3.5X Edition's Biggest Design Problem

[User3]

My personal and unverifiable opinion is that the things that sell well do so based on the "wicked awesome" principle.

Now, sometimes that means power creep, but often it means new and original material. I know that playing a spellthief is an exercise in master-level DnD schennanigans where you abuse every rule ever written and only then are you just decent as a PC, but the flavor of the class is wicked awesome and I'd play it just on that fact.

I mean, how do you explain the popularity of the Book of Vile Darkness? We know that once that particular supplement is in our game around 30% of it is usuable, another 20% is completely broken and has to be houseruled, and the other 50% ranges from feeble to outright character-crippling..... but some chunk of it has been in every almost Dungeon Magazine since the book came out and there is an actual SoulEater Handbook on the Character Optimization Board that is huge and well visited.

Why?

Its got a wicked awesome flavor that is both unique and game-defining. I want to fight a vermin lord and I want someone to get something even decent out of worshipping dark gods and I want to play a wizard who is coked-up on terran brandy.

People pay actual money on top of jumping through figurative hoops to make a cool concept work rather than admit that the rules behind it blow chunks. Just check out the Tome of Magic; the total amount of usable material in it is exactly four feats, but people are going crazy over ways to make any part of it actually good in a campaign.

The real problem is this: creative people who can write wicked awesome material are really quite rare. In order to meet their production deadlines, they have to spread themselves pretty thin, and that is why we get crap like the Book of Exalted Deeds (almost a page for page cribbing of the Book of Vile Darkness, but written by someone measurably less creative than Monte Cook).

[Neeek]

Along the same lines, there are people who will argue incessantly that the Soulknife isn't one of the three worst classes in 3.5, because they like the flavor so much that they want the class to not suck. Despite the 9 new feats and 2 new PrCs specifically for the class, it's still utter crap(any PrC that requires 3 levels of Soulknife better be insane, AFAIC).

[power_word_wedgie]

Yep, that's the point. You'll have one segment of the gaming population saying that the Soulknife is crap due to it's balance level while others love the class because of the flavor that comes with the class. Hence, the feedback from one group comes back as really loving what the authors did due to the flavor or from the other group as really disappointed with what the authors did due to gaming balane. Thus, customer requirements can get a little ambiguous to any gaming company for that matter and really can be skewed with the breakdown of population that was polled. Different people have different needs, and since I don't take part in surveying the majority of the gaming population, I wouldn't even pretend to know what the prevalent opinion is.

[User3]

1146533789[/unixtime]]Yep, that's the point. You'll have one segment of the gaming population saying that the Soulknife is crap due to it's balance level while others love the class because of the flavor that comes with the class. Hence, the feedback from one group comes back as really loving what the authors did due to the flavor or from the other group as really disappointed with what the authors did due to gaming balane. Thus, customer requirements can get a little ambiguous to any gaming company for that matter and really can be skewed with the breakdown of population that was polled. Different people have different needs, and since I don't take part in surveying the majority of the gaming population, I wouldn't even pretend to know what the prevalent opinion is.

The requirements are pretty obvious: Make cool classes like Soulknife, but don't make them suck like the 3.5 version does.

It's two totally different issues that every aspect of the game should be tested through: 1) Is it a good idea? 2) How can it be implemented in a balanced way?

Of course, RC is right in saying that there is no real 'balance' to be found because of the weighting of the core rules.

[PhoneLobster]

RC may be right in saying there is imbalance in the core, but he is wrong if he claims there is NO balance in the core.

There is not a finite maximum amount of imbalance that has already be reached by the core and that cannot be worsened by more unbalanced new material.

Similarly power creep annoys me, because even if you decide that power creep is a good idea as a marketting strategy or some such sillyness...

A) WOTC stuff doesn't power creep its totally stark raving random. One book is full of zany super power stuff, another is totally underpowered, two others in combination are all powerful universe breakers. There is no steady "creep" of power there is a sea of static noise for power level instead.

B) You can actually totally balance power creep. Your designers can do their fricking job and sit down in advance and set guidelines like "fighters built using material from the Complete Fighter will be up to 10% more powerful than fighters built from core only" and if adhered to that kind of thing can actually WORK. Like so much in the field of planning ahead and actual practical design/management it could really benefit the game. And when you have staff anyway where the hell is the aditional expense in making the idiots actually work for a living.

[power_word_wedgie]

1146536991[/unixtime]]The requirements are pretty obvious: Make cool classes like Soulknife, but don't make them suck like the 3.5 version does.

It's two totally different issues that every aspect of the game should be tested through: 1) Is it a good idea? 2) How can it be implemented in a balanced way?

Of course, RC is right in saying that there is no real 'balance' to be found because of the weighting of the core rules.

But the thing is there is a segment of the gaming population that just says, "Wow, just by the flavor of the class, I think this class is cool and it's a class that I plan on playing all of the time even if it isn't as powerful as other classes (or don't even take into account power level for classes)." So, the feedback that comes back from polling this segment of the population is, "The soulknife is good." Thus, if these are the majority of the people that are polled in market surveys, it isn't obvious that "the class sucks" and the feedback comes back that the class is good. That's why the customer requirements get ambiguous for a gaming supplier.

Really, the only feedback that I've seen that the Soulknife is lesser in power is from message boards. (actually it is the only feedback that I know of except gaming groups that I've participated in) The problem with message boards is that it is an extremely small segment of the gaming population that actually take part in them, but it is definitely higher than the amount of people that I've gamed with in 3.5. So, though I agree that the cross section that participates in the message boards is larger than the people I game with, it definitely wouldn't use it for market analysis alone. That's the reason why I brought up customer surveys and other methods for market analysis (of which message boards may be a part, but their weighting may vary).

[power_word_wedgie]

1146538905[/unixtime]]And when you have staff anyway where the hell is the aditional expense in making the idiots actually work for a living.

Maybe yelling at all of the employees, "WORK HARDER" is the answer, but to me it just sounds like when I was watching last year the point guard for University of Memphis miss three straight free throws in a row and thus cost his team a chance to go to the NCAA tournament. Yeah, in my heart I think I could have made a least one free throw (which would have at least tied the score and sent the game into overtime), but I didn't do it. I guess that I could have played college ball and found out for myself, but I didn't. Thus, it's all subjective. I guess what I am trying to say is that if you want the job, go apply. Personally, under the environment of telling people to "WORK HARDER", all it looks like it would promote is even quicker turnover which I doubt is a great thing for balance in the long run. I'm doubting that they're making any serious money in those jobs in the first place. That's why I was suggesting additional people to help proofread the material.

Besides, Josh has a good point: as long as the books keep selling, nothing is going to change.

[PhoneLobster]

Maybe yelling at all of the employees, "WORK HARDER" is the answer, but to me it just sounds like when I was watching last year the point guard for University of Memphis miss three straight free throws in a row and thus cost his team a chance to go to the NCAA tournament.

That is a total and utter cop out.

"ooh you big meanie yelling work harder"

"oooh why don't you try and do it then"

"oooh you can't do anything other than turn the fader dial on production speed"

Bunch of twoddle.

It is not a big demand to insist that a company with MANY EMPLOYEES that pays people to write games rules gets them to do it with some proffesionalism.

I know they have less employees than they have had in the past but unless they are now many orders of magnitude smaller than I imagine (ie four teenagers in a garage somewhere instead of an office with at least several dozen full time staff) then it amazes me the sheer amount of we don't care sitting on our buts wasting time they must collectively do to churn out books full of even the typos they let through let alone the rest of the stupidity.

Sitting on the sidelines demanding they do things like proffesional editing of content is NOT an unreasonable demand in any sense at all. Other publishing companies have no problem doing it even in smaller specialist markets or situations that require more accurate fact checking and calculations (like say, maths text books), what the fvck is wrong with WOTC that they can't?

[Josh_Kablack]

It is not a big demand to insist that a company with MANY EMPLOYEES that pays people to write games rules gets them to do it with some proffesionalism.

Yeah, actually it is.

And I don't think I can explain why until you've spent some time of your own trying to break into the industry, but I'll try:

Speaking from experience, it was more profitable for me to spend my time flipping Rothlisburgers than it was for me to spend my time working on the design, development and playtesting of Exalted.

[Crissa]

Irony: The books aren't selling, so they put them out cheaper...

-Crissa

[Username17]

1146547021[/unixtime]]

It is not a big demand to insist that a company with MANY EMPLOYEES that pays people to write games rules gets them to do it with some proffesionalism.

Yeah, actually it is.

And I don't think I can explain why until you've spent some time of your own trying to break into the industry, but I'll try:

Speaking from experience, it was more profitable for me to spend my time flipping Rothlisburgers than it was for me to spend my time working on the design, development and playtesting of Exalted.

Yep. Writing games is a sub-minimum wage proposition unless you get to be Skip Williams or Andy Collins. And even then, you don't drive a Mercedes filled with cheerleaders.

So it's not going to attract a level of professionalism. People are doing it because they want to, not because it's a career path. So when you see some guy like Sean K. Reynolds who can't seem to do anything right - you have to understand that he might just stay on the payroll because he can be trusted to turn in manuscripts on time and maybe come into the office wearing pants.

This isn't a major industry we're talking here - this is game design. Professionalism plays by different rules.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I still say its a cop out.

Thats why I said there are plenty of other narrow specialist publishing fields which manage to exist with some degree of proffesionalism.

