Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AngryMojo" data-source="post: 5944544" data-attributes="member: 83096">I think this winds up being the main problem with designing a &quot;big tent&quot; type game.&nbsp; No matter what you call the core, you alienate people.&nbsp; Canonizing the abstract HP with everything that can reduce your longevity in combat called &quot;damage&quot; while everything that prolongs it is &quot;healing&quot; turns off people who prefer the approach of &quot;damage is always some sort of physical wound, no matter how small.&quot;&nbsp; At the same time, removing the concept of morale-healing (I greatly prefer this term to &quot;shout healing&quot; as it's far less derisive towards a given style of play) and having the more straightforward HP as physical wounds at all time approach being the core you turn off the people who prefer the abstract.&nbsp; Either way brings up serious questions to one audience or the other, and without the market research to back it up we have no way of quantifying the audience each approach caters to.&nbsp; We can't say majority with any sort of academic integrity, the most we can say is plurality and that term applies to both camps.If a given group is so entrenched that they feel the game is a non-starter because of an assumption in the core rules, one that can be easily changed with a module, I doubt they'll wind up being particularly happy with any game.&nbsp; I understand this particular notion is rather extreme and most camps will accept a number of game mechanics they don't like rather than reject the game outright, but we've seen on these boards people who fall into that extreme of &quot;I don't like one mechanic, therefore I refuse to play the game.&quot;If the argument is what mechanics should be available, the answer is simple: both.&nbsp; The modular system encourages this.&nbsp; If the question is what approach should be core you hit the endless debate of what D&amp;D &quot;should&quot; be, and that one little word spawns horrible debate and turns discussion into arguments.&nbsp; I'd say the question isn't &quot;What should the core be?&quot; so much as &quot;Which approach is the simplest and most streamlined, the one that forms the best foundation?&quot;&nbsp; If this means that neither of them are the core, instead both being modules with the core of the game emphasizing the two as different styles of play then so be it.I think this argument really forms the abstract of D&amp;D playstyles, is this a simulationist game in the sense that it's attempting to simulate a working fantasy world, or is it simulationist in the idea that it's trying to simulate heroic fantasy fiction?&nbsp; The solution is simple, put a term to both styles and preface elements that don't fit into a given ideal as such.&nbsp; For the sake of argument, let's call the two Physical vs. a Narrative style, where the simulationist-as-world-rules is Physical, while the simulationist-as-narrative-rules is Narrative.Morale-healing is prefaced with the codifier &quot;Narrative,&quot; indicating that it will likely not appeal to Physical players.&nbsp; Meanwhile a rule that only an attack that actually causes physical damage can drop a character below zero HP will have the &quot;Physical&quot; quantifier.&nbsp; If this divide is acknowledged during the base design of the game it's much easier to apply the philosophy.In short, pleasing everybody is impossible.&nbsp; Pleasing people with firm stances that aren't extreme or radical but divergent still requires one to not take a stand, but be as moderate as possible with nods to both camps.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AngryMojo, post: 5944544, member: 83096"] I think this winds up being the main problem with designing a "big tent" type game. No matter what you call the core, you alienate people. Canonizing the abstract HP with everything that can reduce your longevity in combat called "damage" while everything that prolongs it is "healing" turns off people who prefer the approach of "damage is always some sort of physical wound, no matter how small." At the same time, removing the concept of morale-healing (I greatly prefer this term to "shout healing" as it's far less derisive towards a given style of play) and having the more straightforward HP as physical wounds at all time approach being the core you turn off the people who prefer the abstract. Either way brings up serious questions to one audience or the other, and without the market research to back it up we have no way of quantifying the audience each approach caters to. We can't say majority with any sort of academic integrity, the most we can say is plurality and that term applies to both camps. If a given group is so entrenched that they feel the game is a non-starter because of an assumption in the core rules, one that can be easily changed with a module, I doubt they'll wind up being particularly happy with any game. I understand this particular notion is rather extreme and most camps will accept a number of game mechanics they don't like rather than reject the game outright, but we've seen on these boards people who fall into that extreme of "I don't like one mechanic, therefore I refuse to play the game." If the argument is what mechanics should be available, the answer is simple: both. The modular system encourages this. If the question is what approach should be core you hit the endless debate of what D&D "should" be, and that one little word spawns horrible debate and turns discussion into arguments. I'd say the question isn't "What should the core be?" so much as "Which approach is the simplest and most streamlined, the one that forms the best foundation?" If this means that neither of them are the core, instead both being modules with the core of the game emphasizing the two as different styles of play then so be it. I think this argument really forms the abstract of D&D playstyles, is this a simulationist game in the sense that it's attempting to simulate a working fantasy world, or is it simulationist in the idea that it's trying to simulate heroic fantasy fiction? The solution is simple, put a term to both styles and preface elements that don't fit into a given ideal as such. For the sake of argument, let's call the two Physical vs. a Narrative style, where the simulationist-as-world-rules is Physical, while the simulationist-as-narrative-rules is Narrative. Morale-healing is prefaced with the codifier "Narrative," indicating that it will likely not appeal to Physical players. Meanwhile a rule that only an attack that actually causes physical damage can drop a character below zero HP will have the "Physical" quantifier. If this divide is acknowledged during the base design of the game it's much easier to apply the philosophy. In short, pleasing everybody is impossible. Pleasing people with firm stances that aren't extreme or radical but divergent still requires one to not take a stand, but be as moderate as possible with nods to both camps. [/QUOTE]

Verification