Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9066332" data-attributes="member: 7040941">The designers sure, they've shown that. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for the community, however. Particularly when what you're actually referring to is being caused by the designers depressing the quality of the related mechanics which in turn depresses the value of the mechanics for those who never knew any better. Its dreadfully easy to make any idea sound bad and undesirable when the current implementation is cruddy and better implementations have the spectre of &quot;homebrew&quot; or &quot;old school&quot; attached, as though either of those things has any actual correlation or&nbsp; bearing on the quality of game design. Also has to be said that theres an argument to be made for bridging the gap. Exploration, survival, etc don't have to be insufferable bookkeeping, and theres more than a few ways to integrate them better into the gameplay loop. Likewise, we don't actually need to hold ourselves to the extremely limited binary design of 5e Skills. We can more with them and thread the needle on depth and simplicity by using symmetric design where it works. Some ideas should actually feel mechanically similar (if not identical) despite being ostensibly different things in the fiction.We don't need entirely unique Crafting mechanics for every single type of crafting, for instance. If you instead figure a core mechanic (like my 7Dice mechanic), and then apply rules exceptions to it based on the specific activity, then you can make an easy to learn mechanic that can have practically endless depth without requiring people to relearn new mechanics over and over, just process the same information theyd already be processing. Efficiency, essentially, is what needs to be strived for, and I can say for my game thats been a big benchmark for everything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9066332, member: 7040941"] The designers sure, they've shown that. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for the community, however. Particularly when what you're actually referring to is being caused by the designers depressing the quality of the related mechanics which in turn depresses the value of the mechanics for those who never knew any better. Its dreadfully easy to make any idea sound bad and undesirable when the current implementation is cruddy and better implementations have the spectre of "homebrew" or "old school" attached, as though either of those things has any actual correlation or bearing on the quality of game design. Also has to be said that theres an argument to be made for bridging the gap. Exploration, survival, etc don't have to be insufferable bookkeeping, and theres more than a few ways to integrate them better into the gameplay loop. Likewise, we don't actually need to hold ourselves to the extremely limited binary design of 5e Skills. We can more with them and thread the needle on depth and simplicity by using symmetric design where it works. Some ideas should actually feel mechanically similar (if not identical) despite being ostensibly different things in the fiction. We don't need entirely unique Crafting mechanics for every single type of crafting, for instance. If you instead figure a core mechanic (like my 7Dice mechanic), and then apply rules exceptions to it based on the specific activity, then you can make an easy to learn mechanic that can have practically endless depth without requiring people to relearn new mechanics over and over, just process the same information theyd [I]already[/I] be processing. Efficiency, essentially, is what needs to be strived for, and I can say for my game thats been a big benchmark for everything. [/QUOTE]

Verification