Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5612600" data-attributes="member: 54877">&quot;Simple&quot; and &quot;Easy&quot; aren't the same thing. In this case, what you'd probably get are a lot of things that are relatively easy to understand, but not necessarily simple to tinker with. You might have a few that skewed the other way. Then you'd have whole sections that were all simple and easy and others that were neither.&nbsp;All man-made, complicated systems that aren't simply a mess do this. As you break things into &quot;black&quot; and &quot;white&quot; box design (black being closed, but preferably with a readily understood interface), what becomes particular difficult for some people is understanding the mappings between the boxes. Individual boxes (or small sets of related boxes), however, become far easier to monkey with.&nbsp;Note the quote that Mearls led with. As you take things (that don't belong) away from a given box (black or white), you simplify the design and use of that box, until it does exactly what it is supposed to do, very reliably. What is less often noted with that quote is that taking away responsibility from a box that shouldn't have it--implies that other boxes can exist and take over those other responsibilities.&nbsp;Edit: I should note here that, of course, true &quot;black boxes&quot; aren't possible in game system rules printed on paper. Everyone can see the whole thing right there on the page. What is possible, however, is imposing on yourself the discipline of black box thinking during design, so that the different parts of the whole are appropriately &quot;coupled&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5612600, member: 54877"] "Simple" and "Easy" aren't the same thing. In this case, what you'd probably get are a lot of things that are relatively easy to understand, but not necessarily simple to tinker with. You might have a few that skewed the other way. Then you'd have whole sections that were all simple and easy and others that were neither. All man-made, complicated systems that aren't simply a mess do this. As you break things into "black" and "white" box design (black being closed, but preferably with a readily understood interface), what becomes particular difficult for some people is understanding the mappings between the boxes. Individual boxes (or small sets of related boxes), however, become far easier to monkey with. Note the quote that Mearls led with. As you take things (that don't belong) away from a given box (black or white), you simplify the design and use of that box, until it does exactly what it is supposed to do, very reliably. What is less often noted with that quote is that taking away responsibility from a box that shouldn't have it--implies that other boxes can exist and take over those other responsibilities. Edit: I should note here that, of course, true "black boxes" aren't possible in game system rules printed on paper. Everyone can see the whole thing right there on the page. What is possible, however, is imposing on yourself the discipline of black box thinking during design, so that the different parts of the whole are appropriately "coupled". [/QUOTE]

Verification