Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6095304" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's probably not necessary. I think in something like Burning THACO, though, the designers are writing for a particular audience (and in fact I'm pretty sure that PDF is just a collation of message-board posts from the BW forums) and they're trying to frame what they're doing for that audience. And the audience for BW has a certain background experience and orientation, which include disappointment about the tendency in some traditional AD&amp;D adventures to make you slog through the dungeon rooms to get to the dramatic parts - of course, those modules weren't written to be played in that &quot;dramatic&quot; fashion, but ever since it was published people have been using D&amp;D and similar games to do things they weren't designed to do.Personally I don't mind the snark if the meaning is clear - eg it's obvious on the Forge that most of the posters would find my 4e game a juvenile slog, but because they make their values and meaning clear I can easily extract the key advice and techniques.In a published game meant to appeal to a broad audience more moderation is probably warranted, but not at the expense of failing to convey what your rules are for. I don't know if you've ever read the BW rules, but they are the best example I know of a game that tells you without any coyness or obscurity how the designer thinks it should be played. I find it hugely refreshing as a way to write RPG rules, and even if WotC doesn't just mimic it I think they could learn from it.(And one thing people praise about the original DMG is that Gygax's authorial voice is very clear, and he certainly wasn't shy about advocating for his particular &quot;skilled play&quot; approach.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6095304, member: 42582"] It's probably not necessary. I think in something like Burning THACO, though, the designers are writing for a particular audience (and in fact I'm pretty sure that PDF is just a collation of message-board posts from the BW forums) and they're trying to frame what they're doing [I]for that audience[/I]. And the audience for BW has a certain background experience and orientation, which include disappointment about the tendency in some traditional AD&D adventures to make you slog through the dungeon rooms to get to the dramatic parts - of course, those modules weren't written to be played in that "dramatic" fashion, but ever since it was published people have been using D&D and similar games to do things they weren't designed to do. Personally I don't mind the snark if the meaning is clear - eg it's obvious on the Forge that most of the posters would find my 4e game a juvenile slog, but because they make their values and meaning clear I can easily extract the key advice and techniques. In a published game meant to appeal to a broad audience more moderation is probably warranted, but not at the expense of failing to convey what your rules are for. I don't know if you've ever read the BW rules, but they are the best example I know of a game that tells you without any coyness or obscurity how the designer thinks it should be played. I find it hugely refreshing as a way to write RPG rules, and even if WotC doesn't just mimic it I think they could learn from it. (And one thing people praise about the original DMG is that Gygax's authorial voice is very clear, and he certainly wasn't shy about advocating for his particular "skilled play" approach.) [/QUOTE]

Verification