Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4155625" data-attributes="member: 1879">Unless of course what you call playability makes the game less fun for me. Then it has utterly failed in it's stated objective. Because in seeking to make the game less complex, less 'simulationist', less 'tactical' in the name of playability you may have stripped out the elements that bring me joy and therefore cause the game to become unplayably annoying or boring.And... I'M NOT WRONG! My fun is not badwrongfun. Your fun is not badwrongfun. If (and it has not firmly been established yet) 4e moves in a direction that make it less fun for me to play then 3e or other games then the designers will have failed in their goals for me. That will not prevent you or anyone else from playing with great joy. And neither of us are wrong. Incidently I do not demand complex economic or tactical simulation tools in my games, I love a good game of Amber for example. However a game earns a degree of contempt from me when they try to include such rules, and they are self destroying. (3e I'm looking at you.) There is no need to include such rules in a game, but it you do put them in they should make sense, in the context of the world they portray. Why is this hard to understand?Depends on the game and the hit point system. For a look at three different games with very different but more narrowly defined hit point systems check out Albedo, Morrow Project and World Tree.</blockquote>