Quote from: Omega;1106738Alot do. The problem is when you get these group effort RPGs where apparently everyone is on a different page writing a different game.

Yeah, well, that's one of the reasons why I would never be a regular writer for WoTC or any other big company. It's always going to be "design by committee" and the "author" is really just a wage slave typing into words what he's being allowed or ordered to write by the company.

On the other hand, Shadowrun was written by Charrette/Hume/Dowd. I think it can work, if your vision of the final product overlaps sufficiently.

That is what I said up above. Get everyone on the same page and it can and does work. But for some reason alot of newer group RPGs end up a little, or very, schizo in tone, rules, etc.

Quote from: Omega;1107191That is what I said up above. Get everyone on the same page and it can and does work. But for some reason alot of newer group RPGs end up a little, or very, schizo in tone, rules, etc.

I think it works best when the "committee" is all people sharing an overall vision, but filling different roles.  You need one main writer.  If someone else is the person that consistently cleans up some of the mechanics under that writing, then it can work.  And so on.  

It is very difficult for even two people to do the same role and fulfill a vision.  I think the writing of "Good Omens" by Pratchett and Gaiman is probably the most recent good example I've seen.  Even with that, you can still see their different tones and influences in certain passages as a distinct thing, not the blend.  

Usually what you get is something like the Eagles.  Everyone wants to be the lead singer, write the song, the front guy.  I think Glenn Frey described their constant relationship as a mass fight in a kindergarten.  Thus the "Hell Freezes Over Tour" when they got back together.  They made it work, and almost were ready to kill each other in the process.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107204I think it works best when the "committee" is all people sharing an overall vision, but filling different roles.  You need one main writer.  If someone else is the person that consistently cleans up some of the mechanics under that writing, then it can work.  And so on.  

It is very difficult for even two people to do the same role and fulfill a vision.  I think the writing of "Good Omens" by Pratchett and Gaiman is probably the most recent good example I've seen.  Even with that, you can still see their different tones and influences in certain passages as a distinct thing, not the blend.  

Usually what you get is something like the Eagles.  Everyone wants to be the lead singer, write the song, the front guy.  I think Glenn Frey described their constant relationship as a mass fight in a kindergarten.  Thus the "Hell Freezes Over Tour" when they got back together.  They made it work, and almost were ready to kill each other in the process.

I very much agree with this.

It's one of the reasons why I stopped feature-writing at Paizo. They loved the fluff stuff, but I'd go hard on trying to "fix" mechanics I thought were wrong with the core system (as did Mearls back then). And we'd butt heads with editorial when they'd neuter mechanics to the point where it didn't even match the fluff in description or effect. And this is *my* problem, not necessarily theirs.

You need someone in charge with a vision to set the design standard and hold everyone accountable to that design standard. I never felt that standard was a thing at WotC/Paizo. Things may have changed now, but you know... I've moved on.

To bookend your analogy to the Eagles - where it was the rare instance where the "committee" made it work (despite hating one another for it). I hold up the Jim Shooter Era of Marvel as the other example of a strong presence that held everyone to his standard and produced something great. And yes... they all hated him for it. A pattern is forming...