Ryan left me a comment on my post Visions of D&D. I started to write a reply but I realized I was writing a lot more than is appropriate for a comment, so I decided to make a full post.
Ryan makes three points, I will address them in turn.
Point 1:
The magic item rules of 3.x (like a lot of 3.x) just organize and codify much that was already in 1e. When you take that material and scatter it in bits and pieces all over the DMG and obfuscate it with charts it can be hard to see. But the game has always been based on easy access to level-appropriate magic items.
Here Ryan may be technically true. I lack the background on the materials in question to challenge his facts. However, this single issue is a part of a larger shift where the game codified how you were expected to play. You are supposed to give out magic items like so. You are supposed to fight Encounters that are designed in a certain way. You are supposed to play the game in this particular way. And a lot of this is not in the GM's guide, where it could be ignored more easily. It is integrated into the player text. So that when the GM does something, the player can say "well, that isn't how you are supposed to be doing it".
That is how it relates to my larger point. The shift is from serving the GM to serving the player, to drive sales by enticing the player with more powers instead of improving the game by making the GM better, to sell more books using flashy abilities and powers while undermining the quality of the actual game itself.
Point 2:
I will agree that 3.x is easier in levels 1-3 than previous editions but that is not due to any sales strategy. It's due to the idea that such fragility is bad design for a game played by people with lots of other options for their entertainment.
What is the measure of bad design? By what sells? Avatar sold a lot of tickets. Made a lot of money. Enjoyed by many people. But does it have more artistic value, more intrinsic value, than the movie that it ripped off, Dances with Wolves? No. Hell no. If a popular writer sells more books in a given year than a master like say Dostoevsky? Twain? Steinbeck? Does that make them a better writer? Really?
I think books may be the most interesting parallel here. More people may read and enjoy Harry Potter than Lord of the Rings. Does that mean that Harry Potter has more artistic value than Lord of the Rings? Does it mean that J.K. Rowling is a better writer than J.R. Tolkein?
I dare say more often than not, works with high artistic value are NOT valued by society as a whole. They are elite products for a narrow range of people who are interested in that kind of thing. They are going to last for a long time and be extremely influential among the creative class that actually reads that stuff. The average person may not have read LotR, but Gygax and Arneson did. And they went on to make their own artistic work. That is how it goes.
Popularity is not a measure of artistic value. or even accurate. Remember, the world used to be flat according to popular opinion. Does recognizing this make me "elitist"? Yes! Is that bad? No.
Point 3:
The plan for D&D when I ran the business was to produce a small number of high quality products, not and endless supplement treadmill. The focus on high-volume, widely used material was a reaction to and the opposite of the 2e strategy.
This may be true. As I already stated, I am not saying that you were directly responsible for all the decisions, but that you represent the shift as a whole. Perhaps you really were trying to sell a lot of core rulebooks and splatbooks were just an unforeseen consequence. Regardless of intent, the result remains the factual basis of this discussion. This splatbook explosion did occur. And on a much larger scale than occured under 2e.
Thanks for replying Ryan.
No comments:
Post a Comment