe since "they" didn't enjoy 3rd edition then most everyone else didn't. That's not true because you have Paizo that proves it.
I know companies take gambles everyday but there was some bit of information that Paizo knew that would give them the insight to take on an edition that had been dropped, improve on it and make their own version.
A new edition will come, this I can promise you. Logically you can take any current product, keep the same title, edition, name etc..., make adjustments to it and keep it going. In the world of business, the consumer likes to buy shiny new things so new editions, new models etc... are always going to come out.
3rd edition/Pathfinder and 4th edition are two separate games. What makes one or the other better is purely opinion based. It's not like choosing between an old and used toothbrush versus a brand new one. it's like choosing between a Colgate and an Oral-B.
Well, your right in that people will debate it forever and in the end which one someone likes is purely up to them.
In terms of asking why PF is so successful the question could simply be reversed. Why are a minimum of half the people that play D&D playing 4e instead? Clearly Paizo managed to miss half the audience. It works both ways. Again, clearly it is just that people have preferences and what those preferences are is rather quirky and nobody pleases everyone.
Paizo took an existing product, put some new paint on it, did some clever marketing, and put themselves in business for cheap really. Good for them, no criticism implied there, but they wouldn't even EXIST if WotC wasn't there to do the heavy lifting. Like I said before, the question is as PF moves off into being its own thing will it really maintain sufficient momentum? Will its fans actually tolerate evolving the game into a more modern form?
I'm a bit skeptical, but then I'm also not that fond of 3.x and its stepchildren. I thought it was awefully fiddly. 3.0 did some good things in cleaning up the core system, but at this point it is kind of a monster. As a couple other people have said, it is not exactly easy IMHO to get new people into it. 4e is a lot easier on new players IMHO. I think in the long run WotC made good decisions in the direction they went. It may take some time for that to come out, but I think it will. They've bought the OGL bullet, met the challenge of 3.5 reincarnated, and it looks like they're still chugging away. So IMHO 4e is doing fine. By 2014 it wouldn't surprise me one bit if PF is in retro-clone land, enjoying its hard core fans but not really part of the main picture going forward.
Does popularity = best?
I would argue that there are many factors at play to arrive at the "most popular" and being an objectively better game is only one of them.
Many better products have failed to catch on.
AnarchsDelight - Was Essentials really a failure? I mean a commercial failure, of course, or was it just a failure in your eyes, and that makes it a failure. I don't think you and your friends not buying it constitutes failure. If that was the case, the iPhone would be a failure because I refuse to buy one, and I know several people like me.
Also, I've seen the Essentials line, and they don't look that old school to me.
Alien270 - I agree that Paizo has backed themselves into a corner, but, for now, it is a comfy corner. They have a rabidly loyal fanbase that will buy anything they wish to produce for the next 5 years. Have you seen their campaign setting? It looks like someone vomited ideas onto a map and called it art. That's just my opinion, though. They seem to love it. They will keep producing stuff for that game for the next 5 years and make a huge profit from it, and good for them.
They are going to have some bumps along the way, though. They are introducing a line of randomized minis. You should have seen the forums explode on that one. It seemed alot like the edition wars posts that go on around here.
Speaking of miniatures...
Shasarak - Isn't WotC producing a new skirmish game for 2012 that will include non-randomized miniatures? As for Paizo producing adventures - they are also producing setting material, and continue to produce splat books. Adventures are likely a loss-leader for them. As you mentioned, they also sell their competitors products. They even sell the dreaded 4th edition of D&D made by WotC, the company of evil. Lastly, I would barely call them an established game design company. They took someone else's product(given to them for free), tweaked it ever so slightly, and resold it. They are starting to produce their own material, but they're still kinda riding on WotC's shoulders. When they make their own game from the ground up, I will call them an established game design company. The conventional wisdom does not apply to them, because they are not the same type of company. They are 3rd party publishers at best. Would you compare the good people over at Goodman Games to WotC? All they do is make adventures(and some supplements). It is a different paradigm entirely. If you want WotC to follow in the footsteps of Paizo, they should latch onto someone else's free game system and start making products for it. - Nuff said.
OddSea - some interesting ideas, but there is already an Earth-based RPG setting. Its called Conan. There are also tons of miniature wargaming systems that pit the Mayans against the Conquistadors. WotC should stick to what it does best - fantasy RPGs.
XunValDorl - the sun shines even on a dog's butt sometimes. If 4E were a character, it would be Gygax, the 27th level warrior-mage with a class 18 soul-sucking-sword. If 3E were a character, it would be Hodo, the furry-footed burrower with a +5 Mandolin.
Just sayin'.
I just want to say that if 3rd edition D&D was so bad then how come Pathfinder is doing so well?
I think the common mistake that a "lot" of people made is that they believe since "they" didn't enjoy 3rd edition then most everyone else didn't. That's not true because you have Paizo that proves it.
I know companies take gambles everyday but there was some bit of information that Paizo knew that would give them the insight to take on an edition that had been dropped, improve on it and make their own version.
A new edition will come, this I can promise you. Logically you can take any current product, keep the same title, edition, name etc..., make adjustments to it and keep it going. In the world of business, the consumer likes to buy shiny new things so new editions, new models etc... are always going to come out.
3rd edition/Pathfinder and 4th edition are two separate games. What makes one or the other better is purely opinion based. It's not like choosing between an old and used toothbrush versus a brand new one. it's like choosing between a Colgate and an Oral-B.
Well, your right in that people will debate it forever and in the end which one someone likes is purely up to them.
In terms of asking why PF is so successful the question could simply be reversed. Why are a minimum of half the people that play D&D playing 4e instead? Clearly Paizo managed to miss half the audience. It works both ways. Again, clearly it is just that people have preferences and what those preferences are is rather quirky and nobody pleases everyone.
Paizo took an existing product, put some new paint on it, did some clever marketing, and put themselves in business for cheap really. Good for them, no criticism implied there, but they wouldn't even EXIST if WotC wasn't there to do the heavy lifting. Like I said before, the question is as PF moves off into being its own thing will it really maintain sufficient momentum? Will its fans actually tolerate evolving the game into a more modern form?
That is a unique version of their history, in fact you could argue that the DnD brand itself would not be here now if it were not for Lisa (as she was one of the original partners in WotC) buying it from a bankrupt TSR.
Paizo originally published the Dragon/Dungeon magazines because the Hasbro'dised WotC did not want to do it themselves and you would imagine that WotC cancelling their license would be the death-knell for their publishing business. So I can not see that WotC did any "heavy lifting" for Paizo - actually the opposite they did their best to put them out of business and failed, badly.
I would actually be interested in seeing this much talked about modern form of RPG. I am presuming some kind of unholy amalgamation between a RPG and a MMORPG.
Speaking of miniatures...
Shasarak - Isn't WotC producing a new skirmish game for 2012 that will include non-randomized miniatures? As for Paizo producing adventures - they are also producing setting material, and continue to produce splat books. Adventures are likely a loss-leader for them. As you mentioned, they also sell their competitors products. They even sell the dreaded 4th edition of D&D made by WotC, the company of evil. Lastly, I would barely call them an established game design company. They took someone else's product(given to them for free), tweaked it ever so slightly, and resold it. They are starting to produce their own material, but they're still kinda riding on WotC's shoulders. When they make their own game from the ground up, I will call them an established game design company. The conventional wisdom does not apply to them, because they are not the same type of company. They are 3rd party publishers at best. Would you compare the good people over at Goodman Games to WotC? All they do is make adventures(and some supplements). It is a different paradigm entirely. If you want WotC to follow in the footsteps of Paizo, they should latch onto someone else's free game system and start making products for it. - Nuff said.
Well I guess if you want to look closely at WotC you would see that they just went and brought someone else's game.
Built it from the ground up? Loss leaders? 3rd party publishers? Lol, whut?
XunValDorl - the sun shines even on a dog's butt sometimes. If 4E were a character, it would be Gygax, the 27th level warrior-mage with a class 18 soul-sucking-sword. If 3E were a character, it would be Hodo, the furry-footed burrower with a +5 Mandolin.
Just sayin'.
Lol, that +5 Mandoling makes Hodo a supreme Diplomancer.
Thanks for the laugh Dranack, I needed that.
I think the comparison still remains.
If you don't know what a loss leader is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
Third party publisher - someone that produces material for someone else's game system(in this case, houserules, adventures, etc. for 3.5)
Built from the ground up - 4th edition?
Glad I could supply you with a laugh. That is my favorite episodes of Dexter's Laboratory.
Essentials attempted to do alot of things. I think the only thing it truely succeeded at was providing simpler classes for beginners designers.
+1
Would an RPG company really try to lose money with their products - I can not see them lasting for very long.
While I would agree that WotC did buy the name D&D, and did keep a lot of the very basic systems involved, the differences between 2E & 3E are vast, while the differences between 3.5 & Pathfinder are miniscule. PF is, essentially, a small set of houserules that supposedly make the game alot better.
I think the comparison still remains.
If you don't know what a loss leader is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
Third party publisher - someone that produces material for someone else's game system(in this case, houserules, adventures, etc. for 3.5)
Built from the ground up - 4th edition?
Glad I could supply you with a laugh. That is my favorite episodes of Dexter's Laboratory.
Except that Paizo produces the majority of their products for their own Pathfinder system.
They have 2284 Paizo products available to order, 1458 of which are Pathfinder products.
They have 5 products scheduled for release in December (Bestiary 3, 2 Campaign setting expansions, a Card pack and a Map pack), 8 products in January and 7 in February. So if they are a third party publisher, then they are a fast producing diverse third party publisher.
As Shakiko pointed out, they already provide their core rules as a free loss leader, I hardly think that they would also sell their adventure paths at a loss.
I dont really see 4e as a product built from the ground up especially as it still uses most of the same systems that were already in place (especially from 3e) and carries forward so many "sacred cows" like Attack vs AC, Ref, Fort and Will, HP's, Classes, Powers, Monsters, Alignment, Assorted Dice, Vancian casting (now for everyone) and Skills.
And, really, that's the key. Each time D&D has rolled an edition, there's been some resistance by stick-in-the-muds who don't want to change or feel like they're being cheated because the yards of bookshelf they have of now-obsolete books. That's generally overcome by lack of new material for the old game. 3.5 was in a unique position, because of the OGL - new material could keep being produced. WotC tried to screw it's third-party quasi-partners (stakeholders, I guess) and take back d20 with 4e. 4e is a great version of D&D, but it's no d20 system, it's not open-source, and it's not /that/ suitable to third-party development (see past comments about what a bitch it is to make new classes for). So the third parties, particularly Paizo obviously, kept supporting 3.5 in one form or another, and the holdouts could hold out forever.
It's not that 4e wasn't as much better than 3.5 as 3.0 was from 2e, nor that it was any more different from 3.5 than 3.0 was from 2e, nor that it was in any way 'not D&D' (a charge leveled at 3.0, as well). It's that the holdouts had someone to hold their hands and tell them they were right to reject it. That's the whole story. Without the OGL, 3.5 would have no more held up than AD&D did.
For that same reason, a year or few after 5e hits, 4e will be as dead as the Expert Set, while Pathfinder might be chugging right along.
AnarchsDelight - Was Essentials really a failure? I mean a commercial failure, of course, or was it just a failure in your eyes, and that makes it a failure. I don't think you and your friends not buying it constitutes failure. If that was the case, the iPhone would be a failure because I refuse to buy one, and I know several people like me.
Also, I've seen the Essentials line, and they don't look that old school to me.
Arguably, it wasn't just a failure in my eyes. As you mention, it hasn't been a widespread commercial success.
Beyond that, it's design was meant to draw both old players (re: 3.x and PF players) as well as entirely new blood. While it's done okay with the latter, it's had the opposite effect on most of the former. Not to mention what it's done with a good portion of existing 4e players.
I'm sure my experience isn't novel on this, but I know people who have left 4e for 3.x/PF in no small part due to the mess that Essentials has made. I also know others who, like myself, still play 4e but avoid or abhor Essentials. And, too, I know others who have fully embraced Essentials though the majority are casual players, or players without a high level of system mastery. Not all, but most.
Overall, the quality of Essentials products just isn't the same as the O4e stuff, which had a hard enough time convincing players from the 3.x and PF groups. That's really where Essentials has failed. Quality. Look at it! They can't even normalize things like sub-class names (to lend a recently discussed example). It's a half-ass'd mess!
Worse, Essentials simplified and made redundant what O4e established. No one needed melee classes to become auto-attacking robots. O4e's fighter, by comparison, ranks among the most comprehensive, customizable and fun classes. That's why it is among the most popular classes to play.
So it's that combination--simplified and redundant and lowered quality--that's made Essentials a failure. With great irony, it's missing the essential parts it needs. Instead, it's D&D on rails which is never going to work in a broader context. (That sort of thing is fine for something like Red Box product, but not the flagship system itself.)
Take, as another example, Heroes of Shadow. The vast majority agree that it is a poor product--not to mention an Essentials product. Lack of quality, playtesting and system depth make it a poster child for what is wrong with Essentials. If you want to know why Essentials is a failure, look no further than HoS for an explanation.
More recently we've seen Heroes of the Feywild hit store shelves, which consensus suggests is an improvement and one for which they've backpedaled from the original insistence toward Essentials. I think everyone knows that Essentials wasn't a glowing success and, at this point, there is no fixing what has been released from Pandora's box.
Well, not without just moving to a new edition entirely--5e is their chance to correct the ship's direction. I hope that they do, but I'm no longer confident that they will. I have a suspicion that the D&D folk at WotC are as internally divided about the direction of D&D as the community is externally. Will they get their ducks in a row?
I sure hope so; I want to be a customer.
Also, by your argument, anything that uses a d20 is based on 3.5(or older) editions of D&D, because it has the same kind of dice.
I'm not arguing that 4E is a completely new system, but it had been far more heavily redesigned than any other previous version - which is one of the reasons people split from it. It really seems like you are desperately trying to keep this argument alive, even though its been dead for 3-4 posts.
WotC did buy D&D from TSR, then heavily redesigned it. They then tore it down and rebuilt it as 4E.
Paizo took free content, houseruled it, published it as a new game, then started making their own supplements.
One of these companies is a game design company, and one is a publishing company that is doing what DMs all over the world have been doing for 30 years.
AnarchsDelight - I don't know whether Essentials was a success, because I don't have the sales figures for it. Whether some people loved it and some people abhorred it is not a good yardstick for measuring success or failure.
Part of the problem of 4E has been the microscope of criticism leveled against it. While WotC has made mistakes, I think people are way too quick to demonize a company for trying to do what it thinks is best. People were furious over WotC cancelling their contract with Paizo for production of Dungeon & Dragon. They viewed it as an attempt to put the company out of business. That's rubbish. WotC probably thought they could increase their profit margin and have a tighter reign over what material is published for 4E by bringing the magazines in house.
If the people at WotC are divided, it is likely because the community has divided them. What WotC needs to do is stop looking so much at the commentary on the forums, and, instead, look at sales figures for their different products. See which ones worked well, and mimic. Avoid those that didn't sell.
Very few people come to the internet to praise something. If they like the system, they are probably off playing it rather than "spreading the good word." If they don't like it, they come here and complain bitterly about what a disappointment it was, because they have nothing better to do. Check any MMO forum. This same kind of junk goes on all the time.
I don't disagree that they need to get their ducks in a row, but that row needs to be a unified vision. At this point, they can be sure of 3 things:
1 - some people will really like whatever it is they do
2 - some people will despise whatever it is they do
3 - some people won't care what they do
AnarchsDelight - Was Essentials really a failure? I mean a commercial failure, of course, or was it just a failure in your eyes, and that makes it a failure. I don't think you and your friends not buying it constitutes failure. If that was the case, the iPhone would be a failure because I refuse to buy one, and I know several people like me.
Also, I've seen the Essentials line, and they don't look that old school to me.
Arguably, it wasn't just a failure in my eyes. As you mention, it hasn't been a widespread commercial success.
Beyond that, it's design was meant to draw both old players (re: 3.x and PF players) as well as entirely new blood. While it's done okay with the latter, it's had the opposite effect on most of the former. Not to mention what it's done with a good portion of existing 4e players.
I'm sure my experience isn't novel on this, but I know people who have left 4e for 3.x/PF in no small part due to the mess that Essentials has made. I also know others who, like myself, still play 4e but avoid or abhor Essentials. And, too, I know others who have fully embraced Essentials though the majority are casual players, or players without a high level of system mastery. Not all, but most.
Overall, the quality of Essentials products just isn't the same as the O4e stuff, which had a hard enough time convincing players from the 3.x and PF groups. That's really where Essentials has failed. Quality. Look at it! They can't even normalize things like sub-class names (to lend a recently discussed example). It's a half-ass'd mess!
Worse, Essentials simplified and made redundant what O4e established. No one needed melee classes to become auto-attacking robots. O4e's fighter, by comparison, ranks among the most comprehensive, customizable and fun classes. That's why it is among the most popular classes to play.
So it's that combination--simplified and redundant and lowered quality--that's made Essentials a failure. With great irony, it's missing the essential parts it needs. Instead, it's D&D on rails which is never going to work in a broader context. (That sort of thing is fine for something like Red Box product, but not the flagship system itself.)
Take, as another example, Heroes of Shadow. The vast majority agree that it is a poor product--not to mention an Essentials product. Lack of quality, playtesting and system depth make it a poster child for what is wrong with Essentials. If you want to know why Essentials is a failure, look no further than HoS for an explanation.
More recently we've seen Heroes of the Feywild hit store shelves, which consensus suggests is an improvement and one for which they've backpedaled from the original insistence toward Essentials. I think everyone knows that Essentials wasn't a glowing success and, at this point, there is no fixing what has been released from Pandora's box.
Well, not without just moving to a new edition entirely--5e is their chance to correct the ship's direction. I hope that they do, but I'm no longer confident that they will. I have a suspicion that the D&D folk at WotC are as internally divided about the direction of D&D as the community is externally. Will they get their ducks in a row?
I sure hope so; I want to be a customer.
While I enjoy a lot of Essentials stuff more than you seem to (I don't really have a problem with class variants that have alternate advancement styles, I actually think it's a solid good idea), I can agree with much of what you say here. In particular, I think it's quite easy to argue that regardless of its independent quality, the execution of Essentials as a mid-edition revamp was quite sloppy.
My most major complaints, as I've pointed talked about in other threads:
1. The failure to fix the math/feat tax/masterwork armor issues- if anything it was made worse.
2. The terrible, unintuitive formatting of classes/powers which was finally reverted in HotFW.
3. The extreme inconsistency in design conventions that still persists - subclass names, domain names, etc.
4. The half-assed integration of Essentials with O4e, it's very muddled in many areas.
4. The mechanical botching of several really cool concepts like Vampires and Binders (thanks a lot, HoS QA).
While I enjoy a lot of Essentials stuff more than you seem to (I don't really have a problem with class variants that have alternate advancement styles, I actually think it's a solid good idea), I can agree with much of what you say here. In particular, I think it's quite easy to argue that regardless of its independent quality, the execution of Essentials as a mid-edition revamp was quite sloppy.
I don't have a problem with class variants. Hell, I want them. But we already had that in place with O4e. They were called builds, as you surely know. Everything worked just dandy with that approach.
I also don't have a problem with alternate advancement. To me, that's a new class! I don't mind that notion at all!
What I do find issue with is the combination of class variant with alternate advancement. That's one of the major things that, in my view, has muddied the field between O4e and E4e. We don't need new versions of fighters or wizards. The existing ones were fine, they just needed more support and some keen-minded errata (like much of O4e).
Now we have additional, poor versions of the O4e foundations that make the game more confusing than ever for new players.
Will you tell me that you think Cavaliers and Knights are improvements or good alternates? That we needed--how many is it now--five or six versions of the wizard? Two versions of the assassin? (Not to mention, we've got one that started okay and neeeded support that it never got, and a second poor alternate that just floundered right from the start.) Hunters? Binders? Vampires? Should I go on? I'm sure I don't need to elaborate. You know all this.
My most major complaints, as I've pointed talked about in other threads:
1. The failure to fix the math/feat tax/masterwork armor issues- if anything it was made worse.
2. The terrible, unintuitive formatting of classes/powers which was finally reverted in HotFW.
3. The extreme inconsistency in design conventions that still persists - subclass names, domain names, etc.
4. The half-assed integration of Essentials with O4e, it's very muddled in many areas.
4. The mechanical botching of several really cool concepts like Vampires and Binders (thanks a lot, HoS QA).
Point by point, a significant portion of the community agrees with your list. Worse, there's no turning back. They won't and can't repair this. They'll make some concessions and do some backpedaling, as they already have. But this is what we're stuck with until the next edition.
I think we could also find players who would use the word "betrayal" as another description of what the Essentials represents. Admittedly, some felt that way from the beginning due, in my eyes, to the massive change in both system and settings that occurred. They shouldn't have hand-waved away FR, for example. But you know that story too.
I hope they find a singular vision for 5e because they need to get it under control.
While I enjoy a lot of Essentials stuff more than you seem to (I don't really have a problem with class variants that have alternate advancement styles, I actually think it's a solid good idea), I can agree with much of what you say here. In particular, I think it's quite easy to argue that regardless of its independent quality, the execution of Essentials as a mid-edition revamp was quite sloppy.
My most major complaints, as I've pointed talked about in other threads:
1. The failure to fix the math/feat tax/masterwork armor issues- if anything it was made worse.
2. The terrible, unintuitive formatting of classes/powers which was finally reverted in HotFW.
3. The extreme inconsistency in design conventions that still persists - subclass names, domain names, etc.
4. The half-assed integration of Essentials with O4e, it's very muddled in many areas.
4. The mechanical botching of several really cool concepts like Vampires and Binders (thanks a lot, HoS QA).
I'm not an expert on essentials, so I will take you and AnarchsDelight's word for it. Those seem like some pretty specific and valid complaints.
Except for #2, I really don't see how they apply to my suggestion of using the 4E mechanic, but presenting the information in an old school D&D style.
I also agree that they need to have a singular vision going forward.
Maybe I'm just trying to find something for Monte Cook to do that doesn't fiddle with the mechanics of 4E too much. He could be in charge of layout rather than actual game design.
Fanboyism.
And Xvun, it is not just subjective - it can be debated and researched which is the better game,
If you ask me, it's 4th ed.
False. To perform anything nearing an objective analysis one would first have to define what qualifies "better" in terms of roleplaying games. Since that is inherently an aesthetic judgement, it is essentially a subjective measuring stick.
Arguably, it wasn't just a failure in my eyes. As you mention, it hasn't been a widespread commercial success.
Uh, says who? I mean, not only do we not have any accurate sales data, but when Essentials came out, it boosted 4e up in the sales back to first for several months. Essentials sold.
False. To perform anything nearing an objective analysis one would first have to define what qualifies "better" in terms of roleplaying games. Since that is inherently an aesthetic judgement, it is essentially a subjective measuring stick.
Thanks for denying the possibility of ever objectively analyzing anything. As a data analyst, I feel suddenly threatened...
Seriously, though, you've got it exactly backwards: First you perform an objective analysis, /then/ you can judge based on the results. You need to know what you're analyzing, and what /for/, but you can save the value judgements for later - in fact, if you don't, you're more likely to introduce bias/errors in the process.
There are any number of ways you could measure an RPG system, from quantitative, fiddly and likely meaningless, to broader and more qualitative, to of course, entirely subjective. For instance, there's a thread about how 4e doesn't have the same feel as classic D&D. While 'feel' is mostly used subjectively, there are a lot of objective facts about 4e that would reasonably cause it to have a different feel. So, while I can conclude that 4e and classic D&D almost certainly 'feel' different, it's up to the individual feeler to decide if that's for the better or for the worse.
Similarly, 4e is clearly much better-balanced than prior eds, but whether balance enhances your personal enjoyment of a game is a matter of subjective perception, preference, attitude, what you're trying to get out of the game, etc...
People get far too caught up in forming an uncritical opinion, then trying to use the trappings of critical thinking to 'prove' it. Critical thinking can help you make an informed judgement or form a discerning opinion, but it can't make your personal feelings on something 'right' for everyone else.
Shasarak - in another thread, you are arguing that 4E doesn't have the same D&D feel as earlier editions, but here you are arguing that it uses basically the same system as older versions. Which one is it?
Also, by your argument, anything that uses a d20 is based on 3.5(or older) editions of D&D, because it has the same kind of dice.
I think that a game has more of a "feel" to it then rolling a d20 to hit AC 18.
So yes I can argue that 4e does not have the same "feeling" while at the same time being based on exactly the same system as before.
I'm not arguing that 4E is a completely new system, but it had been far more heavily redesigned than any other previous version - which is one of the reasons people split from it. It really seems like you are desperately trying to keep this argument alive, even though its been dead for 3-4 posts.
WotC did buy D&D from TSR, then heavily redesigned it. They then tore it down and rebuilt it as 4E.
Am I supposed to believe that changing THAC0 to BAB is somehow heavily redesigning the game?
Yes there were changes made but overall all editions have grown organically from the core attributes that Gygax and Anderson designed 30 odd years ago.
Paizo took free content, houseruled it, published it as a new game, then started making their own supplements.
One of these companies is a game design company, and one is a publishing company that is doing what DMs all over the world have been doing for 30 years.
OK, mate. I can see that you are sincere in your beliefs so please explain which free content the inquisitor, the explosive alchemist, the noble cavalier, the prophecy-haunted oracle, the monster-crafting summoner, and the hex-weaving witch are based on?
2. The terrible, unintuitive formatting of classes/powers which was finally reverted in HotFW.
Heroes of the Fewild is formatted more like the Original 4th ed products? That would be good news to me.
And Shas, isn't it "Arneson", not "Anderson"? For a guy that reputedly introduced quite a few of the original concepts into D&D that we all enjoy, I find it sad that Gygax got spelled right, but Arneson did not . . .
While I enjoy a lot of Essentials stuff more than you seem to (I don't really have a problem with class variants that have alternate advancement styles, I actually think it's a solid good idea), I can agree with much of what you say here. In particular, I think it's quite easy to argue that regardless of its independent quality, the execution of Essentials as a mid-edition revamp was quite sloppy.
My most major complaints, as I've pointed talked about in other threads:
1. The failure to fix the math/feat tax/masterwork armor issues- if anything it was made worse.
2. The terrible, unintuitive formatting of classes/powers which was finally reverted in HotFW.
3. The extreme inconsistency in design conventions that still persists - subclass names, domain names, etc.
4. The half-assed integration of Essentials with O4e, it's very muddled in many areas.
4. The mechanical botching of several really cool concepts like Vampires and Binders (thanks a lot, HoS QA).
I'm not an expert on essentials, so I will take you and AnarchsDelight's word for it. Those seem like some pretty specific and valid complaints.
Except for #2, I really don't see how they apply to my suggestion of using the 4E mechanic, but presenting the information in an old school D&D style.
I also agree that they need to have a singular vision going forward.
Maybe I'm just trying to find something for Monte Cook to do that doesn't fiddle with the mechanics of 4E too much. He could be in charge of layout rather than actual game design.
Just to put in a somewhat alternate POV on this whole Essentials thing...
In terms of "Essentials being a failure" there's really nothing meaningful any of us can say about that from a business standpoint. We don't know how well it sells nor do we know what WotC's sales goals or forecasts for it were so really anyone saying it 'failed' in that sense is just projecting their own opinions and/or going by the narrow example of the small number of other gamers they associate with. I have no idea if it is successful in that sense or not and neither does anyone else.
I can see some of the questions about exactly how needed and relevant Essentials was, and did it create a bunch of extra cruft on the system and was that worth whatever was gained from it all. It is hard to say. I wasn't overjoyed by the concept when they started pushing it as it seemed like the material was kind of redundant and added mass to the whole system without a lot of benefit. OTOH when I USE the material in actual play on a week-to-week basis with the groups I run games for I find that it works quite well, it IS easier for at least some players to get into the Essentials style classes, and in that sense it does provide a dimension to the game that is new and different. While many hard core players on the boards may find the material unsatisfying it wasn't really aimed at them. New players and casual players are IME perfectly happy with it. If they aren't they can easily switch over to using PHB1 style classes and no big deal.
There's also the question of what it really DID accomplish for WotC. From there standpoint it may well be MUCH more compelling than how it is perceived by most customers. The books are smaller and thus must be considerably cheaper to print. This means inventory control is simpler for them, it is cheaper for retailers to stock, and generally as a mid-edition supplemental sort of material that is never in a million years going to fly off the shelves like the early books of a new edition, it probably made a pretty huge amount of sense. They can keep retailers stocked with it at a more modest cost and thus afford to keep it in print (unlike we must note many of the original 4e books, some of which are already close to impossible to get). If stock runs low printing 10k more copies of a cheap book is WAY less risk than for an expensive book. I think they also at least HOPED that as time goes on and the earlier 4e books are less likely to be easily available that 4e's main retail presence would be simplified down to a sane number of SKUs that new incoming players would reasonably be able to buy into, instead of a system which if you come into it right now today and want original 4e stuff there are 30+ expensive books and you have to really shop around to even find some of them (and some of those are fairly key books like AV1). So from a standpoint of having a product line strategy where 4e is going to be around for a good long while still Essentials made a lot of sense and is probably still meeting that need quite well.
In terms of the 'list of complaints', I think again people who are D&D nerds just over-analyze and nitpick everything to death. Again, in actual play where it matters, few if any of these things even rise to the level of notice let alone become problems. I have yet to even have a player in any game of 4e I've run NOTICE that Masterwork Armor is sort of a heavy armor patch. At most one player one time was a bit amazed at the sudden jump in her AC due to bumping up to Masterwork when she'd been a bit behind the curve on armor. I don't think it is some super brilliant aspect of the system, but compared to the horrible anti-intuitiveness of THAC0 or the 6 different flavors of AC that existed in 3.x this is really a major blemish? I hope one day it is done away with, but can anyone actually suggest a way to do that which doesn't require a completely reworked core armor system that breaks compatibility? Because I can't. Essentials went as far as possible by just ditching the Masterwork designation so nobody would be confused by it, which is as good as it will ever get in 4e. Again with the 'horrible inconsistent names', nobody out there in the real world cares much. The terminology of D&D has always been arcane with 'level' meaning 18 different things in AD&D, etc. Players know what is on their sheets and can identify it and have the rules for it or can find them, and the names are mostly reasonably evocative, which is what mainly matters. Terminological 'Nazism' is just hard core fan bs, really can we find something meaningful to talk about? And WOW, the Binder class sort of almost kinda sucks, but only by detailed comparison with other classes. If you are just someone playing the game and you happen to use that class you're not exactly going to find yourself screwed. In comparison with previous editions half of the core classes were inferior and in EVERY previous edition there was at least one or two classes that were simply worthless in play (1e had the Monk, 2e had any non-cleric priest pretty much, 3.x again had the Monk plus the Bard, etc). You can dislike some classes and plenty of people have considered ways that some could be improved, but you're not even in the land of reality when you call them 'botched', get real.
I'll however join others in saying I am quite glad that Essentials style class formatting seems to be falling by the wayside. The way the classes are designed in general is OK, but the way they were physically organized in the books IMHO sucked. Still, there ARE people who liked it better, so even that is subjective. I think it was a minus and maybe most other people do too, I don't know. Still, it was a carefully considered design decision, not some kind of stupid monster screw-up of the designers as some people would have it.
Honestly, in general, if there was something that I think would be the greatest improvement in D&D right now it would kinda be if WotC would just put an IP block on this whole board from their offices and forget all the die-hard D&Ders even exist and just do what they are going to do and not worry about it. No greater hive of negativity and arm chair nitpickery exists in the universe than this board! lol. (OK, I'm only half serious, it is at least entertaining, but I'd bet hanging out in bars in Mos Eisely watching bounty hunters get whacked was entertaining too, hehe).
Thanks for denying the possibility of ever objectively analyzing anything. As a data analyst, I feel suddenly threatened...
I did not deny the possibility of ever objectively analyzing anything. I denied the possibility of ever objectively analysing roleplaying games on the basis of being "better or worse." Roleplayings games, like art, cannot objectively be judged in that fashion. There are qualities in roleplaying games that can objectively be judged. Class balance, presence of magic, pervasiveness of fluff, presence of elves, reliance of math, average speed of combat, and the like can all objectively be analyzed. However, what qualities make a roleplaying game better or worse is a question of aesthetics; aesthetics, by definition, are subjective.
Seriously, though, you've got it exactly backwards: First you perform an objective analysis, /then/ you can judge based on the results. You need to know what you're analyzing, and what /for/, but you can save the value judgements for later - in fact, if you don't, you're more likely to introduce bias/errors in the process.
What, exactly, do you propose that you perform an objective analysis of: class balance, presence of magic, pervasiveness of fluff, presence of elves, and the like? Go ahead. The second you start trying to call a roleplaying game (or any form of narrative/art) better or worse based on any qualities you just veered right off the objective path. I am not disagreeing with your above paragraph, but I don’t think you really understand the claim I am making. I am not saying that you need to presuppose data analysis with a value judgement. I am saying that judging aesthetic qualities is an inherently subjective process; that is philosophy 101. Not even Kant, for all his attempts to claime that there is a communally accepted subjectivity in beauty, attempted to claim that aesthetic judgements can be divorced from the subjective realm.
There are any number of ways you could measure an RPG system, from quantitative, fiddly and likely meaningless, to broader and more qualitative, to of course, entirely subjective. For instance, there's a thread about how 4e doesn't have the same feel as classic D&D. While 'feel' is mostly used subjectively, there are a lot of objective facts about 4e that would reasonably cause it to have a different feel. So, while I can conclude that 4e and classic D&D almost certainly 'feel' different, it's up to the individual feeler to decide if that's for the better or for the worse.
Similarly, 4e is clearly much better-balanced than prior eds, but whether balance enhances your personal enjoyment of a game is a matter of subjective perception, preference, attitude, what you're trying to get out of the game, etc...
People get far too caught up in forming an uncritical opinion, then trying to use the trappings of critical thinking to 'prove' it. Critical thinking can help you make an informed judgement or form a discerning opinion, but it can't make your personal feelings on something 'right' for everyone else.
I don’t disagree with a word you just wrote. It still doesn’t change the claim I made, or invalidate it. You can objectively judge certain qualities. You can use such judgements to make educated decisions about your own tastes, or to logically explain your own aesthetic preferences. You cannot, however, objectively judge whether a game is “better or worse.” Without saying “better or worse at some specific, objectively observable, phenomenon,” better or worse indicates little more than overall preference which is a question of aesthetics. Again, aesthetics is inherently subjective; that is one of the defining features of aesthetics. What I am saying exists in tandem with your claims. What I have said, and what you have said, do not contradict each other.
You can objectively judge certain qualities. You can use such judgements to make educated decisions about your own tastes, or to logically explain your own aesthetic preferences. You cannot, however, objectively judge whether a game is “better or worse.”
Sure we can, because all games contain objective qualities, as you mention. On that measure we can say that game A is better or worse than game B without any consequence to the subjective qualities we might inspect. It's absolutely possible to say that one game is better or worse than another without ever treading into that subjective territory.
Now, before you say, "The measurable qualities you are inspecting are subjectively good or bad!," we can at a minimum look at those qualities which make a game, a game and not a toy. Toys are not good games, even if they are good toys. And any actual game must have some minimum and objective qualities that make it a game at all. From that, we may extend our analysis out to what is a good game and what is not.
To make it clear, a game is defined as structured playing. If we play with a toy without structure--rules, mechanics or other aids--then we are not gaming, we are just playing. We can also objectively analyze the structures used to design a game. Some mechanics are better than others for structured play. Look through and across the various editions of D&D to easily see that truth at work.
So yes, it is possible to objectively approach the quality of a role-playing game. We don't even need to approach the so-called asthetic dimensions (though we could, and do so measurably).
What you seem to want to approach is a type of hyper-skepticism (of a clearly Kantian variety) that suggests no true objective measure exists and that all values are subjectively valued, which is why Tony_Vargas reasonably complains. This is because hyper-skepticism--even if it is the correct position--is quixotic and impractical.
On the other hand, Paizo should be praised for tweaking the way a few spells work and adding some class abilities in the mix.
No DM in the history of mankind has ever come up with new character classes or written a custom setting before.
In answer to your query - 3.5? Or are they for a different game? Seriously, you think making new character classes is game development? I guess that qualifies half the people on these forums as game designers.
Grown organically from Gygax & Arneson, but without the same feeling in 4E, because the mechanics are so vastly different, but not that much different from Gygax and Arneson.
Dude, you are totally all over the place. None of your statements line up into a cohesive argument. You contradict yourself like 3 times in your last post alone. Totally. To the max.
You can objectively judge certain qualities. You can use such judgements to make educated decisions about your own tastes, or to logically explain your own aesthetic preferences. You cannot, however, objectively judge whether a game is “better or worse.”
Sure we can, because all games contain objective qualities, as you mention. On that measure we can say that game A is better or worse than game B without any consequence to the subjective qualities we might inspect. It's absolutely possible to say that one game is better or worse than another without ever treading into that subjective territory.
I am not sure you understand what defines a thing as objective or subjective. It is completely false to claim that because a thing contains objective qualities you can measure whether that thing is better or worse. That is a non sequitur. Further, it is absolutely not true that you can say that a thing is better or worse without treading into subjective territory. That statement belies a fundamental lack of understanding as to what role "taste" takes in discourse. Without explicitly stating "better or worse" at a particular objectively observable phenomenon, better or worse is just a question of taste; taste is under the purview of aesthetics, and aesthetics are by definition subjective--taste is by definition subjective.
Now, before you say, "The measurable qualities you are inspecting are subjectively good or bad!," we can at a minimum look at those qualities which make a game, a game and not a toy. Toys are not good games, even if they are good toys. And any actual game must have some minimum and objective qualities that make it a game at all. From that, we may extend our analysis out to what is a good game and what is not.To make it clear, a game is defined as structured playing. If we play with a toy without structure--rules, mechanics or other aids--then we are not gaming, we are just playing. We can also objectively analyze the structures used to design a game. Some mechanics are better than others for structured play. Look through and across the various editions of D&D to easily see that truth at work.
That is a specious argument. On the surface it might appear true. There is a bare minimum set of qualities which sets games apart as games. Thus, it might seem that your claim is valid when one does not consider your claim a little more carefully. Still, the moment you try and extend that into an analysis of what makes a game good or not your argument breaks down. Those qualities do not actually differentiate good games from bad games; they merely separate games from not-games.
Once you have met the bare minimum definition of a game, just how pervasive those qualities should continue to be is a matter of taste. To claim otherwise is to claim that there is validity to such statements as, “sports are better than roleplaying games.” Sports have clearly structured teams, and clearly coded win/loss scenarios; roleplaying games are an exercise in communal storytelling without clearly coded teams or win/loss scenarios (an adversarial relationship between GMs and players is largely considered to be detrimental to the atmosphere most groups prefer, and there is no real way to “win” at an RPG). But that statement is not actually true. Preference between sports or roleplaying games is a question of aesthetic preferences. It is merely a question of which grouping of qualities a particular subjectivity prefers. Again, preference between a number of different objects in a common grouping is by definition a matter of aesthetics—by definition a question of subjectivity. Just how much structure, and what type of structure, you prefer in your roleplaying game, once the game has met the bare minimum definition of game, is merely an aesthetic preference…
So yes, it is possible to objectively approach the quality of a role-playing game. We don't even need to approach the so-called asthetic dimensions (though we could, and do so measurably).
…so no, it is not possible to objectively approach “the quality of a role-playing game,” so long as we are discussing the quality of a role-playing game in terms of aesthetic preference. Your claim that we can, especially in terms of aesthetic dimensions, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. That aesthetic dimensions are by definition subjective is a matter of fact. Subjectivity is one of the things that defines the aesthetic! It is not something one needs to prove. It is how the word is defined. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that discusses matters of beauty and taste—it is something that has been defined, over time, as part of the subjective sphere. It is utterly ridiculous to claim otherwise. You may as well claim that emotion is not a feeling. At this point in time you are claiming that the definition of the word is wrong.
What you seem to want to approach is a type of hyper-skepticism (of a clearly Kantian variety) that suggests no true objective measure exists and that all values are subjectively valued, which is why Tony_Vargas reasonably complains. This is because hyper-skepticism--even if it is the correct position--is quixotic and impractical.
I get the distinct impression that you are not very familiar with Kant. I say this because my “hyper-scepticism” is not of a Kantian variety at all. In fact, Kant argued something along the lines of what you have just said. I used Kant as an example because even Kant accepted the fact that aesthetic preference is a matter of subjectivity. In the process he tried to empirically colonize subjectivity by claiming that there is such a thing as a communally accepted subjectivity—an almost objective subjectivity—such as beauty. This is a claim that I find completely ludicrous. It is indeed a claim that I find “quixotic and impractical,” as it does little more than obfuscate the fact that many people cannot agree on what beauty actually is. The nature of taste is not a common factor in the human species. Data analysis has proven this, over and over, objectively. At best there are (often contradictory) nodes of taste, and even then there are sizable majorities that cannot neatly be folded into those nodes.
On the contrary, my “hyper-scepticism” is of a post-structuralist bent. You could call my “hyper-scepticism” Derridian or Barthsian. I find such “hyper-scepticism” quite practical indeed. When people do not actually share common taste, trying to empirically impose your taste upon them is not practical. It is far more practical to accept that difference will exist, and must be accounted for. It is far more practical to accept that multiple, often contradictory, points of view can be simultaneously valid due to the complexity of the world and our subjective relation to it. Attempting to do otherwise, especially when you realize it is not the “correct position,” is little more than a practice in totalitarianism. I think history has taught us just how practical that practice is…
AnarchsDelight - I don't know whether Essentials was a success, because I don't have the sales figures for it. Whether some people loved it and some people abhorred it is not a good yardstick for measuring success or failure.
I can't give any market stats. I in particular can't tell you about game-store sales because I haven't been in a game store in over a year. However, I can tell you what I routinely see in big-box bookstores scattered from northwest Washington to southeast Alabama:
* Out of Essentials: the Rules Compendium and sometimes the Red Box or DM Kit.
* Out of O4E: At least one DMG and frequently both, at least two PHBs and frequently all three, at least one Adventurer's Vault and frequently both, several Power books, MM1 (sadly, I wish they had Monster vault instead) and frequently at least one more MM, at least half a dozen assorted setting books, a half-dozen or more adventure modules
* Out of Pathfinder: occasionally the main book, i.e. what you can get for free on the internet. They have nothing at all, more frequently than they have anything other than the main book.
Based on that, I know what I think is doing best at sales to people who don't already have role-playing contacts or don't have an FLGS.
AnarchsDelight - I don't know whether Essentials was a success, because I don't have the sales figures for it. Whether some people loved it and some people abhorred it is not a good yardstick for measuring success or failure.
I can't give any market stats. I in particular can't tell you about game-store sales because I haven't been in a game store in over a year. However, I can tell you what I routinely see in big-box bookstores scattered from northwest Washington to southeast Alabama:
* Out of Essentials: the Rules Compendium and sometimes the Red Box or DM Kit.
* Out of O4E: At least one DMG and frequently both, at least two PHBs and frequently all three, at least one Adventurer's Vault and frequently both, several Power books, MM1 (sadly, I wish they had Monster vault instead) and frequently at least one more MM, at least half a dozen assorted setting books, a half-dozen or more adventure modules
* Out of Pathfinder: occasionally the main book, i.e. what you can get for free on the internet. They have nothing at all, more frequently than they have anything other than the main book.
Based on that, I know what I think is doing best at sales to people who don't already have role-playing contacts or don't have an FLGS.
Hard to say what sells, of course, but the local B&N here has pretty heavily stocked 4e stuff. For a good long while they had every book and most of the tiles and adventures. Nowadays they have a reduced selection but you can still get the core books, DMG2, most of the more recent supplements, and at least some of the power books. They have a full selection of Essentials stuff, or did a couple weeks ago.
They do carry a number of other RPGs to some extent. They've had the PF core book and MM for instance, and probably a dozen other RPGs that seem to vary from time to time. Overall they've cut back though. I'd say in 09 they had an entire large table with stuff layed out and carried a really rather surprisingly wide selection of books for a non-game store.
I'd put it this way, they FEATURE 4e and give it a decent amount of shelf space. PF is a couple books on the bottom shelf. Of course how much of each they sell is impossible to know. I'd assume publishers pay for shelf space, so it is may not be too closely related to sales.
Frankly though in this area I haven't seen a heck of a lot of D&D of any type being played heavily. I have a couple 4e games going. I think there are a couple 3.5 or PF games around, and a couple 2e games. There could be more but I don't see anyone talking about them on the local gaming group site, and it is fairly active. Seems like mostly people are playing board games these days around here. Still, D&D and 4e are certainly not dead, and the FLGS also stocks a good supply of books.
I am not sure you understand what defines a thing as objective or subjective. It is completely false to claim that because a thing contains objective qualities you can measure whether that thing is better or worse. That is a non sequitur.
You say it is a non-sequitur, but you make no effort to show how that is so. Only according to you is it completely false. And I'm quite sure I know the difference between objective and subjective. What is now in doubt is whether you do.
Further, it is absolutely not true that you can say that a thing is better or worse without treading into subjective territory. That statement belies a fundamental lack of understanding as to what role "taste" takes in discourse. Without explicitly stating "better or worse" at a particular objectively observable phenomenon, better or worse is just a question of taste; taste is under the purview of aesthetics, and aesthetics are by definition subjective--taste is by definition subjective.
I've already explained how we can approach the objective qualities of something and say whether it is better or worse (i.e., the toy is a worse game than the toy with a game mechanic). From that foundation of objective and definitional qualities, we can continue to analyze things that are games to other things that are games. There is no mysterious asthetic judgement necessary to continue that way, though it may later enter the equation if we want.
And we might, since we value certain tastes in things including games. Those values are based, too, on objective qualities such as whether something is or is not blue. We can also say that certain asthetic values are neutral, such as if blue is actually no better or worse than another color. You ignore that some qualities may not be better or worse in an objective evaluation, and many asthetic judgements made by people fit that profile.
In a practical sense, we do this all the time. All of us. We have entire websites and services and magazines and so on that make these practical judgements about any number of things, including role-playing games. It's painfully obvious that your hyper-skepticism about analyzing and making judgements of things as impossible without a purely asthetic context is, as I've said, impractical and unrealistic. Not to mention, I've already shown you an example that is objectively qualified.
That is a specious argument. On the surface it might appear true. There is a bare minimum set of qualities which sets games apart as games. Thus, it might seem that your claim is valid when one does not consider your claim a little more carefully. Still, the moment you try and extend that into an analysis of what makes a game good or not your argument breaks down. Those qualities do not actually differentiate good games from bad games; they merely separate games from not-games.
No, it's true because it is true. You're correct that what I've shown differentiates games from non-games, but without that foundation we cannot judge good games from bad ones. To continue, we can (and must) inspect what it means to structurally play--what is a game?--in a defintional sense, just as before. Having done that, we can begin to objectively divide good games from bad games based on those objective determinations. But we have to start with what are games (and what are not).
There is no failure in my argument. Just in your ability to follow it.
AnarchsDelight - I don't know whether Essentials was a success, because I don't have the sales figures for it. Whether some people loved it and some people abhorred it is not a good yardstick for measuring success or failure.
I can't give any market stats. I in particular can't tell you about game-store sales because I haven't been in a game store in over a year. However, I can tell you what I routinely see in big-box bookstores scattered from northwest Washington to southeast Alabama:
* Out of Essentials: the Rules Compendium and sometimes the Red Box or DM Kit.
* Out of O4E: At least one DMG and frequently both, at least two PHBs and frequently all three, at least one Adventurer's Vault and frequently both, several Power books, MM1 (sadly, I wish they had Monster vault instead) and frequently at least one more MM, at least half a dozen assorted setting books, a half-dozen or more adventure modules
* Out of Pathfinder: occasionally the main book, i.e. what you can get for free on the internet. They have nothing at all, more frequently than they have anything other than the main book.
Based on that, I know what I think is doing best at sales to people who don't already have role-playing contacts or don't have an FLGS.
Hard to say what sells, of course, but the local B&N here has pretty heavily stocked 4e stuff. For a good long while they had every book and most of the tiles and adventures. Nowadays they have a reduced selection but you can still get the core books, DMG2, most of the more recent supplements, and at least some of the power books. They have a full selection of Essentials stuff, or did a couple weeks ago.
They do carry a number of other RPGs to some extent. They've had the PF core book and MM for instance, and probably a dozen other RPGs that seem to vary from time to time. Overall they've cut back though. I'd say in 09 they had an entire large table with stuff layed out and carried a really rather surprisingly wide selection of books for a non-game store.
I'd put it this way, they FEATURE 4e and give it a decent amount of shelf space. PF is a couple books on the bottom shelf. Of course how much of each they sell is impossible to know. I'd assume publishers pay for shelf space, so it is may not be too closely related to sales.
Frankly though in this area I haven't seen a heck of a lot of D&D of any type being played heavily. I have a couple 4e games going. I think there are a couple 3.5 or PF games around, and a couple 2e games. There could be more but I don't see anyone talking about them on the local gaming group site, and it is fairly active. Seems like mostly people are playing board games these days around here. Still, D&D and 4e are certainly not dead, and the FLGS also stocks a good supply of books.
Yeah, most big box and game stores around me feature WotC stuff, and put that Pathfinder book or two on a back or lower shelf.
I do think the fervency of Pathfinder fans could create an illusory inflation of players. I have, however, no proof to back up that line of thought, so take it for the mere speculation it is.
No, it's true because it is true.
That's circular logic, which is the reason I can't agree with you. Well, the core of why I can't agree. I do agree that games have properties that make them games, and even that the basest game needs certain elements, but games without those elements aren't "bad" games because by definition, without all base components, they can't even be defined as a game. And if they can't be defined as a game, then they are not "good" or "bad" as a game, because at that point there is no game to play. Now, One could argue that it makes an incomplete game, but not objectively "good" or "bad".
Also, good and bad are entirely subjective terms. So trying to argue the objective good or bad of a game is useless. Quality is also intrinsicly subjective, as, "one man's trash is another man's treasure" applies to quality.
You say it is a non-sequitur, but you make no effort to show how that is so. Only according to you is it completely false. And I'm quite sure I know the difference between objective and subjective. What is now in doubt is whether you do.
I make no effort to show how that is so because it is commonly accepted knowledge within the field. You have no idea what you are talking about. If it were merely enough to have objective qualities then everything could be objectively judged on the premise of being better or worse. Every object in existence has objective qualities. That is the nature of being an object. And yet, it is common knowledge that one cannot objectively judge something’s aesthetic value in an objective fashion—beauty and taste are subjectively judged. For god sakes, that was one of the major problems philosophy tried to overcome during the enlightenment.
I've already explained how we can approach the objective qualities of something and say whether it is better or worse (i.e., the toy is a worse game than the toy with a game mechanic). From that foundation of objective and definitional qualities, we can continue to analyze things that are games to other things that are games. There is no mysterious asthetic judgement necessary to continue that way, though it may later enter the equation if we want.
No, you have not. You want to have shown. That is not the same as having shown. A toy that is not a game is not a worse game than a game because that toy is not a game at all. You have compared apples and oranges. Once two things enter into the same category we cannot judge them as being “better or worse” until we clarify what the thing is better or worse at. Some things are tools. Tools have a particular purpose, and as such can be judged as being better or worse at fulfilling their purpose. Other things exist only to achieve a particular aesthetic response. Most forms of recreation, and all forms of art, exist in that nebulous category. Games are designed to be “fun.” What is or is not fun, what is more or less fun, is a matter of taste. Taste is under the purview of aesthetics. Taste is subjective. Once a thing meets the criteria of a game, without specifying a specific objectively observable phenomenon, the phrase “better or worse” implies “better or worse at being fun.” We cannot judge that objectively. You have not shown that we can judge that objectively. It is impossible for you to show that we can judge that objectively because to do so you would have to alter the very definitions of the language we are using.
And we might, since we value certain tastes in things including games. Those values are based, too, on objective qualities such as whether something is or is not blue. We can also say that certain asthetic values are neutral, such as if blue is actually no better or worse than another color. You ignore that some qualities may not be better or worse in an objective evaluation, and many asthetic judgements made by people fit that profile.
Your syntax is schismatic in this paragraph, and as such I have trouble making out what you are trying to say here (I am not insulting or complaining--this is, afterall, only the internet; I am merely pointing out that I am guessing as to your intent with my following critique). I do, however, notice a number of seemingly problematic claims: you seem to claim that there exists intrinsic taste value based on objective qualities, but do not seem to realize that the question of forming taste value is the purview of aesthetics (aesthetics is the branch of philosophy which discusses how objective facts are transformed into subjective judgements via taste), and that there is no such thing as intrinsic/objective taste value.
In a practical sense, we do this all the time. All of us. We have entire websites and services and magazines and so on that make these practical judgements about any number of things, including role-playing games. It's painfully obvious that your hyper-skepticism about analyzing and making judgements of things as impossible without a purely asthetic context is, as I've said, impractical and unrealistic. Not to mention, I've already shown you an example that is objectively qualified.
1) You have not shown me an example that is objectively qualified. You WANT to have shown me an example that is objectively qualified. You have FAILED to actually do so.
2) That every human regularly forms aesthetic judgements is absolutely, 100%, true. That is one of the faculties that makes us what we are. That our aesthetic judgements are based on objective facts is self-evident. That is how aesthetic judgements are formed. That this makes our aesthetic judgements objective is completely, 100%, fallacious. It is such claims that make me question whether you really understand what the terms subjective and objective mean. Something is not objective because it is based on objective facts. Aesthetic judgements by definition are subjective judgements upon groupings of objective qualities.
3) The only thing that is impractical and unrealistic here is your belief that empirically imposing an aesthetic value judgement with the trappings of objective value judgement serves any (ethically defensible) practical or realistic purpose. One need only listen to Malcolm Gladwell lecture on the subject of tomato sauce to understand why. Companies that made tomato sauce managed to increase their revenue upon coming to the realization that imposing a totalitarian aesthetic judgement on what makes good tomato sauce served no purpose but to ostracize large market groups that did not share the same aesthetic taste. On the contrary, what is far more practical and realistic is a detailed, complex analysis that takes into account varying aesthetic preferences. Such an analysis does not engage in a quixotic quest to label one aesthetic preference superior to another. Instead, it examines what different segments of the population prefer and why, and keeps in mind that varying tastes are equally valid (though not necessarily compatible).
4) The only real purpose for calling out one RPG as better or worse, on aesthetic principles of taste, than any other RPG is to satisfy a petty, childish totalitarian impulse that wishes to believe that one’s personal subjective taste is better than the tastes of others. It is one thing to express what particular objective qualities you value as an aesthetic grouping. It is quite another to claim that the aesthetic grouping you prefer is objectively more valid than the preferences held by other segments of the population.
No, it's true because it is true. You're correct that what I've shown differentiates games from non-games, but without that foundation we cannot judge good games from bad ones. To continue, we can (and must) inspect what it means to structurally play--what is a game?--in a defintional sense, just as before. Having done that, we can begin to objectively divide good games from bad games based on those objective determinations. But we have to start with what are games (and what are not).
1) You have not actually shown that one can differentiate games from non-games. You have merely stated that it can be done. I have merely agreed that it can be done.
2) Inspecting what it means to structure play is a very different project than empirically labelling one aesthetic preference as superior to another. Any such examination worth reading will be more complex and thorough than a specious attempt to impose any particular aesthetic preference upon another (which is what the process of hierarchizing aesthetic preferences does by definition).
3) It is, by definition, impossible to objectively define what makes a good or bad game; at least, insofar as we are talking about questions of aesthetic taste, which is all arguments about which edition of D&D, or which RPG, is best amount to. It is far more fruitful to examine what loci of common aesthetic preferences exist. In so doing it will quickly become evident that, like the market for tomato sauce, RPG players have different aesthetic preferences, and require different games to cater to their particular desires.
]There is no failure in my argument. Just in your ability to follow it.
Despite your conviction, you are wrong. You do not understand the very philosophy upon which such debates are founded. To honestly claim that it is possible to create an objective hierarchy of value in regards to taste is one of the more problematic claims I read on the internet. It shows a troubling totalitarian impulse (that I wish had been left behind in the "Enlightment" with writers such as Kant, writers who still realized that claiming aesthetic value judgements are objective is pointless), and an inability to conceive of the possibility that others might not share the same preferences on perfectly valid grounds.
I once took major issue with the way 3e fans would claim that 4e wasn’t a roleplaying game at all. I now take major issue with the way 4e fans try and claim that 4e is an objectively better game. Both arguments are completely ridiculous. Both are based on completely ridiculous premises.
Despite your conviction, you are wrong. You do not understand the very philosophy upon which such debates are founded. To honestly claim that it is possible to create an objective hierarchy of value in regards to taste is one of the more problematic claims I read on the internet. It shows a troubling totalitarian impulse (that I wish had been left behind in the "Enlightment" with writers such as Kant, writers who still realized that claiming aesthetic value judgements are objective is pointless), and an inability to conceive of the possibility that others might not share the same preferences on perfectly valid grounds.
I once took major issue with the way 3e fans would claim that 4e wasn’t a roleplaying game at all. I now take major issue with the way 4e fans try and claim that 4e is an objectively better game. Both arguments are completely ridiculous. Both are based on completely ridiculous premises.
Between last night and this morning, the forum decided to gobble up an answer I'd prepared for you. So here is the short version.
First, you've created a straw man and then proceeded to attack it. I never claimed it possible to "create an objective hiearchy of value in regards to taste." That's nonsense. I'm glad you had fun attacking that purported argument of mine.
Inspecting what it means to structure play is a very different project than empirically labelling one aesthetic preference as superior to another.
Show me where I've stated that one aesthetic preference is superior to another. Can you do that?
Regardless, I do agree with the notion that "aesthetic value judgments are objectively pointless." I called them "netural," however. (As with my blue example, earlier.)
It is, by definition, impossible to objectively define what makes a good or bad game
Obviously, it's not. Game designers wouldn't be able to do their jobs if they couldn't distinguish between what is objectivey a good or bad game. Game theory, as a branch of philosophy, wouldn't exist without the ability to objectively analyze conflict (a principal facet of gaming.)
In this same way, millions of gamers around the world can and do discuss the merits of objective qualities in the games they play.
What you try to argue is that anything outside the defintiional is aesthetic, and therefore beyond objective approach. I disagree. Take, as an example, the following two "games:"
#1 There must be at least four players. The first player to fall asleep loses.
#2 Dog should not bark on Sundays. Try to sleep.
Both have rules and therefore structure, but we can say objectively that the first example is a better game than the second on account of the non-abstract nature of its rules. While the first arguably isn't an actual game--as it is just a competition--the second is so nebulous and abstract as to not even qualify as that much. It is objectively worse even in just the broadest terms of "structured play makes for a game."
Now, you might prefer to play the second game, but your preference--based on whatever aesthetic values--doesn't speak toward the objective qualities of either. It's just your preference, like prefering games where dogs can bark on any day of the week.
But none of that personal preference says we can't determine which is a better or worse game in an objective sense.
Another example, based on the foundation that games are not just competitive, but competitively conflicting play between two or more players, arises the objective notion of equal play. Gamers often refer to this as balance. Unequal play makes for worse games, because one player is hindered compared to the others.
(By unequal play, we're not speaking of handicaps where a skilled player does not have the same resources as an unskilled player to even the field. Instead, it refers to a game where one or more players has a substantively increased chance for winning. Handicaps are, in fact, used to generate equal play.)
There are certainly gamers who prefer unequal games--they like imbalanced games because the players who prefer it often know how to have an unequal advantage over others--but by definition, unequal games are worse than equal games.
Other objective measures exist such as replaybility, rules or mechanics quality (clarity, uniformity, consistency, etc.) and so on. These qualities are debated to no end in the forums, in addition to the many and endless individual preferences that sprout up alongside. But the existence of aesthetic preferences has no bearing on whether objective qualities can and do exist in games, and whether those qualities can be used to determine if a game is better or worse than another.
The real problem with your argument is you want to believe that all discussion beyond the definitional is aesthetic, and therefore everyone is "right" about their particular view of the game. They can't be wrong because, according to you, no objective measure exist for them to weigh against anyone elses'. It's all just opinion. Right?
I’ve removed content from this thread because harassment of others is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
And WOW, the Binder class sort of almost kinda sucks, but only by detailed comparison with other classes. If you are just someone playing the game and you happen to use that class you're not exactly going to find yourself screwed.
I mostly agree with your post, but this line not so much. Play a Binder in a party with any of the 4 good controllers (Wizard, Invoker, Druid, Psion) and you'll notice that you're not doing the same thing as them. You're not laying down status effects that result in action denial. You don't have a versatile repertiore of effects that allow you to adapt to different conditions. Simply put, despite the fact that you're labeled as a controller, you're not really doing what a controller does (perhaps a pale imitation). Even the "bad" controllers (Seeker, Hunter, Bladesinger) are likely controlling better than you, and they're certainly dealing more damage than you.
If there's a Warlock in the party you'll probably feel even worse. You'll find that he can do much the same thing as you, but he's doing more damage on top of that. In fact, some builds will be controlling better than you and dealing more damage (and the ones that aren't controlling as good are dealing a LOT more damage than you).
If you're a little more observant, you may notice that many leaders are also controlling better than you (implement Clerics, some Shamans, and Bards for sure). Some strikers can as well (Monk for sure, and the O-Warlock as already mentioned, and Rogues and Sorcs may be getting close enough to make you feel appropriately jealous). Among defenders a polearm build is almost certainly going to put your action denial capabilities to shame, and Swordmages and Wardens may out-control you as well.
You may be right that a casual newbie might not notice, especially if they don't play often and don't have many expectations from the game. After a few levels, however, most players will notice that their Binder is underperforming. The biggest problem is that it's such an obvious design failure; why would anybody take features away from the Warlock and give the new build nothing in return? And with 6 other controllers to use as a basis for comparison, how did the designers not only give them such awful powers, but lock them into them? Even a casual search of the forums would reveal that bad powers are what make the Seeker bad, and yet the went ahead and gave the Binder worse powers in many cases.
And WOW, the Binder class sort of almost kinda sucks, but only by detailed comparison with other classes. If you are just someone playing the game and you happen to use that class you're not exactly going to find yourself screwed.
I mostly agree with your post, but this line not so much. Play a Binder in a party with any of the 4 good controllers (Wizard, Invoker, Druid, Psion) and you'll notice that you're not doing the same thing as them. You're not laying down status effects that result in action denial. You don't have a versatile repertiore of effects that allow you to adapt to different conditions. Simply put, despite the fact that you're labeled as a controller, you're not really doing what a controller does (perhaps a pale imitation). Even the "bad" controllers (Seeker, Hunter, Bladesinger) are likely controlling better than you, and they're certainly dealing more damage than you.
If there's a Warlock in the party you'll probably feel even worse. You'll find that he can do much the same thing as you, but he's doing more damage on top of that. In fact, some builds will be controlling better than you and dealing more damage (and the ones that aren't controlling as good are dealing a LOT more damage than you).
If you're a little more observant, you may notice that many leaders are also controlling better than you (implement Clerics, some Shamans, and Bards for sure). Some strikers can as well (Monk for sure, and the O-Warlock as already mentioned, and Rogues and Sorcs may be getting close enough to make you feel appropriately jealous). Among defenders a polearm build is almost certainly going to put your action denial capabilities to shame, and Swordmages and Wardens may out-control you as well.
You may be right that a casual newbie might not notice, especially if they don't play often and don't have many expectations from the game. After a few levels, however, most players will notice that their Binder is underperforming. The biggest problem is that it's such an obvious design failure; why would anybody take features away from the Warlock and give the new build nothing in return? And with 6 other controllers to use as a basis for comparison, how did the designers not only give them such awful powers, but lock them into them? Even a casual search of the forums would reveal that bad powers are what make the Seeker bad, and yet the went ahead and gave the Binder worse powers in many cases.
Yeah, but IIRC my fundamental point was that all the classes are really pretty playable. Comparing that to every single other edition of D&D except Basic (where I can't really think of any clunkers, but then again it only had like 7 classes and 3 of them are really just MCing combos of the other 4) you had worthless or problematic classes left and right.
1e, the monk was just utterly hapless, the illusionist was neat but distinctly less powerful than a magic user, the druid was interesting but overall was still weaker than a cleric (and then on top of that you had to fight to get to high level, which just made no sense). The 1e Assassin wasn't underpowered, but it was bizarre and problematic to say the least. The 1e bard was just weird in a rather inexplicable way that made no real sense. The UA classes (barbarian and cavalier) played by a whole other set of rules and were WAY OP compared to other fighters.
2e basically just cut the stuff that didn't work well in 1e, but the 2e bard was also rather anemic, though I guess it isn't really any worse than the 4e binder. Later additions to the game were just, to put it kindly, whacked.
3.x classes were all over the place, varying from godlike to almost entirely worthless. There are too many cases to even list.
And then we have 4e where you've got binder and to a lesser extent assassins that are noticably anemic but still quite playable. A couple other classes aren't stunningly brilliant, like the seeker, but are still highly playable and aren't even likely to let down a player that isn't comparing himself to highly optimized versions of other classes.
The whole point being that all the people that are all over 4e and complaining about the quality of this or the quality of that have pretty short memories. Yes, ideally the binder would be better and we can wonder why it isn't but clearly the 4e system design succeeded pretty darn well in terms of creating a sort of natural baseline of competency that is really hard to break. I just don't get all the negativity. Its fine and all to critique stuff that can be better, but when the WORST examples of 4e design are shining paragons of near-perfection compared to more than half of the material that was in the previous edition I think it is safe to say that the quality of WotC's product has overall taken a huge jump upwards in at least that catagory. Nor do I really see an overall decrease in quality within 4e. I think the problem is a lot of people equate quality with powerful options, not consistent and thematic design. It isn't the goal of the devs to produce ever more powerful options, that wouldn't be 'higher quality' either. It is worth looking at other things too like items, which have just consistently gotten better and better over time, as have adventures.
So we should accept sub par design because there was worse in previous editions? The fact that balance was kept tight means that anything falling below what is required is fairly obvious and any professional "designer" that creates something that falls below as far as classes like the Binder do deserves scathing critique of their ability. We are paying customers we demand quality from these so called professionals. This is not a sense of entitlement but what we paying customers are entitled to.
If you don't like it there are other products. Have fun!
So we should accept sub par design because there was worse in previous editions? The fact that balance was kept tight means that anything falling below what is required is fairly obvious and any professional "designer" that creates something that falls below as far as classes like the Binder do deserves scathing critique of their ability. We are paying customers we demand quality from these so called professionals. This is not a sense of entitlement but what we paying customers are entitled to.
If you don't like it there are other products. Have fun!
you totaly missed the point, just because there was badly designed classes in previous edition that does not mean thhat it should be accepted in the current one. There is nothing wrong with expecting quality in a paid product.
First, you've created a straw man and then proceeded to attack it. I never claimed it possible to "create an objective hiearchy of value in regards to taste." That's nonsense. I'm glad you had fun attacking that purported argument of mine.
That is your argument. You just don’t seem to be capable of understanding the implications of your own statements. When you claim that a game is better or worse (at being fun) than another game, you have argued that it is possible to create a hierarchy of taste.
Show me where I've stated that one aesthetic preference is superior to another. Can you do that?
Certainly:
Sure we can, because all games contain objective qualities, as you mention. On that measure we can say that game A is better or worse than game B without any consequence to the subjective qualities we might inspect.
While you don’t seem to understand that you are talking about aesthetic preferences, you have still claimed that one aesthetic preference can be called better than another.
Obviously, it's not. Game designers wouldn't be able to do their jobs if they couldn't distinguish between what is objectivey a good or bad game. Game theory, as a branch of philosophy, wouldn't exist without the ability to objectively analyze conflict (a principal facet of gaming.)
You are wrong, again. What you have said is the equivalent of saying that artists would not be able to do their job if they couldn’t distinguish between what is objectively good or bad art. What you have said is the equivalent of saying that art theory is designed to objectively analyze the quality of artwork (on the principle of a particular piece of art being good or bad). All you have done is belied your understanding of the subject you are discussing; you have no idea what you are talking about!
What you try to argue is that anything outside the defintiional is aesthetic, and therefore beyond objective approach. I disagree. Take, as an example, the following two "games:"
#1 There must be at least four players. The first player to fall asleep loses.
#2 Dog should not bark on Sundays. Try to sleep.
Neither of those are games. When you produce two actual games maybe we will have something to discuss. Until then, you are still doing what you did with your previous example. You are taking a not-game and comparing it to a (almost but not quite) game and trying to claim that the game is a better game than the not-game. That does not prove your point.
Now, you might prefer to play the second game, but your preference--based on whatever aesthetic values--doesn't speak toward the objective qualities of either. It's just your preference, like prefering games where dogs can bark on any day of the week.
And here we see that troubling totalitarian impulse rear its ugly head again. Yup. Your taste is better than everyone else’s. You know what makes a good or bad game. True story…
But none of that personal preference says we can't determine which is a better or worse game in an objective sense.
No, simple logic, and a little bit of knowledge as to the principles of aesthetics, does that… of course, when you throw logic to the wind, and start trying to claim that you can say that a thing is better or worse on aesthetic principles (while simultaneously claiming that you are not judging on aesthetic principles despite the fact that the very definition of what you are doing is making an aesthetic judgement) you can say virtually anything you want. Forward becomes backward, up becomes down, and so on and so forth.
Another example, based on the foundation that games are not just competitive, but competitively conflicting play between two or more players, arises the objective notion of equal play. Gamers often refer to this as balance. Unequal play makes for worse games, because one player is hindered compared to the others.
Yup. I better go tell my kid that tag is a terrible game because the two teams, “it” and “not it,” are not equal. One team has more players than the other. In this new world where taste is restricted on totalitarian principles she is no longer allowed to play tag. Also, all roleplaying games are actually terrible games. See, competitive conflict between two or more players is one of the defining features of a “good” game. Games are based on that foundation. Since roleplaying games are not actually about competitive conflict between two or more players, but rather an attempt to communally tell a story within the confines of a set of rules, all roleplaying games suck. We should let game designers know that there is no longer a point in producing new roleplaying games; they are objectively terrible as a genre, and so should not exist. For that matter, my copy of Castle Ravenloft is actually a terrible game as well. They forgot to include competitive competition between two or more players in that game too. That game makes the mistake of pitting a communal group of players against, get this, not each other but the rules of the game itself. What a total piece of crap! Everyone who found that particular fact innovative is practicing bad-wrong-fun and should be stoned.
(By unequal play, we're not speaking of handicaps where a skilled player does not have the same resources as an unskilled player to even the field. Instead, it refers to a game where one or more players has a substantively increased chance for winning. Handicaps are, in fact, used to generate equal play.)
While we are on the concept of winning, why don’t you tell the class how exactly one “wins” at a roleplaying game. Also, I love how you think you not only have the power to impute what games are good or bad, but you also have the power to impute what constitutes equal or not equal. You are like a priest! You have a direct line of access to capital T truth. True story.
There are certainly gamers who prefer unequal games--they like imbalanced games because the players who prefer it often know how to have an unequal advantage over others--but by definition, unequal games are worse than equal games.
We should stone those gamers. They don’t fit in. They don’t like the same stuff as us. And, we know exactly why they have the particular tastes they do. We know it is because they want to have an unequal advantage over others. How could we not with a prophet such as yourself imputing other peoples’ perspective upon them? Why do we even need to perform analysis? You can just tell us how it is.
Other objective measures exist such as replaybility, rules or mechanics quality (clarity, uniformity, consistency, etc.) and so on. These qualities are debated to no end in the forums, in addition to the many and endless individual preferences that sprout up alongside. But the existence of aesthetic preferences has no bearing on whether objective qualities can and do exist in games, and whether those qualities can be used to determine if a game is better or worse than another.
You are absolutely correct. Judging which particular grouping and implementation of those objective qualities one prefers has nothing to do with aesthetics. That is not the very definition of aesthetic judgement. You know what you are talking about. True story. Now the rest of the world knows, because you have imputed Truth from on high. Do you do horse races too? I wouldn’t mind making a couple of extra dollars by betting on a horse that can’t lose (because you say so).
The real problem with your argument is you want to believe that all discussion beyond the definitional is aesthetic, and therefore everyone is "right" about their particular view of the game. They can't be wrong because, according to you, no objective measure exist for them to weigh against anyone elses'. It's all just opinion. Right?
And the real problem with your argument is that it is ridiculous. It ignores the definition of aesthetic judgement, has nothing to do with reality, and serves no real purpose except to vindicate your own personal preferences because, hey, anyone who doesn’t like the same game you do is practicing bad-wrong-fun. What a joke. Man am I glad you are not one of my students. I hate giving out failing grades.
And WOW, the Binder class sort of almost kinda sucks, but only by detailed comparison with other classes. If you are just someone playing the game and you happen to use that class you're not exactly going to find yourself screwed.
I mostly agree with your post, but this line not so much. Play a Binder in a party with any of the 4 good controllers (Wizard, Invoker, Druid, Psion) and you'll notice that you're not doing the same thing as them. You're not laying down status effects that result in action denial. You don't have a versatile repertiore of effects that allow you to adapt to different conditions. Simply put, despite the fact that you're labeled as a controller, you're not really doing what a controller does (perhaps a pale imitation). Even the "bad" controllers (Seeker, Hunter, Bladesinger) are likely controlling better than you, and they're certainly dealing more damage than you.
If there's a Warlock in the party you'll probably feel even worse. You'll find that he can do much the same thing as you, but he's doing more damage on top of that. In fact, some builds will be controlling better than you and dealing more damage (and the ones that aren't controlling as good are dealing a LOT more damage than you).
If you're a little more observant, you may notice that many leaders are also controlling better than you (implement Clerics, some Shamans, and Bards for sure). Some strikers can as well (Monk for sure, and the O-Warlock as already mentioned, and Rogues and Sorcs may be getting close enough to make you feel appropriately jealous). Among defenders a polearm build is almost certainly going to put your action denial capabilities to shame, and Swordmages and Wardens may out-control you as well.
You may be right that a casual newbie might not notice, especially if they don't play often and don't have many expectations from the game. After a few levels, however, most players will notice that their Binder is underperforming. The biggest problem is that it's such an obvious design failure; why would anybody take features away from the Warlock and give the new build nothing in return? And with 6 other controllers to use as a basis for comparison, how did the designers not only give them such awful powers, but lock them into them? Even a casual search of the forums would reveal that bad powers are what make the Seeker bad, and yet the went ahead and gave the Binder worse powers in many cases.
