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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5735865" data-attributes="member: 3192">It sounds like many rule introductions may be similar to what M:tG does. New rules are on every card, but a relatively simple core game need only be learned before play. Though the connotations of the example may not sit well with everyone, I think it's similar enough to where Monte is talking about taking the game.In the end any designer wants their game to be played and any publisher wants their games to sell. Making these things optional, but integrated sounds like a great way to allow supplemental game growth without necessarily farming player's option books in a finite edition cycle. Games that grow as you play means games that can continue selling rules and rulebooks without imposing vast limitations on designers (or homebrewers). Hypothetically these would remain optional, but support varying levels of inclusion for all sorts of groups, gamers, playstyles, campaigns, and settings. I think most players first imagine an increasing complexity skirmish combat system. But simple and complex options would likely be optional in any work. A radically simple game could just be skill challenges for all of it. Or, by diversifying options, we may get all kinds of supplements we never thought of before. Regardless of the complexity dial, it's the possibility of new options that entice me.How about a game for running a thieves guild? Naval combat and mass warfare used to be common, but what about enrolling in a wizard school? Traveling the Feywild? Building your own spelljammer? Ruling your own barony? The best part is, with a simple core game game designers are offered a great deal of freedom to flex their design muscles to create really interesting modular designs - which may be playable stand alone. This could work for those who wish to try the game/supplement first or simply play it for its own right.He's not talking about codifying your game for everyone. I believe he means what he says. A simpler game at every level for those who want it. A complex game for every level as another option. But he is suggesting a default game for those who are just learning - one that enables publishers to sell for and DMs to include every option present and future. And I don't see a default design being dropped. Not only because of brand identity, attracting and easing in new players, or allowing publishers to print veritable new games as system additions (thereby getting around splitting the customer base), but because...Level advancement is a staple of D&D. If level advancement means more options and not simply bigger numbers, then complexity is going to increase. And I'm all for those options being meaningful too. Not simply "invisibility +X damage", but options no one's thought of before. That's harder to create I admit, but originality is worth it. And I like to imagine future products with a more open design space can afford to be more innovative - if only to continue to inflate enthusiasm for play.</blockquote>

Verification