|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, there are aspects of roleplay that the rules dictate. Things a character can and can not do. (For example, a low cha character who hasn't invested in the relevant skills isn't convincing anybody to be her friend if they didn't already want to be) but what they do not dictate is a character's identity, which is precious to me and other roleplayers of my type.
I roleplay my character, his mechanics dictate success or failure in mechanical endeavors. Whether my cha is 5 or 20 (which varies from character to character, based on the mechanics said character needs) means abso-fricken-lutely nothin'.
+1
What appears to be happening, is that some GMs are wrongly equating the strength of a PC's personality (ability score) with personality type.
And then demanding that their players play their characters to fit the personality type the GM has arbitarily assigned to that PC, overriding the wishes of the player, who had chosen a differently-flavoured, but equally mechanically-challenged personality type.
No-one on this thread is trying to get out of the mechanical consequences of beginning with a low score.
They are asking that they be allowed to choose the PC's personality, not be saddled with a boring, over-done, off-the-peg 'sexist, racist, violent scumbag kitten-strangler with Tourettes'.
A Charisma score of 5 only dictates how strongly a PC can impose his will on others, if untrained.
It says nothing about personality type.
That score of 5 could imply the PC is an abrasive jerk;
or it could equally mean a shy person, someone convinced they are ugly/unlikeable/unworthy, someone has led a sheltered life with little social interaction, someone born a slave and thus not used to being asked for an opinion, someone who stammers, blushes, or gets panic attacks at public speaking.
If I have chosen one of the latter as my PC's personality, I consider it bad form for a GM to trample over that, and decide that what I actually made was an abrasive jerk (or worse).
And if I had made it clear that I was playing a doormat, a wallflower, a shuffling bag of nerves who looks at his feet when he whispers, an 'I, Claudius', a 'Dobby the House Elf'...
I would be annoyed at any GM who cut me off mid-sentence, while I was trying to be servile and obsequious, and barged in, telling everyone else at the table that "What he actually says is 'Oy! ****face! Get here now, and give me what I demand! DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM!?!?".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unrealistic isn't the idea that a character could do that, it's the idea that it's at all common for a player to build a face character with a heavy charisma dump.
Because sometimes that's how the game develops organically and someone takes on the burden of being the faceman even if they aren't naturally charismatic? Because sometimes players roll their stats rather than use point-buy to generate them? Because sometimes playing a dwarf faceman is fun? Because sometimes playing the guy who had to earn his skill is better than the person with inborn ability?
Not everyone plays to optimize a positive Charisma mod and high diplomacy skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points. Having to alter his character no exceptions. Or if a player has 5 experience points can buy off the disadvantage. That's why I tend to like point based systems more. No loopholes like roleplaying to get around a characters negative aspects.
Where's the loophole? There is no loophole. The PC with the lower charisma has paid for something to compensate and continues to pay because, if he had a better stat, his investment in diplomacy would pay off even higher than it does.
If a character doesn't buy up his Dexterity in Hero (or even sells it down), he's going to suffer by having a lower combat value than other characters. Are you going to prevent him from buying combat levels to compensate for it? It's the same basic thing.
|
|
If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points. Having to alter his character no exceptions. Or if a player has 5 experience points can buy off the disadvantage. That's why I tend to like point based systems more. No loopholes like roleplaying to get around a characters negative aspects.
You've spent half the thread, saying that you'd refuse to acknowledge all efforts a PC takes to buy off a disadvantage.
You've said you'd ignore any skill points spent ("A player trying to convince a king to lend them a army or reinforcements is not suddenly going to ignore a low cha character lack of social graces or looks because he has a high ranks in diplomacy.") to cancel out all attempts at learning from their mistakes, and trying to better themselves.
{HINT} A PC with high ranks in Diplomacy isn't lacking social graces, because they have successfully trained themselves not to do that 'thing' that used to get them ignored/bullied/arrested.
You've also said that you would then, after stripping the PC of any benefit of their skill ranks, impose extra, arbitary DC increases.
According to your own posts in this thread, the final social skill mods for any PC in your game are effectively as follows:
Cha 7 and 0 ranks = -7
Cha 7 and 2 ranks = -7
Cha 7 and 10 ranks = -7
Cha 7 and 20 ranks = -7
Cha 7 and 20 ranks, plus Skill Focus = -7
Is that really what you're arguing for?
If not, then you need to explain your position more clearly.
What incentive is there, in your games, for anyone of Cha 9 or less to purchase social skill ranks?
All I can imagine is that it discourages any attempt at self-improvement, except by those PCs who began with a positive stat mod.
Which leads to a feast or famine situation, of the have-nots with 0 ranks (because, why bother?), and the haves with max ranks.
And no-one at any point in between.
Most applications of Exotic Weapon Proficiency. I believe the developers said at the time when PF was created that exotic weapons should be for flavor and not function. Thus you could burn a feat for an inferior weapon and it was not a flaw but a feature.
This isn't quite true. Exotic weapons are "exotic" not necessarily better. They didn't name them "superior" weapons. Note that Waraxe. Elven curveblade and Bastard sword are slightly better- in fact a LOT of exotic weapons are better. However, again, the classification was "exotic" not "superior". Some are simply weird and unusual.
They are asking that they be allowed to choose the PC's personality, not be saddled with a boring, over-done, off-the-peg 'sexist, racist, violent scumbag kitten-strangler with Tourettes'.
They can choose their personality, are they not allowed to choose not to dump? It's a penalty for dumping. Don't dump, don't get penalized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, again, the classification was "exotic" not "superior". Some are simply weird and unusual.
One technical game term should, IMHO, have one definition. If "exotic" sometimes means "unusual" and sometimes means "superior," then to my mind we need two different terms there, because the game effects are totally different.
For example, we could have "simple," "martial," and "superior" weapons, and unusual ones (of any category) would simply get an "[Exotic]" descriptor. The [Exotic] descriptor tag might limit starting accessibility, but wouldn't otherwise impact the feat system.
Then, if a feat is equal to a feat, one should be able to select a simple weapon (e.g., light crossbow), select one feat, and have the simple weapon perform as well as a martial weapon. Likewise, a martial weapon should perform as well as a superior weapon with a 1-feat investment. (Not "the same as," mind you, but "more or less as well as, overall").
Yes, I know, backwards compatibility and all that, but bad design is bad design, even if it's just unfortunate legacy.
Not all prioritization of ability scores are "dumps". Let's say that I am playing a fighter and I have the standard array: {15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8}. That 8 has to go somewhere. If I view Cha as the lowest priority, that doesn't mean I don't value it, merely that I value it less than the other stats. I need high strength to do damage, dex to avoid damage and reflex saves, Con in case I take damage, Int for combat related feats, and Wis for Will saves. Cha is more for social skills. Now if I can take that extra skill point I'm getting due to 13 Int, I can put it in some social skills and do something outside of combat.
I'm not in that case "dumping" Cha. I am making a hard choice based on limited resources. If I had all 15s, I'd be happy to put a 15 in Cha. But if I want to play my role in the group, that of the tough walking wall and protector, then I have to set some priorities.
|
Just don't tell me what personality my character has if you expect me to ever play with you, and if you ever play at my table don't b&@!# at the rest of my players for roleplaying their characters as opposed to playing some stupid numbers on a paper.
Fine I won`t.
If I play a non comabt class in your game I`m going to consider myself as good as the fighter in hitting and doin damage then. Since numbners on a sheet are meaningless and any penalties as well. I don`t need to have a high str I can just roleplay having been cursed by a evil good from birth as being weak.
Kirth, why are you right all the time?
However, again, the classification was "exotic" not "superior". Some are simply weird and unusual.One technical game term should, IMHO, have one definition. If "exotic" sometimes means "unusual" and sometimes means "superior," then to my mind we need two different terms there, because the game effects are totally different. ...but bad design is bad design, even if it's just unfortunate legacy.
It always means exotic & unusual. Many of those also happen to be superior, a few are inferior and in many it's a matter of opinion. Not all feats are equal, nor can they be, nor should they be. Thankfully, you can pick whichever feat you like. If you want a unusual weapon, then pick it. If you don't- don't.
It's like 'exotic' food. You may enjoy it, you may not.
I notice you toss around the term "bad design" very freely for someone who has never published a game. Why not just say "it's not they way I like it' rather than saying "I have declared it BAD, thus it is!!!!".
After all, you have your own houserules, why not just play those? Aren't they they the way you prefer to play? Why presume that you know better than folks with 40 years of game design experience what is "bad design"?Why not just say that YOU don't like it that way?
They can choose their personality, are they not allowed to choose not to dump? It's a penalty for dumping. Don't dump, don't get penalized.
They are asking that they be allowed to choose the PC's personality, not be saddled with a boring, over-done, off-the-peg 'sexist, racist, violent scumbag kitten-strangler with Tourettes'.NOPE
The penalty for dumping anything is spelled out explicitly in the rules (in the case of Charisma, the penalty is penalties to charisma based checks [Social Skills, Resisting Charm Person, Planar Binding, etc] and an inability to pursue a career as a Sorcerer, Bard, Paladin, Oracle, or Summoner).
Please stop houseruling fluff into fact.
Or at the very least, make sure you include such details in your houserule documents so a player like myself who cares about roleplaying a character knows what the game is about and can quit in advance before a power-hungry domineering GM imposes his will on said player's character's identity.
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Charisma measures your personality. That's not a house rule, that's the rules.
Now, of course, the DM should allow wide leeway in personality. But if I have bought down my Dex to 5, should I be able to call my character "graceful, agile and dexterous"?
No DM should tell you what your personality *IS*. But if you deliberately Dump, and take the advantages associated with that Dumping, the DM can say what your personality ISN'T. You are not a "born leader of men, with a naturally charming personality, blinding lovely, and great personal magnetism".
Of course, with work, you can offset that dump. Take "the Kings Speech' for example. So, altho CHA does "measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" it's just the base. Feats, skills, traits can all turn that stutter and poor public speaking into a King who can do well at times. Still, like it or no, it took work to overcome that low Charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why presume that you know better than folks with 40 years of game design experience what is "bad design"?
When Monte Cook turns around after the fact and says, "In retrospect, that was probably bad design," I feel like maybe it's OK if I agree with him on some of those points. Or do you know better than Monte?
As far as "why do I even care?" -- that's a good question. I'm also the guy who, at the grocery store, insists on notifying the manager that the sign should technically say "12 items or fewer," rather than "12 items or less." Because when I see stuff that could easily be fixed, it's compulsive to try and help out instead of wallowing in apathy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as "why do I even care?" -- that's a good question. I'm also the guy who, at the grocery store, insists on notifying the manager that the sign should say "12 items or fewer," rather than "12 items or less." Because when I see stuff that could easily be fixed, it's compulsive to try and help out instead of wallowing in apathy.
... Yeah, that's pretty out there.
Why presume that you know better than folks with 40 years of game design experience what is "bad design"?When Monte Cook turns around after the fact and says, "In retrospect, that was probably bad design," I feel like maybe it's OK if I agree with him on some of those points. Or do you know better than Monte?
No, but what was Monte talking about? Got a cite?
No, but what was Monte talking about? Got a cite?
None that I can link to from this machine, but Google "Ivory Tower Design" for starters. The 3.0 Toughness feat was another prime example -- one which the PF corrected rather than allowing to slip through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest some players here never play in any Gurps or Hero system games.
And you're objectively wrong.
If it stops being negative the players loses any benefits from the disadvatage.
In gurps, yes. In pathfinder, no, which is the entire point of the problem with charisma it is incredibly easy to evade EVERYTHING charisma does because charisma does so little by using
-Skill ranks
-Moving skills from cha. to another stat (either with a trait or class feature)
-Moderate magical item investment (
Its not role playing around a mechanical disadvantage, its using mechanics to go around a mechanical disadvantage.
If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points.
We're aware of that, but thats not how it works in pathfinder. Stats do exactly what they say on the tin, no more, no less.
... Yeah, that's pretty out there.
Hey, they don't call me "Stuffy Grammarian" for nothing, man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In gurps, yes. In pathfinder, no, which is the entire point of the problem with charisma it is incredibly easy to evade EVERYTHING charisma does because charisma does so little
This is what I see as the root of the issue, too -- Charisma's mechanical modifications aren't the equal of the other stats', and Charisma's fluff desctiption is a mishmash of non-quantifiable, unrelated, or even contradictory stuff. It makes for a mess. But that issue goes all the way back to 0e and 1e, so I'm not sure it's something susceptable to a quick fix.
I think it's telling that we never see a thread that says, "I force an extra -5 penalty to AC, initiative, ranged attacks, and reflex saves if your Dex is below 8!" -- because the mechanical penalties for a low Dex are already substantial enough to satisfy people's innate sense of fairness.
No, but what was Monte talking about? Got a cite?None that I can link to from this machine, but Google "Ivory Tower Design" for starters. The 3.0 Toughness feat was another prime example -- one which the PF corrected rather than allowing to slip through.
Ah yes, Ivory Tower Design, the blog Monte pulled as everyone was quoting it out of context- which you are also doing.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-d ay-ivory-tower-design
"A few years ago Monte Cook posted an essay on his website called “Ivory Tower Game Design“. It raises some very important points, but over the years I’m afraid I’ve come to find it deeply annoying because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point.
What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”
But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s*!$ because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players."
Hmm, look at that line "because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point." Boy is he right, that's exactly what you did.
The Alexandrian explains it well. There are no "traps". Look at Toughness. Not the best feat, esp at 20th level. Pretty cruddy. But for a 1st level wizard, esp a Elf? REALLY GREAT, the difference between life and death.
How about Power Attack? Great feat no? Often give as a 'must have" on many builds. How about for my Str 7 wizard who will hopefully never swing a weapon. Horrible choice.
Iron Will? Great choice for a Fighter, not so great for a Cleric. And so forth.
CHOICES. Not "traps".
When Monte Cook turns around after the fact and says, "In retrospect, that was probably bad design," I feel like maybe it's OK if I agree with him on some of those points. Or do you know better than Monte?
Well, unless the issue isn't about specific choices being weak but about the game rules not providing more guidance about the role a weaker choice plays, I'm not sure how the "Ivory Tower Game Design" article really fits. I don't think he's saying that including weaker options was the part of the design that was bad. I think he's saying leaving weaker and stronger choices out there for the players to suss out on their own was the flaw.
Deth, are you honestly arguing that everyone stays 1st level, and therefore 3.0 Toughness is a good feat for the game as a whole? That it's design is superior to the PF Toughness feat? If so, I don't know what I can possibly say to you.
I've read the Alexandrian's response you quoted, and view it as Apologetics, not analysis.
Are you hnoestly arguing that everyone stays 1st level, and therefore 3.0 Toughness is a good feat? If so, I don't know what I can possibly say to you. The Alexandrian's response there is Apologetics, not analysis.
It's a great feat (for some) , since if you die you never make it to 2nd, let alone 20th.
"because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point."
Well, unless the issue isn't about specific choices being weak but about the game rules not providing more guidance about the role a weaker choice plays, I'm not sure how the "Ivory Tower Game Design" article really fits. I don't think he's saying that including weaker options was the part of the design that was bad. I think he's saying leaving weaker and stronger choices out there for the players to suss out on their own was the flaw.When Monte Cook turns around after the fact and says, "In retrospect, that was probably bad design," I feel like maybe it's OK if I agree with him on some of those points. Or do you know better than Monte?
Right " “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”
"because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point."
"Apologetics, not analysis."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay! A new fallacy...
The Ivory Tower Fallacy
That if you link or quote from Monte Cook's article, you are completely misrepresenting the essay's entire point.
EDIT: Bolded the appropriate word for emphasis.
The Alexandrian Correlary: Only The Alexandrian and Dr Deth know Monte's True Inner Secret Meaning. Everyone else is teh misreprezentorz!
YAY! ARGUMENTS!
The Alexandrian Correlary: Only The Alexandrian and Dr Deth know Monte's True Inner Secret Meaning. Everyone else is teh misreprezentorz!
Can you even link to the original article? I also suspect Monte may know.
Don't know why you favorited that DrDeth...it's called a fallacy for a reason.
EDIT: "Favorited" is not a word. I know this.
I consider
"The Ivory Tower Fallacy" to be the name of the fallacy and" because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point."
to be the point. Which is true.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/ page.cgi?mc_los_142
I FEED OFF YOUR ARGUMENTS! YES! YES!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.
Hard to take this out of context.
Original Article
hmm.
Still not happy with this line of reasoning.
Don't know why you favorited that DrDeth...it's called a fallacy for a reason.
EDIT: "Favorited" is not a word. I know this.
I consider
"The Ivory Tower Fallacy" to be the name of the fallacy and
" because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point."to be the point. Which is true.
If it was 100% true all the time, it'd be called The Ivory Tower Axiom, not fallacy.
You have been ninja'd.http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/ page.cgi?mc_los_142
I FEED OFF YOUR ARGUMENTS! YES! YES!
REGARDLESS, I SHALL FEED!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deth, are you honestly arguing that everyone stays 1st level, and therefore 3.0 Toughness is a good feat for the game as a whole? That it's design is superior to the PF Toughness feat? If so, I don't know what I can possibly say to you.
I've read the Alexandrian's response you quoted, and view it as Apologetics, not analysis.
I think the PF toughness feat is superior to 3e's, but it does so at the cost of additional complexity. That complexity isn't hard for most of us to handle, but it's certainly not as simple because you're no longer simply adding 3 hit points. You can also no longer apply it more than once, something you could do in 3e.
What you don't seem to recognize is that not every campaign nor every creature in a campaign is the same or put to the same use. For example, for a one-shot convention game with pre-gen characters, simpler options for feats and other game choices are superior to complex and conditional ones. The player doesn't need as much system knowledge to handle the character.
