Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5886241">Personally, i am not going to defend it either, but my point is there are reasons people might prefer it to the d20 initiative system, and I would be more inclined to write it off as an unpopular mechanic, not one that is objectively bad (particularly if a designer has clear reasons for going back to it).Can't speak for 1e but 2e standard initiative is summed up in one paragraph with a follow up explanation paragraph and then a small section on modifiers. Because 2e has lots of optional rules, there are 2-3 pages of optional rules along with a paragraph explaining how to handle multiple attacks in the system. Even if it is involved though,that doesn't automatically mean bad. If you like rules light systems, yes a paragraph to sum up a rule isprobably good (and this is my own preference). But as I have learned with my own games,there are lots and lots of gamers out there who want more detailed systems. So my mechanics (which can usually each be summed up in a paragraph) are not complex or long enough to suit their tastes. It doesn't make sense for me to write all these folks as gamers who simpy like bad mechanics. I am not convince this is true. It depends on your goals and your audience. What works well for a 4e audience, probably wont work for a 3e audience. I agree with you if you want to make a game that does x and you offer upnmechanics that achieve y, then by your own measure it is bad design (still you are going to find players who like that mechanic).If I follow you, this again would come down to your audience. Do D&D gamers prefer unified and streamlined mechanics that can handle a broad range of situations or do they prefer multiple interlocking subsystems specifically designed to handle different situations (or do they just want a bunch of mechanics that all kind of feel different). I am inclined to agree that most D&D gamers are probably on board for what you are advocating, but that could change over time and there are still people out there that want something different. Yes we can (and this is one of my metrics) but we should also appreciate that some folks don't want elegance. Especially when you take elegance into minimalist design you will get wildly varying opinions. I both agree and disagree. Designers should be aware of their design style and what their games are doing. But ultimately I do think the best games evade any kind of design philosophy altogether and are about the designer making a game he wants to play (i.e. Because I like it). With luck what he likes resonates with others (but usually not). One thing I learned long ago is if you can't make a game you truly like to play yourself, then don't bother because you wont be able to summon the passion forplaytesting and line development. .</blockquote>

Verification