Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9238389" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think there are two levels to it. The first is at the game/design level. Should a game be designed to deliver a specific player experience, or should it be designed to allow for multiple experiences? Either answer is fine, but then has design implications that matter. For example, if you want to allow for multiple experiences, then you need to design elements that support the different approaches.The second level is at the group level. In the absence if a specific player experience being put forth by the game itself (or if it’s actively being changed) then the group really should be considering the play experience and how to deliver that experience.What I think D&D “should do” is be more specific about what they’re doing, and then provide actual rules and guidance to help with that. Currently, I think they try to bill themselves as being able to deliver many different player experiences, but I think they offer minimal rules and guidance about how to deliver these different experiences. For many folks… most of whom are well versed in RPGs and specifically with editions of D&D… see that as a boon. They don’t mind that D&D has pushed the bulk of this design area to them rather than providing complete design. And that’s fine… I get it.But for people who haven’t been playing for decades, the anemic attempt is a negative. Add to that that old-timers are the folks who least need advice to specifically be in the game text, and I do think the current approach is a poor one. Instead of reminding a 40 year DM that he’s allowed to make house rules, I think the books should focus on teaching newer DMs how to go about making the game their own. How to deliver the experiences they want for their players.As it is, they claim one thing, but don’t really back it up. Considering the experience of the players should really be step one for both designers and GMs.</blockquote>

Verification