Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9482056" data-attributes="member: 42582">When we talk about stuff that's &quot;annoying to players&quot;, can we draw some distinctions?Having my off-suite ace lead trumped in 500 or bridge play is annoying, but I don't want that removed from the game - the risk of being trumped, and the associated skill of counting trumps and following the play more generally, is key to the play of the game.Cards getting scuffed or torn is also annoying, but that is not part of the play of the game (cf the scuffing of the ball in cricket). If someone can sell me cards that are more resistant to scuffing, that are easier to deal, etc - well, that sounds like a good thing!And then there is an intermediate sort of annoyance - maybe someone really enjoys bidding, and following the play, but doesn't like the competitive aspect of five hundred or bridge. For that person, the cooperative game Crew is great, Or maybe they enjoy competition, but don't really enjoy partner play - then Up and Down the River might be a good alternative.In the context of D&amp;D, and what sorts of changes might be made to make it &quot;less annoying&quot;, I think it would be helpful to be a bit more analytically clear, and maybe also a bit more honest, about what the desired play experience is, and how the details of the game design relate to that. Conversely, trying to &quot;trick&quot; players who are hoping for a hijinks-oriented free-form-y time punctuated by a bit of low-stakes skirmish play, by setting default encounter guidelines that are tuned for hardcore wargamers, seems like a silly idea to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9482056, member: 42582"] When we talk about stuff that's "annoying to players", can we draw some distinctions? Having my off-suite ace lead trumped in 500 or bridge play is annoying, but I don't want that removed from the game - the risk of being trumped, and the associated skill of counting trumps and following the play more generally, is key to the play of the game. Cards getting scuffed or torn is also annoying, but that is not part of the play of the game (cf the scuffing of the ball in cricket). If someone can sell me cards that are more resistant to scuffing, that are easier to deal, etc - well, that sounds like a good thing! And then there is an intermediate sort of annoyance - maybe someone really enjoys bidding, and following the play, but doesn't like the competitive aspect of five hundred or bridge. For that person, the cooperative game Crew is great, Or maybe they enjoy competition, but don't really enjoy partner play - then Up and Down the River might be a good alternative. In the context of D&D, and what sorts of changes might be made to make it "less annoying", I think it would be helpful to be a bit more analytically clear, and maybe also a bit more honest, about what the desired play experience is, and how the details of the game design relate to that. Conversely, trying to "trick" players who are hoping for a hijinks-oriented free-form-y time punctuated by a bit of low-stakes skirmish play, by setting default encounter guidelines that are tuned for hardcore wargamers, seems like a silly idea to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification