Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847487...yes, I've dropped a deck of punch cards when I didn't bother punching the sequence numbers.

I personally prefer a series of if statements where the "else" condition is "go to end of function."  It's more wordy, but each if statement tests for exactly one desired condition, and it makes it a HELL of a lot clearer what's going on.

Of course, when I was told that I "write C like a COBOL programmer" I took it as a compliment.  I don't think it was intended as one, but too bad.

Before the DMG came out we'd take old decks of punch cards no one was using for programming any more, and mark them up, and use them to randomly generate dungeons...

How far does your character travel before reaching a new door, dead end, or side passage?

Randomly shuffle the punch card deck and start with the top row. Count over... first hole punch you get to is how many feet in 10' increments you have to travel to reach a side passage. Row below it determines whether it's a left or right angled passageway. If the hole has been outlined with a marker, it's a door. We marked the cards with other symbols for traps, statues, and unusual features

If you reach the end of a line without having a single hole punched out, corridor ends in a dead end. Roll for a secret door.

...and so on.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Presentation is not a criterion; valuing one presentation over another is. Whence that valuation? Is it inherent in nature like the value of Pi? No: it is like the value of pie, a matter of one's very personal palate and preference.

Easiness to use and learn can to some extent be quantified, though it depends to another extent on who is using and learning it. Of course, it's hard to get much easier than Tic Tac Toe (except that Snakes and Ladders removes the whole element of choice). You're free to choose that as the highest value -- in which case Candyland is presumably superior to D&D -- but that's your choice. Every other person has the same liberty, and may choose a different set of trade-off priorities.

Speed of Play is likewise.

Accomplishment of stated goals is a sound criterion for assessing a design, unless one goes by a dishonest statement. However, in the field at hand people are typically not so much concerned with the satisfaction a design gives the designer. Rather, when they speak of "better" or "worse" they are focused on their own likes and dislikes.

Quote from: Bren;847490I can't intelligently talk about my lumbago, but if you like, I could tell you about my shoulder separation. That's fairly new.

Oh I know lots 'bout lumbago, had it pretty bad 7 years ago
(Then got rid of it more or less, allthough it returns sometimes)

Hope your shoulder isn't too bad atm!

Quote from: The Ent;847502Hope your shoulder isn't too bad atm!

Thanks! Not too bad to prevent me from wasting time typing forum posts in between organizing factions for my campaign.

Quote from: Bren;847516Thanks! Not too bad to prevent me from wasting time typing forum posts in between organizing factions for my campaign.

Good to hear!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847232Hush, you and your "knowing what words actually mean,"

No, I just make stuff up.

Knowledge is subjective.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847479...okay, there are enough layers of quotation and response that I'm no longer sure who is responding to what any more.  I think I misunderstood your comment.

Kind of like if-statements nested eight or ten deep.  At some point you lose track of what the hell's going on.

It went to Deuce and then Advantage somebody about ten times, so I lost count.

I tend to page down on the "I said, you said, I said, you said" posts.

Double post. Sorry.

Quote from: PhillipAccomplishment of stated goals is a sound criterion for assessing a design, unless one goes by a dishonest statement. However, in the field at hand people are typically not so much concerned with the satisfaction a design gives the designer. Rather, when they speak of "better" or "worse" they are focused on their own likes and dislikes.

This is the essence of the matter, I think. It is possible, IMHO, to quantify and measure things like presentation (layout, organization, etc), easiness of use (simple sum is good, complex math is not, as is consulting of half-dozen tables for different tasks - and really, saying you memorized them only speaks to the complexity of the object), speed of play (come on, it only takes a clock for this), etc.

But the point is, in the end, familiarity is the single most important factor in this hobby. Chances are, the rules that introduced you to the hobby (or perhaps another early ruleset) will paint how you perceive it, interact with it, understand it, and what you expect from it, for the rest of your life. And because of this, judging games in a reasonable way is so difficult.

I think a good first step point is wondering how a novice to the hobby would react to exposition to rules X, Y or Z and then take note. Or at least trying this as a mental exercise. "Would a novice find it easier to add +1 or -1 here, or open a book to consult half-a-dozen tables across different pages ?"

I can choose to make a novice's opinion what matters to me, or another novice's, or no novices. That choice is utterly subjective, as much as an alternative such as going by what a columnist, academy or Gallup poll says.

After that, anyone can come up with metrics by the yard. "60% of finches prefer this edition as cage liner," whatever. That doesn't make the initial choice of what to value anything other than an opinion!

Quote from: Phillip;847598I can choose to make a novice's opinion what matters to me, or another novice's, or no novices. That choice is utterly subjective, as much as an alternative such as going by what a columnist, academy or Gallup poll says.

You scooped me.

In addition, most RPGs are not written for novices nor are they run by novices, so using how a rule or game is perceived by a novice as the main criteria has some obvious issues.

How about the criteria "speed of play" ? Is it also subjective for you guys ? If yes, how so ? Here, lemme propose a comparison:

Shadowrun 4e vs Dungeon World.

1) Character creation. Whats faster, the point-buy one (Shadowrun) or the "fill the form" one (Dungeon World) ?

2) Combat mechanics. Whats faster, the highly structured one (Shadowrun) or the highly abstracted one (Dungeon World) ?

Do you think its possible to reach an objective conclusion here ?

Quote from: Itachi;847615How about the criteria "speed of play" ? Is it also subjective for you guys ? If yes, how so ? Here, lemme propose a comparison:

Shadowrun 4e vs Dungeon World.

1) Character creation. Whats faster, the point-buy one (Shadowrun) or the "fill the form" one (Dungeon World) ?

2) Combat mechanics. Whats faster, the highly structured one (Shadowrun) or the highly abstracted one (Dungeon World) ?

Do you think its possible to reach an objective conclusion here ?

More to the point, "so what?"  If somebody wants to painstakingly construct their character, and many people do, the "speed of character creation" is irrelevant.

We can measure many objective but meaningless things, like weight of paper, font, and size of type.  That doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

Quote from: Itachi;847620So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

If you define "play."  It is possible to measure how long it takes X number of players and X number of NPCs to complete one round of combat, for instance.

The relevant question, however, is still "so what."

We can also objectively count the number of six sided dice on the table.  I, and I suspect nobody else either, has any interest in "objective but trivial."