NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9239947" data-attributes="member: 70468">MDA specifies what it means by mechanics. Insisting on a different definition doesn’t allow us to say anything useful about or using MDA anymore. If we want to use MDA as a framework, we have to use the structures it provides. We can call them other things (as <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315854140_Design_Dynamics_Experience_DDE_An_Advancement_of_the_MDA_Framework_for_Game_Design" target="_blank">DDE</a> does), but the meanings are the same. If DDE can account for tabletop RPGs, then it follows that MDA can as well. All that means is MDA has poor terminology, which (as you quoted Lantz in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9239642" target="_blank">post #225</a>) is a known problem.What “neotrad” means seems to be part of the issue. I took Härenstam’s definition at face value, “A hybrid between simulation games and Story games. Often looks like traditional simulation games (expensive books), but contains a lot of inspiration from the indie games mainly in terms of mechanics.”Baker assumes a good faith attempt to play the game, which is what I also assume. I think the issue of how to get people to follow the rules is intractable, so I don’t worry about it. It’s like trying to make your game resilient in case the sun explodes while people are playing. There’s not much you can do about that.When would a designer choose to engage this philosophy?</blockquote>

Verification