Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silvercat Moonpaw" data-source="post: 5078815" data-attributes="member: 46652">Evolution doesn't move in definable steps.&nbsp; It's doesn't always move &quot;forward&quot;.&nbsp; It doesn't always move in one direction.&nbsp; And sometimes it doesn't really need to move.So semantics out of the way here are the steps I'd like to see (they don't need to be taken all together, they don't need to be taken individually, and they don't all have to be taken by the same branch of the evolutionary tree):* Away from resource management.* Away from having so many fiddly bits.* Away from levels.* Away from archetypes like class.* Away from combat.* Away from the need for &quot;improvement&quot; to mean &quot;getting more powerful&quot;.Yes, a lot of different ideas.&nbsp; Which is why I think we should not be thinking about just one step but many branching ones.&nbsp; Because sometimes you need one system for one kind of game, and another system for another kind of game.&nbsp; We should be supporting both.EDIT: One change I would take as an evolutionary step, that would be included in all systems, is away from genericness.&nbsp; I can adapt a product to any setting just fine, I don't need that made easy.&nbsp; What I need are new ideas to adapt something to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silvercat Moonpaw, post: 5078815, member: 46652"] Evolution doesn't move in definable steps. It's doesn't always move "forward". It doesn't always move in one direction. And sometimes it doesn't really need to move. So semantics out of the way here are the steps I'd like to see (they don't need to be taken all together, they don't need to be taken individually, and they don't all have to be taken by the same branch of the evolutionary tree): * Away from resource management. * Away from having so many fiddly bits. * Away from levels. * Away from archetypes like class. * Away from combat. * Away from the need for "improvement" to mean "getting more powerful". Yes, a lot of different ideas. Which is why I think we should not be thinking about just one step but many branching ones. Because sometimes you need one system for one kind of game, and another system for another kind of game. We should be supporting both. EDIT: One change I would take as an evolutionary step, that would be included in [i]all[/i] systems, is away from genericness. I can adapt a product to any setting just fine, I don't need that made easy. What I need are new ideas to adapt something to. [/QUOTE]

Verification