Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5726118" data-attributes="member: 10479">Back to Mike Mearls?The base assumption seems to be that customization is merely a mechanical consideration, or that customization begins with mechanics or is limited by mechanics.&nbsp; That's not a good place to start for roleplaying game design.&nbsp; There's a difference between adding narrow complexity and allowing open complexity that seems lost on many modern game designers.&nbsp; Adding a mechanic that allows a player to choose from a menu of specific bonuses adds narrow complexity unless the choices themselves are customizable.&nbsp; Allowing players to choose between nonspecific bonuses and specific bonuses, but to also allow them to decide how those bonuses manifest in-game, in relation to their character concept, adds open complexity that doesn't become restrictive.&nbsp; There's a mindset here that needs to be jettisoned if RPG design is going to evolve from being limited by game mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5726118, member: 10479"] Back to Mike Mearls? The base assumption seems to be that customization is merely a mechanical consideration, or that customization begins with mechanics or is limited by mechanics. That's not a good place to start for roleplaying game design. There's a difference between adding narrow complexity and allowing open complexity that seems lost on many modern game designers. Adding a mechanic that allows a player to choose from a menu of specific bonuses adds narrow complexity unless the choices themselves are customizable. Allowing players to choose between nonspecific bonuses and specific bonuses, but to also allow them to decide how those bonuses manifest in-game, in relation to their character concept, adds open complexity that doesn't become restrictive. There's a mindset here that needs to be jettisoned if RPG design is going to evolve from being limited by game mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification