Quote from: LordVreeg;386502Commitees are great...under a leader.  Whether in a military situation, a governmental one, or a business version, someone has to make the hard decisions.  Someone has to have their eye on the big picture.

At an actual game table, that guy's the GM.
Hence, the GM certainly should welcome input and feedback, but at the end of the day, he's the one who should call the shots.

Quote from: Seanchai;386499Not entirely. The point of the GSL was to make retro-clones and games based on the 4e engine impossible.

LOL Then they fail spectacularly. You can recreate 4e-like mechanics with the OGL and 3.5 SRD alone. Don't need no stickin' GSL for that.

Quote from: Benoist;386472One person can still make the decisions. And besides, that depends what exact size of game we're talking, and its particular design. You have a particular outlook on this, with uber-game balance in mind, among other things. I don't. Also, AD&D had one guy in charge: Gary Gygax. AD&D doesn't suck. Sure, a game with someone clearly in charge MAY suck, depending on how accurate/faulty this person's senses are.

Also, large texts need second pairs of eyes reading through it, and you have an editor on your back, etc. Let's be clear here: that's not what I'm talking about. You can have one guy in charge of the project, and a bunch of people checking out the stuff, correcting obvious mistakes, talking about potential modifications and so on. That's still not "design by committee" to me, because there's clearly one person in charge, one person making the decisions as far as the project's concerned.

What I mean by design by committee is when the contents themselves are a complete blend of works from separate people with a bunch of guys meeting in a room and pitching different takes on an idea with the end result being a compromise somewhere in between. To me, that's crap.

The best stuff in gaming came from people with a clear vision, regardless of the fact there were different people providing art, editing the test, playtesting it or providing various degrees of input and advice.

I disagree completely.

Completely.

The best games are done as partnerships. Get a couple of people to agree on what they are doing and riff off each other. If someone can't convince another person that their vision is worth pursuing and joining, it probably isn't any good.

D&D was done by Gygax and Arneson. The whole cutting Arneson's name off the project was a dick move, and doesn't count as evidence that partnerships in general are a bad thing.

I'm not saying that the optimal design crew is large. In fact, I would say that any quorum of more than five people is basically incapable of accomplishing anything at all. But the optimum leadership on any project sure as hell isn't "one" either. And if you aren't at least taking creative input from a diverse group of people, it's because you are an idiot.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;386511I disagree completely.

Completely.

It's alright. We just completely disagree. Design by committee is shit (note that partnerships and co-authorships do not necessarily mean this or that game was the result of design by committee) It always was. Shall remain. To me at least.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;386511if you aren't at least taking creative input from a diverse group of people, it's because you are an idiot.

Not what I was saying, though. You can have a number of people involved in a project, consider as much input and feedback as you need and/or like, but in the end, yes, the ideal number for leadership to me is "ONE". Period.

Quote from: Benoist;386513but in the end, yes, the ideal number for leadership to me is "ONE". Period.

What's the nature of the leadership of "ONE"?

Is it somebody with an absolute veto over any and all decisions?

Is it somebody who is very dictatorial, in a "my way, or the highway" manner?

Quote from: Benoist;385515Awesome. Spelljammer's really great.

this is why I don't take you to dinner anymore

The problem is when the players/group stop challenging a GM and instead begin deferring to him rather than conversing with him.

We all know what happened to Star Wars after Lucas took over everything himself and people became afraid to challenge him creatively.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;386516this is why I don't take you to dinner anymore

The art, with the exception of the maps, is utter crap. I'm still working my way through the books, so i don't have an opinion on the rest of it yet.

Quote from: ggroy;386515What's the nature of the leadership of "ONE"?

Is it somebody with an absolute veto over any and all decisions?

Is it somebody who is very dictatorial, in a "my way, or the highway" manner?

Nope. You can care for feedback, incorporate ideas into the overall design, or modify the whole thing even if someone comes up with a critical point that makes the project better, but in the end, one person's got to make the final decisions. The buck has to stop somewhere.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;386516this is why I don't take you to dinner anymore

I am SURE I could make you like Spelljammer.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;386439But a goodly portion of it has to do with people working under other people who didn't seem to know what they were doing. David Noonan apparently nixed an early design set because it didn't fit his vision of MMO-style "roles" well enough. And yet, even after the fact, when he is justifying his own vision, we can see that his vision was pretty muddled:

• We need roles because MMOs have roles, and I like MMOs.
• We will have four roles because there were four original classes after it was expanded from Fighting Man and Magic User to Fighter/ Magic User/ Cleric/ Thief.
• In 3rd edition, Rogues were really good at doing burst damage. So the Thiefish role should be a DPS role.
• In AD&D, Clerics were important because of their healing. So the Clericish role should focus on healing.
• In Everquest, Warriors are good at tanking. So the Fighterish role should focus on tanking.
• Magic Userish role can be called "Controller" and I will discuss it as if action control (mez) and crowd control (AoE) are the same thing, even though they are not. I'm sure the writers under me will figure it out.
• I can't find any examples in any fictional source material to support such a division.
  
• I can't find any examples of this ever working in any game that wasn't a Computer Game.
  
• Let's go!

-Frank

I can't help but wonder if people would be complaining about roles as much, if they were kept implicit rather than being made explicit like in 4E.

I don't necessarily see having tactical roles in a combat heavy, class based game like D&D is a problem. (of course, one doesn't have to play their game that way, but as monster XP is the primary source of character advancement according to the rules...one can infer that this is what the RAW inteds) The only problem that I see is when the actual class mechanics don't properly promote the intended role. At best, having a clearly defined tactical role gives newer players an idea of what the class is supposed to be good at.

Quote from: Shazbot79;386559I can't help but wonder if people would be complaining about roles as much, if they were kept implicit rather than being made explicit like in 4E.

I don't necessarily see having tactical roles in a combat heavy, class based game like D&D is a problem. (of course, one doesn't have to play their game that way, but as monster XP is the primary source of character advancement according to the rules...one can infer that this is what the RAW inteds) The only problem that I see is when the actual class mechanics don't properly promote the intended role. At best, having a clearly defined tactical role gives newer players an idea of what the class is supposed to be good at.

I would have zero problem if they offered a variety of powers for each class as options, then provided a template or guideline for the 'roles'.  As in, 'take powers X, Y and Z to play a defender'.  Not all classes would necessarily have to be strong in every role, or even be moderately well suited for every role.  But having the options would be a giant step in the right direction.

Quote from: Benoist;386532I am SURE I could make you like Spelljammer.

No.

I dare you to come here and try that.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;386579No.

I dare you to come here and try that.

"Man assaulted with pencils and spikey dice.  Details at 11."

The idea that RPGs must have the GM be the leader is bogus, the idea that a RPG group has to have a leader is even more bogus.