Here is my fruit:
Because of social dynamics, how fun a TTRPG isn't that good of a metric of the quality of a game; you can have fun with the right people and *any* game. A better way to determine a game's quality:
How consistently does it honor what it promises?
Because of social dynamics, how fun a TTRPG isn't that good of a metric of the quality of a game; you can have fun with the right people and *any* game. A better way to determine a game's quality:
How consistently does it honor what it promises?
Reposted from
Epidiah Ravachol
I'm all for you holding dear whatever #ttrpg design theory you find fruitful; but gimme those sweet, sweet fruits!
Comments
(that opens a new discussion, how people
choose which games to play -- a v different rabbithole)
1) Does it convey trough the rules its intent and desired play style
2) How easy it is to ingest and digest said rules
A fun but useless read is again a bad game.
I assert that the only objective measure of game quality is: Does it achieve the goals it was intended to achieve by its designer?
Even if those goals are not for me.
If people are looking for that malicious design the failure in ingestibility becomes a mark of quality in itself.
Both of those can be problems, but only the latter is a broken promise.
I personally like this definition of "quality" because it is self-preferential and not comparative; your game doesn't need to be like game x, just be itself.
Whatever is need to evoke and convey is the right amount.