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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="attevil" data-source="post: 6581089" data-attributes="member: 6789426">Thanks for reading!I think some designers begin with hacking, but then create a new system after they have changed the rules to an existing one and found that wasn't enough. That is why I called it bottom up, but whatever its called, its an approach to game design.I've read the rules for both, they are innovative and I like some rules which I've integrated into Cyber Run. I think the history of D&Ds creation is helpful to design, but I was focusing on the first edition game mechanics, explaining their relationships between subsystems, not explaining how those game mechanics came to be. The first edition classes each had an attribute as its primary, attributes also influenced combat and hit points, so a game designer could look at the attributes as the core game mechanic and classes as well as combat ability as subsystems branching off of the core. I would recommend designers to create a core rule mechanic and then play test. Through play testing they can add things like the Cleric class you mentioned above.  I think other designers struggle with reflecting reality compared to making the game itself fun.There isn't, it is up to the intentions of the designer. "KOBOLDS ATE MY BABY!" is great for a night of entertainment, but doesn't have the depth that D&D has to allow players to invest years of their life. Just something for designers to keep in mind for the type of game they want to make.</blockquote>

Verification