Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6099771" data-attributes="member: 4937">Depends on what those core play assumptions are.  If the core play assumption is, "Players have a challenge agenda, and the gameplay supports tactical combat where player decision making heavy outcome on success.", then the answer is "lots".   But if the core play assumption is left unsaid, the answer can be "none".  Certain gaming styles - namely those more derived from theater games than table top wargames - depend very little on rules as RPG players typically understand them and as such can be played with pretty much any level of mechanical crunch.  Those styles actually depend more on preparation methods, and/or player expectations.Note also there are certain types of wargames, usually ones played on a strategic level, that also have very little mechanical crunch, but run on scripts and judge arbitration.   If you play a game derived from that, say simulating an intrigue heavy political thriller, you may or may not need mechanical crunch depending on table expectations.And, as I've played 8 hour D&D sessions with ZERO dice rolls before, full on Thespian theater games doing setting and character exploration.The examples of play, modules you publish, and expectations of play that you set will probably do more to determine how your game plays (and indeed, even if it is played) than all the mechanics you produce.   That said, certain experiences will be best captured if there is some concrete connection between play and mechanics.   However, just because the mechanic informs a certain activity, doesn't mean it will actually create a particular experience of play.  If you are wanting to create a game where you want players spending a lot of time acting in character and engaging in witty banter and gets in touch with thier characters feelings, it doesn't necessarily follow that intricate rules for resolving social conflicts and spending a lot time book keeping changes in the players internal mental map will create that experience of play.  Instead you might find the metagame of selecting choices from the rules is at some tables used to fullly or nearly fully substitute for the now no longer strictly necessary in character role play. Likewise, if the agenda of play you want to support is Fantasy, where the player experiences being a particular character, it doesn't necessarily follow that providing a huge number of customizable options that tie to ever conceivable sort of character or background imaginable will end up supporting that experience at every table.  Some tables will instead take the same rules and use them to support Conflict agendas where they create highly optimized characters with no attachment to who the character is only what the character can do, and then happily play an antagonistic game where they try to beat thier GM with their power gaming.  The real issue IMO opinion is creating a game were you are aware of the multiple agendas and can support one without breaking the other.  And if you know you can't support an agenda, then you better be real upfront about it (and you better not expect to sell a lot of copies of your game either).</blockquote>

Verification