Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 1804648" data-attributes="member: 9225">Heya Mike,I think you're underestimating people's fondness for certain parts of a flawed design, especially when it comes to actually enhancing the feel of a game. The best example I can think of is Rifts. Rifts is a badly designed game, but elements of its system are perfect for supporting the kind of play people tend to get into with Rifts. One example is the fact that combat is long and detailed, but skill resolution is a simple pass/fail on d%. This actually works pretty well when it comes to focusing on action flick combat, where you want something quick and dumb for all those other, less important tasks Rifts characters need to do. The trouble is that the way you derive the numbers for this stuff is utter bollocks.Now D20 games do have a definite emphasis, but the engine is solid enough to let you change it without too much trouble. The question is the degree to which people confuse soundness of mechanics for emphasis. AU's action-pointy system could be pilloried for surface vagueness, for instance, but it follows the game's DM-centered design goal nicely.I'm always suspicious of comments like this, because they tend to be used to back some spurious argument about whay game X sucks. I'd say its more accurate to abserve that there's often a disjoint between online fandom and people who actually play certain games. Sometimes the numbers are about even (I've noticed that plenty of people play Changeling, but I hardly ever see them actually post anywhere -- the fans post about abstract issues instead), and sometimes they aren't (I've never seen an Unknown Armies game), and sometimes their connection to sales is strange or tenuous (Call of Cthulhu doesn't sell gangbusters, but lots of people like it, and the non-D20 game has had so many similar editions we have no way of telling how many people are playing its varous incarnations).I think it's more complex than that. There are games with good parts of the design that are compelling enough to keep people hacking at it. Games that are just plain awful do, in fact, tend to fail, no matter how neat the fluff is, as do games that just don't offer a distinct feel in the systems. Lord of the Rings strikes me as a game like this. With errata-laden mechanics and too much of a similarity to D&D, it couldn't even ride a virtual license to print money to the point of sustainability.Y'see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Feng Shui isn't just liked for its setting and "fluff." People love the rules, but are pained by bits of them.Well, that's rather the point. I see the recursive conversation about D20 design working according to this metaphor:Person A: "See, this thing's an Indy 500 racer!"Person B: "Actually, I'm looking for a motorcycle."A: "Oh, you can turn it into a motorcycle."B: "OK. What if I make these changes?"A: "But then it's not an Indy 500 racer any more!"That's what this Sneak Attacking undead thing feels like to me. I can see it as a perfectly fine niche ability, as long as its hooked up to the right fluff. And of course, I should be able to do just this -- but then, purists who see the Indy racer as the ultimate end think you're being daft.</blockquote>

Verification