Hi!
I could not have expressed it better. I consider myself and amateur
games designer and I am always tinkering and making stuff. The FIRST
thing I learned while making some games is that if people OUTSIDE the
design process are not involved in examining my work, design and format,
the game NEVER works well. I find it overwhelmingly moronic on the part
of a company who loudly proclaims their powerful status as a games
company to continuously produce such shoddy game designs. Come on, I bet
we can all remember GW games that after the first read we pinpointed all
the loopholes for power gamers and ambiguous rules, some so large you
can drive a truck through it! What Josh points out is too true, flaws
are never readily apparent to the games designer because he is too close
to the design process, even testing by the designer is flaws because he
will subconciously compensate for holes in his design. Only review by an
outsider, someone with no knowledge of the design process can
objectively test a game.
All of that is easily avoided with independent review. Their pathetic
attitude of "if it didn't occur during our playtest-its not important"
is just plain weak for such a big comapny with so many resources. Heck,
they not need spend anything on this, how many people on this list would
voluntarily playtest a new epic game if offered to them by GW? Heck for
a free copy of those rules when done I'd consider myself paid in full.
Its just laziness on thier part.
Hehe, yes they seem to wince everytime the word power gamer is mentioned
and haven't a clue to deal with it. Its a character flaw, not a
designers flaw to them. While perfect rules are an impossibility
(nothing can please everyone), at the very least they could present
rules that were indeed playtested by a wider range of people. Heck, look
at what we have done, it isn't perfect, still has problems, but isn't it
better than what we started with? Why can't they do it too, they have
more resources than we do?
In the end remember their own words " We strive to be the best
MINIATURES company in the world". I agree with this premise since
nowhere does it say "best RULES company in the world.
Peter
deaconblue3_at_... wrote:
>
> -->This is why I laugh at the reports they make after visiting the US,
> and seeing how people play at the tournaments. A few years ago, after
> the Chicago tourney, they were shocked at the way people built and played
> their armies, "bending the rules" to create these massive armies. In
> other words, players were following the letter of the rules, and not the
> "spirit." IMO, the lack of outside play testing by GW is a major flaw in
> their design process. With all their play testing done in house, with
> the same core of people, they don't get enough variety of opinions to
> properly find the flaws, and the weak points in the wording of their
> rules. The problem of familiarity is paramount here. They get so used
> to the styles of people's play, their army constructions, and tactics,
> that it is no longer a real play test. They can get away with leaving
> some things "unsaid" because it is already understood by the "play
> testers," and thus never makes it into the rules. The AC/Cyclone for
> Wolf Guard termies in 40K2ed is a prime example. The other problem is a
> certain degree of "British arrogance" about it all (no offense intended
> to our UK list members, it's not universal). They go about their
> designing with certain cultural and social attitudes that do not apply to
> the rest of the world, and they can't see that it is an issue. They
> simply can't accept that someone will do anything to win, especially if
> there is no rule against it. They have a problem accepting the concept
> of a power gamer. That's why I always laugh when they complain about the
> way Americans or Australians play their games. For many of us, in the
> States and elsewhere, it's a matter of "well yeah, of course there are
> those that will do that," but they never seem to get the idea. But test
> playing properly isn't enough. You have to listen to what the testers
> say about the game. I test played ADnD2ed back in the day. We played in
> extensively for a few months, and submitted our reports. T$R ignored
> almost all of the play test results (I found this out later), and
> published the original play test edition almost verbatim. I'm hearing
> similar things about 3E, but not nearly on the scale as happened with 2E.
> AS I see things, GW is constantly "test playing" their games, withe each
> new edition. They do react to fan input, if only too late to really be
> effective in making changes. Look at the amounts of updates and errata
> that come out for each edition, in response to player questions, and
> flaws discovered at tourneys or conventions. It's a bad design process
> and philosophy.
>
> Josh R
>
> Minister for General Mayhem
> "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 05 2001 - 22:37:23 UTC