Similarly, for a GM who has to handle or build multiple NPCs and monsters, simpler options and options that can directly add to the calculated bonuses are easier to deal with than situational and conditional choices as well.
Some of these choices that are dubbed weaker by the internet peanut gallery can also be good choices for a GM to use for NPCs because they're not at the higher end of power. They provide a utility without creating the overpowered combinations that we don't really want our NPCs to have. So if some exotic weapon is, rule for rule, weaker than a martial weapon - that doesn't really matter to the GM when his NPC uses it. That NPC is unlikely to survive the encounter anyway - he doesn't have to live with the consequences of having a weaker feat for multiple adventurers. He's there to play a particular role now.
Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.Hard to take this out of context.
Very easy since you did, it continues "While D&D doesn't exactly do that,..."
Then goes on to say "... it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others." and Monte continues on (in context) to show that some choices are just fine for some circumstances but not for all.
Would you want your choices taken away as someone else decided which are the "only good ones" and that for their style of campaign?
I have no hidden agenda. I doubt Kirth does either. My only point was Monte Cook admitted in this article that certain choices in 3.0/.5 were presented to players that are better than others, on purpose.
The piece I quoted supports it, and nothing else said further down refutes it either.
So, really, how is it taken out of context, since the context IS some options in 3.0/.5 are better than others, on purpose?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no hidden agenda. I doubt Kirth does either. My only point was Monte Cook admitted in this article that certain choices in 3.0/.5 were presented to players that are better than others, on purpose.
The piece I quoted supports it, and nothing else said further down refutes it either.
So, really, how is it taken out of context, since the context IS some options in 3.0/.5 are better than others, on purpose?
And since the value of many choices depends on context, I would expect there to be some choices better than others. The wrong inference to make, and the point at which Monte's text is taken out of context, would be that those choices are the D&D equivalent of "Timmy" cards.
I have no hidden agenda. I doubt Kirth does either. My only point was Monte Cook admitted in this article that certain choices in 3.0/.5 were presented to players that are better than others, on purpose.
The piece I quoted supports it, and nothing else said further down refutes it either.
So, really, how is it taken out of context, since the context IS some options in 3.0/.5 are better than others, on purpose?
‘Cause there’s a HUGE GIANT difference between “certain choices are better than others in certain circumstances” vs “there are trap choices in D&D”.
Pretty much only linear games, such as CandyLand are there not\ choices, and at times certain choices will be better for some and worse for others. If there are choices, some will be better- depending on the circumstances and what the player wants.
Is Dazing spell a good choice? Not if you can’t cast spells. Does that make it a "trap feat"?
Monte Cook was not saying that Choices, even choices that could be bad, were “I no longer think this is entirely a good idea”. What he said was that presenting the choices in a vacuum was “not entirely a good idea” and “While there's something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there's just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach. “ He was suggesting there should be also some advice, along with the choices, e.g his book D&D for Dummies.
And note, despite what Kirth says , Monte did NOT say “ that was probably bad design” .
Just don't tell me what personality my character has if you expect me to ever play with you, and if you ever play at my table don't b&@!# at the rest of my players for roleplaying their characters as opposed to playing some stupid numbers on a paper.Fine I won`t.
If I play a non comabt class in your game I`m going to consider myself as good as the fighter in hitting and doin damage then. Since numbners on a sheet are meaningless and any penalties as well. I don`t need to have a high str I can just roleplay having been cursed by a evil good from birth as being weak.
Actually it would be more like someone putting a low score in Str and then daring to invest skill points into Climb and Swim. Cheaters. LOL.
It is hard to agree with someone when they are using their own version of "logic".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
So, semantics?
Follow the logic:
There are better options on purpose, or by design. This is to reward system mastery.
This heavily implies that due to a lack of system mastery, you may choose a less-than optimal option. Or, if you take it a step further, if you choose a less optimal choice due to a lack of system mastery, you have fallen into a "trap", by design.
In other words:
If you don't know any better, building a fighter and taking toughness? That is in fact a trap that you've fallen into from a lack of system mastery. And that's by design.
Again:
Are there some circumstances where it's not a bad idea? Of course.
But system mastery tells you this.
Understanding the mechanical benefit of a feat (or other option), and why or why not it's a good option in each circumstance = system mastery.
Cook said this is all by design. Cook said this was “not entirely a good idea”.
It's not a stretch to then assume Cook thinks that was probably bad design. It certainly isn't if you read that article.