Yeah, but IIRC my fundamental point was that all the classes are really pretty playable. Comparing that to every single other edition of D&D except Basic (where I can't really think of any clunkers, but then again it only had like 7 classes and 3 of them are really just MCing combos of the other 4) you had worthless or problematic classes left and right.
1e, the monk was just utterly hapless, the illusionist was neat but distinctly less powerful than a magic user, the druid was interesting but overall was still weaker than a cleric (and then on top of that you had to fight to get to high level, which just made no sense). The 1e Assassin wasn't underpowered, but it was bizarre and problematic to say the least. The 1e bard was just weird in a rather inexplicable way that made no real sense. The UA classes (barbarian and cavalier) played by a whole other set of rules and were WAY OP compared to other fighters.
2e basically just cut the stuff that didn't work well in 1e, but the 2e bard was also rather anemic, though I guess it isn't really any worse than the 4e binder. Later additions to the game were just, to put it kindly, whacked.
3.x classes were all over the place, varying from godlike to almost entirely worthless. There are too many cases to even list.
And then we have 4e where you've got binder and to a lesser extent assassins that are noticably anemic but still quite playable. A couple other classes aren't stunningly brilliant, like the seeker, but are still highly playable and aren't even likely to let down a player that isn't comparing himself to highly optimized versions of other classes.
The whole point being that all the people that are all over 4e and complaining about the quality of this or the quality of that have pretty short memories. Yes, ideally the binder would be better and we can wonder why it isn't but clearly the 4e system design succeeded pretty darn well in terms of creating a sort of natural baseline of competency that is really hard to break. I just don't get all the negativity. Its fine and all to critique stuff that can be better, but when the WORST examples of 4e design are shining paragons of near-perfection compared to more than half of the material that was in the previous edition I think it is safe to say that the quality of WotC's product has overall taken a huge jump upwards in at least that catagory. Nor do I really see an overall decrease in quality within 4e. I think the problem is a lot of people equate quality with powerful options, not consistent and thematic design. It isn't the goal of the devs to produce ever more powerful options, that wouldn't be 'higher quality' either. It is worth looking at other things too like items, which have just consistently gotten better and better over time, as have adventures.
Yes, compared with previous editions 4e is incredibly well balanced, and that's one of my favorite features of the system. I'd play a 4e Binder before half of the 3rd edition classes any day. It's not that the Binder is unplayable, it just reeks of sloppy design. It's arguably non-functional as a controller, which is my biggest beef with it. Almost as egregious is the fact that its class features are pretty much just the Warlock's minus curse (and, from a practical standpoint, the Pact Boon most of the time). I honestly don't know how the developers even justified publishing it as a distinct subclass! Taking away features would have been acceptable if its powers were good enough to make up for it (and if they couldn't be poached by O-Warlocks); after all, controllers are known for having better-than-average powers. But the opposite ended up being true!
Near as I can tell the Binder has no functional niche except to trap players into choosing it over an O-Warlock specced for control (which, incidentally, has been a pretty intuitive build since PHB1's Feylock).
I would like to add that I do agree with you that overall quality hasn't decreased as much as many people claim. I think the Essentials classes added a lot to the game, despite the fact that I personally prefer the AEDU classes. I gave them a fair shake, as I've played (if only briefly) a Slayer, a Knight, 3 Sentinels, a Scout, and a Hunter. I found them amusing at first, but got bored with them. I liked the concepts, but kept wishing I could tweak them a little one way or another. For those that don't like fiddling so much they're great, and in fact I sort of wish a few players in my group would play some of them because I think they'd fit the style pretty well. I wasn't a fan of the formatting of those books, but I did like the increased amount of fluff. HotF hit a perfect balance though, going back to the AEDU style and its original formatting, but still including a lot of fluff. There's also a lot of flavorful options in that book, even if they're not necessarily the most powerful. It's probably my favorite player's book thus far. And I don't think that anyone will argue that recent monster books have been better than ever.
That said, HoS was a big exception. It was an incredibly sloppy book, with bad design that also happened to be largely underpowered. Of the 4 new subclasses, the Executioner is solid (but was already published in Dragon, iirc), the Blackguard is solid, the Vampire is a poor execution of a neat concept (which happens to be underpowered as well), and the Binder is a complete waste of space. One out of three is pretty bad. Even the Wizard, who very rarely gets the short end of the stick, was stuck with the lazy, uninspired Necromancer build. Don't get me wrong, the Necromancer isn't that bad mechanically, but it really doesn't feel much like a Necromancer at all. It needs to get more undead-summoning powers, it needs to get more powers that can resurrect slain opponents in mid-combat, and it wouldn't have been too difficult to give it a permanent undead minion like the Sentinel's Animal Companion. I have a player that loves Necromancers and really wanted to roll one up when I told him about HoS (before it was released), but he has no interest in touching that build. Call it an aesthetic issue, but it's a really bad sign when the class as-published can't live up to its concept (and this guy isn't the only one who feels that way about the Necromancer from what I've read).
Quite frankly, so many botched concepts in one book is pretty inexcusable this late in the game's run. Hopefully the book was a fluke though. I'm optimistic that the designers have learned from their mistakes, and HotEC will resemble HotF more closely than HoS. If nothing else though, I'll at least have any monster books to look forward to.
So we should accept sub par design because there was worse in previous editions? The fact that balance was kept tight means that anything falling below what is required is fairly obvious and any professional "designer" that creates something that falls below as far as classes like the Binder do deserves scathing critique of their ability. We are paying customers we demand quality from these so called professionals. This is not a sense of entitlement but what we paying customers are entitled to.
If you don't like it there are other products. Have fun!
you totaly missed the point, just because there was badly designed classes in previous edition that does not mean thhat it should be accepted in the current one. There is nothing wrong with expecting quality in a paid product.
I didn't miss anything. Since, as Cyber-Dave has rather eloquently explained 'good' and 'bad' are highly subjective. You are certainly free to dislike some products and I'd be the last person to say that you shouldn't say "hey, I'd like a product more like X and less like Y, I don't like Y." You can also vote with your money and buy a different product that you feel is better. Of course you might not find that there IS a better product, in which case you can either buy the best product or not buy any product and again point out what would please you.
My commentary on the relative quality of 4e products vs other products (all IMHO of course) is actually relevant. It indicates that the chances are the product you're seeing, 4e, is really about the best product that we're likely to get out of a game design company. Your specific expectations are of course probably somewhat relevant to the people running the game company, assuming they're widely shared, but clearly they are going to be aware that no product is universally pleasing.
Of course endlessly complaining and insulting the people who do design this particular game product, which is pretty much the sum total of your particular posting history in my experience probably is going to tend to end up with anyone from WotC reading it assuming you're one of those people who cannot ever be pleased and feels 'entitled' to something better than anything that they can reasonably afford to provide at prices that are affordable. I don't know, I'm not them, but if I were I'd probably put a lot higher priority on listening to the people who say things like "well, that product had some better and some worse aspects, I liked X, but I had this issue with Y and I thought maybe it would be improved by Z." or something like that. Notice, there's no 'incompetent', 'entitled', snide use of 'designer' in quotes, or any of that in my proposed 'not pleased' response. You're all spite and vinegar. You'll really catch very little with that, not even flies. I say all of this in a spirit of constructive criticism. I find that often people don't notice the degree of their own negativity. Sometimes it helps to have an outside view of how one comes across.
Certainly WotC has every incentive to bring in the cash with a new release, 4e is pretty much done - fine system in its own right but you have to keep moving the game forward, new innovation, new creativity etc. How else can they get another $1000 from the same 100,000 people.
And what to do now that Pathfinder's sales have overtaken D&D sales. Unlike so many sceptics that love their 4e I think the 3e and 4e crowd could be united with a 5e through an innovative set of rules that speeds up combat, makes powers more uniquely interesting and goes for quality not quantity.
But then again Pathfinder 2nd edition could come up and address class balance, and curtail spell craziness.
So I think it could go either way.
Doesn't Paizo already have a loss leader in the form of all their core rules free?
Would an RPG company really try to lose money with their products - I can not see them lasting for very long.
Redhat linux is free too - but people buy the CDs.
Pathfinder has its own shelf in my local Barnes & Noble and those books are not free. Downloading pdf rules is for students - which only adds more and more players that cannot afford to play D&D.
Edit: actually looks like they sell the pdf book for 9.99
But then again Pathfinder 2nd edition could come up and address class balance, and curtail spell craziness.
So I think it could go either way.
This will not happen for a long, long time. When they first announced Pathfinder, they had high aspirations: class balance, backwards compatibility, speeding up combat, etc.
They achieved none of these with any real significance.
Also, if they do try to do this with a 2nd edition, it will likely splinter their fanbase, which is built off hatred of a product, not love for a product. Any deviation from the present course will be seen as a betrayal.
I didn't miss anything. Since, as Cyber-Dave has rather eloquently explained 'good' and 'bad' are highly subjective.
Awww, you just made me blush!
First, you've created a straw man and then proceeded to attack it. I never claimed it possible to "create an objective hiearchy of value in regards to taste." That's nonsense. I'm glad you had fun attacking that purported argument of mine.
That is your argument. You just don’t seem to be capable of understanding the implications of your own statements. When you claim that a game is better or worse (at being fun) than another game, you have argued that it is possible to create a hierarchy of taste.
No, I'm not claiming that a game is better or worse at being fun. You've created that straw man. I don't think I've ever mentioned the word fun even once in our entire discussion. I haven't made any type of argument of the sort you claim. YOU had to insert those words ("at being fun") because your entire stance against me is a straw man that is worthless without them.
Show me where I've stated that one aesthetic preference is superior to another. Can you do that?
Certainly:Sure we can, because all games contain objective qualities, as you mention. On that measure we can say that game A is better or worse than game B without any consequence to the subjective qualities we might inspect.
Cyber-Dave, I say this without any malice: you have a serious reading comprehension issue. What the above says is that we can inspect the objective qualities of a game without consequence to the subjective (or aesthetic) qualities we might inspect. I'm talking about everything but aesthetic qualities.
Yet, here you are, claiming the exact opposite for me and then attacking that position. Congratulations on, once more, having fun with made up arguments. You've made it clear that you neither can nor want to actually discuss this topic.
Obviously, it's not. Game designers wouldn't be able to do their jobs if they couldn't distinguish between what is objectivey a good or bad game. Game theory, as a branch of philosophy, wouldn't exist without the ability to objectively analyze conflict (a principal facet of gaming.)You are wrong, again. What you have said is the equivalent of saying that artists would not be able to do their job if they couldn’t distinguish between what is objectively good or bad art. What you have said is the equivalent of saying that art theory is designed to objectively analyze the quality of artwork (on the principle of a particular piece of art being good or bad). All you have done is belied your understanding of the subject you are discussing; you have no idea what you are talking about!
Honestly, you must be joking. Please tell me you're joking.
What you try to argue is that anything outside the defintiional is aesthetic, and therefore beyond objective approach. I disagree. Take, as an example, the following two "games:"
#1 There must be at least four players. The first player to fall asleep loses.
#2 Dog should not bark on Sundays. Try to sleep.
Neither of those are games. When you produce two actual games maybe we will have something to discuss.
Both are games under the core definition of a game--structured play. If you want a contestive element, simply add the following to each:
#1: Players may sing lullaby's in order to persuade other players to sleep.
#2 Players may cause their dogs to bark in order to prevent others from sleeping.
My earlier point still stands.
Now, you might prefer to play the second game, but your preference--based on whatever aesthetic values--doesn't speak toward the objective qualities of either. It's just your preference, like prefering games where dogs can bark on any day of the week.And here we see that troubling totalitarian impulse rear its ugly head again. Yup. Your taste is better than everyone else’s. You know what makes a good or bad game. True story…
Honestly, you're completely off the board by now.
I said nothing--nothing whatsoever--about my personal taste. It isn't even implied. Even if I did, it doesn't matter because I'm saying that my preferences (or yours, or any other players) has no bearing on the objective qualities of a game. It's not that hard to understand. My taste is no better than anyones'. Neither is yours.
Even beyond, these objective qualities aren't ones that I decided are what makes a good game. They are qualities embraced by game designers such as Wolfgang Kramer (see What Makes a Game Good?)
But I suppose he too is just a totalitarian, elitist-gamer like myself. Right? Or, just perhaps, there are objective qualities in games that can be used to determine how to make a better or worse game?
Another example, based on the foundation that games are not just competitive, but competitively conflicting play between two or more players, arises the objective notion of equal play. Gamers often refer to this as balance. Unequal play makes for worse games, because one player is hindered compared to the others.Yup. I better go tell my kid that tag is a terrible game because the two teams, “it” and “not it,” are not equal. One team has more players than the other. In this new world where taste is restricted on totalitarian principles she is no longer allowed to play tag.
First off, having more players on one team doesn't mean that the game is unequal for players. (It may be, but isn't necessarily.) It doesn't also mean that the game is terrible, just that it may be worse than other games from a design stance.
Second, it doesn't mean that your kid can't have fun while playing it. Nor does it mean she shouldn't. The quality of the game has NO BEARING on how much fun a specific person might derive, nor whether they can or should play it.
But thanks for putting more words in my mouth yet again.
Also, all roleplaying games are actually terrible games. See, competitive conflict between two or more players is one of the defining features of a “good” game. Games are based on that foundation. Since roleplaying games are not actually about competitive conflict between two or more players, but rather an attempt to communally tell a story within the confines of a set of rules, all roleplaying games suck. We should let game designers know that there is no longer a point in producing new roleplaying games; they are objectively terrible as a genre, and so should not exist.
Except, there is competitive conflict in RPGs. It just doesn't occur directly between human players. One player, the DM, acts as an intermediary and representative for an artificial group of players--the monsters, villains, etc. But there is still a clear, competitive conflict in RPGs. How you can so easily ignore this is absurd.
So too, competitive conflict isn't just a hallmark of good games, it's a hallmark of games, period. For example, solitaire isn't actually a game; it's a puzzle solved by a single-player. At best it is a competiton with oneself, but it's a puzzle-competition, not a game-competition.
Also, thanks yet again for putting words in my mouth.
For that matter, my copy of Castle Ravenloft is actually a terrible game as well. They forgot to include competitive competition between two or more players in that game too. That game makes the mistake of pitting a communal group of players against, get this, not each other but the rules of the game itself. What a total piece of crap! Everyone who found that particular fact innovative is practicing bad-wrong-fun and should be stoned.
Seriously, this is beyond pointless even trying to discuss with you.
(By unequal play, we're not speaking of handicaps where a skilled player does not have the same resources as an unskilled player to even the field. Instead, it refers to a game where one or more players has a substantively increased chance for winning. Handicaps are, in fact, used to generate equal play.)While we are on the concept of winning, why don’t you tell the class how exactly one “wins” at a roleplaying game. Also, I love how you think you not only have the power to impute what games are good or bad, but you also have the power to impute what constitutes equal or not equal. You are like a priest! You have a direct line of access to capital T truth. True story.
Players get to decide what--if any--win/lose conditions exist, either for them as an individual or together as a group. It need not even be specific, but in RPGs, a win condition usually arises in the form of a goal-set determined by the player, such as: I want to free the enslaved peoples of Nantir.
Part of the attraction of an RPG is that the player can decide his or her own "win" conditions. Losing, too, doesn't have the same connotations in other games because the opponents are artifical--generally, NPCs mediated by the Dungeon Master.
Note that, for the DM, a "win" condition is generally accepted as "everyone having fun." Because NPCs aren't people, they often get the short end of the stick where "fun" is concerned. (Not that they could have any real fun, anyhow.)
Pretending that no win/lose conditions exist in an RPG is silly. Ask most players how they feel about their character dying, for example--most would equate that to a "lose" condition.
There are certainly gamers who prefer unequal games--they like imbalanced games because the players who prefer it often know how to have an unequal advantage over others--but by definition, unequal games are worse than equal games.We should stone those gamers. They don’t fit in. They don’t like the same stuff as us. And, we know exactly why they have the particular tastes they do. We know it is because they want to have an unequal advantage over others. How could we not with a prophet such as yourself imputing other peoples’ perspective upon them? Why do we even need to perform analysis? You can just tell us how it is.
No, I never said anything of the sort. Preference is just that--preference. I didn't say they were wrong for it, but that personal preference doesn't mean a game is not objectively worse or better than others we might compare it with.
By now, I'm counting on you to make up some polar argument on my part instead of understand what was just said.
Other objective measures exist such as replaybility, rules or mechanics quality (clarity, uniformity, consistency, etc.) and so on. These qualities are debated to no end in the forums, in addition to the many and endless individual preferences that sprout up alongside. But the existence of aesthetic preferences has no bearing on whether objective qualities can and do exist in games, and whether those qualities can be used to determine if a game is better or worse than another.
You are absolutely correct. Judging which particular grouping and implementation of those objective qualities one prefers has nothing to do with aesthetics. That is not the very definition of aesthetic judgement. You know what you are talking about. True story. Now the rest of the world knows, because you have imputed Truth from on high. Do you do horse races too? I wouldn’t mind making a couple of extra dollars by betting on a horse that can’t lose (because you say so).
And, still, you put words in my mouth. It's downright insulting by now, especially because your above blurb is complete nonsense.
The real problem with your argument is you want to believe that all discussion beyond the definitional is aesthetic, and therefore everyone is "right" about their particular view of the game. They can't be wrong because, according to you, no objective measure exist for them to weigh against anyone elses'. It's all just opinion. Right?
And the real problem with your argument is that it is ridiculous. It ignores the definition of aesthetic judgement, has nothing to do with reality, and serves no real purpose except to vindicate your own personal preferences because, hey, anyone who doesn’t like the same game you do is practicing bad-wrong-fun. What a joke. Man am I glad you are not one of my students. I hate giving out failing grades.
I've never once suggested a personal preference for gaming. I haven't made any aesthetic value judgements, nor offered any. I haven't, in any form, tried to suggest or vindicate these supposed personal preferences. And I've not called anyone bad or wrong for their personal preferences.
Instead, you just said all that for me. All you've continuously done is created a massive straw man and then attack it as though it were your opponent--apparently your arch-nemesis. With such an imagination, I expect you're quite good at these RPGs. Eh?
Regardless, I'll leave you with a final scenario:
Presume we have game A and game B. Both games are exactly the same except for the fact that game A has no replayability and game B may be played 100 times. Are they equal, or does game B provide a greater objective value than game A?
Note that this isn't a question of aesthetics. Replayability is an objective quality. So what is it?
Just to make sure that it isn't missed, I'd like to quote the first paragraph of the article by Wolfgang Kramer as linked above. You really shouldn't overlook this:
"Games are a matter of taste! The perceived value of a game depends greatly on the individual preferences of those who play it. Some players prefer games of luck; others prefer games of tactics; still others enjoy communicating with fellow players. Then there are those who like games based on reaction, manual skills, or memory, etc. But whether a game is considered good or of little appeal does not depend entirely on personal preferences. There are also objective criteria that must be considered:"
Surely, you know better than he so I await your teacherly edification on the matter.
