Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5160983" data-attributes="member: 4937">I blame Monte Cook.Not really, but its not surprising to see it if you look back over the last 10 years at how various influential designers have exalted mathimatical goals in game design (particularly, of D&amp;D).&nbsp; We've spent 10 years talking up encounters per level, expected rounds of combat, expected treasure per combat, and so on and so forth as if the art of game mastery primarily revolved around achieving some sort of ideal mathematical precision and that the designs which best facilitated game mastery and good mastery were ones that met goals of mathimatical precision, fixed math, mechanical balance and so forth and which delivered fixed rewards (treasure, mechanical advancement) to the players on a regular predictable schedule.So its no wonder that our discussions of design have become encumbered with assumptions about what design means and what it addresses.And I should note, because people seem to be particularly quick to leaping on what I didn't say, that I don't in fact think mechanical balance and mathimatical precision and elegance are bad things.&nbsp; I like unified mechanics.&nbsp; I very much support designers working out the mathimatical consequences of their choices, because I see so many house rulers fail at that and remember 'back in the day' that being one of the biggest problems with the hodge podge system that 1e AD&amp;D grew into as it expanded.&nbsp; (See early dragon issues for detailed discussion and examples).&nbsp; All I'm saying is I think we've got over focused on that as an end unto itself and neglected other things that are equally if not more important.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5160983, member: 4937"] I blame Monte Cook. Not really, but its not surprising to see it if you look back over the last 10 years at how various influential designers have exalted mathimatical goals in game design (particularly, of D&D). We've spent 10 years talking up encounters per level, expected rounds of combat, expected treasure per combat, and so on and so forth as if the art of game mastery primarily revolved around achieving some sort of ideal mathematical precision and that the designs which best facilitated game mastery and good mastery were ones that met goals of mathimatical precision, fixed math, mechanical balance and so forth and which delivered fixed rewards (treasure, mechanical advancement) to the players on a regular predictable schedule. So its no wonder that our discussions of design have become encumbered with assumptions about what design means and what it addresses. And I should note, because people seem to be particularly quick to leaping on what I didn't say, that I don't in fact think mechanical balance and mathimatical precision and elegance are bad things. I like unified mechanics. I very much support designers working out the mathimatical consequences of their choices, because I see so many house rulers fail at that and remember 'back in the day' that being one of the biggest problems with the hodge podge system that 1e AD&D grew into as it expanded. (See early dragon issues for detailed discussion and examples). All I'm saying is I think we've got over focused on that as an end unto itself and neglected other things that are equally if not more important. [/QUOTE]

Verification