Quote from: RandallS;730260How do you know that without publishing it and finding out?
-snip-
But it was free to publish and free to download, so I went ahead and published -- and was very surprised.

Thank you for that story, it makes me feel a bit hopeful

Quote from: Rincewind1;730262Don't worry, nobody will probably play your game outside of you and your friends, so make something that's good for your bunch.

Nothing like sarcasm, irony and/or blunt truth paired with a good advice to make one smile

Quote from: Piestrio;730274I'd also be very put out if Mars had decided to never make Skittles in the first place just because it wouldn't be "the best" candy.

Sorry, but if Skittles never had been made, then that candy would not have been known, even by you.

Quote from: Opaopajr;730291The definite book on taste has yet to be written. Yet books in the same vein are still made, are a snapshot of their time, and if done well are at least a good read.

I like that approach

Quote from: The Butcher;730290Delusion, I feel, lies in believing that any one game or mechanic is "objectively better" for every gamer ever.

Preferring one game or mechanic over all others is more than okay, as long as you don't fool yourself into believing that your tastes and idiosyncrasies are a measure of what is "objectively" better.

Which ultimately would be just another way of saying that you're better than all the dim-witted sheeple beneath your notice who mindlessly consume subpar gaming while you, a smart, witty, urbane, sophisticated and good-looking connoisseur, stand at the cutting edge of the hobby.

Then, i'm clearly delusional.
However, that also means that my unfinished game is not better nor worse than any of the known or unknown, finished or unfinished games out there.
Mine is just among the relatively unknown, still.

I do not think my tastes are better, though, and in the OP i pointed out that my system do fail in certain areas.
They do fail there, because i feel those areas are redundant, but that is a personal taste, i admit.

Hmm .... I think more of myself as a "regular", wondering why why so many seem to like cumbersome rules, and complicated things, and then expects others to like them too ...
Or rather, nowadays i explain it with "force of habit".
I may be wrong, though.
.... I think i might be concieted, too ...

Delusional and conceited, that ain't good, ... hm, wonder what to do about that.

Quote from: Catelf;730301Sorry, but if Skittles never had been made, then that candy would not have been known, even by you.

And the world would be a slightly crappier place.

Quote from: Rincewind1;730262Don't worry, nobody will probably play your game outside of you and your friends, so make something that's good for your bunch.

Actually, pretty much.

CHAINMAIL got printed because it was the only way to distribute copies to everybody in the Castle and Crusade Society using the technology of the times.  If the Interweb had been around then, CHAINMAIL would have been a free pdf download on the C&CS website.

Terms like 'objectively terrible' or 'broken' do get thrown around far too much of course - because virtually any design choice has pros and cons and mostly, and people who use words like that are typically those who think their subjective preferences are the only ones that are valid.
 
I'm still a firm believer that you can have shitty specific rules - and sometimes systems that are just shitty in general, though that's rarer since systems sink or swim based on all their rules, not just any particular one. Likewise, its possible to build things that are better or at least more likely to give good results, or improve on problems, I wouldn't give up on game design entirely just because one best system is difficult to judge, which seems to be where this train of thought goes to.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;730346Terms like 'objectively terrible' or 'broken' do get thrown around far too much of course - because virtually any design choice has pros and cons and mostly, and people who use words like that are typically those who think their subjective preferences are the only ones that are valid.
 
I'm still a firm believer that you can have shitty specific rules - and sometimes systems that are just shitty in general, though that's rarer since systems sink or swim based on all their rules, not just any particular one. Likewise, its possible to build things that are better or at least more likely to give good results, or improve on problems, I wouldn't give up on game design entirely just because one best system is difficult to judge, which seems to be where this train of thought goes to.

Not even sure that is true (bolded section).
Look at ascending vs descending AC. About 2/3 of people believe that ascending AC is simply better, easier to grok, easier in play, less math no need for look up tables. Objectively better.
The other 1/3 of people belief that Ascending AC is either pointless or worse because tables are easier or descending AC is simply better etc etc
So even something as trivial as how to determine the target number in a d20 vs target number combat system can't be decided as objectively better or worse.

Quote from: jibbajibba;730362Not even sure that is true (bolded section).
Look at ascending vs descending AC. About 2/3 of people believe that ascending AC is simply better, easier to grok, easier in play, less math no need for look up tables. Objectively better.
The other 1/3 of people belief that Ascending AC is either pointless or worse because tables are easier or descending AC is simply better etc etc
So even something as trivial as how to determine the target number in a d20 vs target number combat system can't be decided as objectively better or worse.

You can build tables for cross-referencing dice roll & bonus just as easily with ascending AC as with descending, if you don't want to do addition. I don't know anyone who's ever done it but its possible...in which case it would be the same speed for the table people, and faster for everyone else.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;730370You can build tables for cross-referencing dice roll & bonus just as easily with ascending AC as with descending, if you don't want to do addition. I don't know anyone who's ever done it but its possible...in which case it would be the same speed for the table people, and faster for everyone else.

For THAC0, all you do is subtract the AC. No need for tables.

Like if you have a THAC0 of 15, all you need to hit AC 5 is 10.

It's almost literally the same thing as Attack Bonus and Ascending AC, where your AB would be +5 and the AC would be 15.

The tricky part (though it shouldn't be) is that some people have trouble subtracting negative numbers....so if instead you wanted to hit AC-3, you'd need an 18 (or 15 - -3), while in the other, the AC 23

Quote from: JeremyR;730379For THAC0, all you do is subtract the AC. No need for tables.

Like if you have a THAC0 of 15, all you need to hit AC 5 is 10.

It's almost literally the same thing as Attack Bonus and Ascending AC, where your AB would be +5 and the AC would be 15.

The tricky part (though it shouldn't be) is that some people have trouble subtracting negative numbers....so if instead you wanted to hit AC-3, you'd need an 18 (or 15 - -3), while in the other, the AC 23

Just to add to my crimes, 2E was my main RPG from when I started gaming in 1991 until a year or so before 3E came out So I know what a THAC0 is. I don't find them difficult to work out, but I know enough people that are confused by them (including people I used to play 2E with) that I wouldn't consider them a good design decision. The only reason 2E used it was for compatibility with existing 1E products. They're obviously stupid.

Quote from: JeremyR;730379For THAC0, all you do is subtract the AC. No need for tables.

Like if you have a THAC0 of 15, all you need to hit AC 5 is 10.

Some of us find tables easier.  I'm much more visually oriented.

Quote from: Old Geezer;731393Some of us find tables easier.  I'm much more visually oriented.

But, but, but...

Tables hinder the single most important aspect of role-playing games!

They are hard to reproduce on-line to endlessly bitch and whine about!

Quote from: Old Geezer;731393Some of us find tables easier.  I'm much more visually oriented.

I still have a great nostalgia for the era of table lookup (especially games like MSH).  There was a lot you could do that is harder to do with just dice and math.



As to the OP, don't get discouraged.  It's all in the eye of the beholders and you just need to find the beholders who see things like you do.

Quote from: Brander;731403It's all in the eye of the beholders and you just need to find the beholders who see things like you do.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Catelf;730207However, the general consensus is, that no game system is truly better than another.
If that is true, then i must be deluded.

Even if we accept the consensus that no game system is objectively better than another (although that's questionable), it doesn't mean that you're deluded for subjectively finding one game system to be better than another.

Quote from: Brander;731403I still have a great nostalgia for the era of table lookup (especially games like MSH).  There was a lot you could do that is harder to do with just dice and math.

I like them so much I wrote one.

And I still love DC Heroes. They did things with that table system that still haven't been matched.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;731466Even if we accept the consensus that no game system is objectively better than another (although that's questionable), it doesn't mean that you're deluded for subjectively finding one game system to be better than another.

Just so long as one can tell the difference.