Like the people who write school text books. No one says "well gee they aren't earning rock star money so we won't edit the books or complain when they screw up all the values for the constants in the physics texts."

If you can make a living off it I expect some standards, because its not like there are plenty of other people on the same or lower income prepared to replace you.

And as a university graduate with years of specialist experience working outside of his field for basically the minimum wage who's friends are all university graduates with years of specialist experience working outside of their fields for basically the minimum wage I point out that the unemployed and poorly employed certainly don't lack the smarts to outsmart Andy Collins. At least on this continent.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The problem is probably just the mentality people bring to the field. People who work in textbook publishing and other niche fields still look at it as a profession. OTOH, people who get into game design probably still think of it as an extension of the hobby they started doing for fun. They probably approach writing official rules like they do writing their own house rules, and that will result in a certain unevenness. Seriously, I've played in groups that thought slapped-together, totally unbalanced houserules were really cool and fun to play.

[The_Matthew]

1146559068[/unixtime]]
Like the people who write school text books. No one says "well gee they aren't earning rock star money so we won't edit the books or complain when they screw up all the values for the constants in the physics texts."

Actually, the people who write textbooks tend to be professors, and they get bennies like tenure because they did and thus proved that they are awesome. Once game designers are offered a well paid job for life I'm sure we'll see alot higher quality in our game books.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Like the people who write school text books. No one says "well gee they aren't earning rock star money so we won't edit the books or complain when they screw up all the values for the constants in the physics texts."

Yeah, this is supremely bad comparison. In California public school textbooks are cash cows, on a mandatory six-year replacement cycle with each textbook costing--last time I checked--about $75 each. College textbooks--with their much lower distribution--are priced through the roof because of that lower distribution. Go down and price a brand new college statistics textbook or--heaven help you--a biology textbook. It easily drifts into the $100 range and sometimes far higher.

I love my hobby. Yes, I'd be willing to sink $75 into a core text--maybe even six of them--every six years (and if you have more than 18 3.0 and 3.5 Wizards' books on your shelves right now, you've admitted to be willing to doing the same). Heck, I'd be willing to sink $150 into a few utterly massive RPG tomes that I knew were as accurate as any modern biology or stats textbook that would only need updating were there a revolution in game design or when I wanted to go even deeper into the system.

That's a valid business model… but it would take a major paradigm shift in the entire gaming industry--and gamers themselves--to rely on a single, massive, perfect product rollout every few years rather than trickling out shit to keep the lights on.

Further, the reason the paradigms given above work is because the publishers go straight to the source: teachers and professors. If a gaming company said, "You're a DM, right? Here. Have our $200 full-color, superbly designed, thoroughly playtested 1,000-page role-playing game book and ten tons of supplementary materials.* And, when it comes time to sit down and play, remember us."

And many groups would. And they'd borrow the book, photocopy the parts they wanted, scan the rest, and upload it onto a filesharing service.

The problem with that paradigm, in the end, is gamers are very often jerks.
_________________________
* The last textbook adoption I was involved had each textbook coming with one hardback novel or two paperback novels and a 10-lb. box of other materials like workbooks, transparencies, posters, and all sorts of crap.

[Sir Neil]

And even then, you don't drive a Mercedes filled with cheerleaders.

Dammit Frank! That line had me spray cereal all over my desk.

[PhoneLobster]

School texts are not nessacarily the cash cow they might seem.

Sure you basically have some certain sales, but you also have a very firm limit to your potential market. The limit can be as small as a single state, and is rarely larger than a single country.

Because the texts need to conform to the sylabus, which changes from region to region.

I felt it might be a reasonable niche market to consider since hey, texts have a severly limited market (compared to WOTCs global market), similar pricing (around here the price range for a WOTC book and an academic text are basically identical), similar complex editing requirements etc...

But if you don't like that there are plenty of other niche markets in publishing where they actually EDIT THE TYPOS.

And maybe your american proffessors get good pay and benefits but thats certainly not the case here in Australia.

And despite that, yeah sure tenured well paid proffessors REALLY spend their time producing junior high school or primary school science or math texts.

Might I suggest the apparently zany theory that many many text books are written, edited and published by people who are not highly paid tenured proffessors.

[The_Matthew]

You're right, tenured professors wouldn't wipe their asses with a request to make a lower-level textbook. It's people who want to be tenured professors who actually put out the junk that's used before calculus. The fact remains that they have a carrot they are offered for this, eg people might let them get tenure and become professors.

[Daiba]

1146575837[/unixtime]]The fact remains that they have a carrot they are offered for this, eg people might let them get tenure and become professors.

Unfortunately, you don't get tenure in any kind of hard science, mathematics, or engineering related field by putting out textbooks. You get it by consistently getting good grants and publishing papers in prestigious journals. If you, as an untenured professor, take the time out of your life to write a textbook, some other schmuck who doesn't give a rat's ass about the students is going to beat you to that tenure position.

