Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6180587" data-attributes="member: 3192">The term "level" has quite enough definitions in D&D. And the issues that arise with its multiple definitions still affect games today. I can't say I'd suggest including that kind of repetition again for a game to any designer. What if each player for each unique game was to redefine wholly every term? Do they even need to let the other players know they are doing so? What do you consider game mechanics then? How do you write game books where the many definitions of only a few terms become the new area for splatbook explosion? I'd hate to have to read such a glossary much less write one.What the OP suggest could be a door to whole new field of games to play. It sounds interesting, but it contradicts most of what makes games games. The programming method he is referring to allows reference to be the backbone of communication for different programs and then allows each program to treat those references in whatever way it wants. Games designed similarly, I would guess, isolate players more often into their own private game. There might be a shared language, but not really. It's more shared verbalization, not shared understanding. In fact, I suggest this is almost design constructed to impede shared understanding.</blockquote>