Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5511505" data-attributes="member: 54877">I think I should probably start a new topic soon.&nbsp; I should have time next week. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp;But briefly, it is my contention that the kinds of design issues here rearing their hydra heads, are symptoms of collapsing orthogonal modeling dimensions into too few.&nbsp; In 4E's case, specifically collapsing at least three dimensions into one.&nbsp; So while I agree a coherent and systematic account would be good, I also assert that if this account precedes on the assumption that there will be one dimension (skill checks) to handle skill challenges, and everything will roll into those checks, then they might as well not bother.&nbsp; &nbsp;If instead, this account was done from first principles:&nbsp; This is the ground we want to cover, this is where we want to abstract, this is where we want the model to tie into the narrative, and this is where we want gamist resource decisions to occur--now make it fit--then it might work.&nbsp;There would, of course, be some trade offs done for simplicification of understanding the model and ease of game play.&nbsp; But those should only be made after the primary dimensions are determined.&nbsp;4E is very encouraging and discouraging at the same time on this question, because the removal of craft and profession &quot;skills&quot; from the skill checks is a necessary prerequisite for this kind of thinking.&nbsp; They just didn't carry it to the next logical conclusion and ask how those things could be modeled outside of skills. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5511505, member: 54877"] I think I should probably start a new topic soon. I should have time next week. :) But briefly, it is my contention that the kinds of design issues here rearing their hydra heads, are symptoms of collapsing orthogonal modeling dimensions into too few. In 4E's case, specifically collapsing at least three dimensions into one. So while I agree a coherent and systematic account would be good, I also assert that if this account precedes on the assumption that there will be one dimension (skill checks) to handle skill challenges, and everything will roll into those checks, then they might as well not bother. If instead, this account was done from first principles: This is the ground we want to cover, this is where we want to abstract, this is where we want the model to tie into the narrative, and this is where we want gamist resource decisions to occur--now make it fit--then it might work. There would, of course, be some trade offs done for simplicification of understanding the model and ease of game play. But those should only be made after the primary dimensions are determined. 4E is very encouraging and discouraging at the same time on this question, because the removal of craft and profession "skills" from the skill checks is a necessary prerequisite for this kind of thinking. They just didn't carry it to the next logical conclusion and ask how those things could be modeled outside of skills. :hmm: [/QUOTE]

Verification