Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord_Blacksteel" data-source="post: 7728190" data-attributes="member: 53082">I loved Lew's work back in Dragon, and this is a nice "video game design 101" kind of nugget but this is a pointless, useless article on a tabletop gaming site. Here's one example why:How on earth does anyone assume that all of the players want to play the same thing? That they are looking for the same "loop"? You can go all the way back to "Strike Force" from 1988 to see a discussion about identifying different types of players and how a GM can include elements to keep their interest.  In fact, I'd say the position presented in the above article is based on designing single-player videogames and is the WORST approach to take when working on your tabletop rules system or campaign with a DM and multiple players. D&D and every other long-lived RPG has not survived for 40 years on a 30 second loop. "For many groups, of course, a mixture of loops with none dominating can be the most entertaining. And for best pacing, you probably want to emphasize one loop or another from one session or adventure to the next. For example, one adventure might be combat heavy, another might be puzzle heavy, another might consist mostly of talking with and persuading creatures, and so forth."Is this supposed to be insightful? This is basic GM advice in every RPG I can think of for at least the last 25 years. "You might even considering adding in many of these loops in different parts of the same adventure" - look now I've really sent it over the top!"The most versatile RPG rules sets are going to be ones that quickly enable the GM to run a variety of loops, and adventures where one loop or another is emphasized. Most of us have read RPGs that are all about story, or all about combat (4e D&D?), or even all about politics. These are fine for people who want to focus on that kind of core loop, and not worthwhile for others."What is the point of this paragraph? To state the obvious? There is nothing in these words - it's just a cluster of generalities. At the very least how about some examples? Good and bad? An old game that did this well that's maybe fallen out of the spotlight? A new game that exemplifies this? Maybe some reasons why?The one example that was included is even debatable as while 4E did focus on combat it also brought us the skill challenge which was a pretty innovative way to handle the "group skill check" with specific mechanics and a framework to use it as an "encounter" instead of using yet another fight. This looks like an outline of an article waiting to be fleshed out rather than something one would publish. I would really expect more from someone with Lewis Pulsipher's track record.</blockquote>

Verification