Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8998434" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No, that isn't what I'm wondering about.I described Dungeon World. Not D&amp;D. The DW descriptions I've given, when rooted in the rules text and abstract discussion thereof, get HUGE pushback. Especially the bit about actually having to follow the rules. But then when concrete description of DW is offered instead, it consistently elicits confusion, of the form, &quot;How is this different from D&amp;D?&quot;And yet, commonality continues to be relevant. We have design philosophies. We have developers talking to us about what their design goals are. We have public playtests, even if they're mostly publicity stunts. These things would not exist if the question were genuinely unanswerable.It isn't easy, I certainly grant that. But saying that because it's hard to answer quantum physics questions, it must be that there is no answer to find, is poor reasoning.Perhaps the reason designers put work into articulating clear principles is because they actually see utility in doing so. For example, trying to forestall arguments likely to occur. (I've been rereading Shadowrun 5e stuff recently and man oh man they really needed to hire better editors for SR5. So many arguments that could have been easily avoided with some slight rewording.) Perhaps they have an artistic vision and want to share it. Perhaps they're exercising intellectual modesty, and not trying to sell the game as supporting more than they have tested it for. Etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8998434, member: 6790260"] No, that isn't what I'm wondering about. I described [I]Dungeon World.[/I] Not D&D. The DW descriptions I've given, when rooted in the rules text and abstract discussion thereof, get HUGE pushback. Especially the bit about actually having to follow the rules. But then when [I]concrete[/I] description of DW is offered instead, it consistently elicits confusion, of the form, "How is this different from D&D?" And yet, commonality continues to be relevant. We have design philosophies. We have developers talking to us about what their design goals are. We have public playtests, even if they're mostly publicity stunts. These things would not exist if the question were genuinely unanswerable. It isn't [I]easy,[/I] I certainly grant that. But saying that because it's hard to answer quantum physics questions, it must be that [I]there is no answer to find,[/I] is poor reasoning. Perhaps the reason designers put work into articulating clear principles is because they actually see utility in doing so. For example, trying to forestall arguments likely to occur. (I've been rereading Shadowrun 5e stuff recently and [I]man oh man[/I] they really needed to hire better editors for SR5. So many arguments that [I]could[/I] have been easily avoided with some slight rewording.) Perhaps they have an artistic vision and want to share it. Perhaps they're exercising intellectual modesty, and not trying to sell the game as supporting more than they have tested it for. Etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification