Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9633640" data-attributes="member: 6799660">That is not the case. The question was whether this situation made 3.Xe's &quot;super crunchy language&quot; look good to us.I stated that it did not. One's preference for rules light vs. high-crunch id based on known understandings of the up- and downsides of each game rule strategy. Rules light systems require additional adjudication. High-crunch systems have concrete answers that may or may not be as appropriate, beneficial, or adaptable. Everyone has preferences on which style (or perhaps where on a spectrum) they prefer (or prefer in what instances). One's position on which system one prefers is based on both personal philosophy of games and lifelong experience with the trendline of how games built on each strategy tend to perform over extended periods.Treating a single instance that supports one position or another as conclusive evidence or a conclusive argument for such position would be the informal fallacy of hasty generalization. Likewise, drawing conclusions on the validity of a testing scenario only after the results of the test are known does not increase the strength of the validation. The decision to drive without buckling up does not retroactively become a good or bad decision based on whether you make it to your destination safely. Knowing whether the 3X rules were in fact good in this instance would not enhance a position on whether rules light or high crunch game design is preferable*.*except as a single data point in what would hopefully be massively many, if your position was based on 'what tends to work out' rather than overarching design philosophy </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9633640, member: 6799660"] That is not the case. The question was whether this situation made 3.Xe's "super crunchy language" look good to us. I stated that it did not. One's preference for rules light vs. high-crunch id based on known understandings of the up- and downsides of each game rule strategy. Rules light systems require additional adjudication. High-crunch systems have concrete answers that may or may not be as appropriate, beneficial, or adaptable. Everyone has preferences on which style (or perhaps where on a spectrum) they prefer (or prefer in what instances). One's position on which system one prefers is based on both personal philosophy of games and lifelong experience with the trendline of how games built on each strategy tend to perform over extended periods. Treating a single instance that supports one position or another as conclusive evidence or a conclusive argument for such position would be the informal fallacy of hasty generalization. Likewise, drawing conclusions on the validity of a testing scenario only after the results of the test are known does not increase the strength of the validation. The decision to drive without buckling up does not retroactively become a good or bad decision based on whether you make it to your destination safely. Knowing whether the 3X rules were in fact good in this instance would not enhance a position on whether rules light or high crunch game design is preferable*.[SIZE=2]*except as a single data point in what would hopefully be massively many, if your position was based on 'what tends to work out' rather than overarching design philosophy [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification