It seems we aren't so far apart, and if my optimism were balanced with your
cynicism, we'd both probably be closer to reality ;-)
> Voivode
>
> Except about the attrition, but that is one that, as you say, only time
will tell.
Indeed. Gaming has a grand tradition of attrition, one I expect to
continue.
> It is just that getting the GM types (typically established
> players who often convince others to play the game) to want to play your
> system is good way to get repeat sales and I think they tend to be the
> consistent buyers of a game system & setting. This is where I
> think system is important.
This is the Big Trick of all new game developers. You can do it with lots
of either money or brilliance, but too little of either one will get you
nowhere.
> True, lets hope that it will actually be flexible enough to handle these
> sorts of ideas.
I certainly hope so.
> I disagree, if they can be "distinct with respect to each other" then
> they are effectively unique. They may serve the same purpose, but they
> (each of the handful of distinct processes) do it with a distinct
> feel/expression. I don't think you can distil the disparate mechanics to
> less than that handful. However I do like the idea of mechanics being
> irrelevant , though I tend to desire that to really mean they are
> unobtrusive. The problem here is that I tend to find flat randomizers
> obtrusive, while the guy next to me find bell curves obtrusive,
> whereas the
> girl across the table thinks shallow bell curves lend a better feel than
> flat randomizers or deep/extreme bell curves. They can lend a
> distinct feel
> to the game. The shallower the bell curve or a flat randomizer makes the
> extremes much more likely whereas a deeper bell curve allows for a greater
> likelihood of a normal result. Then there are dice pools and even the
> difference between grainy (1d6) and fine randomizers(1d100).
> There is a feel
> involved with each of these. I don't think that they can be
> distilled down
> and addressed at a more common level while retaining any meaning to the
> conversation. I hope this makes sense to someone besides me. . .
It makes fine sense (although the dice pools aren't actually distinct,
they're just another variation of a root exponential equation). I agree
that each one helps to give a game a distinct character. I'd just like to
see a standardized implementation for each one of these types of curves
(along with a detailed series of examples on what the variations were). It
would be invaluable to a designer to be able to pick the randomizer they
needed for the feel they desired.
> Ah, then why didn't you says so? :-) (BIG GRIN! No mail bombs,OK? I
> understand that we often need to go through these iterations to make our
> thoughts clearer to the other party)
No Boom today; Boom tomorrow. There's always a Boom tomorrow. (Obscure B5
reference)
> SNIP because I think we are just going to have to "agree to
> disagree" on the
> issue of whether or not someone can intellectually decide to not like D20
> standardization. (Hope you don't feel I paraphrased you too incorrectly).
That's a fair gist of my meaning. Once can certainly decide not to like the
chosen expression standards.
> I guess I basically agree, but I don't see it happening that way,
> maybe I am
> too cynical.
Cynicism keeps the optimists honest! ;-)
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
