Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9103424" data-attributes="member: 18">You're accidentally illustrating good design though - knowing that transplanting it is a bad idea is part of what makes for good design.Obviously, trivially obviously, different systems make sense for different games. Literally no-one here is disagreeing on that - though I will say, 30 years ago, they would have.But just jamming that system into another, different game, even if it's superbly designed for the originator game, may well constitute bad design - design lacks a real, valid goal, that doesn't think about what/why that goal is, and doesn't think about the right way to meet it. Design that ignores context, too. Pre-deciding that a system is necessarily the right system to add to your game without considering alternatives or whether the goal itself is really a goal, or should be really a goal is not good design. You might get lucky and it might work out, but that's luck.And watching RPGs from the 1980s through to now, it's amazing to see how much real design has improved and even just come into existence. So many RPGs in the 1980s and 1990s have few goals in their designs, and fewer still of those goals are actually rational and considered, particularly re: the solutions chosen. In the 2000s though that's increasingly changed, and the result has been massively for the better. Some people were always thinking it through more seriously - c.f. Robin D. Laws for example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9103424, member: 18"] You're accidentally illustrating good design though - knowing that transplanting it is a bad idea is part of what makes for good design. Obviously, trivially obviously, different systems make sense for different games. Literally no-one here is disagreeing on that - though I will say, 30 years ago, they would have. But just jamming that system into another, different game, even if it's superbly designed for the originator game, may well constitute bad design - design lacks a real, valid goal, that doesn't think about what/why that goal is, and doesn't think about the right way to meet it. Design that ignores context, too. Pre-deciding that a system is necessarily the right system to add to your game without considering alternatives or whether the goal itself is really a goal, or should be really a goal is not good design. You might get lucky and it might work out, but that's luck. And watching RPGs from the 1980s through to now, it's amazing to see how much real design has improved and even just come into existence. So many RPGs in the 1980s and 1990s have few goals in their designs, and fewer still of those goals are actually rational and considered, particularly re: the solutions chosen. In the 2000s though that's increasingly changed, and the result has been massively for the better. Some people were always thinking it through more seriously - c.f. Robin D. Laws for example. [/QUOTE]

Verification