Search results

I've spent some time trying to get to grips with the hidden design principles actually at play here. Mostly I think it comes down to "don't mess with forward causality of decision->action->resolution" and "don't separate character/player resources." This thread has me considering another...

What's your cut-off? I've played 3 days of 1812 with a player elimination at the start of day 2, and a doomed position for at least 1 player before the start of day 3. We're trying to play again, now that we've got a better handle on the short-selling mechanics, but it's obviously a tricky one...

That isn't a simple question. Let me try an allegory; would you houserule a board game in the middle of play if a player wasn't enjoying the experience? Generally speaking, I would answer no. I might not play that game again with them or at all, I might be open to a proposed change after...

Sort of, but I wouldn't have put immersion as my primary concern. I think immersion comes down to the distance between character and player decision making and how aligned those are mechanically. A player playing well should produce the same decision their character would be inclined to use in...

I'm honestly not sure how you can do that consistently, but also no, my concern is that negotiation is not generally a compelling gameplay experience (and once it's introduced, it eats all the other possible gameplay experiences). If the climbing rules are consistent, then the time is a factor...

That would be the second option then. They had other actions to deploy, though I do find it interesting those actions were not subject to further risk, and you've added a second gameplay loop in deploying resources to alter the odds.

I don't see how that solves the problem. If you don't allow the player to change their again declaration in response, then there was hardly any point to informing them in the first place, or if they can, you're back to negotiation as they fish for different consequences.

I actually think the problem is the inverse; two groups may be appearing to do something very similar (especially when you judge the end-product report of play) when they have actually done quite different things.

Yeah, I empathize with that. My take is that all this churn mostly comes down to struggling with the underlying nature of what we're doing. Not to give the creative agenda thing too much credence, but I think there's more than one fundamental activity living under the same name in RPGs, and...

I love that anecdote, and it aligns neatly with my understanding of competition as a means instead of an end. I don't take the same conclusion though; that the activity is fundamentally a cooperative group effort doesn't mean we can flatten down what the activity is. I love to play games with my...

Right, this is why I've found the argument from gameplay more compelling. Consequences are unknowable to the player unless you include negotiation, and negotiation is generally unpleasant and bad gameplay (for the specific understanding of game-as-game). Plus, there are implications if you are...

I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The two options for this feature, Hunter's Target and Swift Feet both have "Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest" which seems pretty clear. Stride and Seek allows you to pick which order you get them in...

I'd probably lean more toward a unique mechanic, more like "pick a list of monsters, here's the point cost for each one from your daily pool of points" or even "design your own unique team using this list of monster traits with costs" over trying to fit this all in the spell list.

This is just confusion about fandom vs. sports teams, right? We're mixing up "be interested in" and "root for?" Mostly this feels like more confirmation that we're trying to shove two disparate things into the same container and getting annoyed when they're incompatibly different.

I'm not entirely sold that we can't do a summoning class honestly, with actual stat blocks and all, but I definitely don't think it should be on the wizard chassis. That's very much it's own thing, and probably should be burning minion resources (summon hit points, bodies/LR, rounds/day...

I'm suddenly getting a massive whitespace appended to the end of every post in the mobile view. I haven't seen anything like it before and it's not a factor in desktop mode. Is this affecting anyone else? Something known I can troubleshoot on my end?

I assumed you're pointing at something here like my frustration with stories where two characters who ostensibly share a goal fail to share relevant information in a plot impacting way? I've read a lot where attempts at "character flaw" simply read as incompetence.

Yeah, I didn't find the idea of exploration of system sitting alongside exploration of genre compelling either, but I still think the thing you're discussing is compellingly different; exploration of system is different from application of system. Same way deckbuilding isn't actually playing a...

I don't think what you're talking about here fits into the same category either. I'm not totally sure I buy the case, but that seems more like system exploration focused sim, if we're going back to the Tuovinen article. That's certainly exploration of system, but I'd argue the gameplay element...

I'm late to the party, but I think there's a subtle broadening of "gamist" going on here. Sometimes it seems to mean "a game that's about pursuing an agenda of making strong gameplay decisions to achieve victory", and other times it seems to mean "a game with overt mechanics that don't map...