Basically every time someone raises an idea of game design, there's great stomping in expectation of Furor Teutonicus, as someone may dare to say that he does not like old D&D's design, and that's simply madness, like every guy who tries to approach things mathematically is going to be new Foul Ole Ron.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689996....what?

But I'm asking you, not them. You are the one who created this semi-trainwreck of a thread. It's a fair request, don't you think? :cool:

Let us eat shit. Millions of flies can not be wrong.

Quote from: Haffrung;690094Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

I think the greatest shame is  that despite proud stomps of how "noise to content" ratio on RPG.net is so so so low...

Quote from: jhkim;690082OK, so I briefly checked it out - but it seems to me like there is a disconnect between the mechanics and the fiction.  What is the grid of zones with no diagonal connections supposed to represent, even in the abstract sense?  Is there anything you're trying to convey?

The grid combat is designed to be an abstraction of combat, not a physical representation like most the way most games handle grids. The system was designed mechanics first to ensure that the combat engine was fun in and of itself, even divorced from the narrative. It is, essentially, a "mini-game" used to both generate a story about the fight, including determining a winner and loser.  Having LOS with a target means that, in the fiction of the game, your character is in a position to pull off a shot. Not having LOS/not being adjacent with a melee weapon means that your character is not in a position to attack, busy dealing with mooks or the environment, re positioning for a killing blow, ect. The mechanical interactions inform the narrative. If you like the way D&D 4e handled combat (ie system first) then you'll probably enjoy Stab City! If you don't like board game style combat, then hey, this might be a fun one-shot, but you probably aren't going to invest a great deal of time into it.

Quote from: Haffrung;690094Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

Still the best general RPG forum, and that's the depressing part.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."

Quote from: jeff37923;689972At least I got you to stop posting quotes from fucking ENworld.

All yah gotta do is ask me to stop posting those, and I am happy to oblige.

But just for you.  Cause you fill a special place in my dark, cold, black heart.

Quote from: jhkim;690082That said, I definitely agree there are gimmicky mechanics.  This is how I feel about the One Roll Engine, for example.  

Haven't played ORE, so I can't comment on that, but...

to me, the thing that I look for is whether the mechanics are in place to solve some problem, or if they're just there to be novel.  That can be hard to determine without mind-reading, so I look to see if the mechanics actually do something that couldn't be achieved with a more widely-used mechanic, at least without more effort.

Personally, I couldn't care less about die mechanics as a rule.  I wouldn't choose or avoid a game because of how it used the dice.  But a focus on gimmicky mechanics to me is an indicator of what the designer thought was important, and generally what I care about isn't what a "gimmicky" designer cares about.

Interesting, an improvement to the topic!

Finally we get that this starts with an exemplar comment to the "losing the forest for the trees" sort of navel gazing. The RPG game is lost for the mighty-meta-mini-games within. "Stupid dice tricks," if one may.

And now we have gamerGoyf actually contribute with commentary on the tangential issue of design elegance. Still not exactly on point, but we are meriting progress!

Soon, soon!, our shared critical reading will catch up and we'll make a mighty soufflé!

Keep practicing! :cheerleader:

Quote from: Cheneybeast;690099The grid combat is designed to be an abstraction of combat, not a physical representation like most the way most games handle grids. The system was designed mechanics first to ensure that the combat engine was fun in and of itself, even divorced from the narrative. It is, essentially, a "mini-game" used to both generate a story about the fight, including determining a winner and loser.  Having LOS with a target means that, in the fiction of the game, your character is in a position to pull off a shot. Not having LOS/not being adjacent with a melee weapon means that your character is not in a position to attack, busy dealing with mooks or the environment, re positioning for a killing blow, ect. The mechanical interactions inform the narrative. If you like the way D&D 4e handled combat (ie system first) then you'll probably enjoy Stab City! If you don't like board game style combat, then hey, this might be a fun one-shot, but you probably aren't going to invest a great deal of time into it.

I love many board games and enjoy tactical combat, but there are many board games that I don't like and consider badly designed.  I have more experience with the D&D4 board games (i.e. Wrath of Ashardalon etal) than I do with D&D4 as an RPG, but I have some experience with both, and didn't hate them - but wasn't particularly taken by either one.  In the board games, a drawback is how successful tactics clash with what made sense - and seemed unintentional, such as hinging on details of counting squares and tiles.  

Among abstract RPG systems, I know reasonably well Dogs in the Vineyard, In a Wicked Age, Polaris, Marvel Heroic Role-playing, Lacuna, and others.  I enjoyed Polaris a lot - and I thought that the abstract game did a good job of being flavorful without being representational.  In many games, though, the abstract system doesn't add anything to the flavor of the game.  With effort, descriptions can be thrown in - but the system isn't helping.  Marvel Heroic Roleplaying felt this way to me.

Quote from: jadrax;690047The Wikipedia  page should give you a basic grounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

"A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."

Well....Pundit (and many others here) want rpgnet to return to its previous state before the mods and passive-aggressive posters destroyed it. Also....many posters here want D&D to return to its previous state before WoTC got its hands on it. People here tend to be pretty cranky and almost narrow-minded about demanding it.

I mean, let's face it....as written by Trollman, Black Vulmea's post (and other posts on this site) are "a dismissive attempt to belittle people who have a different gaming style than their own". So Trollman pretty much nailed it. Of course, the Denners are guilty of the same shit over there....though in a different way. But in this case, I don't think he's actually wrong.....though I will admit that he should look in the mirror sometime, and recognize that he's actually more narrow-minded about roleplaying games than the crowd over here. But whatever. That doesn't necessarily invalidate his point.

Quote from: Opaopajr;690120Soon, soon!, our shared critical reading will catch up and we'll make a mighty soufflé!

Neigh, neigh I say for that's common sense talk and that horse won't race! This is the internet where rage runs apace! A troll and a lol, that's a day's wage, as I don't need to tell you in this day and age!

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690122I mean, let's face it....as written by Trollman, Black Vulmea's post (and other posts on this site) are "a dismissive attempt to belittle people who have a different gaming style than their own".

I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690126I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

Well technically right now you're talking about people talking about people talking about games ;3

but I digress let's talk about dice, at what point do dice mechanics become too complicated in your opinion :?

Stupid Dice Tricks are only stupid if they don't accomplish what they intended to accomplish. And there are two ways to model what they accomplish: Math and Play. Both are important.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690126I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

I don't even know any more.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088As the original coiner of the phrase 'stupid dice tricks,' ...

Doesn't really matter who originated the term. I'm sure if you referred to a professional lion tamer's animals as performing stupid pet tricks, they would be offended. The original term is sardonic. In the case of our night show antics, one might agree that a dog that farts on command is a SPT, but less might agree that a lion that back-flips on command qualifies. So there IS context here. You don't like these mechanics. You refer to them as SDTs in a derogatory manner. You started a fight, you got a fight.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088Well, I was going to suggest if you want to be safe from trigger words like stupid ...

I don't need safety on the InterTubes. Just because I'm calling out your obvious trolling thread as such, does not mean I need protection from your trolling thread. I'm in here posting in it, yes?

 

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088Some of us have been having a conversation about gaming. Others expressing their outrage at the form that conversation takes. Guess which ones are actually contributing to the thread?

1) I'm not outraged, just discussing, stating my onion. 2) You started out the thread by flinging shit. I'm just pointing out that is a somewhat disingenuous way of starting a conversation. As I stated above, calling something "stupid" is being derogatory. In the vein of night show comedy, the term can be amusing, but it could also be CONSTRUED as being rude (again, the context of it seems obvious to everyone who's posted in the thread so far...). I'm not saying you're an evil bastard because you used the term. Nor am I suggesting you should not be allowed to post as you see fit. I'm just pointing out that starting the thread in this manner steered the conversation in a more hostile direction.

2) The conversation happened by pure accident. Most would not expect a conversation to fall out of a fight. :-) Also note that I agree with your premise. I feel that game designers should play games. I'm just pointing out that the execution was not ideal and I see that as a reoccurring problem here (I have been guilty of it as well).

Don't mistake my discourse for dislike (or a personal attack) BV. I have nothing against you personally. :-P

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689777*sigh*

I think the point Black Vulmea raised in his initial post is a really good one.

I've done design and community consulting on about 12 different MMOs. In the MMORPG industry, there is a huge disparity of in-game expertise between the designers and the players. Hardcore MMO players generally play 40+ hours per week. Truly hardcore raiding guild players may rack up even more time. Since most video game designers work 60 - 70 hours per week, they physically cannot play their own game that much. A lot of problems arise because many designers simply don't understand how their MMO works in practice as well as their own players do. The good designers acknowledge this and find workarounds; the bad designers pretend it's not a problem.

Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.