Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8254902" data-attributes="member: 75787">An important point -- thanks for raising it. I disagree, but it's really just opinion so I'm quite willing to be told I'm wrong on this! For me, the fact that most people don't care about the priorities informing a game design means that we shouldn't be as hung up about them as we can get. When I look at D&amp;D5E, for example, I can see it as a direct reaction to the strong priorities that informed 3.5 (&quot;This will simulate everything&quot;) and 4E (&quot;This will be a fair, logical, game&quot;) and rather than establish a new set of priorities, they went &quot;we'll remove anything that gets in the way of fun and just make it a game for people who want to get together and have an enjoyable time with friends&quot;. 5E seems an exemplar of the &quot;who needs genre?&quot; approach. It's absolutely not an &quot;opinionated&quot; game, and anyone who wants mechanisms for deep character air story exploration, or simulation mechanics, or, well, really ... anything specific -- they are going to be disappointed.If I were to design a game, I'd go with the approach of 5E or Agon -- not deciding on a culture, genre or priorities and then choosing mechanics that support those options, but instead defining or choosing mechanics that will work and be fun regardless fo where they come from. If they all happen to come from a set that someone calls a &quot;genre&quot; then OK, sure classify the game as in that genre. But doing that by design? Nah, not excited by that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 8254902, member: 75787"] An important point -- thanks for raising it. I disagree, but it's really just opinion so I'm quite willing to be told I'm wrong on this! For me, the fact that most people don't care about the priorities informing a game design means that we shouldn't be as hung up about them as we can get. When I look at D&D5E, for example, I can see it as a direct reaction to the strong priorities that informed 3.5 ("This will simulate everything") and 4E ("This will be a fair, logical, game") and rather than establish a new set of priorities, they went "we'll remove anything that gets in the way of fun and just make it a game for people who want to get together and have an enjoyable time with friends". 5E seems an exemplar of the "who needs genre?" approach. It's absolutely not an "opinionated" game, and anyone who wants mechanisms for deep character air story exploration, or simulation mechanics, or, well, really ... anything specific -- they are going to be disappointed. If I were to design a game, I'd go with the approach of 5E or Agon -- not deciding on a culture, genre or priorities and then choosing mechanics that support those options, but instead defining or choosing mechanics that will work and be fun regardless fo where they come from. If they all happen to come from a set that someone calls a "genre" then OK, sure classify the game as in that genre. But doing that by design? Nah, not excited by that. [/QUOTE]

Verification