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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 9656320" data-attributes="member: 7040941">If you want emergent gameplay, you need interactive systems, and the more you add to those systems, the more emergent possibilities the game can foster. The reason OSR games, for example, have a culture of player skill and creativity being emphasized over mechanics is because improv is a system, and the often minimalistic systems within the OSR scene leverage it out of necessity, because there's often not enough game otherwise. But you can also go the other direction. DCC's ubiquitous table systems also drive emergent gameplay, because there's just so much balls to wall nonsense and it can all interact with everything else thats going on. And as for DND's dysfunctions with its Spells, I'd make an analogy to pre-Switch Zelda. DND Spells are like the Key Items in the older Zelda games, except there's hundreds of them and they're not all that terribly useful, and in some cases are so niche in what they do they have even less potential interactivity than Key Items do.Another apt analogy is to special abilities in certain games, where they intentionally have a niche effect and a low recharge time, because they're supposed to be special, and then normal combat uses whatever system, where you're not so limited. DND Spells are like that, and Cantrips basically came about as a way to circumvent that problem, but obviously aren't all that great. But, I have to admit bias there too, as I obviously think an expressive and more frenetic magic system (like mine has grown into being) is a much better choice compared to the DND style, and even to DCC's style, as much as I still love it for its own sake.</blockquote>

Verification