I don't care where something is from, from a forum post or from the PHB, if it fits my game it's in, if not (for fluff, balance or whatever reason) it's banned.
I don't want DMs who accept or refuse rules and options based on the logo on the book.
The Mags where always stated "official" content. At lest when Paizo had em
|
-long post-
That was not what I was arguing about. Dragon and Dungeon might be much better now in terms of quality and content then for previous D&D editions. I do not know as I do not subscribe to DDI.
My Issue was that Scott argued that it got better because it is now officially "official".
The title "official" does not make these magazines better.
Better content makes them better.
Huh?
Dungeon and Dragon always were "official". as they were directly produced by TSR, WoC or under close supervision in the PAIZO era.
In that respect, yes. Yet its out-of-house development during the Paizo era, no doubt among other things, led to its material being prohibited or heavily vetted by most DMs I'm familiar with.
Only now WoC explicitly states that it is "official".
Pretending that this is the only difference is ignoring a pretty significant change - development of the magazines has been moved in-house, and its content is written with closer ties to print-published material than we've ever seen (often by the same authors who wrote that print material).
Does this make the content better?
Who said anything about better?
Certainly, I do believe that the current iterations of Dragon and Dungeon are stronger products than they were before (even though they were still excellent while in print).
But that wasn't part of my claim. I was merely pointing out that there is currently a pretty pervasive mindset that it's totally fine to allow or incorporate content from the magazines in just about any game - indeed, the magazines are now written to foster that mindset, offering very attractive options for interesting character choices.
Your argument, IMHO, is severly flawed.
My argument, as I pointed out, was merely that more people I'm familiar with are allowing material from Dragon and Dungeon in their game than they were previously.
I'm not sure how you can call that "severely flawed".
My Issue was that Scott argued that it got better because it is now officially "official".
Again, I never said anything like that.
I said I got more use out of their content, but not because the content is better. Rather, the content is being allowed by more DMs and is being used by more players, which means the number of games I'm in where I interact with magazine content has gone way up.
The sanctioning of it for the RPGA, as well, I imagine helps as well.
This is also a pretty big boost to the magazines' credibility in the eyes of a lot of people.
My interactions with seeing the magazine material in game hasn't been affected by this. Before I asked to know about any material beyond the Core Books so that I could approve it, but few chose to take me up on that. And that still continues with the online articles, no one has asked yet to use material from them.
Personally, I find the idea of trusting the content just because WotC made it to be silly.
Personally, I find the idea of trusting the content just because WotC made it to be silly.
I find the idea of personally evaluating the relative strength of each individual rules element to be far beyond the ken of most DMs and players, and it to be a far more efficient and stress-free route to simply allow official material and address balance concerns should they actually arise.
Most people are not game designers. Most people have no idea what makes a rule element balanced or not balanced. And yet a great many people are convinced that they are capable of evaluating rule elements in this way. From an objective standpoint, trusting the experts is going to pan out more accurately than trusting oneself nine times out of ten. It's only when people pretend to expertise they don't have that they begin to believe they know better than the people who built the game.
I'm not saying that everything from WotC is balanced. I am saying that even if it's not balanced, evaluating that purely on a read-through of the rule element is not something most people are capable of, even if they think they are.
We have experts for a reason.
I advise allowing all official material from WotC, assuming that it has reconcilable flavor, and addressing balance concerns when they become apparent in play (and even then, to reserve judgment until a long view of the rule element's impact is seen).
I would instead advice considering any material whether or not it came from WotC. WotC employees don't automatically become more of an expert than many of the people that work at other companies and their work shouldn't be treated as more automatically balanced and good just because they made it.
Most times I don't even bother going, "that might be a little too powerful I'm going to have to ban it." If it is worthy of banning it will have be to obviously beyond the scope of every other power at that level (like Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise, whether or not they fix the game they are obviously beyond the power of every balanced feat).
We have experts, they aren't all employees of WotC.
If one is going to allow all WotC material, I would suggest allowing all 3rd party material in as well.
Wow Blazej just said he might ban something?? Just wow.
One side note. All paizo stuff published in the mags was approved by wizards. Nothing got out they did not ok. Seems they changed some stuff to. I recall hearing we have wizards to think for that gods awful Darksun junk that got hacked and put out....worse thing paizo's ever put out BTW
So anyhow yeah just because Wotc makes it does not mean its better then what anyone else could make. They have put out some excellent stuff and some crap.
Look back at when they had the mags and the 3.5 splat books and you'll see. Like mining for gold in a iron mine at times. I am sad to say wizards Dungeon mags are what made me take so long to pick up a new one, sad to say I missed a few years of dungeon goodness there...sigh
Personally, I find the idea of trusting the content just because WotC made it to be silly.
I can understand the other way around, though.
|
|
Matthew and Scott, I understand your point.
And I hope to make my point clear now.
It seems that many gamers implicitly trust material that is released by WoC. Whereas material from 3PPs is not trusted to be balanced.
The point goes, that WoC are the experts and know their Stuff.
That is where, IMHO the argument breaks down.
Sure, in the early day of 3rd edition there were a lot of crappy 3PPs. but nowadays only the publishers able to deliver quality are still around.
Goodman Games for example have fully committed to 4th edition and it seems their DCC are doing well. And, by comparing reviews, are considered equal, if not superior in quality to WoC adventures.
Many WoC designers who started as freelancers (Mike Mearls in countlss 3rd edition products) or even as full time employers for 3PPs (Mike Mearls for Mahavoc Press, Rob Schwalb for Green Ronin).
On the other hand, many ex WoC designers are now doing freelance stuff, have their own publishing business (Wolfgang Baur, Monte Cook) or work fulltime for a 3PP (many -most?- Paizonians).
So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?
IMHO, and that is my own opinion and as always YMMV:
NOTHING but the Brand Name makes WoC superior!
|
So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?
I think it is the hardboundness of their books. Hardbound lasts longer and protects what is inside, eh, better. I want a book that lasts. If the book is soft then it won't last long. That is why WotC creates superior books. They are made good.
I went to college too.
LG, NG or CG ? :)
So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?
They are made good.
Surely now its just G or LG?
|
Personally, I find the idea of trusting the content just because WotC made it to be silly.I find the idea of personally evaluating the relative strength of each individual rules element to be far beyond the ken of most DMs and players, and it to be a far more efficient and stress-free route to simply allow official material and address balance concerns should they actually arise.
Most people are not game designers. Most people have no idea what makes a rule element balanced or not balanced. And yet a great many people are convinced that they are capable of evaluating rule elements in this way. From an objective standpoint, trusting the experts is going to pan out more accurately than trusting oneself nine times out of ten. It's only when people pretend to expertise they don't have that they begin to believe they know better than the people who built the game.
I'm not saying that everything from WotC is balanced. I am saying that even if it's not balanced, evaluating that purely on a read-through of the rule element is not something most people are capable of, even if they think they are.
We have experts for a reason.
I advise allowing all official material from WotC, assuming that it has reconcilable flavor, and addressing balance concerns when they become apparent in play (and even then, to reserve judgment until a long view of the rule element's impact is seen).
Well, Scott. Considering WotC's history with producing broken material, and the (IMHO) broken math of 4E, I would trust my judgement about the balance of game mechanics over WotC's 9 times out of 10. The fact that online Dragon content is allowed by the RPGA and is included in the character builder probably does make it more official to many gamers than it was before. I will give yo that much.
|
|
I think it is the hardboundness of their books.
Not all WoC Books are hardbound.
Hardbound lasts longer and protects what is inside, eh, better.
But what protects the hardbound from what is inside?
I want a book that lasts.
Get stone tablets
If the book is soft then it won't last long.
The Storm breaks the mighty Tree (hard) but does nothing to the grass (soft).
I went to college too.
A hard or soft one?
|
|
Damn. Well I respect their right to defend their IP, but I was buying BOTH! Both, because I have this ridiculous six figure income job and I am a total geek.
@#$%!
More $$$ for Paizo I guess.
hey if you need to throw away that much money, how about a live in geek friend? You'll get more use out of me than any single suplement, twenty four hour gaming availability and all it would take is a room to stay in and food. I can DM, play as a character, design things for gaming.
Considering WotC's history with producing broken material, and the (IMHO) broken math of 4E, I would trust my judgement about the balance of game mechanics over WotC's 9 times out of 10.
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
For my part, I've gotten probably ten times the use out of Dragon and Dungeon since 4th Edition was released than in its entire history before that point. The integration and "officialness" of the magazines in their current form makes them very attractive to DMs - whereas previously I found that most DMs would not allow rule elements from Dragon, or would vet them on a case-by-case basis, I'm finding that most DMs now allow rule elements from 4th Edition Dragon magazines more or less unconditionally.Huh?
Dungeon and Dragon always were "official". as they were directly produced by TSR, WoC or under close supervision in the PAIZO era.
Only now WoC explicitly states that it is "official".
Does this make the content better?
Your argument, IMHO, is severly flawed.
I think your missing his point due to terminology. Yes the magazines were always official. Scott's actually commenting on how easy it is to take a rule in Dragon and slot it into play more or less without a vetting process that involves the DM. If they put it in Dragon the DM can be fairly certain that it'll work smoothly with his campaign, presuming that the campaign is standard issue sword and sorcery.
In previous editions there was a general feeling that if a player saw something cool in Dragon he could talk it over with the DM and it may or may not be allowed while in this edition it seems, so far anyway, that the modus operandi works with the players simply assuming that everything in Dragon is in the game. Sure add it to your character and don't bother checking with the DM. For whatever reason, the material being presented in Dragon these days seems to slot in very easily with the game - its like your getting a little players supplement every month that includes this months new feats, powers, classes etc. and you don't have to bother finding out if your DM allows it or not because its presumed that he does. He'll get back to you if he sees something thats not fair game.
My DM allows everything that he has not explicitly veto'd from Dragon as currently and it seems to be working. This is a policy I would never have allowed that when I was the DM in previous editions. Spells of the Mages of Alphatia! was not legal to my players because they were not Alphation - heck they were not even Thyatian so the material was off limits.
In the end I think its largely a focus issue. Prevously the focus of Dragon was often highlighting some, as yet untouched, corner of the D&D multiverse and providing content. This was great but if the article focused on Darksun it would not have applied to campaigns that were not Darksun. In the current format, at least for the time being, Dragon feels a lot more like a continuous series of options that would fit right in with the material presented in Players Handbook II. If the stuff in Players Handbook II is allowed by the DM he should have no trouble allowing 90% of the stuff in Dragon magazine as well.
So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?
IMHO, and that is my own opinion and as always YMMV:NOTHING but the Brand Name makes WoC superior!
Familiarity with the rules is a big factor as well. Knowing whats going to be coming down the pipeline in the next four months is pretty useful as well.
From my perspective if you want to argue that they are at least the equals of WotC in terms of fluff I'd generally agree. But in terms of making a feat that won't break something thats going to be in Divine Power when that comes out in a few months? Obviously they can't compete in this area because they don't have access to the contents of Divine Power.
Beyond this most of the people at WotC have been playing around with the rules a fair bit longer then the 3PPs. With the game still in the early stages that kind of experience counts. Thats not to say that the 3PPs do nothing but junk, lots of the stuff they do is great but they are playing with a disadvantage for the moment. Their better off focusing on creating their own corner of 4E and then adding fluff and rules to that. Rules for decadent psionic nobles in a fluff heavy magical Byzantium is going to work for a 3PP because they control all the content thats going into it and can make sure that the material works as they envision it should.
|
|
Familiarity with the rules is a big factor as well. Knowing whats going to be coming down the pipeline in the next four months is pretty useful as well.
From my perspective if you want to argue that they are at least the equals of WotC in terms of fluff I'd generally agree. But in terms of making a feat that won't break something thats going to be in Divine Power when that comes out in a few months? Obviously they can't compete in this area because they don't have access to the contents of Divine Power.
Beyond this most of the people at WotC have been playing around with the rules a fair bit longer then the 3PPs. With the game still in the early stages that kind of experience counts.
You are right there.
Thats not to say that the 3PPs do nothing but junk, lots of the stuff they do is great but they are playing with a disadvantage for the moment. Their better off focusing on creating their own corner of 4E and then adding fluff and rules to that. Rules for decadent psionic nobles in a fluff heavy magical Byzantium is going to work for a 3PP because they control all the content thats going into it and can make sure that the material works as they envision it should.
This is what WoC wants. The OGL created dozens of subsystems that used the d20 engine (Arcana Evolved, Conan RPG, Black Company Campaign Setting and even True20). This detracted from the Sales of WoC. So now they have more power in terms of how the mechanics will evolve.
|
|
Considering WotC's history with producing broken material, and the (IMHO) broken math of 4E, I would trust my judgement about the balance of game mechanics over WotC's 9 times out of 10.This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
I don't think that it's at all unreasonable to trust my judgement about what is balanced for my games over that of some strangers who don't have an inkling about my campaign or the people I play with. WotC pushed a lot of broken stuff out of the door during the 3.0/3.5 erra. The original math for their skill challenges was very wrong, and the "broken" math of 4E has led to many complaints of long, drawn out combats A.K.A. "the grind". Given their track record, it seems far more reasonable to trust my own judgement than it does to blindly follow theirs.
I think it is the hardboundness of their books.
Such a waste if you want to throw away the stuff five minutes after you get it....
I, for one, won't judge a book by its (hard)cover.
Beyond this most of the people at WotC have been playing around with the rules a fair bit longer then the 3PPs.
Maybe, but general experience counts for something, too. And wizards has been firing/losing a lot of experienced people for quite some time now. How many people that helped create 3e are still around at wizards?
|
|
If it's any consolation, I was duly impressed. I find myself at a loss to describe the pdf pulling without using the words "asshattery" or "unbelievably f!@!ing stupid," so I appreciated your attempt to put those feelings more diplomatically.So much for wording s#!* diplomatically so as not to stir s#!* up.
Something about best intentions and all...
Just think, He was the one being diplomatic while you have gotten to the point where you seem to vomit everytime you speak of it all.
I don't think that it's at all unreasonable to trust my judgement about what is balanced for my games over that of some strangers who don't have an inkling about my campaign or the people I play with. WotC pushed a lot of broken stuff out of the door during the 3.0/3.5 erra. The original math for their skill challenges was very wrong, and the "broken" math of 4E has led to many complaints of long, drawn out combats A.K.A. "the grind". Given their track record, it seems far more reasonable to trust my own judgement than it does to blindly follow theirs.Considering WotC's history with producing broken material, and the (IMHO) broken math of 4E, I would trust my judgement about the balance of game mechanics over WotC's 9 times out of 10.This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.
I think it is the hardboundness of their books.Such a waste if you want to throw away the stuff five minutes after you get it....
I, for one, won't judge a book by its (hard)cover.
I still can't quite figure out why you come to this particular board, KaeYoss.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think that it's at all unreasonable to trust my judgement about what is balanced for my games over that of some strangers who don't have an inkling about my campaign or the people I play with. WotC pushed a lot of broken stuff out of the door during the 3.0/3.5 erra. The original math for their skill challenges was very wrong, and the "broken" math of 4E has led to many complaints of long, drawn out combats A.K.A. "the grind". Given their track record, it seems far more reasonable to trust my own judgement than it does to blindly follow theirs.
Now that is comedy.
So what does WoC make superior to other publishers?
I think it is the hardboundness of their books. Hardbound lasts longer and protects what is inside, eh, better. I want a book that lasts. If the book is soft then it won't last long. That is why WotC creates superior books. They are made good.
I went to college too.
I hope your kidding. Seriously.
WOTC's all hard-cover policy was a strike against them before 4.0. Now, Every splat book / campaign book / rules expansion out there is a $35 (or more) hardcover.
I can't afford to pay that much for 2 pages of content I actually want to use.
Fine, I'll admit hardcovers last longer. So why doesn't WOTC follow the example of EVERY OTHER PUBLISHER OUT THERE and publuish a soft cover 6 months to a year after they publish the hard cover?
Oh, right. WOTC is all about gaming their way, and if your way isn't their way, your not playing right.
That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.
I fail to see how that sentiment is dangerous and unhealthy.
|
|
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.
Yes, remember spanking your children will lead to psychological trauma.
Oh, and remember don't eat eggs because the cholesterol will kill you.
And margerine is much healthier than natural butter.
Always trust those experts :D
|
|
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.I don't think that it's at all unreasonable to trust my judgement about what is balanced for my games over that of some strangers who don't have an inkling about my campaign or the people I play with. WotC pushed a lot of broken stuff out of the door during the 3.0/3.5 erra. The original math for their skill challenges was very wrong, and the "broken" math of 4E has led to many complaints of long, drawn out combats A.K.A. "the grind". Given their track record, it seems far more reasonable to trust my own judgement than it does to blindly follow theirs.Considering WotC's history with producing broken material, and the (IMHO) broken math of 4E, I would trust my judgement about the balance of game mechanics over WotC's 9 times out of 10.This is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
This is a game we're talking about, not brain surgery. WotC is not perfect. They have put out things that I could tell were broken at a glance. They had to create the expertise feats in the PHB II to help fix the broken math of 4E. They may be professionals, but they have flubbed things plenty of times, so I'm not going to take their word that something is okay because they said so and "everything" is core. I know you love 4E, and WotC as well, but your defense of their so called expertise is starting to seem quite irrational.
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.
Scott, that is the first time I've seen you say something I vehemently disagree with. As it turns out, solid critical thinking skills coupled with some research do often lead to better conclusions than listening to the so-called experts.
I grant there are some things I won't argue with, but refusing to question authority is no virtue.
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.Yes, remember spanking your children will lead to psychological trauma.
Oh, and remember don't eat eggs because the cholesterol will kill you.
And margerine is much healthier than natural butter.
Always trust those experts :D
If you think I'm wrong, start living your life without experts.
I suggest starting by throwing out your prescription medication. It was created, tested and prescribed by experts. Then, move out of your house. The architect who designed it was an expert. Also, sell your car (but not through a professional agency!). It was assembled based on a prototype designed by a team of experts. It is probably maintained by a group of experts, as well. Besides, even if you did have a car, you can't trust those streets, bridges, stop lights and freeways, all of which were designed by experts.
Experts aren't always right. They're wrong, occasionally. You named a few well-known and well-publicized examples of experts being mistaken (conveniently glossing over that, in each case, the mistakes were corrected by other experts), but the point isn't that experts are infallible. It's that they're less fallible than people who aren't experts.
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.Scott, that is the first time I've seen you say something I vehemently disagree with. As it turns out, solid critical thinking skills coupled with some research often does lead to better conclusions than listening to the so-called experts.
I grant there are some things I won't argue with, but refusing to question authority is no virtue.
No, it's not. And I'm not saying you shouldn't question authority. Many times authority is derived through means other than expertise. That should be especially questionable. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of us live our day-to-day lives relying on (indeed, staking our lives upon) the work of experts, and we rarely question any of it. This isn't because we're lazy, or because we're apathetic, but because being critical of experts for the sake of being critical of experts is a horribly inefficient use of our time.
As I've said previously, if you use Rule Element X in your game and it obviously creates balance issues, then you should deal with it. But going, ahead of time, through the difficult process of evaluating that same rule element's impact without actually seeing it in play is beyond the abilities of a lot of people - including a lot of people who are convinced that it is within the scope of their abilities.
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.Yes, remember spanking your children will lead to psychological trauma.
Oh, and remember don't eat eggs because the cholesterol will kill you.
And margerine is much healthier than natural butter.
Always trust those experts :D
If you think I'm wrong, start living your life without experts.
I suggest starting by throwing out your prescription medication. It was created, tested and prescribed by experts. Then, move out of your house. The architect who designed it was an expert. Also, sell your car (but not through a professional agency!). It was assembled based on a prototype designed by a team of experts. It is probably maintained by a group of experts, as well. Besides, even if you did have a car, you can't trust those streets, bridges, stop lights and freeways, all of which were designed by experts.
Experts aren't always right. They're wrong, occasionally. You named a few well-known and well-publicized examples of experts being mistaken (conveniently glossing over that, in each case, the mistakes were corrected by other experts), but the point isn't that experts are infallible. It's that they're less fallible than people who aren't experts.
I agree with a lot of what you said. In general, I have the utmost respect for education. However, you cited examples that have obvious, quite possibly dangerous or deadly consequences for ignoring the advice of experts. This is not the situation with game design. Also, chemistry and physics are sciences; game design is not. Finally, your argument is a textbook appeal to authority.
This is a game we're talking about, not brain surgery. WotC is not perfect.
Neither are brain surgeons.
They have put out things that I could tell were broken at a glance.
Brain surgeons have made mistakes in surgery that are very obvious even to the untrained eye.
They had to create the expertise feats in the PHB II to help fix the broken math of 4E. They may be professionals, but they have flubbed things plenty of times, so I'm not going to take their word that something is okay because they said so and "everything" is core. I know you love 4E, and WotC as well, but your defense of their so called expertise is starting to seem quite irrational.
I don't think it is. The only advice I've given is to wait until you've seen a rule element in play before declaring it "broken", "unusable" or "banned."
Again, the last sentence probably seems very reasonable to you, but that's exactly what huge numbers of individuals tell themselves about innumerable things every single day - "Pfff, sure, they may be experts, but what the heck do they know about my life?" That very sentiment is one of the most dangerous, unhealthy convictions that an individual can possess.Scott, that is the first time I've seen you say something I vehemently disagree with. As it turns out, solid critical thinking skills coupled with some research often does lead to better conclusions than listening to the so-called experts.
I grant there are some things I won't argue with, but refusing to question authority is no virtue.
No, it's not. And I'm not saying you shouldn't question authority. Many times authority is derived through means other than expertise. That should be especially questionable. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of us live our day-to-day lives relying on (indeed, staking our lives upon) the work of experts, and we rarely question any of it. This isn't because we're lazy, or because we're apathetic, but because being critical of experts for the sake of being critical of experts is a horribly inefficient use of our time.
As I've said previously, if you use Rule Element X in your game and it obviously creates balance issues, then you should deal with it. But going, ahead of time, through the difficult process of evaluating that same rule element's impact without actually seeing it in play is beyond the abilities of a lot of people - including a lot of people who are convinced that it is within the scope of their abilities.
I think we're going to have to live with disagreeing. I completely agree that many, many people grossly overestimate their own abilities, but "experts" are people, too.
For my part, if I doubt the advice of an expert in a matter involving math I can't do, or science I can't comprehend, then I seek out a second opinion. However, in the case of a game designers, it is quite possibly to glean from various comments that their grasp of math is typically quite poor, even compared to my own. For the record, I'm no math whiz, being fairly proficient in Algebra and passingly familiar with basic Calculus (took Calc 1 in 1995).
I suppose it comes down to our definiton of the word "expert." You seem to be using that as a synonym for "professional." I don't think it is. I question the very idea that the word "expert" should be applied to a game designer.
YMMV.
I agree with a lot of what you said. In general, I have the utmost respect for education. However, you cited examples that have obvious, quite possibly dangerous or deadly consequences for ignoring the advice of experts. This is not the situation with game design.
That's irrelevant here; the degree to which not following the advice of experts will result in injury or death isn't the point. It's that not following the advice of experts is a bad decision, in those cases.
Also, chemistry and physics are sciences; game design is not.
Experts exist in fields that are not hard sciences (or even, some would argue, soft sciences). We follow their advice nonetheless.
Finally, your argument is a textbook appeal to authority.
That's fine. I'm not engaging in an argument using formal logic. If you've studied logic, you know that not only does the fact that it's an appeal to authority not have any bearing on the truth of the conclusion (a misunderstanding grounded in its own fallacy), but that it is oftentimes perfectly reasonable to be persuaded by an appeal to authority if it is established that the authority's expertise is relevant to the matter at hand (which, in this case, it very much is).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Scott, that is the first time I've seen you say something I vehemently disagree with. As it turns out, solid critical thinking skills coupled with some research do often lead to better conclusions than listening to the so-called experts.I grant there are some things I won't argue with, but refusing to question authority is no virtue.
I've made an argument similar to Scott's in the past because it is a pet peeve of mine as well. D&D encourages you to think about and tinker with the rules, and it's what we do day in and day out. As DMs, we make calls about what the players can/can't do, we make judgment calls about what is/isn't balanced.
But, at the end of the day, we're not really operating at the same level of expertise as those who publish day in and day out. My pet peeve is the whole "I read it and know it's unbalanced" line of egotistical thought. 3e is littered with examples of classes, powers, etc. that people have deemed too powerful because they are so very smart and understand game balance oh so well, but which are fine in actual play.
Basically, if something looks out of whack in a published book, I take a step back and say "Am I missing something?" Because I know that the person who wrote it is probably much better than I am at figuring out from simply writing up an ability whether it is balanced or not. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't just slap something broken down and didn't consider the issues that seem obvious and problematic to me.
The poster child for this for me is the Mystic Theurge, which was decried as being terribly unbalanced and banned in many games, but is well balanced and even slightly weak in play under the core rules.
Obviously, the designers can't account for every possible interaction of the rules in every splatbook, so I'm much more sympathetic to arguments saying that the combination of certain powers/rules creates a broken game situation. But the argument that something is obviously broken on its face and immediately should be disregarded because I know game balance better than everyone else (including those whose work has been deemed good enough by the audience to give them a paying job) is hubristic, unrealistic, and assinine.
I've made an argument similar to Scott's in the past because it is a pet peeve of mine as well. D&D encourages you to think about and tinker with the rules, and it's what we do day in and day out. As DMs, we make calls about what the players can/can't do, we make judgment calls about what is/isn't balanced.
But, at the end of the day, we're not really operating at the same level of expertise as those who publish day in and day out. My pet peeve is the whole "I read it and know it's unbalanced" line of egotistical thought. 3e is littered with examples of classes, powers, etc. that people have deemed too powerful because they are so very smart and understand game balance oh so well which are actually just fine in actual play.
Basically, if something looks out of whack in a published book, I take a step back and say "Am I missing something?" Because I know that the person who wrote it is probably much better than I am at figuring out from simply writing up an ability whether it is balanced or not. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't just slap something broken down and didn't consider the issues that seem obvious and problematic to me.
The poster child for this for me is the Mystic Theurge, which was decried as being terribly unbalanced and banned in many games, but is well balanced and even slightly weak in play under the core rules.
Obviously, the designers can't account for every possible interaction of the rules in every splatbook, so I'm much more sympathetic to arguments saying that the combination of certain powers/rules creates a broken game situation. But the argument that something is obviously broken on its face and immediately should be disregarded because I know game balance better than everyone else (including those whose work has been deemed good enough by the audience to give them a paying job) is hubristic, unrealistic, and assinine.
Basically, this.
There was some talk in the past about the "reads bad, plays well" nature of certain rule elements (the Mystic Theurge is the perfect example). The lesson of this phenomenon is that in any system complex enough to foil long view understanding at a glance, it is necessary to view a rule element in context (often in extended context) to develop any solid understanding of its impact.