4 ms·
"The article reminds me of a similar situation I have at work. I work on a large legacy application (but I am not a DM, I am not really invested in it yet), whi
by olau 10y ago
"The article reminds me of a similar situation I have at work. I work on a large legacy application (but I am not a DM, I am not really invested in it yet), which should be slowly replaced by company, because we have a costly dependency on some vendor. Unfortunately, the new team doesn't want to consult our team!"
Then I think you are a Dungeon Master anyway. Whether you like it or not. You'll be pushed into the role. Advice you think is essential will be ignored and it will be painful to watch a lot of the same mistakes being repeated.
I think you can end up in this anti-pattern in two ways - either the old maintainers don't want change or the new ones don't want to listen. The result is the same.
- js8 10y agoI am not sure I would call it an anti-pattern, that's probably my main polemic with the article. The situation really is that someone has a unique understanding or knowledge about some system, and the issue is whether you trust them or not. But modern human society is built on this principle! The only thing that sounds anti-pattern-ish about it is potentially low bus factor. I am well aware that today's society prefers foxes (people who have shallow knowledge of many things) to hedgehogs (people who have deep knowledge of few things), and I think it's wrong and unfortunate (because it actually quite heavily depends on hedgehogs). The article is, IMHO, a good example of this line of thought.