Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5975311" data-attributes="member: 6696971">My guess is that their in-house discussions for the design framework for balancing interclass power level and resource deployment/attrition vs challenges faced in DnDNext was predicated upon some kind of top-down (adventure) versus bottom-up (encounter) paradigm.&nbsp; They both have merit but, in an engineering effort (which is the best equivalent I have for game mechanics design), top-down is very functional as a way to explore potential interactions a priori.&nbsp; However, in product engineering, once you have an understanding of the implications of various interactions and you are ready to move into the &quot;build phase&quot; of the project, you're going to want internal consistency and predictable output.&nbsp; Given that, bottom-up is the way to go.&nbsp; If you are not looking for internal consistency or predictable output:Your apex design goal is to have your product incorporate several ranges of MPG, grip, and power to weight ratio.&nbsp; Or perhaps you want your car to encapsulate the possibility of burning up its transmission arbitrarily or the brakes to randomly go out on the freeway.&nbsp; Presumably any of these outcomes is because there is a presupposition that DMs enjoy the responsibility of improvising through this adversity by eyeballing and then prescribing means of getting the derailed train back onto the tracks...and wacky and &quot;interesting' things are likely to arise out of that mix.In that case, top-down is your way to go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5975311, member: 6696971"] My guess is that their in-house discussions for the design framework for balancing interclass power level and resource deployment/attrition vs challenges faced in DnDNext was predicated upon some kind of top-down (adventure) versus bottom-up (encounter) paradigm. They both have merit but, in an engineering effort (which is the best equivalent I have for game mechanics design), top-down is very functional as a way to explore potential interactions a priori. However, in product engineering, once you have an understanding of the implications of various interactions and you are ready to move into the "build phase" of the project, you're going to want internal consistency and predictable output. Given that, bottom-up is the way to go. If you are not looking for internal consistency or predictable output: Your apex design goal is to have your product incorporate several ranges of MPG, grip, and power to weight ratio. Or perhaps you want your car to encapsulate the possibility of burning up its transmission arbitrarily or the brakes to randomly go out on the freeway. Presumably any of these outcomes is because there is a presupposition that DMs enjoy the responsibility of improvising through this adversity by eyeballing and then prescribing means of getting the derailed train back onto the tracks...and wacky and "interesting' things are likely to arise out of that mix. In that case, top-down is your way to go. [/QUOTE]

Verification