Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's kind of weird how my position that "D&D was fun and can be fun" is such a trigger in this debate.

 Lance845 wrote:
These are the rules of the game as written. I called D20 a bad game. You are defending it. Is your defense that the GM should house rule the game? In what way does that defend the game?

Making an RPG referee-proof is beyond any design's capability.

I am critically analyzing the system for what it is. Or would you like me to turn it around and comment on your nostalgia fueled fanboyism? Is that getting us anywhere?

Saying people should take improv drama classes is hyperbole. It is not serious analysis.

D&D created a whole new industry, and for you to say that it worthless - or worse than worthless - is not insightful analysis.

Actual analysis would look at why it took off, what need it fulfilled, what people liked about its mechanics that made it the default RPG, the one everyone has heard of. Even now, decades later, movies carry its title because the associations with it are so positive.

I've tried to point them out to you, not because I'm an ageing fanboy, but because I was there, and I have in the years since compared it with subsequent systems. Some years ago I ran a campaign with it to compare its mechanics to the current state of the art and held up better than I thought it would.

Is it my hands-down favorite? No. I've repeatedly said that the Storyteller system is superior, so I'm not sure what you want from me.

Yes. Many "social" games are incredibly simple. Pictionary for example.

And there is a continuum. Risk, Axis and Allies, Shogun, even Battlemasters. Sometimes people want a game that doesn't require a lot of effort to play, even if it involves conflict. Where does that fit in your metrics?

Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't care if players cross talk, joke, gossip, whatever. People hanging out will hang out. I bs with my friends while playing my games as well. You don't DESIGN peoples friendships in games. And you don't need to DESIGN space for them to do it.

Actually, you do. Pictionary, Cards Against Humanity, and a host of other party games are built around this. They are essentially a vehicle for social interaction. I mean look at Twister. Talk about player engagement!

People just do it. 40ks downtime is, to you, a feature that allows space for this. Space that you don't need to be given. If there was no downtime in 40k you would still do it and nothing would change in your socializing.

I don't play current 40k, so I have no idea what it's like. People seem to hate it, but they strangely keep buying each new edition. The edition I play is closer to "beer and pretzels," which is why I still play and enjoy it.

In fact, after I finished Conqueror, I decided to do a Conqueror: 40k, but when it came down to it, I couldn't come up with a way to meaningfully improve 2nd ed. beyond the universally-accepted fixes. For what it is, it's the best.

But the Game Play Experience suffers because it is there. Not as some design choice where the designers wanted to hand it to you. The designers who initially did this moved on and made other games that actively eliminated it (Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). This, like D20s attributes and dull, full of illusion of choice combat, are hold overs of ancient game designs that should have evolved and learned to be better and don't because either the designers or more likely the corporations won't change them.

The design IS bad. The Game Play Experience DOES suffer.

I'm not going to argue with you about the current sad state of GW game design. On this we agree.

And hey, if you like it good. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. I like bad movies. Liking bad movies doesn't make the movies good. You enjoying an old game with outdated terrible design doesn't make it not outdated or terrible. You're just liking what you like. More power to you.

By the same token, a movie being old does not necessarily mean it is inferior to a new release. And people saying "oh, it's filled with cliches" may be a sign of its significance insofar as it was heavily copied, which is why its plot seems like a cliche.

All of which is to say, if you want to debate mechanics, let's do that, rather than trying to vilify systems that did it badly.

Similarly, if you want to start a thread on the virtues (and vices) of the various D20 systems, that could be interesting.

But if we are to stay on topic, my point stands that many of these games provide what they promise. Even D&D insofar as you could kick in the door, kill the monster, and take the loot.

I think 40k stands out because expectations are not in alignment with the design. At this point, it's hard to know what the fluff actually is, or what the game is trying to do (other than make GW money).

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
It's kind of weird how my position that "D&D was fun and can be fun" is such a trigger in this debate.

Which is not what is being discussed.

 Lance845 wrote:
These are the rules of the game as written. I called D20 a bad game. You are defending it. Is your defense that the GM should house rule the game? In what way does that defend the game?

Making an RPG referee-proof is beyond any design's capability.

No it's not. Lots of games work without a referee. In fact, the vast majority of them do. Of all the games that exist in all the various mediums that exist it is a vast minority of them that are so incomplete that they require a referee to fill in the blanks and make the game functional.

I am critically analyzing the system for what it is. Or would you like me to turn it around and comment on your nostalgia fueled fanboyism? Is that getting us anywhere?

Saying people should take improv drama classes is hyperbole. It is not serious analysis.

D&D created a whole new industry, and for you to say that it worthless - or worse than worthless - is not insightful analysis.

Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.

Actual analysis would look at why it took off, what need it fulfilled, what people liked about its mechanics that made it the default RPG, the one everyone has heard of. Even now, decades later, movies carry its title because the associations with it are so positive.

Ah! Right. Actual analysis is about praise. Got it. Nothing to see here folks. DnD in every edition is a perfect game. Don't take notes. Just make more DnD. Thats an actual analysis of the game.

I've tried to point them out to you, not because I'm an ageing fanboy, but because I was there, and I have in the years since compared it with subsequent systems. Some years ago I ran a campaign with it to compare its mechanics to the current state of the art and held up better than I thought it would.

You say it's not because you are an aging fan boy, but I am not seeing it. Kind of hard to defend that position when you cannot accept any flaws and think an analysis involves only praise.

Is it my hands-down favorite? No. I've repeatedly said that the Storyteller system is superior, so I'm not sure what you want from me.

Id like you to apply a critical eye to the game and accept it's flaws. Doing nothing but defending things despite the evidence to the contrary is disingenuous.

Yes. Many "social" games are incredibly simple. Pictionary for example.

And there is a continuum. Risk, Axis and Allies, Shogun, even Battlemasters. Sometimes people want a game that doesn't require a lot of effort to play, even if it involves conflict. Where does that fit in your metrics?

The same as anything else. Engagement and elegance in design. Uno fits the bill. So does Elden Ring.

Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't care if players cross talk, joke, gossip, whatever. People hanging out will hang out. I bs with my friends while playing my games as well. You don't DESIGN peoples friendships in games. And you don't need to DESIGN space for them to do it.

Actually, you do. Pictionary, Cards Against Humanity, and a host of other party games are built around this. They are essentially a vehicle for social interaction. I mean look at Twister. Talk about player engagement!

Do you read what you write? Where is the negative space downtime in Twister equivalent to the IGOUGO of 40k?

People just do it. 40ks downtime is, to you, a feature that allows space for this. Space that you don't need to be given. If there was no downtime in 40k you would still do it and nothing would change in your socializing.

I don't play current 40k, so I have no idea what it's like. People seem to hate it, but they strangely keep buying each new edition. The edition I play is closer to "beer and pretzels," which is why I still play and enjoy it.

In fact, after I finished Conqueror, I decided to do a Conqueror: 40k, but when it came down to it, I couldn't come up with a way to meaningfully improve 2nd ed. beyond the universally-accepted fixes. For what it is, it's the best.

But the Game Play Experience suffers because it is there. Not as some design choice where the designers wanted to hand it to you. The designers who initially did this moved on and made other games that actively eliminated it (Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). This, like D20s attributes and dull, full of illusion of choice combat, are hold overs of ancient game designs that should have evolved and learned to be better and don't because either the designers or more likely the corporations won't change them.

The design IS bad. The Game Play Experience DOES suffer.

I'm not going to argue with you about the current sad state of GW game design. On this we agree.

And hey, if you like it good. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. I like bad movies. Liking bad movies doesn't make the movies good. You enjoying an old game with outdated terrible design doesn't make it not outdated or terrible. You're just liking what you like. More power to you.

By the same token, a movie being old does not necessarily mean it is inferior to a new release.

Never said it did. But the FIRST movies where shot with wide angles from a single fixed position as though they were recording a stage play. Because thats what they were trying to do. Capture plays on film. Not actual plays mind you. They simply didn't understand what a camera was capable of. Different types of shots. Different angles. The impact that can have on the way the viewer experienced the scene. THOSE movies ARE bad pieces of film. Because they don't use any of the strengths of the medium and create an inferior product as a result.

My favorite movie is Alien. And even in the director cut when they are propping up Ash's head so they can talk to him they have a hard cut from the prop head to his real head in a hole in the table. Even though the scene has multiple reaction shots and any one of which could have been placed between the fake head shot and the real head shot to break it up and make the transition less noticeable they didn't. That is a flaw in the film. Performing a critical analysis of the film (A fething great one) I can still point to that and say that is a bad decision and that scene does loose something because of it. Aspiring film makers can still look at that scene and point out how that was done poorly and how it could have been cut differently to make for a better edit.

D20s basic underlying mechanics is the shooting a movie as though it was a stage play of TTRPGs. Being old isn't the problem. Breaking new ground and not knowing what the hell they were doing isn't their fault. Continuing to do it 50 years later IS.

And people saying "oh, it's filled with cliches" may be a sign of its significance insofar as it was heavily copied, which is why its plot seems like a cliche.

All of which is to say, if you want to debate mechanics, let's do that, rather than trying to vilify systems that did it badly.

Similarly, if you want to start a thread on the virtues (and vices) of the various D20 systems, that could be interesting.

But if we are to stay on topic, my point stands that many of these games provide what they promise. Even D&D insofar as you could kick in the door, kill the monster, and take the loot.

I think 40k stands out because expectations are not in alignment with the design. At this point, it's hard to know what the fluff actually is, or what the game is trying to do (other than make GW money).

And that wasn't really the conversation I was having when I chimed in on the designers triangle. What I was saying is that GNS isn't a good model and people shouldn't be looking to it to keep track of their designs. The goal of game design is Engagement and elegance in design. Something you seem to disagree with and are arguing against by denying that house ruled 2nd ed 40k or dungeons and dragons has any flaws.

Engagement and elegance in design are certainly things to strive for but saying they are the end goal of all game design suggests an extremely narrow view. The notion that downtime is somehow intrinsically bad is frankly absurd. More engagement isn't always better. There are people out there who literally don't have the mental capacity for highly engaging games - they may only enough bandwidth to play terribly simple games that you and I would consider boring and unengaging. There are even more people out there who do have the mental capacity, but are too fried after a long day's work to play anything but the simplest mobile game. You and I may not play these kinds of games, because we're the kind of people who seek high engagement. But for the people that do play them, that level of engagement is just right.

Your ideas are generally correct but only for a specific kind of game, aimed at a specific kind of gamer. I'm personally a huge fan of the kinds of highly engaging games you're talking about, for all the same reasons you're describing. But it is silly to think that our personal definitions of 'good' are somehow more valid than those of say, people who love Risk. You may need to take a step back and ask yourself this question: who are you designing the game for? Is it for yourself? Or is it for an audience?

And if it's for an audience, then can you really say that all audiences everywhere will always prefer maximally engaging games?

artific3r wrote:
Engagement and elegance in design are certainly things to strive for but saying they are the end goal of all game design suggests an extremely narrow view. The notion that downtime is somehow intrinsically bad is frankly absurd. More engagement isn't always better. There are people out there who literally don't have the mental capacity for highly engaging games - they may only enough bandwidth to play terribly simple games that you and I would consider boring and unengaging. There are even more people out there who do have the mental capacity, but are too fried after a long day's work to play anything but the simplest mobile game. You and I may not play these kinds of games, because we're the kind of people who seek high engagement. But for the people that do play them, that level of engagement is just right.

Your ideas are generally correct but only for a specific kind of game, aimed at a specific kind of gamer. I'm personally a huge fan of the kinds of highly engaging games you're talking about, for all the same reasons you're describing. But it is silly to think that our personal definitions of 'good' are somehow more valid than those of say, people who love Risk. You may need to take a step back and ask yourself this question: who are you designing the game for? Is it for yourself? Or is it for an audience?

And if it's for an audience, then can you really say that all audiences everywhere will always prefer maximally engaging games?

I appreciate the input. I feel like me saying "engagement should be high" is somehow being read as being stressful or intense. Lets look at mobile games. Match 3s like candy crush, or marvel puzzle quest, or whatever. The actual game play is incredibly simple. swipe a tile into other times to make a line of 3 or more tiles to destroy them and then new tiles drop down. Some of these have a timer on the level or whatever, but others don't. The ones that don't (Marvel Puzzle Quest falls into this category) can be played almost thoughtlessly and idly. Almost a fidget spinner of a game. But the games "downtime" is measured in fractions of a second as new times fall in. That down time attempts to keep the players engagement with sounds, graphical effects, and the fact that the new tiles are important for the new state of the play space.

Look at Sudoku or Crosswords or puzzle games like Flow Free on cell phones. No timer. No rush. Engaging. No downtime. Played at the tempo of the player.

The person who sits down to play a simple time waster after a long day fries them IS playing. They are not sitting there waiting for the cellphone to tell them they can play. Even when the actions ARE simple they are keeping the player engaged. Tetris is incredibly simple. Once a game of tetris begins there is Zero downtime. It is all engagement. There are nothing but interesting choices. (Piece orientation. Piece placement. Destroy one line or build toward multiple at once).

We talked about Uno and how even other players turns were engaging because there was factors in it that impacted you. You have no game play on the other players turns but you are still engaged. That downtime isn't negative space. I have never played Uno as anything but simple and light fun.

Let's try another. Guess Who. Guess Who is a super simple game. Easy set up. Quick play. Very low mental load. On my turn I am engaged because I am trying to narrow down my options. On your turn I am engaged because I am the component of the game you are interacting with to carry out your turn.

Engagement doesn't have to mean stressful. It just means you are there, in the game, playing.

I'll be more specific. What I'm arguing is that this dead space you're describing here:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.

...is not an intrinsically bad thing. Yes, it is bad for specific kinds of games aimed at specific kinds of players. But not all. Games that give you a lot of time to mentally "check out" often provide a completely different kind of experience than games that demand maximum engagement at all times. In games like Risk, Axis and Allies, MB games, and 40k, that unengaging, beer and pretzels, dead space is a huge part of what makes the overall experience enjoyable for certain people. The downtime exists by design. It sets up a particular pace for the game, in terms of mental engagement and, just as Commisar stated, there is a wide space for games with slower pacing.

In 40k the downtime gives players time to relax, to take a break from the mentally taxing activities of strategy and decision-making. It offers players a chance to admire the spectacle of the miniatures, to pull out their phones and take pictures of the awesome moments they're acting out on the battlefield. It lets people socialize with the players around them. While it's true that not everyone enjoys this aspect of the experience, many (maybe even most) players do.

This is not a question of good vs bad, this is vanilla vs chocolate.

Again, if we limit the conversation to the very narrow subset of games aimed at, lets say, "hardcore" players, then yes, more engagement is generally desirable. But as a designer it's important to understand that not all audiences are the same, and you the designer are absolutely not and never will be representative of all audiences. That's impossible.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

artific3r wrote:
Right. I'm speaking purely through the lens of game design of course.

There is ample scope for game design within the context of predictive realism. They key element is that the players/participants have to accept the results as plausible within their understanding of the situation.

This is why I think that using mechanics where they don't fit (like r/p/s on surface combatants) undermine the integrity of the design.

This is an interesting point. If the goal is to construct a system that allows players to act out a narrative with "predictive realism", then yes, often times rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics can disrupt that goal. In such cases it may be better to sacrifice certain aspects of playability, puzzle solving, or meaningful decision-making in favor of mechanics that better support the goal of predictive realism. That's very much a narrative goal by the way. Predictive realism, simulation, and role-playing all boil down to players wanting to tell engaging stories. Simulation is just the flavor of narrative gaming for players who will only be engaged if the game offers some degree of predictive realism.

However, in my experience designing games and working with designers, I've found the opposite problem to be far more common. Not all real-life stories map well to games. Often times, the more realistic you make a game, the less "fun" it becomes. Here I mean "fun" in an abstract puzzle-solving sense - meaningful decision-making, high engagement, low periods of busywork/downtime/meaningful action. So of course, in games where the goal is predictive realism, you will absolutely sacrifice abstract puzzle-solving-derived fun for more simulation-derived fun or "immersive role playing"-derived fun. In other words, narrative fun. Flight simulators have absurd amounts of downtime and meaningless busywork, but that's because the real-life activity has those things, and to remove them for the sake of "better gameplay" would defeat the purpose of making a flight simulator in the first place.

And that brings us to the crux of the issue. The subset of real-life stories that map well to games is extremely limited. You can't turn any scenario into a highly engaging game, because highly engaging games have extremely specific properties related to pacing, user interface, and player ability that cannot be altered. As humans we can only parse so much information. Our attention spans and reaction times are limited by our biology. We're also saddled with a bunch of baked-in cultural expectations on how much time and effort we're willing to invest in playing a new game (and these can vary significantly across a ton of different demographic axes, like culture, age group, profession, etc).

So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.

artific3r wrote:
I'll be more specific. What I'm arguing is that this dead space you're describing here:

 Lance845 wrote:
Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.

...is not an intrinsically bad thing. Yes, it is bad for specific kinds of games aimed at specific kinds of players. But not all. Games that give you a lot of time to mentally "check out" often provide a completely different kind of experience than games that demand maximum engagement at all times. In games like Risk, Axis and Allies, MB games, and 40k, that unengaging, beer and pretzels, dead space is a huge part of what makes the overall experience enjoyable for certain people.

I accept that people like it. I am not debating it. There is always somebody who likes anything. Despite there being objectively absolutely horrible dreadful movies out there there are people who legitimately find enjoyment in watching those movies. They LIKE them. Those movies are still bad. I am not comparing DnD and 40k to anything on this https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/worst-movies-of-all-time/ list. Outside of the scope of psychological components of design like a players tendency towards simplest solutions or whatever it's difficult at best to use "Some people like this" in any meaningful way.

That negative space is an intrinsically bad thing. Players who want to play at a slower pace, do it relaxed, check out and chat with someone else, they can do that. It doesn't need to be built into the games design. They can take literally any board, miniature war, card, etc... game and they can play at the pace they enjoy. When it is DESIGNED that way, it forces all players into a negative space that takes them out of the game. The people who want to beer and pretzels style chill can do so with every game on the market. They can do it while playing MTG for example. Or poker. Or anything. The pace they enjoy and the style of enjoyment they want is not needed to be designed. It's a product of the PLAYERS, not the game.

The downtime exists by design. It sets up a particular pace for the game, in terms of mental engagement and, just as Commisar stated, there is a wide space for games with slower pacing.

So the designers of 40k who initially made the game with that design tried to move the game away from it after a few editions. The main actor in this is Rick Priestley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Priestley Those designers ended up quitting GW and making different games that did move away from it. In their games you can see the 40k roots while not suffering from those particular 40k problems. Calling it designed for at this stage is an assumption that ignores the facts of history.

This is the result of corporate mandates about a decade of pushing model sales and mostly ignoring the game.

In 40k the downtime gives players time to relax, to take a break from the mentally taxing activities of strategy and decision-making. It offers players a chance to admire the spectacle of the miniatures, to pull out their phones and take pictures of the awesome moments they're acting out on the battlefield. It lets people socialize with the players around them. While it's true that not everyone enjoys this aspect of the experience, many (maybe even most) players do.

I am trying to not make statements about what I or others enjoy and avoid commenting on statements about what I or others enjoy. Enjoyment is a case by case personal thing that varies wildly. It's why I comment on the design in terms of design and not coming in saying what I want or what I like. I am only going to point to the above comments about how anyone can slow the pace of a game to a crawl and take the time to socialize if they wanted to. Poker has no real negative space in it's design, but it can and is often played at a crawl with lots of chatting and banter. Also with literal beer and pretzels. Designing a game to be unengaging doesn't GIVE you the ability to do that. It just forces it on everyone.

This is not a question of good vs bad, this is vanilla vs chocolate.

Again, if we limit the conversation to the very narrow subset of games aimed at, lets say, "hardcore" players, then yes, more engagement is generally desirable. But as a designer it's important to understand that not all audiences are the same, and you the designer are absolutely not and never will be representative of all audiences. That's impossible.

I agree with this! I am trying to give a wide breadth of games as examples to show how the principle is applied across various spectrums of types of games and types of play. From "hardcore" cut throat games to casual games. From games designed for adults to introductory games for children. Card games, board games, video games, role playing games, sports.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

artific3r wrote:
Right. I'm speaking purely through the lens of game design of course.

There is ample scope for game design within the context of predictive realism. They key element is that the players/participants have to accept the results as plausible within their understanding of the situation.

This is why I think that using mechanics where they don't fit (like r/p/s on surface combatants) undermine the integrity of the design.

This is an interesting point. If the goal is to construct a system that allows players to act out a narrative with "predictive realism", then yes, often times rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics can disrupt that goal. In such cases it may be better to sacrifice certain aspects of playability, puzzle solving, or meaningful decision-making in favor of mechanics that better support the goal of predictive realism. That's very much a narrative goal by the way. Predictive realism, simulation, and role-playing all boil down to players wanting to tell engaging stories. Simulation is just the flavor of narrative gaming for players who will only be engaged if the game offers some degree of predictive realism.

