Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8999710" data-attributes="member: 71699">When we make lists like that, we land on FKR trumping every other system for flexibility. We also risk mistaking a list of affordances for the value of those affordances to our purposes.*Can the system handle skirmish-scale combat where positioning, range and action economy matters?I feel like that is one of the important trade-offs that D&amp;D offers designers. If I want to include that in a design, PbtA won't do. Not unless I am willing to do a great deal of engineering. I can compare D&amp;D with say BRP to see better suits my ends. Do I want levelling in bounds that grant new features, or incremental probability bumps with use? Does the kind of play I'm envisioning even care about the possibility of separated PCs? If not, the weight of that feature into my assessment is zero.Generally, an effective way of comparing lists of affordances for products is to use an analytical hierachy. There's a paper or two on the gain in effectiveness of solution to problem. The most important questions to ask in product design are1. What valuable problems or jobs to do, do players have that I want to solve?2. What differentiates my game from others on features players value?Listing affordances is basically nonsense. Unreal is a fantastic toolset with more affordances than almost all others (maybe all, it's an incredible suite). Depending on my purposes, Blender might be a much better choice. Form follows function. Figure out what you want to do: only then are you in position to judge which tools are best (i.e. set the weights in the analytical hierachy.)If the argument is - the more &quot;flexible&quot; game system is the one for which we can list the most affordances - then &quot;flexible&quot; does not mean or even imply good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8999710, member: 71699"] When we make lists like that, we land on FKR trumping every other system for flexibility. We also risk mistaking a list of affordances for the value of those affordances to our purposes. *Can the system handle skirmish-scale combat where positioning, range and action economy matters? I feel like that is one of the important trade-offs that D&D offers designers. If I want to include that in a design, PbtA won't do. Not unless I am willing to do a great deal of engineering. I can compare D&D with say BRP to see better suits my ends. Do I want levelling in bounds that grant new features, or incremental probability bumps with use? Does the kind of play I'm envisioning even care about the possibility of separated PCs? If not, the weight of that feature into my assessment is zero. Generally, an effective way of comparing lists of affordances for products is to use an analytical hierachy. There's a paper or two on the gain in effectiveness of solution to problem. The most important questions to ask in product design are 1. What valuable problems or jobs to do, do players have that I want to solve? 2. What differentiates my game from others on features players value? Listing affordances is basically nonsense. Unreal is a fantastic toolset with more affordances than almost all others (maybe all, it's an incredible suite). Depending on my purposes, Blender might be a much better choice. Form follows function. Figure out what you want to do: [I]only then [/I]are you in position to judge which tools are best (i.e. set the weights in the analytical hierachy.) If the argument is - the more "flexible" game system is the one for which we can list the most affordances - then "flexible" does not mean or even imply good. [/QUOTE]

Verification