Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8999663" data-attributes="member: 42582">The criticism of rule zero as bad design is a normative proposition about game design. The advocacy for tight design likewise. Neither is a prediction about what sort of drifting of play or changes to rules tables will engage in and enjoy.Thus, the point of (say) DitV is it will play perfectly well out of the box by doing what Vincent Baker tells you to do. This is regarded by proponents of DitV as a virtue. But nothing in the rules makes it hard to drift or change in a way that D&amp;D is not - the rulebook itself discusses possible changes of setting, and I'm sure that over the post two decades some DitV playes have come up with possible changes of process too.Unless you have a significant amount of empirical evidence to support your sociological conjecture, I'm not buying it. I don't see any intuitive reason why it would be true. It doesn't fit with my own experience. And it is contradicted by the most famous and influential procedurally tight indie game of all time, namely, Apocalypse World, which has a whole chapter (&quot;Advanced F***ery&quot;) on making changes of the sort you describe, and others too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8999663, member: 42582"] The criticism of rule zero as bad design is a normative proposition about game design. The advocacy for tight design likewise. Neither is a prediction about what sort of drifting of play or changes to rules tables will engage in and enjoy. Thus, the point of (say) DitV is it will play perfectly well out of the box by doing what Vincent Baker tells you to do. This is regarded by proponents of DitV as a virtue. But nothing in the rules makes it hard to drift or change in a way that D&D is not - the rulebook itself discusses possible changes of setting, and I'm sure that over the post two decades some DitV playes have come up with possible changes of process too. Unless you have a significant amount of empirical evidence to support your sociological conjecture, I'm not buying it. I don't see any intuitive reason why it would be true. It doesn't fit with my own experience. And it is contradicted by the most famous and influential procedurally tight indie game of all time, namely, Apocalypse World, which has a whole chapter ("Advanced F***ery") on making changes of the sort you describe, and others too. [/QUOTE]

Verification