Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8869025" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You’ll have to explain that then.Mearls was clearly an admirer of Apocalypse World (as any designer should be of Vincent) as he talked about it back then when it was the hot, new game system after its release on 2010, Vincent’s exceptional article on concentric design was out mid-2011 (of which there is no chance Mearls didn’t read), Mearls surely played it (as he played plenty of games), he trod indie spaces back then despite being RAR TEAM OSR (there is more overlap in the conceptual space between indie branches than their is difference…despite the culture war), and 5e’s designers were constantly branding toward creating the equivalent of increasing complexity that elegantly collapsed into a very simple, robust core.The idea that Apocalypse World didn’t heavily influence (conceptually) their early articles and modularity design ideas is the weird take imo (especially given the temporal relationships and the aims of a stripped down core and increasing, modular complexity). I mean, the Social Interaction module that made it to live is basically Apocalypse World 101. It could have been cribbed directly from it (Conversation &gt; Read a Person move on NPC &gt; attain NPC Instinct &gt; leverage NPC Instinct mechanically and within fiction for Big Social Move to bring about disposition change).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8869025, member: 6696971"] You’ll have to explain that then. Mearls was clearly an admirer of Apocalypse World (as any designer should be of Vincent) as he talked about it back then when it was the hot, new game system after its release on 2010, Vincent’s exceptional article on concentric design was out mid-2011 (of which there is no chance Mearls didn’t read), Mearls surely played it (as he played plenty of games), he trod indie spaces back then despite being RAR TEAM OSR (there is more overlap in the conceptual space between indie branches than their is difference…despite the culture war), and 5e’s designers were constantly branding toward creating the equivalent of increasing complexity that elegantly collapsed into a very simple, robust core. The idea that Apocalypse World didn’t heavily influence (conceptually) their early articles and modularity design ideas is the weird take imo (especially given the temporal relationships and the aims of a stripped down core and increasing, modular complexity). I mean, the Social Interaction module that made it to live is basically Apocalypse World 101. It could have been cribbed directly from it (Conversation > Read a Person move on NPC > attain NPC Instinct > leverage NPC Instinct mechanically and within fiction for Big Social Move to bring about disposition change). [/QUOTE]

Verification