However, in my experience designing games and working with designers, I've found the opposite problem to be far more common. Not all real-life stories map well to games. Often times, the more realistic you make a game, the less "fun" it becomes. Here I mean "fun" in an abstract puzzle-solving sense - meaningful decision-making, high engagement, low periods of busywork/downtime/meaningful action. So of course, in games where the goal is predictive realism, you will absolutely sacrifice abstract puzzle-solving-derived fun for more simulation-derived fun or "immersive role playing"-derived fun. In other words, narrative fun. Flight simulators have absurd amounts of downtime and meaningless busywork, but that's because the real-life activity has those things, and to remove them for the sake of "better gameplay" would defeat the purpose of making a flight simulator in the first place.

And that brings us to the crux of the issue. The subset of real-life stories that map well to games is extremely limited. You can't turn any scenario into a highly engaging game, because highly engaging games have extremely specific properties related to pacing, user interface, and player ability that cannot be altered. As humans we can only parse so much information. Our attention spans and reaction times are limited by our biology. We're also saddled with a bunch of baked-in cultural expectations on how much time and effort we're willing to invest in playing a new game (and these can vary significantly across a ton of different demographic axes, like culture, age group, profession, etc).

So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.

I find this to be closer to suspension of disbelief.

It doesn't actually matter what the laws of physics are in a thing so long as they are presented consistently. Nobody questions the force in the original trilogy of Starwars. The rules of it are established and then they carry forward consistently. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any actual sense.

Your mechanics can be anything. R/P/S style balancing and whatever can all apply. They just need to apply in such a way that the games internal logic is presented to the players consistently. The issue comes when the game play breaks from expectation and creates disconnect with the player. All the same rules apply. Rule of Cool, Rule of Fun, and YMMV all live here.

artific3r wrote:
So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.

So when I talk of "predictive realism," I mean things that even casual players find plausible and that they can anticipate. For example, the performance of various unit types in Axis and Allies are not terribly realistic (no logistics, the variable spaces make a mockery of range circles) but within the context of the game, people accept it. The accept the ratings as somewhat rooted in reality and can therefore make judgements about their use that are not entirely built on the game experience.

This makes it intuitive.

Where 40k runs into problems is that there are various design elements that either contradict observable reality or the fluff, and people find this particularly grating.

It is like providing a Snowspeeder with a character and artifact weapon that allows a single strafing run to kill all the AT-ATs in a single turn.

A game like Risk pushes the boundaries of realism because the scope of the combat is so vast and sweeping, but it also does not purport to be realistic, so it remains popular.

In building a good design, the challenge is to capture the essence of this balance, so that players feel the rules suit the reality but not creating a heaver mental burden than they were expecting.

The discussion of the merits of D&D brings to mind another element that we have not considered, which is the modularity of the design, by which I mean the ability of the players to modify it to suit their needs.

Now I'm sure Lance is horrified at the though of people needing house rules or in any way altering a system, but in fact people love to tinker with things and rules are no exception.

Just as 40k players love to kit-bash and show off their creativity with models, so players also like to alter a system to better suit their needs.

In this respect, game design serves as something akin to an automobile chassis, the basic model of a car that will be torn apart and rebuilt in new and creative ways. Certain makes and models are beloved of gear-heads not for the "stock" version, but for the potential they embody.

I think this is also very important in weighing the merits of a design.

If a certain mechanic continues to see use over many decades, even though it is modified, there is clearly something to it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.

Please name the good points of the D20 system.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Where 40k runs into problems is that there are various design elements that either contradict observable reality or the fluff, and people find this particularly grating.

Kinda inevitable when the fluff itself is a contradictory mess.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.

Please name the good points of the D20 system.

It utilizes a single consistent and simple resolution mechanic with clear and concise guidelines for setting and modifying difficulty. You would be amazed how many ttrpgs fail to do this. For example storyteller 2nd ed has both requiring a certain number of successes and changing the TN on the d10s to get a success with no clear instructions and when or why you should use either of them.

Challenge Rating is a good idea. A tool for "level designers" to understand the general difficulty of an encounter is great. They have failed to accurately implement it in every edition so far. But GM tools are good and the idea and attempt are good.

5th ed advantage/disadvantage is a quick and simple mechanic for adjusting difficulty on the fly. A si.ple elegant mechanic that has a tacttile feel for the players to let them know this is good/bad.

4th eds at will abilities to give everyone things to do that are not "i swing my sword" was a nice change of pace.


Your turn. Whats bad?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Now I'm sure Lance is horrified at the though of people needing house rules or in any way altering a system, but in fact people love to tinker with things and rules are no exception.

