Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: You're Playing it Wrong!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9154794" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>That reminds me of what [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] wrote. Contemporary designs like DW seem to me to benefit from more recent design philosophies that mitigate complexity through avoiding unnecessary interdependencies. So a move like Hack and Slash is quite well encapsulated, fetching few parameters from other places. As [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] pointed out, one of the design characteristics of WotC-era D&D has been heavily interdependent rules: it can take a lot of play to notice all the cases a change impacts. And then the general DW move structure is reused for almost all mechanised character actions (with some degree of heterogeneity, such as in various spells).</p><p></p><p>When you talk about "declaration" I think about both detail and greater heterogeneity. Both sides of that can be worthwhile. If one wants a highly-detailed treatment of subject then often rules that use common patterns and easy-to-manage parameters will miss some detail you care about. Hack and Slash is an equally good example of this. You could argue that no let's-pretend can really capture melee combat, but I certainly felt like I was engaging in one far more viscerally in ICE than DW. That's not a criticism of the latter: it just a different focus. A very broad range of things worth handling are far easier to handle using PbtA methods. But a benefit of greater heterogenity of the design patterns (perhaps that's what you have in mind with schematic?) is the ability to give specific activities a distinctive feel. I recall playing a Greater Summoner in DragonQuest, and my stuff just worked so differently mechanically from everyone else's that it made the experience distinctive. (Also, hopelessly OP, but that is another matter.) When Book of Nine Swords appeared for 3.5e it introduced an entirely new mechanical take on fighting (which would go on to inform the design of 4e.)</p><p></p><p>Additionally, challenge in games often correlates to the count and complexity of the available combinations. The list of strategies required for mastery is dependent to some extent on mechanics diversity, but count isn't the same as depth. It's probably a wash in terms of opportunity for challenge; but it certainly has a higher playtest cost to resolve more distinct, and more complexly interconnected, mechanics. A strong motive for publishers like Evil Hat to favour Fate, FitD and PbtA designs. WotC have been able to afford the cost of playtesting a design like D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9154794, member: 71699"] That reminds me of what [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] wrote. Contemporary designs like DW seem to me to benefit from more recent design philosophies that mitigate complexity through avoiding unnecessary interdependencies. So a move like Hack and Slash is quite well encapsulated, fetching few parameters from other places. As [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] pointed out, one of the design characteristics of WotC-era D&D has been heavily interdependent rules: it can take a lot of play to notice all the cases a change impacts. And then the general DW move structure is reused for almost all mechanised character actions (with some degree of heterogeneity, such as in various spells). When you talk about "declaration" I think about both detail and greater heterogeneity. Both sides of that can be worthwhile. If one wants a highly-detailed treatment of subject then often rules that use common patterns and easy-to-manage parameters will miss some detail you care about. Hack and Slash is an equally good example of this. You could argue that no let's-pretend can really capture melee combat, but I certainly felt like I was engaging in one far more viscerally in ICE than DW. That's not a criticism of the latter: it just a different focus. A very broad range of things worth handling are far easier to handle using PbtA methods. But a benefit of greater heterogenity of the design patterns (perhaps that's what you have in mind with schematic?) is the ability to give specific activities a distinctive feel. I recall playing a Greater Summoner in DragonQuest, and my stuff just worked so differently mechanically from everyone else's that it made the experience distinctive. (Also, hopelessly OP, but that is another matter.) When Book of Nine Swords appeared for 3.5e it introduced an entirely new mechanical take on fighting (which would go on to inform the design of 4e.) Additionally, challenge in games often correlates to the count and complexity of the available combinations. The list of strategies required for mastery is dependent to some extent on mechanics diversity, but count isn't the same as depth. It's probably a wash in terms of opportunity for challenge; but it certainly has a higher playtest cost to resolve more distinct, and more complexly interconnected, mechanics. A strong motive for publishers like Evil Hat to favour Fate, FitD and PbtA designs. WotC have been able to afford the cost of playtesting a design like D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: You're Playing it Wrong!
Top