Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6094057" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Sure.With the above I was just talking about Choice Paralysis and Decision Fatigue.  Options and decisions are often at tension.  People seem to inherently want limitless options, but when they have them it can be subversive to making optimal choices or any choice at all.  A paradox.Give an artist no direction, and a certain cross-section will be inhibited in their production.  Give them a muse, some theme or a picture to bind their thoughts to, and they may suddenly become prolific and produce multiple works.  The same thing applies to certain folks trying to author stories.  Give them no "glue" or main idea and they're staggered.  Give them some direction (perhaps as little as two elements; maybe a ball point pen and a scream) and suddenly they're writing.The same thing works with consumers.  We think we want limitless choices (What's better than choices?  MOAR CHOICES!) but we're more likely to make a purchase (and an informed one) when our choices are limited or we have some direction.However, with regards to what I was getting at in the initial post, I was really thinking on the nature of 5e; a core product with a modular interface that is supposed to let you plug in modules which lets you reproduce a creative agenda and a game experience that caters to your tastes.  Things such as the below should probably be clearly canvassed for each module:- GM mental overhead or table handling time: If folks (GMs specifically) are wanting a quick and easy play experience, then there should be some rating or at least a proper explanation on how this particular module (be it heavy equipment resource tracking, wounds, mass combat, etc) will work out in play.- PC stance implications:  Specifically how resources that expect players to exit actor stance and deploy narrative control work out in play.  What they are trying to do and how they affect play experience.- Subjective, scaling DCs for conflict resolution:  Specifically what they're trying to do.  What they represent (an abstraction of the task within the scope of the conflict/adversity at hand) and what they do not represent (an objective obstacle or testa).Those kinds of things.  It seems to me to be a wise thing for the designers to be as transparent as possible about what each module is trying to do, what playstyle/creative agenda it is advocating for, and how much GM mental overhead and table handling time is to be expected with each.  Most of us grogs won't have too much trouble sorting it out, but newer players may find themselves sifting through a pile of "stuff" and plugging things in which may yield an incoherent collage of blah that may actively work against each other.</blockquote>

Verification