Search results

Not at all what I said, but if you care to read it that way don't let me stop you.

I'm thinking perhaps you left a word out of this, since as written it doesn't make much sense.

And as with Soviet above, I'm suspecting that's because you care about some distinctions that for many people are just not that relevant. And that's very much about having the right tools for the job.

Which from my point of view I tried to do and you seem to dislike it. There's only so much effort I'm willing to put in here.

My experience is it can go both ways (though, honestly, I question whether they'd frame it in their heads in either case the way you did very often; I'd be willing to bet a non-trivial number of people who get attracted to Dogs do so because of the setting and conceptual color rather than...

I've heard stories about this, and seen some limited forms of it. When done collectively, its sometimes the sign of people who, well, really aren't that interested in the game elements of the game; they'd be just as happy with freeform roleplaying, but they're where they are. When done...

I kind of am saying that, which is why I wanted to use the term "purposeful" for the other case. If you don't like the distinction I'm making there, there's probably little point in continuing. As I said, not much reason to continue then. It doesn't seem so to me. Its making a distinction I...

I don't think I'd characterize that as being an accurate description of OD&D. I don't think I'd even say it "fundamentally worked" except by the perspective of people who had very limited expectations in system. I won't speak personally of later versions.

"Working out things as they went" and not taking time to integrate them is sloppy as far as I'm concerned, and it showed across the evolution of the system.

I don't think it was clearly intended to be secondary to dungeon-crawling at least, but I agree it wasn't well designed. Which was my point. Then we disagree. They scream "system as afterthought" to me.

It isn't automatically. It can be in support of genre, instead for example. But as I said, I think using "intent" for any deliberate design ends up conflating things that don't go together.

I think this misunderstands some if not most of the purposes of general use games. It may well be that there's a theoretical design space for any given campaign one might want to run that would serve it better than a more general use game. But that game may not exist, you may not be aware of...

I believe the term for that sort of thing is "compromised design", and its usually not complimentary for a reason.

Went back to this given your addition of your third paragraph. I think the problem here is "intent" is serving a bit too many masters for this sub-discussion. A general purpose game like GURPS or Hero is not really being designed with a theme or even a tone intrinsically in mind; it may hit...

As it is, then. If my prior posts didn't make that clear, my elaborating further is unlikely to.

If you'll note, I'm mostly applying it to games that are not only apparently misaimed (which I do think can be a problem, but a lesser one) but ones that the design is, from lack of a better term, sloppy. I'm perfectly willing to let people take offense at the latter if they want to, because I...

An interesting contrast is, I think, Monsterhearts. I'm willing to say that PbtA was a good general choice for Monsterhearts, and you'd have had to do some reinventing the wheel to hit the aims it had there. The problems with it are twofold: 1. Because of what its representing, it very much...

Look at my further posts and see if you still read me as saying that.

I'm not defending the semantic loading on this if you see my follow-up post.

I don't disagree that's a pretty semantically loaded term when used too broadly; I do, however, think in at least some cases its not inaccurate. As I said, if you're just plopping down subsystems as you get to them (and its hard to see some games as having been done otherwise) I don't know that...