Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9315114" data-attributes="member: 177">I have not watched any of Brennan's work, so, I can't speak to it.I think there is a bit of a logic fail if you say you want rules abstractions to allow you to &quot;not think&quot; about an aspect of the game, but you use a game in which those abstractions themselves require enough thought to slow down play and break immersion.&nbsp; D&amp;D has combat abstractions, but those abstractions are still pretty complicated - not simplified enough to make it something you can &quot;not think&quot; about.I am totally fine with him deciding that he wants a game that has gaps in spaces that he wants to insert his own form of control.&nbsp; But, that only works for folks who are really good at filling those gaps.&nbsp; The game at his table might be about what happens in the gaps, but the game as a published game isn't &quot;about&quot; things that seasoned professional improv actors can do in the gaps.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9315114, member: 177"] I have not watched any of Brennan's work, so, I can't speak to it. I think there is a bit of a logic fail if you say you want rules abstractions to allow you to "not think" about an aspect of the game, but you use a game in which those abstractions themselves require enough thought to slow down play and break immersion. D&D has combat abstractions, but those abstractions are still pretty complicated - not simplified enough to make it something you can "not think" about. I am totally fine with him deciding that he wants a game that has gaps in spaces that he wants to insert his own form of control. But, that only works for folks who are really good at filling those gaps. The game at his table might be about what happens in the gaps, but the game [I]as a published game[/I] isn't "about" things that seasoned professional improv actors can do in the gaps. [/QUOTE]

Verification