Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6730286" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This thread has left this post in the dust, but I have a second and wanted to respond to this.I know this is the direction that the indie movement is going today, and I understand the impetus to do so.&nbsp; That being said, I hold that there will always be value in examining play priorities.&nbsp; It is important not just at the design phase, but also for each and every participant at the table both before and during play.&nbsp; Generally speaking, recognition that one component of one thing can complement or be at odds with another thing is very valuable.&nbsp; Zooming in further still, understanding how one system cog or one genre trope or one behavioral approach coheres or conflicts with another is essential if you are aiming for producing as much seamless functionality (with respect to whatever your play priorities are) as possible in your table experience.Fundamental engineering precepts apply to games (be it American Football or TTRPGs) as much as they do building a structure or deconstructing the chain of events that led to a catastrophic loss.&nbsp; A forensic knowledge base helps you to broadly understand the spectrum of phenomena at work.&nbsp; You can then dig down deeper to their component parts and evaluate interactions.&nbsp; Now you can apply that understanding to create.&nbsp; Even if the Forge did not create a better understanding of play priorities (and a wariness of their competing interests/tensions) or how specific GMing techniques (eg GM Force/Illusionism) impact play with respect to those play priorities, the approach to introspection, analysis, and transparency was, and remains, valuable and relevant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6730286, member: 6696971"] This thread has left this post in the dust, but I have a second and wanted to respond to this. I know this is the direction that the indie movement is going today, and I understand the impetus to do so. That being said, I hold that there will always be value in examining play priorities. It is important not just at the design phase, but also for each and every participant at the table both before and during play. Generally speaking, recognition that one component of one thing can complement or be at odds with another thing is very valuable. Zooming in further still, understanding how one system cog or one genre trope or one behavioral approach coheres or conflicts with another is essential if you are aiming for producing as much seamless functionality (with respect to whatever your play priorities are) as possible in your table experience. Fundamental engineering precepts apply to games (be it American Football or TTRPGs) as much as they do building a structure or deconstructing the chain of events that led to a catastrophic loss. A forensic knowledge base helps you to broadly understand the spectrum of phenomena at work. You can then dig down deeper to their component parts and evaluate interactions. Now you can apply that understanding to create. Even if the Forge did not create a better understanding of play priorities (and a wariness of their competing interests/tensions) or how specific GMing techniques (eg GM Force/Illusionism) impact play with respect to those play priorities, the approach to introspection, analysis, and transparency was, and remains, valuable and relevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification