Recent content by Pedantic

That's exactly the abdication of design I was talking about though! "Fun" is complicated and subjective of course, but ultimately it's an evaluation of an experience, not a trait that can be brought to one. You do things you think are fun, you have fun while doing things, you decide the bar...

No, that's exactly the transference that's being pointed out. You gave the player a problem to solve and tools to solve it, if the application of those tools is unpleasant, that's not on the player for engaging with the system you presented. That you can "only" control the tools and the problem...

Earliest attribution (in the usual slightly different form) seems to be Soren Johnson, a different designer working on Civilization. Sid Meyer's most referenced game design insight is "a game is a series of interesting decisions." This is a sore point for me, both because it's ridiculous to...

I think that's a little rose tinted. That, and it's only a problem that gets worse with time.

It's a pipe dream. The razors edge you need to tread with each new release gets tighter and tighter, until something has to give. You can float by with a ban list for a while, but you're always either risking stagnation or power creep.

Oh I think it's both. Nothing that's been said about loot boxes is not at least as true about booster packs, and the secondary "market" is just s slow motion ponzi scheme. Putting that aside though, you still need rotation in a competitive game with an evolving meta, or you'll stagnate pretty...

I don't think we can meaningfully proceed without a clearer shared definition of "role-playing."

I realize this is heresy, but maybe that's less a modern design decision and more an inevitable implication of the whole structure of dude-basher, life depletion, symmetrical objective card games when played well. There's actually not a ton of design space (or even all that much decision making)...

Fantasy Craft had a base playable dragon species and the Lancer class, that specialized in riding. You could easily pair up two PCs to pull that off. The Lancer gets an animal companion that could serve as a mount, but making that into same other kind of pet would be pretty neat.

Hold up, that seems like a substitution. The engine that makes Diplomacy work is a combination of negotiation and defection; you offer up a series of agreements and then either hold up your end or don't, with the precise timing and iterated playing out of each new position playing out the end...

"Lie and betray" is an interesting definition of role-playing.

Maybe 3e has grooved itself too hard into my brain, but intuitively it does really feel like that's not a lot to ask. My experience doesn't bear it out though.

I felt similarly and it's the game norm in A5E. I designed an updated character sheet when I was playing that game to reflect this, having players sweep for ability bonus at the top, then scan down to a list of skills with proficiency and circumstance bonuses/effects listed, but I was surprised...

I've found A5E's expertise die a reasonable compromise, though it didn't go as far substituting that mechanic as it could have. Restricting all the helpful type bonuses down to 1 die, that just upgrades from a d4 up to a d8 barring specific class features provides a little more design space...

Yeah, my problem with that was how casually Mearls threw it out as a truth of the medium, instead of a design decision. There's some truth in that RPGs tend to leave the goal open ended, either as an exercise for the GM or the players, in the form of adventure design or player directed victory...