Back in highschool, only my AP Bio and AP US History books were written by people with Ph.D.s. The rest were produced (presumably for profit) by various corporations.

WOTC gets away with turning out books with shitty editing because the consumers have proven that they'll buy the damn things even if they're loaded with mistakes and contradictions. Upgrading their editing now isn't going to increase their sales that much, and it'll slow down the production cycle. That's definitely not the case with textbooks, where productions cycles are measured in years and mistakes will likely result in expensive recalls.

[User3]

The real money in producing intellectual property has always been in merchandising and franchising. When DnD has a Visa with its name on it (like most major sports teams and even some bands like Metallica) and there are toys in Toys "R" Us and an afternoon cartoon, then they'll be able to afford some decent designers.

I mean, lets face it: a skilled and intelligent guy is going to get a better-paying job than designing RPGs and any design work he does is going to be in his free time between his job, friends, and family.

The lack of skilled, intelligent, and creative people on the design end of things is purely because of a lack of good business sense, not for a lack of those people wanting the job. When ballbusting profiteers take over DnD, we'll have rules so clean that you can eat off of them (and work so well that the next Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights won't require a rewrite of 40% of the rules).

[Crissa]

K, they won't even aford real designers then.

Even the largest game producer in the United States (Electronic Arts) is guilty shifting work to underpaid an underexperienced workers - they've settled several lawsuits recently, making many concessions to the state for labor violations.

They even try to underpay their best and brightest - ala Maxis - to put the games out faster, cheaper.

The point of profit isn't to make a good product, but to make more and more money that is neither spent on those who made it or sold it.

-Crissa

[User3]

EA is well known for its demonic workplace practices. Thats not even a good example.

I'm saying movie tie-ins, plush beholders, tanar'ri coffee mugs, and all the other stuff that is not even remotely related to design. Hell, they recently figured out that there was a market on the originals on their art. A little more bright thinking like that, and one of us might have a Mercedes full of cheerleaders.

[Crissa]

How is the biggest name in games not a good example?

Do you have contrary evidence of a large company ever finding that profit motive encourages spending money?

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1146598115[/unixtime]]
I'm saying movie tie-ins, plush beholders, tanar'ri coffee mugs, and all the other stuff that is not even remotely related to design. Hell, they recently figured out that there was a market on the originals on their art. A little more bright thinking like that, and one of us might have a Mercedes full of cheerleaders.

They tried to make a D&D movie, we all know how well that turned out...

At the end of the day, RPGs aren't a mass market item like video games. And there is far less RPG competition, meaning that producing a good RPG is not necessarily all that advantageous unless people are able to pick your RPG over any other RPG on the shelf. Since D&D has such name recognition, ti reallydoesn't even need to worry about that.

Lets keep in mind that the average player doesn't know how broken D&D can be. Unless you're like Frank or you read D&D message boards, you'd probably have no idea what the various abuses are for spells. You probably glossed over polymorph and planar binding, not even full well realizing what they could do. Occasionally you find a balance hole, but you never really thought of producing persistent spell clerics and your DM probably decided the frenzied berserker was overpowered and banned it. When you make a wizard, you go right for the evocations.

That's how most D&D players think and they wouldn't even be able to appreciate a balanced game.

What they do appreciate is the next feat that makes their fighter better. And that's who they're selling to. I mean in my group, my PCs were the ones who started buying books, not me as the DM.

I mean really, how many people like us are there in the world that make a big deal out of game balance? Probably not a heck of a lot, and even we have still bought at least some of their books, and that's all they really care about.

[Daiba]

1146624440[/unixtime]]Do you have contrary evidence of a large company ever finding that profit motive encourages spending money?

Not a really modern example, but Bell Labs, etc. back in the day. That was when companies and shareholders were still concerned with the long-term, however.

Two modern game companies that put a lot of emphasis on polish (to the point of spending lots of cash and dev time, having tons of post-release support, etc.): Blizzard and Valve. I'd add in Id, but they don't really make games anymore...just technical showcases to sell whatever new engine Carmack has built out of dust and shadows.

Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Universal, which is an enormous corp. They seem to have a lot of leeway in their operation--don't know the details of why and how, but maybe VU realizes that Blizzard's focus on quality over release dates and deadlines ultimately pays off.

But I think you're right in that these seem to be exceptions in the modern day. The majority approach is to maximize profit in the short term by cutting costs as much as possible--without concern for longterm repercussions. From what I've seen of WOTC's business practices, I sincerely doubt that in influx of cash from merchandising would cause them to put out higher quality product. More likely, they'd try to crank as much stuff out as possible in an effort to milk the market while it's still hot.