Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7739621" data-attributes="member: 30518">I think you misunderstand. Almost all of my standalone games are models of some (possibly fictional) situation, whereas a great many modern board games (such as many Euros) are abstract (model of nothing) even if a story is tacked on. Modeling is essential.&nbsp; But if you only have story, you don't have a game. A story without mechanisms is not a game. When much of the discussion has been how to connect various realms (and which realms), you're not doing much (if anything) to specify mechanisms to model that.Virtually every RPG has a default or background setting.&nbsp; D&amp;D's was &quot;medieval plus magic.&quot; (Though they didn't think through the consequences of that, they relied on available fiction.) That default setting is, in the long run, what's being modeled. But you can create more detailed settings and add modifications to the rules to help model that setting. Which is what Spelljammer is supposed to be, but the rules (mechanisms) do a poor job.&nbsp;Without accepting this entirely, as games sometimes have other aims (such as education), it's the designer's job to make it easy for the GM to entertain. In other words, the GM shouldn't have to &quot;fix&quot; a weak design. Otherwise, what good is the designer?&nbsp;No. As I said, carrying capacity. The average 'jammer can carry far more than spells-items-monsters combinations, and there are lots of 'jammers. And they can hover (very important in aiming those rocks etc.). Of course, if your world is full of magic and high-level casters and monsters (unlike mine), the contrast is less striking.3D:&nbsp;&nbsp; No, it's a matter of practicality. It's too fiddly, too complex, to model 3D space. 3D dominates tabletop games where it's done. Even computer space games, which can model 3D much better than tabletop, are sometimes 2D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lewpuls, post: 7739621, member: 30518"] I think you misunderstand. Almost all of my standalone games are models of some (possibly fictional) situation, whereas a great many modern board games (such as many Euros) are abstract (model of nothing) even if a story is tacked on. Modeling is essential. But if you only have story, you don't have a game. A story without mechanisms is not a game. When much of the discussion has been how to connect various realms (and which realms), you're not doing much (if anything) to specify mechanisms to model that. Virtually every RPG has a default or background setting. D&D's was "medieval plus magic." (Though they didn't think through the consequences of that, they relied on available fiction.) That default setting is, in the long run, what's being modeled. But you can create more detailed settings and add modifications to the rules to help model that setting. Which is what Spelljammer is supposed to be, but the rules (mechanisms) do a poor job. Without accepting this entirely, as games sometimes have other aims (such as education), it's the designer's job to make it easy for the GM to entertain. In other words, the GM shouldn't have to "fix" a weak design. Otherwise, what good is the designer? No. As I said, carrying capacity. The average 'jammer can carry far more than spells-items-monsters combinations, and there are lots of 'jammers. And they can hover (very important in aiming those rocks etc.). Of course, if your world is full of magic and high-level casters and monsters (unlike mine), the contrast is less striking. 3D: No, it's a matter of practicality. It's too fiddly, too complex, to model 3D space. 3D dominates tabletop games where it's done. Even computer space games, which can model 3D much better than tabletop, are sometimes 2D. [/QUOTE]

Verification