MorrisonMP made a comment on the Myths of Professional Quality post from this morning. I would reply but blogger is acting like a bitch. So I have copied the main point below and I will reply as a post.
But there is one other difference between the professional and the amateur that you overlook (actually two, but they're linked). Those are Validation and Distribution.
As an academic, the difference between a paper I write that is selected for a conference and a paper that I write that I put up on the web may not have anything to do with the amount of research I've put into it or the amount of work, but it does make a difference that one has been reviewed by other experts, found to have value by a reputable outside source and then distributed through a channel that is considered reliable and worthwhile by the larger audience/pool of other experts.
The same is often true of gaming material. Yes, I can content I've created for 4E up on my blog for all the world to see, but that in no way has been reviewed for balance or value. It's a short step from this to the horribly overpowered and wacky material that appeared in a lot of 3rd party products in the 3.5 days.
And it is certainly one of the reasons why I am still willing to look at the products of a company like Paizo (with a proven track record or quality) or Green Ronin (same) over whatever indie game someone is selling/giving away on their blog. I'm not saying that no good content ever emerges this way -- it certainly does -- but that the internet followers of a blog are not an indication of what it is going to create, whereupon I waste a lot of time wading through poor product to find the occasional gem.
The above statement seems compelling. But it is riddled with assumptions. I don't mean to come across as picking on Morrison, he is just expressing something I have seen expressed a million times. And I vehemently disagree with the assumptions.
Assumption 1: You can compare art and science.
Academic papers have a certain level of quality. I will cede this, even though I don't have to (see Kuhn). However, that is an issue of science, an issue of getting down to the reality of the world. There is a right and wrong answer. There is truth. Either the earth is round or it isnt. Either majority black congressional districts vote democratic 82.66% of the time, or they don't. Barn swallow females feed their young grubs or they don't. Truth is discernible.
Not so in art. Art is subjective. Great artists can languish in obscurity for years, maybe their entire life, until they cut off their ear and die a lonely death. Artists can come out of nowhere and just blow everyone away. Picasso, Beethoven, George Lucas (yes, I do hear that groaning noise), etc. Art recognition is based on social acceptance (again, see Kuhn), not absolute truth. And it is as fickle as can be. What is popular today may be gone tomorrow. There is no purely objective way to judge art.
Assumption 2: Industry is a quality-isolating filter
In any serious economic endeavor, there are strong barriers to entry. This is true whether you are looking at a Renaissance artist needing a patron to support them or a modern artist who has to get a job at Pixar. Just because someone is in a position to create public art doesnt mean they are good, it just means they are palatable to the people who made decisions about it. Maybe the most bland art prevails due to political correctness. Who knows? The process is opaque and the decision makers are secretive.
Just because a decision is made by a corporation or a government doesn't mean that it is based on merit (nor that it isn't). These are assumptions. Corporations and governments produce a lot of shitty art. Sometimes they hit a hole-in-one. But there is no reliable outcome. There is no guarantee of quality.
Assumption 3: Industry created material is more balanced than amateur/outsider material
This is totally untrue. Just look at the volume of 4e errata for a simple proof. Or the fact that I can make a starting character is many games that can totally pwn everyone. I can take 150 points in 4e GURPs and design a mage that can maintain invisibility from the time they wake up until they fall asleep at night. For that same 150 points, you might make one of the many victims that my character leaves in his wake. Not to pick on GURPS though, I can design a starting vampire that will crush your soul and eat it for breakfast using Masquerade. Just because you are an industry player doesn't mean you are making balanced product.
Assumption 4: Balance is desired
Considering the backlash against 4e, I think this is highly suspect. People like there to be a little imbalance. They like some characters to have special unique things going for them. They like Wizards to be really different from Fighters, both of which are really different from Bards. A huge number of people don't want everyone to have the same "daily power", just rebranded with a different color and name and fancy graphic. They want real difference, not perfect balance. RIFTS (laugh if you want, still hugely popular for many people and a truly unique setting worthy of respect for that at least) is totally back-asswards when it comes to balance. Clearly there is a field of choice here.
Assumption 5: A track record of quality is an indication of future production
Not true. Here are some companies which people frequently complain have lost their edge; Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, TSR, FASA, West End Games. Notice a common theme? They are the biggest players in the RPG industry (or used to be). Over time, sometimes companies get worse. Sometimes they create lame sequel editions that have lost the spark of the originals. You think Paizo or Green Ronin is immune to this? Lets wait and see.
----
Seriously, I really am not trying to pick on Morrison. I am just tired of seeing these same flawed arguments brought out again and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment