![]() ![]() A dick can always find a way to ruin a game, but that doesn't mean we should be providing opportunities. Don't be a dick is a fantastic rule, but good mechanics don't rely on it overmuch. A good game should be difficult to ruin just by playing to type within the rules. Problem players exist, and to some extent everyone is one. Instead of designing a game to be for all 3 types of players, consider designing a game that is "against" the problematic incarnations, mechanically speaking, of these types. Personally, I'm mostly a Johnny/Spike mix when the rules permit sufficient complexity, albeit constrained by my vision of the character. Dungeonmagic and Dominionquest, and all that. Phew, for a second there you had me worried that a game couldn't gain insights from another game without being purified or corrupted (whichever you prefer) by it. What type of player are you? I think I'm a Spike. How in the world can you make a game that serves all these play styles? Any ideas? Winning tic-tac-toe is not nearly as satisfying as winning chess, because chess is a better demonstration of skill. Spike likes rules that he has to figure out. Also, everything is so well balanced mathematically that few powers let you do wonky but numerically weak things, like turn enemies into toads, or trade access to higher-level powers for the ability to use weaker ones more often. ![]() In 4e I can't have my eladrin invoker take feats intended for elf clerics. In this regard, I feel 3e was a lot nicer than 4e, because multiclassing let you mix and match stuff so much more easily in 3e. I mean, mechanically, grappling a monster while you're on fire is not nearly as effective as just hacking at it with your sword, and if the grapple rules are complex enough, it ends up turning a cool idea into a lame and tedious moment of disappointment. In general, Timmy likes simpler rules, because there are fewer ways the rules can get in the way of doing cool things. You also need rules to cater to different playstyles. Mearls' latest articles were about different dials of complexity. Spike wants to not lose (or at least not to screw up). Plus it grants itself temporary hit points and regeneration." (Sometimes they also intentionally handicap themselves, just to see if they can still win by outwitting their opponents.) In D&D, that means, "I found this really nice build online, and it can deal an average of 17.3 damage per round. They're competitive, they want their playing skill to be rewarded, and will typically pick whatever tactics are the best to win. Spike likes to be as efficient and effective as possible. In D&D that might mean "I've taken the right combination of feats and class levels to be able to punch someone and deliver Baleful Polymorph as an at-will touch spell, so every time I punch someone, they turn into a toad!" Johnny likes to tinker with the rules, and likes to achieve success as a result of his own creativity and ingenuity of putting together unusual elements. In D&D, this might mean "My barbarian sets himself on fire and grapples the ice troll, head-butting for full power attack!" Timmy likes big effects, doesn't want to waste much time on subtlety or finesse, and thinks he ought to do well if he's doing something dramatic. I started wondering if some of the insights from one game can help in the design of the other.Īnyone who spends much time reading WotC's Magic site knows about the three main player profiles. ![]() Reading Mike Mearls' recent articles reminded me of all the design articles of Mark Rosewater, a big name for WotC's other game, Magic: the Gathering. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |