(Not so) hypothetical situation
Okay, you have a game you're been playing with others for quite a while. This game has a set of rules for conflict resolution, like many games do. These rules are the result of varying degrees of effort (from minor suggestions to lots of time spent putting them in place and/or writing them) from those involved in the game itself. These rules have been tweaked a number of times to achieve better balance along the way. They are still imperfect, but it's what has been in use for a while.
Now, the opportunity arises to implement a new set of rules. Based on experience from the previous rules, they may well turn out better. BUT, you have to redo everything from the ground up. Interactions between parts of the rules will change and you are almost guaranteed a period of adjustment (because there has been virtually no play-testing yet) as well as re-learning.
Do you stick with the old or adopt the new, and why?
Now, the opportunity arises to implement a new set of rules. Based on experience from the previous rules, they may well turn out better. BUT, you have to redo everything from the ground up. Interactions between parts of the rules will change and you are almost guaranteed a period of adjustment (because there has been virtually no play-testing yet) as well as re-learning.
Do you stick with the old or adopt the new, and why?
Typically, stick with the old until the new get playtested enough for a fine balance to be achieved. Publish the new and clear out the old. It's what table top RPGs often do when they make a new 'edition'.
ReplyDeleteSo what if it's not really going to be playtested until it is implemented (as tends to be the case with MU* rules)?
ReplyDelete