No, I'm not claiming that a game is better or worse at being fun. You've created that straw man. I don't think I've ever mentioned the word fun even once in our entire discussion. I haven't made any type of argument of the sort you claim. YOU had to insert those words ("at being fun") because your entire stance against me is a straw man that is worthless without them.
We have been over this. The purpose of games is, ultimately, to have fun. When you say a game is better or worse, and you don't specify better or worse at some specific observable phenomenon, you are saying that a game is better or worse at being fun. That is how language works.
Cyber-Dave, I say this without any malice: you have a serious reading comprehension issue. What the above says is that we can inspect the objective qualities of a game without consequence to the subjective (or aesthetic) qualities we might inspect. I'm talking about everything but aesthetic qualities.
My reading comprehension is just fine. What is lacking is your understanding in regards to the principle of aesthetic judgement. I read what you wrote. I understand that you think that we can inspect the objective qualities of a game and then make an objective value judgement of that game based on those qualities. I am appalled that you think that anything which has objective qualities can be judged objectively; the whole principle of aesthetic judgements is that one looks at an object, such as a piece of art or a game, which has objective qualities, and then form a value judgement as to whether you like those objective qualities or not. That is exactly what you are doing when you call a game better or worse. It is not that I am constructing straw men but that you do not understand the implications of your own words.
Honestly, you must be joking. Please tell me you're joking.
No, I am not. Game designers do not need to be able to objectively judge a game's quality to be able to produce games any more than artists need to be able to objectively judge art's quality. Game theory worth reading will be more complex than mere value judgement.
Both are games under the core definition of a game--structured play. If you want a contestive element, simply add the following to each:
#1: Players may sing lullaby's in order to persuade other players to sleep.
#2 Players may cause their dogs to bark in order to prevent others from sleeping.
My earlier point still stands.
No it doesn’t. So long as the language used to define your two “games” is abstract enough that one of them cannot actually be called a game (because it does not outline a clear set of rules or purpose) you are not actually comparing two games. The second your language actually constructs two games it becomes impossible to judge which one is better or worse; that is an aesthetic judgement of taste.
I said nothing--nothing whatsoever--about my personal taste. It isn't even implied. Even if I did, it doesn't matter because I'm saying that my preferences (or yours, or any other players) has no bearing on the objective qualities of a game. It's not that hard to understand. My taste is no better than anyones'. Neither is yours.
And yet you think that you can call a game better or worse. What you fail to understand is that better or worse, in regards to something designed to be fun, is inherently a question of taste. The fact that it has objective qualities does not change that. The whole principle of an aesthetic judgement is that come to a subjective conclusion about objective facts. Since you cannot objectively call anything better or worse at being fun, and the purpose of games is to be fun, you cannot judge a games overall quality without being subjective.
First off, having more players on one team doesn't mean that the game is unequal for players. (It may be, but isn't necessarily.) It doesn't also mean that the game is terrible, just that it may be worse than other games from a design stance.
Ah. Right. It is not that people cannot still enjoy the game; they should simply know that the thing that they find fun is of less value than what some other people might find fun.
Second, it doesn't mean that your kid can't have fun while playing it. Nor does it mean she shouldn't. The quality of the game has NO BEARING on how much fun a specific person might derive, nor whether they can or should play it.
Oh look. You actually state as much explicitly.
So, basically, you are saying that the claims made by the 3e crowd are logically defensible. It is not that 4e cannot be enjoyed, it is just that it is not really a roleplaying game—it is WoW on paper, or a tactical miniatures game, or some such. It’s a bad game, but you can still like it.
But thanks for putting more words in my mouth yet again.
I have not put any words in your mouth. I am taking your statements to their logical conclusions. I have not claimed that you said anything about tag. I am showing you what your statements can be used to defend. If one accepts your statements than one can defensibly say tag is a poor game, or that the genre of roleplaying games is a poor genre. If such statements trouble you then maybe you should consider the foundation they are built upon.
Except, there is competitive conflict in RPGs. It just doesn't occur directly between human players. One player, the DM, acts as an intermediary and representative for an artificial group of players--the monsters, villains, etc. But there is still a clear, competitive conflict in RPGs. How you can so easily ignore this is absurd.
So too, competitive conflict isn't just a hallmark of good games, it's a hallmark of games, period. For example, solitaire isn't actually a game; it's a puzzle solved by a single-player. At best it is a competiton with oneself, but it's a puzzle-competition, not a game-competition.
Oh, I see. So, a game doesn’t require conflict between “human” players. You can have made up characters that count as players. What is absurd is how easily you move your goalposts. But that is ok. You see, since we can make an objective judgement about what makes better or worse games, and since RPGs are the only tabletop game that contains this particular objective quality, we can say that RPGs are a terrible genre of game and should not be made anymore. It is an objective quality, and it objectively exists only in one type of tabletop game, so I can judge that quality as being objectively inferior.
Also, your claim about solitaire is objectively false. The dictionary defines solitaire as a game. I just checked. Of course, you can claim otherwise based on a subjective perception, but don’t pretend that your claim has anything to do with objective reality.
Players get to decide what--if any--win/lose conditions exist, either for them as an individual or together as a group. It need not even be specific, but in RPGs, a win condition usually arises in the form of a goal-set determined by the player, such as: I want to free the enslaved peoples of Nantir.
Huh. I own a number of RPGs that explicitly state that RPGs are not like other games because they are not about winning or losing but rather about telling a story. But you know what, that is ok. Because even from your perspective we can now say that RPGs are objectively inferior to other games. Games are all about structure. You should have a structured win/loss scenario. In RPGs you don’t. The player has to make up a win/loss scenario for themselves! That is poor game design. RPGs suck.
Part of the attraction of an RPG is that the player can decide his or her own "win" conditions. Losing, too, doesn't have the same connotations in other games because the opponents are artifical--generally, NPCs mediated by the Dungeon Master.
Yea, some people might enjoy this lack of structure, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is poor game design.
Note that, for the DM, a "win" condition is generally accepted as "everyone having fun." Because NPCs aren't people, they often get the short end of the stick where "fun" is concerned. (Not that they could have any real fun, anyhow.)
So, who is the DM in competition with exactly? That doesn’t sound like a good game to me. I thought we agreed that without competition or conflict a game is objectively bad.
Pretending that no win/lose conditions exist in an RPG is silly. Ask most players how they feel about their character dying, for example--most would equate that to a "lose" condition.
What about the player who remembers an epic death, wilfully chosen, in order to achieve some narrative effect? Roleplaying games do not have coded win/lose conditions.
No, I never said anything of the sort. Preference is just that--preference. I didn't say they were wrong for it, but that personal preference doesn't mean a game is not objectively worse or better than others we might compare it with.
Sorry, I got carried away. No need to stone them. They just need to know their place, and accept that their tastes are inferior because the games they prefer are objectively worse games.
Presume we have game A and game B. Both games are exactly the same except for the fact that game A has no replayability and game B may be played 100 times. Are they equal, or does game B provide a greater objective value than game A?
Note that this isn't a question of aesthetics. Replayability is an objective quality. So what is it?
The parameters you have created cannot exist in reality. It is imposable for the two games to be exactly the same in every way, but one cannot be replayed while the other can. Something needs to be different—something will be the reason why one game can be played only once and the other can be played many times. Choosing between that something and replayability is a question of aesthetic principles. Again, aesthetic judgements are made on objective qualities.
@Cyber-Dave:
Just to make sure that it isn't missed, I'd like to quote the first paragraph of the article by Wolfgang Kramer as linked above. You really shouldn't overlook this:
"Games are a matter of taste! The perceived value of a game depends greatly on the individual preferences of those who play it. Some players prefer games of luck; others prefer games of tactics; still others enjoy communicating with fellow players. Then there are those who like games based on reaction, manual skills, or memory, etc. But whether a game is considered good or of little appeal does not depend entirely on personal preferences. There are also objective criteria that must be considered:"
Surely, you know better than he so I await your teacherly edification on the matter.
I have not read the article so I cannot comment. I will say that on the surface he appears to be making a false claim, but I lack enough context to say so authoritativly. I would need to read the article to comment.
No, I'm not claiming that a game is better or worse at being fun. You've created that straw man. I don't think I've ever mentioned the word fun even once in our entire discussion. I haven't made any type of argument of the sort you claim. YOU had to insert those words ("at being fun") because your entire stance against me is a straw man that is worthless without them.
We have been over this. The purpose of games is, ultimately, to have fun. When you say a game is better or worse, and you don't specify better or worse at some specific observable phenomenon, you are saying that a game is better or worse at being fun. That is how language works.
YOU say that the ultimate purpose of games is to have fun, but that's entirely your invention. Games can be about having fun but there is no core necessity and it isn't even defintiional to games. A game can be purely educational, for example. That doesn't mean it is fun by default, or that the creator intended for it be anything but an educational tool irrespective of fun.
So once again, you've invented some argument and attributed it to me so that you'd have something to attack from your broken position.
My reading comprehension is just fine. What is lacking is your understanding in regards to the principle of aesthetic judgement. I read what you wrote. I understand that you think that we can inspect the objective qualities of a game and then make an objective value judgement of that game based on those qualities. I am appalled that you think that anything which has objective qualities can be judged objectively; the whole principle of aesthetic judgements is that one looks at an object, such as a piece of art or a game, which has objective qualities, and then form a value judgement as to whether you like those objective qualities or not. That is exactly what you are doing when you call a game better or worse. It is not that I am constructing straw men but that you do not understand the implications of your own words.
I think it's hilarious that you believe everything must be judged as though it were an aesthetic judgement. You really believe that!
And of COURSE we can judge objective things objectively! Including games!
2 is greater than 1, except when talking to you. According to you, 1 and 2 are equal because it's an aesthetic choice on my part to actually think that 2 is more than 1. How totalitarian of me!
No, I am not. Game designers do not need to be able to objectively judge a game's quality to be able to produce games any more than artists need to be able to objectively judge art's quality. Game theory worth reading will be more complex than mere value judgement.
Wow. Just wow. And you say you're a teacher somewhere? That's horrifying.
Both are games under the core definition of a game--structured play. If you want a contestive element, simply add the following to each:
#1: Players may sing lullaby's in order to persuade other players to sleep.
#2 Players may cause their dogs to bark in order to prevent others from sleeping.
My earlier point still stands.No it doesn’t. So long as the language used to define your two “games” is abstract enough that one of them cannot actually be called a game (because it does not outline a clear set of rules or purpose) you are not actually comparing two games. The second your language actually constructs two games it becomes impossible to judge which one is better or worse; that is an aesthetic judgement of taste.
Both of them can be called games by the simplest defintion of a game: structured play. Neither is too abstract to avoid that, and it is not impossible to judge which is better or worse.
You just don't want to say what is true about them--that game #1 is objectively better than #2.
I said nothing--nothing whatsoever--about my personal taste. It isn't even implied. Even if I did, it doesn't matter because I'm saying that my preferences (or yours, or any other players) has no bearing on the objective qualities of a game. It's not that hard to understand. My taste is no better than anyones'. Neither is yours.
And yet you think that you can call a game better or worse. What you fail to understand is that better or worse, in regards to something designed to be fun, is inherently a question of taste. The fact that it has objective qualities does not change that.
Of course I think it's possible to call a game better or worse using non-aesthetic judgements. Even things that are designed to be fun can be objectively judged by way of their objective qualities and merits. Oooh. Big shocker! I know you don't believe this, but then, some people don't believe in evolution or a helio-centric earth, either.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but one thing can be objectively better than another even when that something is meant for fun. Yes, that includes games when they are designed for fun. That doesn't mean an individual will have more or less fun--that is dependent on his or her individual and aesthetic preferences. But a game can be objectively worse in design irrespective of personal preference or experience.
I know you can't accept that because to agree would make you wrong. And you are wrong.
The whole principle of an aesthetic judgement is that come to a subjective conclusion about objective facts. Since you cannot objectively call anything better or worse at being fun, and the purpose of games is to be fun, you cannot judge a games overall quality without being subjective.
We can judge games based on non-subjective merits. Sorry, but it is quite possible (thankfully). We'd have to live in an entirely different universe, with different fundamental laws, for it to be otherwise.
I'm having to repeat myself because you're just repeating the same broken and misattributed arguments, over and over.
First off, having more players on one team doesn't mean that the game is unequal for players. (It may be, but isn't necessarily.) It doesn't also mean that the game is terrible, just that it may be worse than other games from a design stance.Ah. Right. It is not that people cannot still enjoy the game; they should simply know that the thing that they find fun is of less value than what some other people might find fun.
Nope, they don't have to know anything of the sort. They can be completely oblivious to whether the game is designed better or worse than any other. It will have zero impact on their current experience. They can continue to enjoy the game as they always have.
But none of that means the game isn't badly designed, or worse than similar alternatives.
Second, it doesn't mean that your kid can't have fun while playing it. Nor does it mean she shouldn't. The quality of the game has NO BEARING on how much fun a specific person might derive, nor whether they can or should play it.Oh look. You actually state as much explicitly.
So, basically, you are saying that the claims made by the 3e crowd are logically defensible. It is not that 4e cannot be enjoyed, it is just that it is not really a roleplaying game—it is WoW on paper, or a tactical miniatures game, or some such. It’s a bad game, but you can still like it.
4e is definitely a role-playing game--despite what any of them may claim. But whether it is WoW on paper, a tactical miniatures game or so on makes no difference. They may be right or not. They may or may not have logically defensible arguments. So what? The arguments may be valid, but that doesn't mean you or I will find less enjoyment playing based due to our personal preferences. You can't seem to separate the notion.
What if 4e is in fact a tactical miniatures game. Oh my gosh! Well, I guess we've all wasted our time. Best we move on, right?
No, of course not. That objective fact, if 4e were indeed nothing more than a tactical miniatures game, has no bearing on our subjective experiences with 4th edition. Objectively, we'd be able to say that it is a tactical miniatures game but that doesn't make it more or less fun for any of us unless, of course, our personal preferences do not align with tactical miniature games.
BUT PREFERENCE DOENS'T MAKE IT NOT A TACTICAL MINIATURES GAME. OR NOT A WoW CLONE. It may be those things!
Your problem is that you can't separate the notion of objective fact from subjective opinion. Objective truths are true no matter how we feel about them. Further, you don't want to admit that games have objective qualities that make them better or worse in design than other games.
But thanks for putting more words in my mouth yet again.I have not put any words in your mouth. I am taking your statements to their logical conclusions. I have not claimed that you said anything about tag. I am showing you what your statements can be used to defend. If one accepts your statements than one can defensibly say tag is a poor game, or that the genre of roleplaying games is a poor genre. If such statements trouble you then maybe you should consider the foundation they are built upon.
It's quite possible to make an objective statement such as "tag" being a poor game.
For example, Tic-Tac-Toe is widely understood to be a poorly designed game because two skilled players will always come to a draw. As players quickly become skilled--it has a very low system mastery--it loses almost all playable value.
Variants provide a more robust design appropriate for all players, skilled and unskilled. Tic-Tac-Toe is, objectively, a worse game than its better designed counterparts.
But you're still putting words in my mouth by equating poor game design with player fun, and they may not be equatable. Your daughter might like to play tag or play Tic-Tac-Toe no matter how poor either game's objective qualities may be. It has little bearing on her end experience. Maybe she has lots of fun! Yes, even children can have fun playing badly designed games. Imagine that!
Her fun doesn't make the game's objective qualities somehow untrue, or not better or worse than comparable others.
Except, there is competitive conflict in RPGs. It just doesn't occur directly between human players. One player, the DM, acts as an intermediary and representative for an artificial group of players--the monsters, villains, etc. But there is still a clear, competitive conflict in RPGs. How you can so easily ignore this is absurd.
So too, competitive conflict isn't just a hallmark of good games, it's a hallmark of games, period. For example, solitaire isn't actually a game; it's a puzzle solved by a single-player. At best it is a competiton with oneself, but it's a puzzle-competition, not a game-competition.Oh, I see. So, a game doesn’t require conflict between “human” players. You can have made up characters that count as players. What is absurd is how easily you move your goalposts.
No, it doesn't require humans. There's never been such a requirement. We can program two computers to play a game of chess with one another, but that doesn't make chess "not a game," nor does it make the computer "not players." Well, except according to you, apparently.
Videogames have often had non-human players. That doesn't make them not-games either. Nor does it mean I moved my goal posts. I had no need to move them--you just assumed that human players were required, and then, accuse me of moving my goal posts. Imagine that!
Also, your claim about solitaire is objectively false. The dictionary defines solitaire as a game. I just checked. Of course, you can claim otherwise based on a subjective perception, but don’t pretend that your claim has anything to do with objective reality.
You looked it up? And it says it's a game. Objectively, too! That's so cute!
It's called a "misnomer," and despite being called a game, popular solitaire variants (including Klondike) are widely understood to be puzzles. Even still, I could've used a clearer example. My bad. Still, you're funny.
Just for kicks--as you're a teacher you probably won't accept a Wiki reference--there's this:
"Most solitaire games function as a puzzle which, due to a different starting position, may (or may not) be solved in a different fashion each time."
Anyhow, dictionaries provide the most commonly used definitions for a word. They aren't paragons of objective fact. They describe how language is used, not what the objective meaning of a word really is supposed to be.
It's more than a little sad that you don't know that as a teacher.
Players get to decide what--if any--win/lose conditions exist, either for them as an individual or together as a group. It need not even be specific, but in RPGs, a win condition usually arises in the form of a goal-set determined by the player, such as: I want to free the enslaved peoples of Nantir.Huh. I own a number of RPGs that explicitly state that RPGs are not like other games because they are not about winning or losing but rather about telling a story.
If that's how you play your RPGs, then storytelling is your win/lose condition. Failing to tell a story (or perhaps even a "good" story) means that you failed.
Lets not forget, however, that win/lose conditions aren't a requirement for all games. Some games just keep score and losing denotes when the game ends. Some don't even do that. This is because games have different goals and different play conditions, and for RPGs, storytelling is just one type of goal that players might engage. But it's not required.
But you know what, that is ok. Because even from your perspective we can now say that RPGs are objectively inferior to other games. Games are all about structure. You should have a structured win/loss scenario. In RPGs you don’t. The player has to make up a win/loss scenario for themselves! That is poor game design. RPGs suck.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. You just can't help yourself, eh? If you get a chance, you should speak with another teacher at your facility who specializes in argumentation--you definitely need some practice.
Part of the attraction of an RPG is that the player can decide his or her own "win" conditions. Losing, too, doesn't have the same connotations in other games because the opponents are artifical--generally, NPCs mediated by the Dungeon Master.Yea, some people might enjoy this lack of structure, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is poor game design.
Annnnnnd again with the words in the mouth. I made no remark on the quality of the genre or the design of RPGs. None at all. But here you are, again.
Note that, for the DM, a "win" condition is generally accepted as "everyone having fun." Because NPCs aren't people, they often get the short end of the stick where "fun" is concerned. (Not that they could have any real fun, anyhow.)So, who is the DM in competition with exactly? That doesn’t sound like a good game to me. I thought we agreed that without competition or conflict a game is objectively bad.
*Sigh* The DM is not actually a player. The players are players. The DM is more like a referee and ajudicator, among many other things. He or she still has a goal of ensuring that everyone has fun (including him or herself).
In other contexts, however, we could say that the DM's opponent is system mastery and skill at story telling. For him, the "game" is actually a puzzle, and the players are one of many pieces. Fun for all is the win/lose condition and skill at moderating the game is how he accomplishes it.
Consider videogame RPGs. There is no DM unless you count the programmers and the storytellers and so forth who construct it. If they, too, are players, then perhaps you have a point. A made-up point, but still a point.
Also, having a referee (or not) doesn't mean that RPGs are objectively bad. That's just you putting more words in my mouth. Again.
Pretending that no win/lose conditions exist in an RPG is silly. Ask most players how they feel about their character dying, for example--most would equate that to a "lose" condition.What about the player who remembers an epic death, wilfully chosen, in order to achieve some narrative effect? Roleplaying games do not have coded win/lose conditions.
What about them? A wilfully chosen, epic death is part of that player's goal-set; precisely what I described earlier. That doesn't conflict with what I've said at all.
Also, I didn't say RPGs have coded win/lose conditions. You just did. Presumably, you're trying to insinuate that I made such a claim. What a surprise.
No, I never said anything of the sort. Preference is just that--preference. I didn't say they were wrong for it, but that personal preference doesn't mean a game is not objectively worse or better than others we might compare it with.Sorry, I got carried away. No need to stone them. They just need to know their place, and accept that their tastes are inferior because the games they prefer are objectively worse games.
And still, you continue to suggest that I'm injecting personal preference here. Honestly, fabricating so much and putting it forward as though I said or implied such things really could be seen as harassment.
Disagree? Show me where I said that gamers should be stoned for personal preference. Show me where I said their tastes were inferior. Show me where I said that they need to know their place because their games are objectively worse (or better). You won't be able to because you've been making up this stuff as you go along.
Ridiculous.
Presume we have game A and game B. Both games are exactly the same except for the fact that game A has no replayability and game B may be played 100 times. Are they equal, or does game B provide a greater objective value than game A?
Note that this isn't a question of aesthetics. Replayability is an objective quality. So what is it?The parameters you have created cannot exist in reality. It is imposable for the two games to be exactly the same in every way, but one cannot be replayed while the other can. Something needs to be different—something will be the reason why one game can be played only once and the other can be played many times. Choosing between that something and replayability is a question of aesthetic principles. Again, aesthetic judgements are made on objective qualities.
I knew you couldn't answer it. It's a hypothetical question with a simple scenario. Doesn't matter whether it could or couldn't exist in reality. (Though it could in fact exist--I'll mention how in a moment.) Still, you won't answer it even as a hypothetical. You skirt around and then suggest that an objective quality is, amazingly, somehow an aesthetic one.
So, how could they be the same? Let's say they are videogames--actually, just one videogame. However, two versions are released. One with DRM that prevents a player from going through it more than once, and another without DRM. Two games exactly alike, one with replayability and another without. We, as players, can buy whichever one we want--doesn't matter. Choice is yours.
Are neither objectively better or worse? Will you tell me that DRM is an aesthetic choice? Really? I know you will, or you'll avoid answering in some other way. So I'll just laugh now. Hahaha.
Sorry, even games have objective qualities that can be measured against other games.
I have not read the article so I cannot comment. I will say that on the surface he appears to be making a false claim, but I lack enough context to say so authoritativly. I would need to read the article to comment.
The rest of the article is him listing objective qualities found in games. Either you agree with his notion of objective quality (and therefore my own), or you don't. There's not much else to it.
But something tells me that the guy who's produced dozens of top and game-of-the-year boardgames is not the one making a false claim in all this.
Just saying.
YOU say that the ultimate purpose of games is to have fun, but that's entirely your invention. Games can be about having fun but there is no core necessity and it isn't even defintiional to games. A game can be purely educational, for example. That doesn't mean it is fun by default, or that the creator intended for it be anything but an educational tool irrespective of fun.
So once again, you've invented some argument and attributed it to me so that you'd have something to attack from your broken position.
Thank you for, once again, proving your ignorance on the subject. Check the dictionary definition. The very first definition I came upon was, “An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime.” Since I tell my students to only use academic dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, I did you the same service. The first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is, “1. Amusement, delight, fun, mirth, sport.” It is not until the fourth definition of the word that you get, “A diversion of the nature of a contest, played according to rules, and displaying in the result the superiority either in skill, strength, or good fortune of the winner or winners.” That fourth definition is still inflected by the first definition. In this case, the diversion is called a game because it is an activity that provides entertainment or amusement. The fourth definition is a more specific description of what it is that is supposed to provide entertainment or amusement. So no, I have not provided you with a concept of my own invention. The definition of the word game states that it is an activity which is supposed to be fun.
Educational games are still designed to be fun. The point of an educational game is to make education more palatable by making it a more pleasurable experience.
I think it's hilarious that you believe everything must be judged as though it were an aesthetic judgement. You really believe that!
I did not say that. I specifically said that we can objectively judge a tool based on its capability of performing an intended task. I also said that you can judge games as being better or worse at some specific objectively observable phenomenon. That does not, however, describe the game as being better or worse overall. Anything that is designed to be pleasurable cannot be called better or worse overall because pleasure falls under the purview of aesthetics. By definition such a thing cannot be judged objectively. You cannot quantitatively, numerically, value pleasure—unless, it seems, we are talking to you.
Wow. Just wow. And you say you're a teacher somewhere? That's horrifying.
Indeed I am, at a university no less. Though, I am not yet a professor. I have a few more years before I earn my PhD. What horrifies me is when I see people making claims about things that they do not in any shape or form understand. It horrifies me when someone claims that objective knowledge as to empirical quality is required to perform, to create, in a subjective field. Such statements are a massive breakdown in logical cognition.
Both of them can be called games by the simplest defintion of a game: structured play. Neither is too abstract to avoid that, and it is not impossible to judge which is better or worse.
You just don't want to say what is true about them--that game #1 is objectively better than #2.
If your claim that they are both games is true, then game 1 is not objectively better than game 2. Since the “simplest” definition of game, by which I mean the first definition (a definition that inflects the other definitions) is something that produces amusement or entertainment, in other words something designed to be fun, and fun cannot be objectively quantified, your second claim cannot be true by definition.
Of course I think it's possible to call a game better or worse using non-aesthetic judgements. Even things that are designed to be fun can be objectively judged by way of their objective qualities and merits. Oooh. Big shocker! I know you don't believe this, but then, some people don't believe in evolution or a helio-centric earth, either.
It is not that I don’t believe this, but that it is commonly accepted knowledge that it is not true. You cannot objectively assign value to a subjective field, such as fun. That is basic philosophy. The whole point of aesthetics is the production of value judgement on subjective grounds. You cannot have objective merits in a subjective field. You may merely have common taste. What you can have is objective qualities. Calling any such quality a merit is an aesthetic judgement. To claim otherwise is the equivalent of claiming a helio-centric earth, or creation by spaghetti monster.
Nope, they don't have to know anything of the sort. They can be completely oblivious to whether the game is designed better or worse than any other. It will have zero impact on their current experience. They can continue to enjoy the game as they always have.
But none of that means the game isn't badly designed, or worse than similar alternatives.
So it is only you, and other people with a direct line of access to capital T truth, who know that others have objectively inferior taste because they prefer objectively inferior products. The poor deluded fools get to be poor deluded fools. What was it you said about not seeking an experience of vindication?
Your problem is that you can't separate the notion of objective fact from subjective opinion. Objective truths are true no matter how we feel about them. Further, you don't want to admit that games have objective qualities that make them better or worse in design than other games.
No, my problem is that you can’t and that bothers me.
It's called a "misnomer," and despite being called a game, popular solitaire variants (including Klondike) are widely understood to be puzzles. Even still, I could've used a clearer example. My bad. Still, you're funny.
Oh, dictionary definitions are misnomers now? How cute. That explains a lot. When language stops having a communally accepted meaning you can call things whatever you want, which is exactly what you have been doing. Everything makes sense now.
Just for kicks--as you're a teacher you probably won't accept a Wiki reference--there's this:
"Most solitaire games function as a puzzle which, due to a different starting position, may (or may not) be solved in a different fashion each time."
You do realize that your quote called solitaire a game, right? Of course, that is because the binary between game and puzzle is a false binary. A thing can be both, or neither. Solitaire is a game.
Anyhow, dictionaries provide the most commonly used definitions for a word. They aren't paragons of objective fact. They describe how language is used, not what the objective meaning of a word really is supposed to be.
It's more than a little sad that you don't know that as a teacher.
Awesome. Just awesome. The dictionary does not objectively provide a word’s definition. You can though! How could I forget, you have a direct line of access to capital T truth that supersedes the definitions we have attributed to the words we use.
At this point in time I have simply had enough. You will not be educated. You prefer wilful ignorance. This is a practice in self torture on my part. If the definitions of words are superseded by your desired definitions (which, of course, are not really your desired definitions but merely the capital T truth you have called down from on high), and commonly accepted knowledge on the nature of aesthetic judgement, produced by years of philosophical writing, is trumped by your desire to empirically colonize taste, there is no point in discussion. Games are not designed to be fun; solitaire is not a game; we can objectively judge taste; education and cognition have failed you.
To people who hold a slightly more reasonable position, please be aware that solitaire is defined as a game. The definition of the word game states that the activity is fun. It is commonly accepted knowledge in academic communities that you cannot objectively judge something whose very definition places it in the purview of the subjective sphere; judging such things is described as making an aesthetic judgement, which is to say expressing value in regards to some arrangement of objective qualities on the basis of taste.
P.S. In case anyone wanted to know my take on the article, I read it, and it does in fact make a false claim. The problem is, I am not sure if that is because the writer made a false claim or the translator didn't capture the full range of meaning in regards to what was said in German. The writer admits that he is not producing a set of rules to making a "good game," and is only creating a guideline, which arguably suggests an appeal to common taste. However, the translation does make it seem like he is saying that there are certain qualities which objectively make a game better or worse. I found myself often disagreeing with those qualities. I can think of games that I love that do, in fact, possess one or more of the "inferior qualities" he listed. Some of those qualities do not bother me at all; obviously I don't share the same taste as he does. In other cases I found that I do have similar value judgements to the writer; it seems that in some respect we do have taste in common, but that doesn't make our taste objective. I see nothing in the argument which defensibly explains why any quality can be called objectively superior or inferior when we are discussing something which is a matter of taste. He does not explain why those qualities are objectively inferior, he merely explains why he does not like them in a logical fashion. Of course, that has no real bearing on his ability to produce quality games, to be a game designer. As I noted earlier, a game designer doesn't need to be able to objectivly define what is a good and bad game in order to produce games that will be enjoyed.
After all, words have permanent and objective meanings that never change. Cause that's what dictionaries do. Give us objective meanings and all. Not provide how people most commonly use words, but objective definition stuff just like you said.
Sorry, but you're hilarious.
You probably think there is some sort of council of academics at Oxford who sit around all day figuring out the meaning of words for the rest of us ignorant morons--morons like me who can barely put enough syllables together to pronouce words like "objective" and "you're wrong."
Still, I'd like to meet the crusty old fellow who invented the word "shizzle." What's Oxford got for the objective meaning of that, I wonder?
Anyhow, so far as games go, it's clear you know better than me or people like Wolfgang Kramer who make actual world-renown games. *shakes head*
Good luck on your way to getting that PHD. Something tells me you'll need it.
There are any number of ways you could measure an RPG system, from quantitative, fiddly and likely meaningless, to broader and more qualitative, to of course, entirely subjective. For instance, there's a thread about how 4e doesn't have the same feel as classic D&D. While 'feel' is mostly used subjectively, there are a lot of objective facts about 4e that would reasonably cause it to have a different feel. So, while I can conclude that 4e and classic D&D almost certainly 'feel' different, it's up to the individual feeler to decide if that's for the better or for the worse.
Similarly, 4e is clearly much better-balanced than prior eds, but whether balance enhances your personal enjoyment of a game is a matter of subjective perception, preference, attitude, what you're trying to get out of the game, etc...
People get far too caught up in forming an uncritical opinion, then trying to use the trappings of critical thinking to 'prove' it. Critical thinking can help you make an informed judgement or form a discerning opinion, but it can't make your personal feelings on something 'right' for everyone else.
I don’t disagree with a word you just wrote. It still doesn’t change the claim I made, or invalidate it. You can objectively judge certain qualities. You can use such judgements to make educated decisions about your own tastes, or to logically explain your own aesthetic preferences. You cannot, however, objectively judge whether a game is “better or worse.” Without saying “better or worse at some specific, objectively observable, phenomenon,”
Exactly. But, in conversational English, it's clumsy and distracting to constantly put in provisos and weasle-words, so it's easy for the misunderstandings to get started. If you say a game is 'better' and don't qualify it with the sense in which it's 'better' in, some smart-ass is going to come along and point out that what you said isn't technically proveable. ;) Then you're dragged off into existencial discussion of what it's possible to know or not, or calling RPGs 'artwork' - there can be both artistic and mechanistic components to just about anything, from sculptures to automobiles to RPGs - and denying any meaningful discussion. *bleh*
It's possible to have an informed, considered opinion, and to share the basis for it with others. In the process, in conversational english, you might often find yourself saying things that can be interpreted as absolute statements of fact or assertions of logical proof, when, really, they're just well-thought out, but still personal, judgements. There are more and less productive ways of responding to such things.
better or worse indicates little more than overall preference which is a question of aesthetics. Again, aesthetics is inherently subjective; that is one of the defining features of aesthetics. What I am saying exists in tandem with your claims. What I have said, and what you have said, do not contradict each other.
Nod. I suppose it comes down to another aesthetic difference. Is it worth it to discuss the relative merits of a game, or should we just flatly state our opinions, shrug, and move on without discussion?
Well, I guess you better hurry and call Oxford to let them know that they don't need to produce any new editions of their dictionary.
After all, words have permanent and objective meanings that never change. Cause that's what dictionaries do. Give us objective meanings and all. Not provide how people most commonly use words, but objective definition stuff just like you said.
Sorry, but you're hilarious.
Objective is not synonymous with permanent. It is objectivly true that dictionaries give definitions. It is an objective fact that the definition of a word is the definition in the dictionary. Note that I have not said that the definitions are objective, only that it is an objective fact that dictionaries give definitions, and that a definition is the definition found in the dictionary. All definitions fail at being truly objective, that is the nature of the sign. As Nietzsche pointed out, language is inherently metaphoric. Still, the definition given by dictionaries is the one we use, and the one we refer to when we say what a thing is or is not. Otherwise communication breaks down. Words will still take on new uses, or slightly change, over time. That is part of the nature of language. That is why students are told to use the OED; it is a online resource that is updated, due to the tenuous and shifting nature of language, on a regular basis. It is interesting how it still lists the primary definition of the word game as being something that is fun. In other words, that is how the word is still used today. In other words, that is not something I made up. Your claim to the contrary flies in the face of communally accepted language. The shifting nature of language does not give you the ability to say that a word does not mean what its dictionary definition says it means.
Anyhow, so far as games go, it's clear you know better than me or people like Wolfgang Kramer who make actual world-renown games. *shakes head*
I certainly do know better than you. I reserve judgement on Wolfgag Kramer, though I do think he overstates his case in the article you quoted.
Good luck on your way to getting that PHD. Something tells me you'll need it.
Considering how you have presented your ideas in this thread that does not bother me in the least. I think I would be more worried if that were not the case.
Exactly. But, in conversational English, it's clumsy and distracting to constantly put in provisos and weasle-words, so it's easy for the misunderstandings to get started. If you say a game is 'better' and don't qualify it with the sense in which it's 'better' in, some smart-ass is going to come along and point out that what you said isn't technically proveable. ;) Then you're dragged off into existencial discussion of what it's possible to know or not, or calling RPGs 'artwork' - there can be both artistic and mechanistic components to just about anything, from sculptures to automobiles to RPGs - and denying any meaningful discussion. *bleh*
With a statement like that I think it is important to reiterate exactly how I got dragged into this discussion:
Fanboyism.
And Xvun, it is not just subjective - it can be debated and researched which is the better game,
If you ask me, it's 4th ed.
False. To perform anything nearing an objective analysis one would first have to define what qualifies "better" in terms of roleplaying games. Since that is inherently an aesthetic judgement, it is essentially a subjective measuring stick.
This has nothing to do with me being a smart-ass, or imposing academic limits on conversational language. The post explicitly stated that it is possible to make objective, not subjective, value judgements as to what game, Pathfinder or 4e, is a better game. The post then claims that the better game is 4e, objectively speaking, though he seems a little uncertain about the quality his own analysis (but not the possibility of validly performing such an analysis). I took issue with that statement and clearly said that it is impossible to perform an objective analysis which calls one game (such as Pathfinder) better or worse than another game (such as 4e) because that falls, by definition, under the purview of aesthetics. I did not say anything about any other sort of analysis. This was not an attempt to shut down meaningful discussion. I take major issue with that claim Tony. (Still, I do have a secret fondness for being called a smart-ass .)
It's possible to have an informed, considered opinion, and to share the basis for it with others. In the process, in conversational english, you might often find yourself saying things that can be interpreted as absolute statements of fact or assertions of logical proof, when, really, they're just well-thought out, but still personal, judgements. There are more and less productive ways of responding to such things.
Certainly, a number of such statements were made in this thread. I didn't respond to any of them. The one that evoked my response was the one that stated, unequivocally, that it is possible to validly claim that one game is objectively better than another.
Nod. I suppose it comes down to another aesthetic difference. Is it worth it to discuss the relative merits of a game, or should we just flatly state our opinions, shrug, and move on without discussion?
That really depends on context. For example, while I think that the Wolfgang essay that was cited overstates its case, I still find it to be a useful article. I would have preferred that he not overstate his case. That, however, does not alter the fact that the discussion present in the article is useful when you are trying to decide what common loci of taste tend to be shared by large groups of gamers. Similarly, I find thoughtful discussion as to what qualities one merits in a game to be useful as well. What is utterly useless, however, is to unequivocally claim that one game is objectively superior to another. That serves no purpose but a childish, totalitarian impulse to empirically colonize the tastes of others. Please note that is not the same thing as stating your own preferences and thoughtfully explaining why you hold them. I hate Pathfinder. I like 4e (though not as much as WFRPG 3e or Eclipse Phase). There are plenty of logical reasons why, and discussing why might be a fruitful exercise. Colloquially speaking, I might even say that I think that 4e is a better game than Pathfinder. However, those reasons are still rooted in my aesthetic preferences, and I would not under any circumstance unequivocally say that my preferences are objectively superior to the preferences of someone else. That practice is what I took issue against Tony.
The same applies in everything to do with pleasure. I think J.R.R.Tolkien is superior to absolutely any writer published in the past fifty years, and I can explain why in great detail. I can also objectively measure all the stylistic characteristics and publication and editorial details, but none of them would objectively support my claim.
Remember that this notion first reared its ugly head in this thread: the original but subtle point was that one of the editions of Dungeons and Dragons can be objectively demonstrated as superior.
Exactly. But, in conversational English, it's clumsy and distracting to constantly put in provisos and weasle-words, so it's easy for the misunderstandings to get started. If you say a game is 'better' and don't qualify it with the sense in which it's 'better' in, some smart-ass is going to come along and point out that what you said isn't technically proveable. ;) Then you're dragged off into existencial discussion of what it's possible to know or not, or calling RPGs 'artwork' - there can be both artistic and mechanistic components to just about anything, from sculptures to automobiles to RPGs - and denying any meaningful discussion. *bleh*
With a statement like that I think it is important to reiterate exactly how I got dragged into this discussion:Fanboyism.
And Xvun, it is not just subjective - it can be debated and researched which is the better game,
If you ask me, it's 4th ed.
False. To perform anything nearing an objective analysis one would first have to define what qualifies "better" in terms of roleplaying games. Since that is inherently an aesthetic judgement, it is essentially a subjective measuring stick.
This has nothing to do with me being a smart-ass, or imposing academic limits on conversational language.
I don't want to make personal judgements or attacks (I know I implied that you've been a smart-ass, but I pointedly avoided actually saying it - I was just speaking generally, there's a lot of smart-assedness on-line), but I think the latter comes into it a bit. I think what you may be doing is holding those whose opinions you don't care for to a higher standard.
The post explicitly stated that it is possible to make objective, not subjective, value judgements as to what game, Pathfinder or 4e, is a better game. The post then claims that the better game is 4e, objectively speaking, though he seems a little uncertain about the quality his own analysis (but not the possibility of validly performing such an analysis).
I think the imprecision of language, is, indeed a large part of the problem, here. You'll notice he said 'not /just/ subjective,' so he's granting subjective aspects to the judgement. He never actually uses the word 'objective,' you're reading that into it. I can see the implication, too, but he didn't actually say it. And, his final conclusion is stated as an opinion "if you ask me."
I suppose he could have used more weasle-words and thrown in a JMHO there somewhere. :shrug:
I took issue with that statement and clearly said that it is impossible to perform an objective analysis which calls one game (such as Pathfinder) better or worse than another game (such as 4e) because that falls, by definition, under the purview of aesthetics.
Right. Which sounds like a damning condemnation of what the poor guy said, but is actually a pretty meaningless statement. Subjectively better or worse is subjective. Thanks, but I think we all knew that.
Really, you can perform all sorts of objective analysis on a game, or comparing two games, and get results that are very helpful in making an informed judgement about wich is 'better' - in spite of the fact that said judgement will have a definite subjective aspect to it.
I mean, people who care about art form strong opinions, analyze works, and make voluminous arguments and cirtizisms over aesthetics, too.
It's possible to have an informed, considered opinion, and to share the basis for it with others. In the process, in conversational english, you might often find yourself saying things that can be interpreted as absolute statements of fact or assertions of logical proof, when, really, they're just well-thought out, but still personal, judgements. There are more and less productive ways of responding to such things.
Certainly, a number of such statements were made in this thread. I didn't respond to any of them. The one that evoked my response was the one that stated, unequivocally, that it is possible to validly claim that one game is objectively better than another.
I think you read too much into his claim.
Besides, it is entirely possible to objectively determine 'better' by some criterion. Though which end of the yardstick is 'better' can be arbitrary, it's still useful to look at. With RPGs, for instance, you can look at class balance, and say that one game has 'better' balance - but, if balance were a considered a bad thing to have, it'd be a 'worse' game for it.
However, those reasons are still rooted in my aesthetic preferences, and I would not under any circumstance unequivocally say that my preferences are objectively superior to the preferences of someone else. That practice is what I took issue against Tony.
To my way of thinking, preference is the last step in the process of evaluation. I think an informed opinion, backed up by reasons that actually make some sense is 'superior' (more useful in understanding the issue and forming an opinion, yourself) to one that's just flatly thrown out there, or based upon factual errors, tortured reasoning, or inuendo. Similarly, a reasoned response is more helpful than "that's just your opinion."
Even so, I'd rather see some tortured reasoning than none at all. And, when you tell someone it's /impossible/ for him to make his case to you, you're prettymuch telling him to STFU.
I think what you may be doing is holding those whose opinions you don't care for to a higher standard.
I don't agree.
I think the imprecision of language, is, indeed a large part of the problem, here. You'll notice he said 'not /just/ subjective,' so he's granting subjective aspects to the judgement. He never actually uses the word 'objective,' you're reading that into it. I can see the implication, too, but he didn't actually say it. And, his final conclusion is stated as an opinion "if you ask me."
I suppose he could have used more weasle-words and thrown in a JMHO there somewhere. :shrug:
Weasel-words huh. What I find "weasel-wordy" is the way you are trying to defend indefensible claims. His claim was pretty explicit. You and me both know that.
Right. Which sounds like a damning condemnation of what the poor guy said, but is actually a pretty meaningless statement. Subjectively better or worse is subjective. Thanks, but I think we all knew that.
Obviously not or that poster would not have wrote what he wrote and Anarchs would not have made the claims he made. If people had not said that it is possible to objectivly call a game better or worse I would not have had to point out that that simply is not the case.
Really, you can perform all sorts of objective analysis on a game, or comparing two games, and get results that are very helpful in making an informed judgement about wich is 'better' - in spite of the fact that said judgement will have a definite subjective aspect to it.
I mean, people who care about art form strong opinions, analyze works, and make voluminous arguments and cirtizisms over aesthetics, too.
Who claimed otherwise?
I think you read too much into his claim.
I don't. His statement is explicit and unequivocal. Anarchs position is no less so.
Besides, it is entirely possible to objectively determine 'better' by some criterion. Though which end of the yardstick is 'better' can be arbitrary, it's still useful to look at. With RPGs, for instance, you can look at class balance, and say that one game has 'better' balance - but, if balance were a considered a bad thing to have, it'd be a 'worse' game for it.
I expliclity stated as much numerous times. I stated that it is possible to call something better or worse at some specific objectivly observable phenomenon.
And, when you tell someone it's /impossible/ for him to make his case to you, you're prettymuch telling him to STFU.
When someone is claiming that it is possible to objectively call a game better or worse (in general terms) it is impossible for them to make their case. I see no reason to mince that fact.
I think what you may be doing is holding those whose opinions you don't care for to a higher standard.
I don't agree.
I thought
I think the imprecision of language, is, indeed a large part of the problem, here. You'll notice he said 'not /just/ subjective,' so he's granting subjective aspects to the judgement. He never actually uses the word 'objective,' you're reading that into it. I can see the implication, too, but he didn't actually say it. And, his final conclusion is stated as an opinion "if you ask me."
I suppose he could have used more weasle-words and thrown in a JMHO there somewhere. :shrug:
Weasel-words huh. What I find "weasel-wordy" is the way you are trying to defend indefensible claims. His claim was pretty explicit. You and me both know that.
There's nothing remotely indefensible about the claim that 4e is a better game than Pathfinder. It is better in a number of demonstrable ways. That doesn't require anyone to /like/ it, though. As I've often said, there's nothing wrong with liking a game that's technically inferior - I have a few games I feel that way about, myself.
Right. Which sounds like a damning condemnation of what the poor guy said, but is actually a pretty meaningless statement. Subjectively better or worse is subjective. Thanks, but I think we all knew that.
Obviously not or that poster would not have wrote what he wrote and Anarchs would not have made the claims he made. If people had not said that it is possible to objectivly call a game better or worse I would not have had to point out that that simply is not the case.
I haven't been keeping up with Anarch's ride on the merry-go-round, but I still think you're reading too much into people wanting to include some objetivity in comparing RPGs - and maybe even panicking a bit at the idea for some reason I don't understand.
One RPG can better-balanced than another. It can be clearer. It can be more consistent. It can be simpler. It can be functional over a broader range of play styles (more 'playable'). Those are all things that can be assessed objectively - if not always quantitatively. They're also things most gamers can agree upon having the 'better' at a particular end of the yardstick - they might rank them in importance differently, but balanced is better than broken, clear is better than ambiguous, consistent is better than self-contradictory, simple is better than needlessly complex, and playable is better than obtuse. And, while you could get into long discussiona about which is more important when making trade-offs, really, those trade-offs aren't always necessary. Simplicity, balance, playability, consistency - these things tend to all go together. It's hard to balance a game by making it more nightmarishly complex, for instance, or simplify it by making hard to play.
Put these things together, and you have a pretty fair measurement of how 'good' a game might be in a technical sense. Doesn't force anyone to actually like or play it, though. There are plenty of factors you can't assess objectively that'll be different, and more or less important, for each gamer.
Doesn't mean it's impossible to conclude that a game is objectively better, it's just that 'objectively better' isn't the whole story.
Really, you can perform all sorts of objective analysis on a game, or comparing two games, and get results that are very helpful in making an informed judgement about wich is 'better' - in spite of the fact that said judgement will have a definite subjective aspect to it.
I mean, people who care about art form strong opinions, analyze works, and make voluminous arguments and cirtizisms over aesthetics, too.
Who claimed otherwise?
You called it 'impossible' when it was phrased in a less exact way.
I think you read too much into his claim.
I don't. His statement is explicit and unequivocal.
Strange, I don't find it so. Perhaps there's a subjective difference in perception going on, here?
And, when you tell someone it's /impossible/ for him to make his case to you, you're prettymuch telling him to STFU.
When someone is claiming that it is possible to objectively call a game better or worse (in general terms) it is impossible for them to make their case. I see no reason to mince that fact.
Again, not the claim he made. He just said it could be judged on more than just subjective criteria. That doesn't deny the role of the subjective, merely asserts there's more to a judgement than the subjective. Which is fine. The subjective element is always there whenever someone busts out 'better,' even the phrase 'objectively better' is a tad ironic, that way. The objective element is also always there.
I thought.
I don’t know that I agree with that either… :P
There's nothing remotely indefensible about the claim that 4e is a better game than Pathfinder. It is better in a number of demonstrable ways. That doesn't require anyone to /like/ it, though. As I've often said, there's nothing wrong with liking a game that's technically inferior - I have a few games I feel that way about, myself.
There is something VERY indefensible about claiming that your statement is objectively true. Additionally, if we are not talking about objective fact, we can reverse your statement (claiming that Pathfinder is the better game in a number of demonstrable ways, and 4e is technically inferior in a number of demonstrable ways). The statement ultimately proves to be pointless… you know, unless you have a vested interest in acting like a totalitarian, childish jerk who needs to vindicate his own personal tastes.
I still think you're reading too much into people wanting to include some objetivity in comparing RPGs - and maybe even panicking a bit at the idea for some reason I don't understand.
I don’t. And I am not panicking, merely tearing down untenable arguments.
…they might rank them in importance differently, but balanced is better than broken, clear is better than ambiguous, consistent is better than self-contradictory, simple is better than needlessly complex, and playable is better than obtuse. And, while you could get into long discussiona about which is more important when making trade-offs, really, those trade-offs aren't always necessary. Simplicity, balance, playability, consistency - these things tend to all go together. It's hard to balance a game by making it more nightmarishly complex, for instance, or simplify it by making hard to play.
Despite the value judgements that come preloaded into your choice of words, your sentiment is not actually an objective truth. I think most gamers would share your taste (keyword think, not know). At least some, however, would not. We are still not talking about objective taste.
Put these things together, and you have a pretty fair measurement of how 'good' a game might be in a technical sense. Doesn't force anyone to actually like or play it, though. There are plenty of factors you can't assess objectively that'll be different, and more or less important, for each gamer.
Doesn't mean it's impossible to conclude that a game is objectively better, it's just that 'objectively better' isn't the whole story.
Ah. I see. So, you are actually trying to form a defence for that ugly totalitarian impulse. It is not that ‘objective’ means objective, but we can still claim that a game is ‘objectively’ better in a ‘technical’ sense. People who don’t have the same tastes should just acceptant that they have ‘objectively’ inferior taste when it comes to ‘technical’ matters. What a load of pathetic hogwash.
You called it 'impossible' when it was phrased in a less exact way.
No, I called a fairly different statement impossible. The difference is between trying to empirically colonize taste and trying to express personal taste in a logical fashion.
Strange, I don't find it so. Perhaps there's a subjective difference in perception going on, here?
We can argue the subject, if you like. However, I am currently under the impression that the difference is… what did you call it? Oh, yes: weasel wording.
Again, not the claim he made.
Yes it is. Someone else pointed out that aesthetic judgement is just subjective. He said it was not just subjective. It is, in fact, just subjective. Despite all the objective qualities being judged, the value judgement is just subjective. That is the nature of the thing being judged. You are twisting his words to defend an indefensible claim and (I at least hope) you know it.
Tony Vargas wrote: One RPG can better-balanced than another. It can be clearer. It can be more consistent. It can be simpler. It can be functional over a broader range of play styles (more 'playable'). Those are all things that can be assessed objectively - if not always quantitatively. They're also things most gamers can agree upon having the 'better' at a particular end of the yardstick - they might rank them in importance differently, but balanced is better than broken, clear is better than ambiguous, consistent is better than self-contradictory, simple is better than needlessly complex, and playable is better than obtuse. And, while you could get into long discussiona about which is more important when making trade-offs, really, those trade-offs aren't always necessary. Simplicity, balance, playability, consistency - these things tend to all go together. It's hard to balance a game by making it more nightmarishly complex, for instance, or simplify it by making hard to play.
Put these things together, and you have a pretty fair measurement of how 'good' a game might be in a technical sense. Doesn't force anyone to actually like or play it, though. There are plenty of factors you can't assess objectively that'll be different, and more or less important, for each gamer.
Doesn't mean it's impossible to conclude that a game is objectively better, it's just that 'objectively better' isn't the whole story.
The criteria which you list are still subjective. You happen to prefer games which are balanced, simple, broadly appealing and less open to interpretation. And i am sure that many agree with you.
But I remember when I thought Powers and Perils (by Richard Snider for Avalon Hill in the early 1980s) was the greatest fantasy roleplaying game out there. It was totally unbalance: you rolled randomly for many things during character creation (you could be gifted with natural magical talent which doubled your abilities in all magic; another characetr on the other hand could have the maximum strength of a cripple and the mind of a retard); the system of magic was incredibly complex with completely different rules for different types of magic; and the entire set of rules had huge gaps due to being the first edition and written by one man, so the dungeon master had to adjudicate countless situations without the aid of rules or in the face of very confusing rules. But we sure did love playing it! The flavour was far superior to anything I had encountered in D&D in those days.
The criteria which you list are still subjective. You happen to prefer games which are balanced, simple, broadly appealing and less open to interpretation. And i am sure that many agree with you.
No, the criteria are not subjective, they're real criteria, and they can be be assessed more or less objectively. What's subjective is whether you like it because it's 'better' or in spite of it being 'worse.' The objective component just isn't the whole story.
I'm terribly fond of 1st-edition Gamma World. It is, by the above criteria, an objectively terrible game. It's disorganized, utterly imbalanced, and self-contradictory. Even though it's only one thin booklet, it even manages to be complex, with a mish-mash of sub-systems poorly-adapted from D&D. Yet it's a tremendous amount of crazy randomly-lethal incoherent fun - for those who apreciate it out of whimsy and sheer nostalgia.
But I remember when I thought Powers and Perils (by Richard Snider for Avalon Hill in the early 1980s) was the greatest fantasy roleplaying game out there. It was totally unbalance; the system of magic was incredibly complex; and the entire set of rules had huge gaps. But we sure did love playing it! The flavour was far superior to anything I had encountered in D&D in those days.
Another good example.
There's nothing wrong with liking a bad game.
The criteria which you list are still subjective. You happen to prefer games which are balanced, simple, broadly appealing and less open to interpretation. And i am sure that many agree with you.
No, the criteria are not subjective, they're real criteria, and they can be be assessed more or less objectively. What's subjective is whether you like it because it's 'better' or in spite of it being 'worse.' The objective component just isn't the whole story.
I'm terribly fond of 1st-edition Gamma World. It is, by the above criteria, an objectively terrible game. It's disorganized, utterly imbalanced, and self-contradictory. Even though it's only one thin booklet, it even manages to be complex, with a mish-mash of sub-systems poorly-adapted from D&D. Yet it's a tremendous amount of crazy randomly-lethal incoherent fun - for those who apreciate it out of whimsy and sheer nostalgia.But I remember when I thought Powers and Perils (by Richard Snider for Avalon Hill in the early 1980s) was the greatest fantasy roleplaying game out there. It was totally unbalance; the system of magic was incredibly complex; and the entire set of rules had huge gaps. But we sure did love playing it! The flavour was far superior to anything I had encountered in D&D in those days.
Another good example.
There's nothing wrong with liking a bad game.
TV tropes - So bad, it's good
and... So bad, it's terrible (or horrible?)
The criteria which you list are still subjective. You happen to prefer games which are balanced, simple, broadly appealing and less open to interpretation. And i am sure that many agree with you.
No, the criteria are not subjective, they're real criteria, and they can be be assessed more or less objectively. What's subjective is whether you like it because it's 'better' or in spite of it being 'worse.' The objective component just isn't the whole story.
I'm terribly fond of 1st-edition Gamma World. It is, by the above criteria, an objectively terrible game. It's disorganized, utterly imbalanced, and self-contradictory. Even though it's only one thin booklet, it even manages to be complex, with a mish-mash of sub-systems poorly-adapted from D&D. Yet it's a tremendous amount of crazy randomly-lethal incoherent fun - for those who apreciate it out of whimsy and sheer nostalgia.But I remember when I thought Powers and Perils (by Richard Snider for Avalon Hill in the early 1980s) was the greatest fantasy roleplaying game out there. It was totally unbalanced; the system of magic was incredibly complex; and the entire set of rules had huge gaps. But we sure did love playing it! The flavour was far superior to anything I had encountered in D&D in those days.
Another good example.
There's nothing wrong with liking a bad game.
You missed my point entirely. I did not say it was a bad game. I said it was a GREAT game, but it also broke many of your rules for a "good" game. The complexity, opacity and extremes of power made it fascinating and also well suited to the portrayal of many literary and mythological worlds.
I also love Fourth Edition but very different reasons. "Good gaming" is in the eye of the beholder, no less than beauty. I am very happy however that since 2008, my tastes have coincided with this edition of Dungeons and Dragons.
For me though the roleplaying does suffer when the game really isnt much to talk about.