Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mearls" data-source="post: 2388910" data-attributes="member: 697">I've had trouble myself putting my thoughts together on this. This is a sort of first crack at it.In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.I think there are a lot of issues with the interface in D&D. To extend the above example, I can see where my character is but can I easily "see" and understand all his options - cast a spell, make an attack, try to trip a foe, and so forth. By the same token, when making a character can I "see" and understand the feats, spells, skills, and so forth that I can choose from to build my PC?That step, that act of recognizing, understanding, and using the options within the rules deals wtih the game's interface. I'm increasingly convinced that the interface is the most important part of an RPG, because the act of choosing and employing an option is the act of playing the game.I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.</blockquote>