@zatnosk both is good?
@InspectorCaracal but they're in conflict!
I can't stick to only making pacifist games, and then also make a game about randomly killing monsters for arbitrary loot.
@zatnosk but you can totally make a pacifist game about randomly ____ing monsters for loot with loose plot justifications and just fill in the blank with a verb that isn't "kill". 😉
@zatnosk Depends on what you mean.
Can you build a game system based entirely on non-combat mechanics that still carries core TTRPG design concepts, that will continue being pacifist when running other people's campaigns (so to speak)? Definitely.
Can you build a pacifist open sourced game framework where people can't write their own combat mechanics into the codebase in their implementation? No, of course not, you can't control other people's server code.
@InspectorCaracal but.. core TTRPG design concepts ARE combat mechanics!?
Even Pokémon doesn't qualify as pacifist in my view.
So even if I could build a federated pacifist RPG, I don't think I could make it feel "old-school" :/
@InspectorCaracal I don't know why I mentioned pokemon, either. It's combat mechanics where nobody dies?
I think it was a reaction to your earlier toot:
> randomly ____ing monsters for loot with loose plot justifications and just fill in the blank with a verb that isn't "kill"
@zatnosk Right, because they focused on combat. So you apply that idea of progress on a cgoal - the reduction of HP to zero, in combat - with a different progress meter. Then you focus on skills and actions targetted towards that type of challenge and progress meter.
@InspectorCaracal sounds like you'd do a better job of designing such a game than me :P
@zatnosk I have put a LOT of thought into game design stuff. >.>
Private mastodon server run by Zatnosk