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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8602737" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mean, it doesn't have to be. That's just how I've chosen to respond to it. I find the vast, vast, VAST majority of discussion about game design focuses on designers as auteurs, as purely artistic expressions with zero room for analysis or critique other than "was it enjoyable" (fun for gaming; aesthetically pleasing for films; etc.), which as noted is basically impossible to grapple with in an analytic way. You can't break down the experience of fun into smaller pieces, figure out how those pieces work, and then reassemble those pieces into a more effective whole--or, rather, doing so would at least require a psychology lab and a lot more money and time than I will ever possess.I had viewed your reply as...well, more or less an, "Okay, but what about X?" If it was simply meant as a "that's cool, X is also relevant," then...alright. Not much to say on that front. As I've said, I don't find the "fun" analysis useful in the vast majority of cases, because badly-made or dull things can be "fun" in the right context, and well-made or exciting things can be un-fun in the wrong context. It's too sensitive to a host of issues, from personal to situational to contextual, such that all we can really say in the end is "if you like X, do that; if you don't, I'm sorry to hear that." We can't even argue from "I didn't have fun with X" to "then you should avoid X and pursue Y," because it will never even in principle be possible to identify what the person would have had fun with, nor whether they will have fun with Y in a new context that we cannot predict.It is only by identifying the goals of the game, how well it meets those goals, and whether those goals match the interests of the player(s) that we can actually provide any constructive feedback to either the player or the designer.A very substantial number of people, based on how people advocate for certain things regarding game design. D&D has to be for them. (Note that this is not one single faction--it is vocal people from numerous distinct groups.) If it is not for them then it is a bad game. These folks are usually the ones most vehemently opposed to any kind of analysis of game design as a technology, despite the fact that that analysis would be incredibly useful for helping them find a game that actually does suit them."Complete" in a rather....scant definition of the term, wouldn't you say? "Complete" in the sense that it treats truly absolutely every situation precisely identically. Sure, it requires no familiarity--because it offers no specificity (which may or may not imply complexity). Such "systems on a business card" certainly function, but run into trouble whenever anyone feels there should be something special or different about any particular situation, which is one of the common criticisms of things like this (such as Fate, with its open-ended "aspect" system), that everything from slaying the god-emperor of the universe to telling a lie to a small child is resolved in exactly the same way.But yes, if we're going to be that pedantic about it on a D&D subforum in a D&D General thread, any system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D. So, "Doesn't that mean that a system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D working is primarily a function of familiarity on the part of the players and DM? That would seem to indicate that it's impossible for a new system of complexity comparable to any edition of D&D to EVER be 'working.' That seems like a metric without much utility for games like D&D."Even Dungeon World would run afoul of this proposed metric, and it's by far the lightest system I've ever played. (Too light, for my taste as a player. But as a DM it is nice to have such a straightforward system for my second campaign ever.)</blockquote>

Verification