Forum > Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion

why do companies insist on fucking up perfectly good systems?

(1/18) > >>

Battlemaster:
Ok, recently asked about CoC, and was told it didn't go woke, so I read a review of 7e.

Good news: sounds like it wasn't 'woke' in it's candid handling of the 1920-30s era.

But I got a surprising bit of bad news.

If the reviewer was  accurate and his review's prose suggested competence and fairness, chaosium took its perfectly good rules system and basically fuckified it severely.

It seems a lot of changes complicated, adding dice pools or eliminating the simple resistance table. Others seem fair, like allowing players to push some rolls,  or keeping POW from being the most vital stat.

But in general the changes seem to have fucked up a perfectly good system.

Why do game companies insist on ''fixing'' what is working fine?

Just to sell a new edition?

Godsmonkey:
I've not played much CoC 7E, but what do you mean by dice pools in context of the game? I know they added advantage/disadvantage by rolling an extra 10s die. There are also rules for Hard and Extreme successes, which I actually like. However, I didn't see any rules for dice pools.

Did I miss something?

BoxCrayonTales:
Yes. This is why I've become completely disillusioned with any at least moderately complex rules systems. Every new edition will make some good changes that streamline previously convoluted mechanics, but at the same time they'll introduce more unnecessary complexity elsewhere. It's a constant balancing act that serves only to keep your frustration with the rules consistently high.

Ghostmaker:
Why did the Coke company mess with its formula, producing 'New Coke'?

If I'm not mistaken, CoC 7E gives you a big chunk of luck points to spend on critical rolls to avoid disaster. However, those luck points are hard to regain. It reminds me quite a bit of how the old West End Ghostbusters game worked. So it may have been 'let's give players a little agency in avoiding a disaster that occurs solely because of crap dice'.

Stephen Tannhauser:

--- Quote from: Battlemaster on June 23, 2022, 12:24:47 PM ---But in general the changes seem to have fucked up a perfectly good system.
--- End quote ---

Bear in mind that the learning curve on any change usually makes the new process initially seem worse than its predecessor. Trying the updates out in practice is always a good thing.


--- Quote ---Why do game companies insist on ''fixing'' what is working fine? Just to sell a new edition?
--- End quote ---

That is part of it. After all, if nothing's thought to need changing then no need to write a new edition in the first place.

I suspect it's also as much a product of responding to user feedback, with the caveat that it's entirely possible they've forgotten what I call "the King criterion" for evaluating criticism -- this came from an article written by Stephen King about writing, which I read decades ago but still remember. Basically, if you're getting feedback from many different users and reviewers, only pay attention to the parts where most of them agree; if most are criticizing something different or everybody's suggesting their own improvement, you can safely ignore all of them. But the temptation to try to please everyone is always a strong one.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version