Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 6733076" data-attributes="member: 16586">Separate post because I wanted to address this separately. When I talk about playing a game, but not like playing it I'm not making a negative value judgement on the game being played. Quite the opposite. Changing softer play procedures and directives is as much an act of game design as creating a new playbook for Apocalypse World, making long rests take a week in a safe place in 4e, creating a new character sheet, or even rewriting skill resolution. People should be proud of these games they have designed and value the work they have put in to do so.This is probably not the most popular thing to say, but I believe Rein-Hagen simply made a game that had a compelling premise that utilized a set of play procedures that I believe make for poor play and do not live up to what the game sold itself as. He gets credit for the things he got right, but does not deserve credit for the design work of people who liked the conceptual underpinnings that designed or hacked if you prefer compelling games out of it. The credit for those endeavors should go to the people who did so, and I would love to hear about their games. The credit for Apocalypse World belongs to Vincent Baker. The credit for Dungeon World belongs to Sage Latorra and Adam Koebel for the design work that took them from Apocalypse D&D to what Dungeon World has become. The prior work is important to the endeavor, but the end result is due to their creativity, ingenuity, and labor. All design is iterative, but the actual game should be judged on its own in its specific context.    [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION],This is an area where I get a little sketchy about my D&D 4e games. I like the games I used material from it to play, but I'm not entirely sold on it as a game.  When I played it I utilized a set of very deliberate hacks. Some involved the artifacts of play (changing the rest cycle, cutting out vast swathes of assumed content, using skill challenge hacks, hacking in a set of relationship mechanics). I also used a set of play procedures and goals for play that dramatically shaped the result of play. I enjoyed those games, but I don't know how much credit I can give them for it. I also don't see the tweaks I made to play procedures as fundamentally different in scope to those I made to the mechanics. They were all game design, not professional game design, but game design none the less.</blockquote>

Verification