Community

Dec 11, 2009 -- 9:38AM, williamhm75 wrote:

I'd say they were campaigns because they had the same recurring characters going through a series of adventurers a lot of times one episode would lead directly, or inderectly to the next.  An ending goal is not needed for a specific campaign.

And I'd say you were wrong.  A campaign has that goal(whether accomplished or not), and a series of adventures with the same characters is just that, a series of adventures.  Of course, I'm going by the ACTUAL definition of campaign, and not the made up Wiki version.

Dec 11, 2009 -- 8:04AM, wrecan wrote:

Dec 11, 2009 -- 12:16AM, Grayhand wrote:

So to recap: (1) prior editions often ignored individuals at times while spotlighting a singular member and this was a flaw. (2) This flaw was because designers didn't know any better. (3) This was a flaw of the game and not the players who found it boring when they were not at the center of the attention. (4) Designers have learned from past mistakes (and, by inference, now create games that mitigate these flaws).

The implication seems to be that prior editions are deeply flawed by certain aspects and that those aspects are corrected in a certain later edition.

Yes, I would agree with this assessment, although I wouldn't necessarily call the flaws "deep".  And I would also state, as I did in the original post, that every edition -- including 4e -- has flaws. 

However, I don't think it follows that "games catering to your tastes are games that are better for everyone"

I wasn't discussing my tastes.  I was discussing general principles of game design.  However, I do see where I was making an assumption that my preference for games that don't sideline characters for certain types of encounters is a taste.  I apologize for that assumption.

The truth of the matter is that the flaws you see, are not necessarily flaws seen by everyone. And not everyone sees this "process" of game design resulting in a funner, or for that matter, better, game.

Quite true.

woof.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to convey.  Are you barking at me?

A few points:

(1) Wrecan: "I would also state, as I did in the original post, that every edition -- including 4e -- has flaws." As I originally quoted your whole post to give complete context to your thoughts and you complained, it seems absurd now to mention that you said this in your original post. But aside from that,  I would point out that it is nothing more then a truthful generalization that serves no purpose other then to mitigate your obvious bias in an attempt to make you seem reasonable. The problem though is not that all editions have flaws but rather that the flaws seen here, by you, are being subjectively held by the systems beholder.

(2) wrecan: "I don't think it follows." What pray tell then follows? You make an argument that insinuates that old editions are flawed, not subjectively but objectively, and further insinuate that designers have learned from these mistakes- what else are we to extrapolate from this but the conclusion that a certain newer version of the game is objectively better?

(3) wrecan: "I wasn't discussing my tastes.  I was discussing general principles of game design." Can we stop pretending here that game design is anything other then putting together a set of rules that are meant to appeal to the tastes either of the writer of said rules, the targeted audience, or, more likely, a combination of the two. Designers produce material that is accepted or rejected almost solely by the tastes of the game's potential audience. To claim here that you are talking about a design issue is not to escape the subjective nature of your argument.

(4) wrecan: "Are you barking at me?" Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not read all the posts in a thread? I'd suggest if the latter going back and reading the amusing posts about wrecan kicking puppies- perhaps then my rhetorical bark, meant only as a humorous retort, will make sense.

Dec 12, 2009 -- 7:54AM, williamhm75 wrote:

[Dungeon of the Week

This sort of campaign resembles an episodic television show. Each week, the main characters move from one distinct setting to another (a planet, a haunted house, an era of history, and so on). They solve that episode’s problems, then go on their way to deal with the next. Once they’re done, things return to pretty much the way they were at the start.

A “Dungeon of the Week” is the simplest kind of campaign to run, since it requires little effort beyond finding or creating adventures. Each story has its own main villain, unconnected to the antagonists of any other. The D&D world is dark and full of threats, and they don’t need anything else in common.

Thank you for finding that and proving me right.

Um, it doesn't prove you right, since the other paragraph clearly says that this is not a campaign.  All DMG does is do what is increasingly frustrating me.  It says that two completely opposite things are right or possible under RAW, which is impossible. 

What we have here are two things that both cannot be right, yet are both clearly stated in the DMG rules.  What is the result of this contradiction?  They neutralize each other.  Since both cannot be true, we as players cannot know which one IS true, so we have to discard both as proof.  This puts both sides back at square one before DMG quotes entered the argument.  The side I'm on that is using the real definition of the word "campaign", and your side William, that is using the fabricated wiki definition of the word "campaign."