Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6881006" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I'm going to completely disagree with everyone on here and say, &quot;bring it on&quot;.First, I'm going to assume that there is a reason -- ie, that the numbers have some sort of meaning, and that the results have some sort of meaning. Then I'm going to assume that those meanings are connected. For instance, rolling snake-eyes on 2d6 has psychological impact. If snake-eyes represented a really bad failure, that would work very well.The key is the psychoaesthetic (I declare that a real word for the duration of this post, yeah verily says I) quality of the system.Now, if the results attached to the numbers were arbitrary, or if the system was complicated for little benefit, then I'd say it was a mistake in design.I think there is a lot to be said for resolution objects (including dice, cards, special dice with colors, etc) and terms (Intelligence or Brains or Psyche) and conventions (round up or round down) and all sorts of other elements of the system--pretty much all of them--having a greater or lesser effect on the psychoaesthetic of the play experience.And after all, isn't creating the desired experience the point of system design?If a player doesn't like a game itself (ignoring issues like bad GMing or other circumstantial things) it is either going to be because they don't like the experience the game is intending to create, or because the game isn't doing a very good job at creating it.So does the existence of such less common resolution mechanics turn me off to a game? Absolutely not. It all depends on whether they assist in creating the intended experience (and I like that experience) or whether they hinder creating that experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6881006, member: 6677017"] I'm going to completely disagree with everyone on here and say, "bring it on". First, I'm going to assume that there is a reason -- ie, that the numbers have some sort of meaning, and that the results have some sort of meaning. Then I'm going to assume that those meanings are connected. For instance, rolling snake-eyes on 2d6 has psychological impact. If snake-eyes represented a really bad failure, that would work very well. The key is the psychoaesthetic (I declare that a real word for the duration of this post, yeah verily says I) quality of the system. Now, if the results attached to the numbers were arbitrary, or if the system was complicated for little benefit, then I'd say it was a mistake in design. I think there is a lot to be said for resolution objects (including dice, cards, special dice with colors, etc) and terms (Intelligence or Brains or Psyche) and conventions (round up or round down) and all sorts of other elements of the system--pretty much all of them--having a greater or lesser effect on the psychoaesthetic of the play experience. And after all, isn't creating the desired experience the point of system design? If a player doesn't like a game itself (ignoring issues like bad GMing or other circumstantial things) it is either going to be because they don't like the experience the game is intending to create, or because the game isn't doing a very good job at creating it. So does the existence of such less common resolution mechanics turn me off to a game? Absolutely not. It all depends on whether they assist in creating the intended experience (and I like that experience) or whether they hinder creating that experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification