Thread by @rdonoghue

Dropping a grenade before ACTUALLy shoveling.

4e D&D had the most engaging and fun boardgame element of any edition of D&D. Far and away. Other parts, not so much, sure. But pushign around minis? Choice.

It's important to credit what games do well so you know what to steal.

Was a good grenade, and the drive is clear, so one more tidbit.

We talk a lot about the three challenges of writing an RPG text - to make it enjoyable to read, easy to reference and a teaching text. Balancing those 3 things is something of an eternal struggle.

There's a 4th use, but it's not so much the designer's problem, and that is as a resource for other designers to learn from and build upon. I don't believe there are any "must reads" if you want to make a game, but I do believe that any craft benefits from exposure to that craft

If you are writing a game, you are generally trying to achieve a certain kind fo experience - one you think will be fun and awesome. You will fail, because books are not telepathy, but you might come close, and that's pretty awesome.

Part of reading a game (as a craft exercise) is trying to understand the *intended* experience as well as the *actual* experience. That's a whole topic on its own, but the key thing is to recognize these are processes and approximations, not perfect gems.

When you read a game, you make look for resonance in both intentions AND outcomes.

A game that generates outcomes that you like is probably worthy of emulation. A game that has outcomes and intentions you like may be worthy of outright theft.

But what about the others?

Intentions you like but outcomes which leave you cold can be INCREDIBLY informative, because they tried. Understanding what didn't work may reveal difficulties you never considered, esp. if you read generously and assume the author is not a dumbass because they're not you.

This creates an instinct to say there's not much to gain from a game whose intentions and outcomes are both outside our taste, but that's a wasteful instinct. In those cases, we can still see how well they served their *own* instinct, and learn from it.

Now, largely this boils down to an argument "Read and play more games!" which is kind of an easy sell for me, so I want to push it a little further.

I am always interested in what works for people or why. That's good, human information. Keep sharing, please.

But the bar will always be a little higher for "Should have".

Not in a "I'm uninterested unless you have a game of your own" way. That's snobby bullshit. But rather in "Ok, what are you doing with that knowledge?" kind of way.

In short, please continue to be opinionated about games, but don't be too invested in being Right about them. :)