Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8983777" data-attributes="member: 6993955">So when I say 'kind of conflict' what I was indexing is that different games foreground different sorts of obstacles, challenges, and conflict. In many of those cases (combat in D&amp;D being one easy example) the mechanics and design support that foregrounding with more nuance and detail and sometimes mechanical complexity. This obviously can look very different from game to game. In PbtA games the type of conflict that is supposed to be core is foregrounded by the choices of moves where you see some specific moves and usually a catch-all 'risky action' move - the specific moves are a clear design index to what kind of conflict is supposed to be core to the game. In D&amp;D the additional mechanics and complexity for combat clearly indicate it's importance in terms of design. In a general sense those foregrounded types of conflict, the ones that are supposed to be front and center in terms of game play, tend to get more details, both mechanical and otherwise, and also tend to be the parts of the game that get more detailed rules in terms of granularity of time/space, although this is certainly not true of every example.I'm very much not trying to categorize by genre here. Different games can try to capture the 'feel' of a genre in very different ways with very different levels of granularity and mechanical complexity, including treatments of time/space. If you wanted to say that this issue can be to some extent captured as a push-pull between wargame resolution and scene-based resolution I wouldn't argue though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 8983777, member: 6993955"] So when I say 'kind of conflict' what I was indexing is that different games foreground different sorts of obstacles, challenges, and conflict. In many of those cases (combat in D&D being one easy example) the mechanics and design support that foregrounding with more nuance and detail and sometimes mechanical complexity. This obviously can look very different from game to game. In PbtA games the type of conflict that is supposed to be core is foregrounded by the choices of moves where you see some specific moves and usually a catch-all 'risky action' move - the specific moves are a clear design index to what kind of conflict is supposed to be core to the game. In D&D the additional mechanics and complexity for combat clearly indicate it's importance in terms of design. In a general sense those foregrounded types of conflict, the ones that are supposed to be front and center in terms of game play, tend to get more details, both mechanical and otherwise, and also tend to be the parts of the game that get more detailed rules in terms of granularity of time/space, although this is certainly not true of every example. I'm very much not trying to categorize by genre here. Different games can try to capture the 'feel' of a genre in very different ways with very different levels of granularity and mechanical complexity, including treatments of time/space. If you wanted to say that this issue can be to some extent captured as a push-pull between wargame resolution and scene-based resolution I wouldn't argue though. [/QUOTE]

Verification