On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:46 PM David Johnson <xxxxxx@zarthani.net> wrote:

Tom Barclay <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

I get that you prefer a very high level description in game-play terms, but the point that Kelly St. Clair made is really where my players would be coming at it from and thus why I think about these questions. The knowledge of how a thing works (not the black box itself most of the time, but the bits that feed in and out of it and how said black box can be used) in the game can offer new strategies or preclude them.

I understand. As I tried to explain in my last response to Kelly, I simply don't believe it's reasonable to expect game designers to do this for us. There is probably someone who is as dissatisfied with the Shrieker language--and the prospects for Humaniti-Shrieker communication--as you are dissatisfied with jump drive.

Likewise, you do ~not~ want to get me started on Feudal Technocracy! :;

Isn't that covered under "Non-Charismatic Oligarchy"?

;)

I don't expect them to explain the physics in a way that matters. I expect them to cover the handful of immediately obvious aspects of use in play. That's not too much to ask. They spend many column inches telling us lots of detail about firearms, how to build an APC from scratch, etc. and yet the major McGuffin that gets them around isn't really fully described 'from a use by players/game play' perspective. It's a case of where they spent their time and where they didn't and I find some of those choices are worth giving a raised eyebrow to.

It's not a massive complaint, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to repair either with a paragraph or two to cover the incomplete parts.

At no point do I suggest your approach isn't valid for your group or groups who enjoy that level of detail (or looseness). If it seemed like I was arguing against your approach, I was only insofar as it didn't furnish the solutions I was seeking.

No worries. I didn't have this sense.

Same holds for me too. I'm actually sympathetic to your ends. I just have some different opinions about how best to accomplish them. ~Every~ creator-designer has tried to focus on "good game play." Not so many of them have been as focused on "accurate science simulation."

I could point out that the game designer(s) in this case were focused on crunchy wargame type vehicle construction (Striker, High Guard) maybe more than RPG... which I'd call not being the most 'good game play' focused as they might have been.

That's the only nitpick I have with that. I don't care so much for the handwavium (aka science) except whereas that gets us to the real thing I want - I do care about the ways players can interact with a thing and the ways they can manipulate it and formulate strategies (or realize strategies won't work). Being able to formulate strategies that are a bit novel and that are discerned from the player knowing some mechanics and putting 2 and 2 together to get a plan out of that seems to me to be 'good game play' and thus good design.

I don't think we're in different galaxies here, just different subsectors in the same sector.

Cheers,

David

--
Victoria, British Columbia
48° 29' N, 123° 20' W

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL