Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6228546" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think there are mechanics that do worse than others, and some that do better. And there are some fundamental truths, like you want your rules to be understandable. But a lot of times in these arguments &quot;design has moved on&quot; seems like a cudgel to impose what really boils down to taste or preference. If design has truly moved on, then bad mechanics will be rejected by the people who buy the games. We do not need a set of theories or guidelines asserting certain types of mechanics are now off limits because they are outdated. I would say its tiered. Broken math is broken math. If you have mechanics that dont do what they are supposed to, that is not good design (though it could still accidentally be a good game). So some mechanics can be judged as good or bad. But a lot of this stuff boils down to what people like (do you like intricate subsystems, unified mechanics, kots of granulatity, comprehensive mechanics, gritty mechanics, high octane mechanics, narratove mechanics, etc). I see this stuff as preference and most mechanics that get debated seem to fall in that zone. And then a lot of system, really is just fashion. There are trends in rpgs, like in music. This isn't necessarily advancement though. What matters ultimately I think, isnt whether a system measures up to some vague rubric of good design, but whether it measures up for the people who play it at the table. If your customers are happy, then you are probably doing things right(excuse typos: ipad acting up)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6228546, member: 85555"] I think there are mechanics that do worse than others, and some that do better. And there are some fundamental truths, like you want your rules to be understandable. But a lot of times in these arguments "design has moved on" seems like a cudgel to impose what really boils down to taste or preference. If design has truly moved on, then bad mechanics will be rejected by the people who buy the games. We do not need a set of theories or guidelines asserting certain types of mechanics are now off limits because they are outdated. I would say its tiered. Broken math is broken math. If you have mechanics that dont do what they are supposed to, that is not good design (though it could still accidentally be a good game). So some mechanics can be judged as good or bad. But a lot of this stuff boils down to what people like (do you like intricate subsystems, unified mechanics, kots of granulatity, comprehensive mechanics, gritty mechanics, high octane mechanics, narratove mechanics, etc). I see this stuff as preference and most mechanics that get debated seem to fall in that zone. And then a lot of system, really is just fashion. There are trends in rpgs, like in music. This isn't necessarily advancement though. What matters ultimately I think, isnt whether a system measures up to some vague rubric of good design, but whether it measures up for the people who play it at the table. If your customers are happy, then you are probably doing things right (excuse typos: ipad acting up) [/QUOTE]

Verification