Community

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

Quality isn't a zero-sum game.  A game can be balanced, clear, functional, playable as written, and generally easy for a DM to run without "losing" anything.

This is untrue.  Any change to the rules causes the game to lose something(s).  The question is whether what is added by the rule makes the game better, worse, or the same as far as fun goes.     

Apr 24, 2012 -- 11:05PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I think what he was trying to say was that a game can be balanced, functional, playable as written, and DM friendly as well as high quality, at least as a game.  And to those I all agree.

It's when the subjective component of the system, the "story bits" get worked in that it can change the usability, and even the fun of a group of mathematics.  But until then, the quality of a game and it's mechanics can be measured for ease of play, usability, and player friendliness, among other things, and those measurements are on the whole either true or not.

Yeah.  I understood him.  My point was that quality is subjective.  You can make a "quality" game that is measured for easy of play, usability, and player/DM friendliness, but doing that causes losses in other aspects of the game that other people look at when THEY measure for "quality." 

When you make a change to the game, the "quality" for some people will go up, and the "quality" for other people will go down.  The trick is to try and make a game that will appeal to he widest number of people you can as a "quality" game.

In essence I think he's trying to say that bad rules don't make a good game.

For the most part, good rules/bad rules are subjective.  What's a good rule to you might not be a good rule to someone else.

For me, the one overriding "quality" I look for in a game is enjoyability.  Any rule in a game that impedes my enjoyability is a bad one, even if a lot of people say it's a good rule and is very "balanced."  Too much balance is unfun to me.  While I like 4e, the degree of "balance" the designers gave it made it less enjoyable to me than 3e, so to me it was of a lower "quality" than 3e.  If it had been less balanced, say right inbetween the 3e and 4e, I would probably have enjoyed 4e much more and found it to be of a higher "quality" than 3e.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Ed_Warlord wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:57AM, Maxperson wrote:

Yeah.  I understood him.  My point was that quality is subjective.

If only that were true.  The 90s would have been a much happier decade for me without all that ISO-9000 paperwork.

I'm sure the guys working on D&D Next probably feel the same way.  If the play experience is subjective, and we're trying to make something for everyone, can't we just put out whatever we want without worrying about whether it's any good?  Somone will like it, and therefore it's a success.
 

That seems to be how Hollywood does it  (y'know, for films not games).

Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:44AM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Apr 20, 2012 -- 10:08PM, MechaPilot wrote:

Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:59PM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

This is slightly off topic, but how many Bad Dms are really out there that we need to protect ourselves from?  You hear a lot of horror stories, but in all honesty, how many people have actually played with a DM they would not play with again?

I'm played a lot of RPGs over the years with a lot of different DMs, and I don't ever recall walking away from a table thinking, "Man, I'm not playing in his game again!"

I have experienced bad DMs.  There is at least one that I'd consider truly horrific (that case involved the sexual violation of a PC).  So yeah.  They're DEFINITELY out there.

Just want to point out that while subjecting someone to it out of the table norm would definitely be 'horrific' as you describe, if the group is adult themed in general or more open/realistic such a thing wouldn't be 'bad dm'ing' at all...just reflecting the horrors of life itself.

I would be inclined to agree with you but for two things:

1) An adult themed game doesn't inherently involve PC rape.  In a game where that is a possible outcome, a little warning would have been appreciated.  You know, the DM could have taken a moment to explain the potential consequences when he looked over my character and saw "F" in the gender slot.

2) The entire party was captured.  The rest of them were locked in a cell and left to contrive their escape (no torture or anything) while the only female PC in the party was being violated.  That's not exactly being equal-opportunity with the horror.

Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:24PM, Morbo78 wrote:

Perhaps not equal opportunity Mecha but I think fairly accurate for the "medieval" setting most DnD games assume.

Maybe not, but I'm hoping you didn't miss my first point.  It is, arguably, the more important of the two.