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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5523152" data-attributes="member: 23240">I think there is one thing worth noting:The subtractive design, in its pure form, is exactly the opposite of what game companies are doing. And I don't think it will change soon.Let me explain what I mean here.In subtractive design, you remove everything you don't really need. You examine every part of the game, see if it is necessary for the experience you aim for, and if not - away with it.It won't give you a game you may sell supplements for. If a "subtractive designed" game is fun, you don't need more detailed setting information. Nor new classes, feats, monsters or items. If they were removed as not necessary before, what use is adding them back now?Thus, subtractive design is good for homebrews and indie games - where you put only a little money in the work and don't expect to get a lot out of it. But the companies that try to make money on RPGs are fixated on selling more and more books for their system, so that doesn't work. Subtractive design won't give you anything alike D&D, WoD or GURPS.Narrow, focused computer games may make money if they sell to a lot of people. But there is not enough roleplayers today for such approach to work with RPGs.For games where the main goal is economic, another approach is necessary. We may call it "extensible design" - building games in such a way that more and more things may be added to them without the whole breaking apart. It shares some aspects with subtractive design: it's much easier to expand a game that is streamlined, with clear structure, instead of a random mix of subsystems. But other aspects are opposite: subtractive design removes all that is not crucial, extensible design look for free design spaces to add new things.D&D 4e is, IMO, a good example of extensible design. It stays reasonably balanced and understandable with many supplements added (much better than earlier editions). It also uses several design patterns that aim for extensibility: exception-based (allows adding more specific rules contradicting earlier, general ones), "everything is core" (all things usable in every game, no setting-specific material) etc.On the other hand, no matter how you look at it, this game does not fit the subtractive design paradigm. At all.</blockquote>

Verification