Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6229867" data-attributes="member: 8835">Or its an example of 2 distinct preferences being at odds with this specific game design element.Hussar seems to dislike mentioning &quot;might be hazardous&quot; in the spell description with absolutely no reference to backing it up mechanically.&nbsp; When is it hazardous?&nbsp; What's the % chance of it happening?&nbsp; What happens if it does?Whereas, ThirdWizard seems to like that nebulous declaration of &quot;might be hazardous&quot;.&nbsp; As a GM, he doesn't have to ever bring it up, but if he feels it might be valuable, he can invoke the hazardous effect.As individuals, I don't think either person is wrong in the preference for the rule.However, if the given game's design objective is to reduce DM fiat (as some people used to alleged 3e attempted to do), then the 3e Rope Trick may be guilty of breaking that objective.The key to my point is that a game (or any other project) often has design goals or principles that are held internally to the designers.&nbsp; So &quot;make a good product&quot; is an obvious publically shared goal.&nbsp; What may (or may not) be shared is any specific patterns or principles that the product is supposed to adhere to that the general consumer may not be concerned with (us gamers talking about game design are not the general consumer).I don't know what Monte has specifically disclosed about his design goals for 3e.&nbsp; It seems obvious that he tried to make things mechanically consistent (ex 1d20+modifiers compared to a DC).&nbsp; I don't know if he also desired to reduce DM Fiat, or reduce nebulous text that implies rules that don't exist.So, outside of a specific game and it's declared design goals, neither one of you is wrong about the quality of that rule example.&nbsp; Both ways are reasonable depending on your personal preference for design.I could only arbitrarily decide which one of you is &quot;right&quot; for a specific game that the case was brought up for (3e) and its declared design goals (that I don't have on hand).As this relates to game design &quot;moving on&quot;, consider that early games did not commonly have declared design goals (beyond just like D&amp;D but better).&nbsp; The parlance of game design has matured, so now we can talk about what a game's design goals were and determine if the rules achieved those goals or worked against them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 6229867, member: 8835"] Or its an example of 2 distinct preferences being at odds with this specific game design element. Hussar seems to dislike mentioning "might be hazardous" in the spell description with absolutely no reference to backing it up mechanically. When is it hazardous? What's the % chance of it happening? What happens if it does? Whereas, ThirdWizard seems to like that nebulous declaration of "might be hazardous". As a GM, he doesn't have to ever bring it up, but if he feels it might be valuable, he can invoke the hazardous effect. As individuals, I don't think either person is wrong in the preference for the rule. However, if the given game's design objective is to reduce DM fiat (as some people used to alleged 3e attempted to do), then the 3e Rope Trick may be guilty of breaking that objective. The key to my point is that a game (or any other project) often has design goals or principles that are held internally to the designers. So "make a good product" is an obvious publically shared goal. What may (or may not) be shared is any specific patterns or principles that the product is supposed to adhere to that the general consumer may not be concerned with (us gamers talking about game design are not the general consumer). I don't know what Monte has specifically disclosed about his design goals for 3e. It seems obvious that he tried to make things mechanically consistent (ex 1d20+modifiers compared to a DC). I don't know if he also desired to reduce DM Fiat, or reduce nebulous text that implies rules that don't exist. So, outside of a specific game and it's declared design goals, neither one of you is wrong about the quality of that rule example. Both ways are reasonable depending on your personal preference for design. I could only arbitrarily decide which one of you is "right" for a specific game that the case was brought up for (3e) and its declared design goals (that I don't have on hand). As this relates to game design "moving on", consider that early games did not commonly have declared design goals (beyond just like D&D but better). The parlance of game design has matured, so now we can talk about what a game's design goals were and determine if the rules achieved those goals or worked against them. [/QUOTE]

Verification