Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8622111" data-attributes="member: 70468">Usually when discussing D&amp;D, I prefer the terms identified by <a href="https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html" target="_blank">Six Cultures of Play</a>. They seem to resonate better with those who are playing in those styles, they actually have something to say about how people actually play D&amp;D, and Forge terminology has some baggage when trying to discuss D&amp;D.I can understand the logic for grouping Purist for System and High Concept together. They’re both kinds of simulations, but that’s about all they have in common. Things you would do in one wouldn’t be appropriate in the other. Look at the kind of responses one engenders for suggesting, e.g., that encumbrance mechanics should have teeth. You’re guaranteed to get at least a few responses that you should do what is best for the story, which is a very trad (i.e., High Concept) concern.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8622111, member: 70468"] Usually when discussing D&D, I prefer the terms identified by [URL='https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html']Six Cultures of Play[/URL]. They seem to resonate better with those who are playing in those styles, they actually have something to say about how people actually play D&D, and Forge terminology has some baggage when trying to discuss D&D. I can understand the logic for grouping Purist for System and High Concept together. They’re both kinds of simulations, but that’s about all they have in common. Things you would do in one wouldn’t be appropriate in the other. Look at the kind of responses one engenders for suggesting, e.g., that encumbrance mechanics should have teeth. You’re guaranteed to get at least a few responses that you should do what is best for the story, which is a very trad (i.e., High Concept) concern. [/QUOTE]

Verification