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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Indaarys" data-source="post: 9198214" data-attributes="member: 7040941">The thing Ive come to learn is that there's a recurring bias against video game designers that isn't really called for, and while you're not exactly being hostile about it, needing to otherize Adams in that way (in the quoted sentence) is an example of it.And that becomes especially important, as the book in question is very open both about its intended audience, but also the fact that its principles are universal at the level of abstraction they exist in. Game design is game design, and (discrete) mechanics are not dependent on a specific medium.But more than that, I've also found that what all I ever actually learned from RPGs almost all came from just reading and examining the games that I hoped did the same things I was looking to do. And it wasn't until this book that I had a way to not only quantify what a game (any game) was doing, but also a way to replicate and tweak, and especially to innovate.I wasn't getting any of that from any RPG designer; not even the ones I find agreeable. I've never actually disagree with AngryGM for example, and I've expressed how much it felt like the Arora authors were basically speaking my thoughts back to me, but neither one really taught me much about game design.Stories still happen in the real world, however, so if a story is what one is after, Chess is a possible avenue. The implicit value judgement here is that the stories Chess generates aren't the same as a genre emulating story, and thus they're lesser.While it is true that the stories are not the same, whether or not one is better than the other is subjective. And moreover, that value judgement also speaks to intention. Baker et al were not exactly coy about pushing genre emulation (ie, storygaming) specifically, and no matter what people may percieve, that is its own game type.It can and has been hybridized with RPGs, but it is not the end all be all nor does it have to be.Its fine to believe that they're the second coming and to prefer to foster a design style that will reproduce these hybrids, but you need to be honest about it, and you need to recognize that you're not espousing a universal design credo. (Generic you, if there was any doubt)I would argue that he is, if partially. For one, the term "the fiction" isn't very precise, and the way its being used is as a contextual chameleon; you have to rely on context clues to get what anyone's talking about and not what the actual word means or what it implies.But beyond that, what Adams focuses on in the book is player centric design, and thats what the machinations are useful for examining. Much of what we're calling fiction problems in this topic absolutely are covered by this methodology (encumberance for example, as I related in one of my earlier replies).Now, Adams does truly not cover what I call aesthetics, but that doesn't mean his methodology is incomplete. As I related in my combat system anecdote, the methodology can identify aesthetic issues, and IMO, they're not really all that hard to solve.Sure, specific mediums have unique problems. Those unique problems aren't mechanic problems, however. I'd offer up an alternative terminology in this case: a TTRPG rule book is a different product from a video game, and so they come with their own design concerns.However, the underlying game in both are not mutually exclusive, particularly if one takes to the distinction the book makes: there's more than one broad type of mechanic. Continous mechanics are the things you're pointing to that video games hold as a unique problem. Rapid, 1:1 Gravity simulations and such that are heavily impractical, if not impossible, to utilize without a computer.Discrete mechanics, however, are distinct from that in that they have dramatically less (all the way down to zero) computational overhead, and as such are more broadly applicable to all games, regardless of the medium. Discrete is what the book exclusively focuses on.Something else the book talks about to prove this point (that mechanics are media independent), is that board games are often digitized 1:1, and the underlying game doesn't necessarily change just because the medium did.Take Chess. Most of the time, there's only going to be one explicit mechanical difference that results from digitizing chess: the obligate addition of an AI to play against. Playing against a Chess AI does produce a meaningful mechanical difference in how Chess plays, but the same digital version is typically able to be played multiplayer and thus the the original experience is maintained.RPGs are naturally more complex than Chess is mechanically, but the throughline that says something is fundamentally changing by a change in medium isn't being supported by your contentions.(But it is when you recognize the implicit improv game that's lost as a result of digitization, hence the importance of identifying whats actually in these games)Here's the problem: if I have to ask what your questions mean, you're getting in your own way in terms of design.That's not surprising. When I first came across the concept it became a quest to try and find the source, and Adams book is where I stopped as it teaches how to make and use them. Knowing there's earlier material is good to know.I have <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />. That tends to come with the territory when you want a higher fidelity tactical combat system. Not exactly the same problem you're relating (ie, a software engineering concern), but the underlying game elements aren't any different, especially in regards to how they interact with the chosen medium. My game uses a hybrid mapping system that combines position based combat with zones, and so by abstracting mapping in that way I have to be particular about how those elements work.Im actually not even convinced Ive got it right so far, but the holiday weekend should prove fruitful in answering that definitively. (Itll be the first time I'm taking the system out of my proverbial simulator)I think it should be considered that this is just as possible in a video game. The use of a rendered, physical/digital gamespace doesn't preclude the capability to percieve the overall "scene" as something more than its parts.The difference comes in making those additional imagined elements a new and integrated part of the gameworld, which is where the improv game comes in.But it should also be considered too that games have come a long way, and while the possibility space doesn't approach infinity (frankly Id dispute that tabletop approaches it), that doesn't mean they can't create satisfying emergent narratives and gameworlds.The Shadow of Mordor/War games for example have proven how far one can go (so far) in a video game to make an explicit narrative emerge out of comparatively simpler progression and emergent mechanics.And meanwhile other games have explored the idea of crafting and world shaping in providing the same idea for gameworld elements. Minecraft is the premiere example of that, and similar scope games like Space Engineers have also done really well in this regard.And as I related previously (or at least thought, its a long discussion at this point), I contend that there's different kinds of stories that can be told and the genre emulating ones aren't the only ones worth looking at. Anectdotally, I can say that the most memorable moments or stories I've had in any game, tabletop or digital, couldn't have ever come out of genre emulation.This is more or less my thoughts exactly.</blockquote>

Verification