Just as 40k players love to kit-bash and show off their creativity with models, so players also like to alter a system to better suit their needs.

Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.

House rules are great. There is no wrong fun. WE cannot discuss the quality of a games design when including the infinite experiences of infinite potential house rules. They simply don't apply here, in this discussion.

To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

 Lance845 wrote:
Your turn. Whats bad?

At this point, it's pretty widely known, but to prove my bona fides, I'll mention the obvious ones.

Armor class is a terrible mechanic. They should have gone with a flat roll to hit and have armor provide damage resistance. They've tried multiple ways to try to get this to work, but it never comes out quite right. AC was okay for a miniatures system where troops didn't level up, but it's not meant for an RPG. The best thing I can say for it is that it renders combat really easy. You either hit or don't.

Hit point inflation is another painfully obvious limitation that you already mentioned. No one really likes it. People like having more resilient characters, but it tends to get out of hand.

Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.

Demanding that someone research all your writings before posting is a pretty big ask.

You threw a ton of shade at home-brewed rules fixing various deficiencies, which led to the logical conclusion that you didn't like them. As others have noticed, you've also said you are annoyed by people not fully engaged with a game (i.e. checking phones, having cross-talk), from which it was logical to assume that you believed games should only be played as written and only use a style featuring maximum engagement.

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your turn. Whats bad?

At this point, it's pretty widely known, but to prove my bona fides, I'll mention the obvious ones.

Armor class is a terrible mechanic. They should have gone with a flat roll to hit and have armor provide damage resistance. They've tried multiple ways to try to get this to work, but it never comes out quite right. AC was okay for a miniatures system where troops didn't level up, but it's not meant for an RPG. The best thing I can say for it is that it renders combat really easy. You either hit or don't.

Hit point inflation is another painfully obvious limitation that you already mentioned. No one really likes it. People like having more resilient characters, but it tends to get out of hand.

Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.

Demanding that someone research all your writings before posting is a pretty big ask.

You threw a ton of shade at home-brewed rules fixing various deficiencies, which led to the logical conclusion that you didn't like them.

Like i said. A misunderstanding of my position. I didn't throw shade at house rules. I threw shade at the idea that house rules were somehow an actual response to an example criticism of a system as published in a discusion about game design.

Let me clear that up for you. If you click my profile you don't need to research my posts. You just need to see that 12% (roughly 1300 posts) were made in the forums sub section "Proposed Rules". A section of the forum about house rules.

You also mentioned kit bashes as something i would for some reason be opposed to. But all my painting and modeling and gallery posts/images are my kit bashes.

As others have noticed, you've also said you are annoyed by people not fully engaged with a game (i.e. checking phones, having cross-talk),

I didn5say i was annoyed. I said it was a symptom of bad design. I said that wasn't the fault of the players. Its a fault of the design.

from which it was logical to assume that you believed games should only be played as written and only use a style featuring maximum engagement.

Games should be engaging yes. When pointing towards games as examples of design principles RAW is the only way for us all to be discussing the same thing. We can discuss how specific house rules change the Game Play experience and why, but we all need to know what those house rules are for that to be a productive conversation. Just saying "40k isn't bad in my experience! I only play a house ruled version of 40k!" doesn't actually answer any point made by using 40k as an example of bad design.

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

You can't actually. What sells has many contributing factors that have nothing to do with enjoyment. We see spikes in the sales of models and armies that are OP flavor of the month. That doesn't make playing them enjoyable. It means they win. Marketing and brand recognition go way farther then most people give it credit for and it already gets a lot of credit. DND gets constant promotion from podcasts and id say they are greatly responsible for a surge in popularity over the last 7ish years. Even though listening to the rp and story has absolutely no bearing and provides no representation of what the game is mechanically like.

 Lance845 wrote:
Like i said. A misunderstanding of my position.

And a fortuitous one! look at the resulting debate! Who wants a thread where one person takes a position and everyone's replies are: "you are so right." No one, that's who.

Let me clear that up for you. If you click my profile you don't need to research my posts. You just need to see that 12% (roughly 1300 posts) were made in the forums sub section "Proposed Rules". A section of the forum about house rules.

That would presume I had the time or motivation for that. I had neither. But I encourage everyone else to not only click on my profile but also visit my web site and purchase my entire catalog of books.

Games should be engaging yes. When pointing towards games as examples of design principles RAW is the only way for us all to be discussing the same thing. We can discuss how specific house rules change the Game Play experience and why, but we all need to know what those house rules are for that to be a productive conversation. Just saying "40k isn't bad in my experience! I only play a house ruled version of 40k!" doesn't actually answer any point made by using 40k as an example of bad design.

That was why I suggested taking 40k off the table because even if you strip out fixes, there are no less than ten editions to try to wedge into the discussion, with such variation between them that they arguably aren't even the same game system.

On the other hand, I think it is worthwhile to examine the design to see whether the flaws are intrinsic or the result of improper development. My contention is that 40k 2nd ed. had good core mechanics, and that the flaws were found in secondary materials, such as the army lists and expansions. One could counter by saying "if it's in the boxed set, it's core," but I think the rulebook itself is a reasonable place to draw the line, particularly when wargear would later be changed as more books emerged. Rolling scatter for jump packs or having to roll expansion for plasma blasts are not core rules; they are tied to weapons and equipment, and it is things like that which marred the system.

You can't actually. What sells has many contributing factors that have nothing to do with enjoyment. We see spikes in the sales of models and armies that are OP flavor of the month. That doesn't make playing them enjoyable. It means they win. Marketing and brand recognition go way farther then most people give it credit for and it already gets a lot of credit. DND gets constant promotion from podcasts and id say they are greatly responsible for a surge in popularity over the last 7ish years. Even though listening to the rp and story has absolutely no bearing and provides no representation of what the game is mechanically like.

Actually, all of these factors have to do with enjoyment. Who (other than GW fanboys) buys products they hate?

The thing is, enjoyment can be found in many things, and clearly a lot of GW players find that in the setting and aesthetic of 40k rather than gameplay. Indeed, one could argue that these factors trump quality of play for most of the remaining fan base. There are whole threads on this, so it's not entirely unknowable.

The same applies to other systems. For many of them setting is the dominating factor. Is this an element of game design? Depends. GW Lord of the Rings gets zero credit for setting; that came from someone else. Did people play it for the setting? Absolutely.

We can contrast this with 40k, which boasts an original but highly derivative setting. Partial credit for the designers on that - they knew the best parts to steal. The same is true of Battletech, which got caught up in lawsuits over exactly who created what.

In the case of D&D, the same factors are in play, with the added element of longevity and universal cultural awareness. Rather than play Rolemaster, or GURPs, some choose to play D&D because it's a known brand. One can write that off to marketing, but having a massive pool of players is a big plus when looking at a system.

While I can't catapult Conqueror into international media, I can design it to appeal to an existing set of players (the dispossessed of WHFB), allowing it a much greater potential for growth.

D&D's flaws are known, but are they fatal? That's a subjective question, and the answer seems to be a resounding "no" for its many legions of fans. Would I turn my nose up at a game? Probably not, but it would depend on the edition. 4th is right out. Probably 2nd as well. First would be fun as an exercise in satire and would almost certainly involve fighting the Cthulhu gods.

But that's just me. Other folks seem to like it for the virtues we already highlighted, and for them, they outweigh the flaws.

It is an inescapable truth that game designers are a fickle lot - some are very discerning and will rule out a game because a single mechanic drives them nuts. Yet the same person will put up with an otherwise incomprehensible rules set because a single mechanic is so beautiful. I think casual players are much easier to read.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.

Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.

Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!

You can "slag" on GW games while still liking to play GW games.

You can criticize individual aspects (e.g. rules) while still enjoying the collective (community, lore, setting, etc.)

 Easy E wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.

Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.

Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!

Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?

If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.

Been thinking about this topic, and wanted to come back with a personal example.

In 40k there are actually times when I've felt that I didn't have enough downtime. I am so busy rolling saves and watching for moments to use reaction stratagems that I don't have enough time to stop and take photos of the amazing hobby spectacle playing out in front of me. I can't just stop the game to take photos - unless I'm playing with a close friend, it would likely come off as rude. But as luck would have it, there is usually just enough time in my opponent's movement phase for me to get a few nice angles with my phone and take some shots. If there was no downtime this would not be possible.

So in this particular case, for a certain kind of play, the forced downtime is totally working in favor of the overall experience.

artific3r wrote:
Been thinking about this topic, and wanted to come back with a personal example.

In 40k there are actually times when I've felt that I didn't have enough downtime. I am so busy rolling saves and watching for moments to use reaction stratagems that I don't have enough time to stop and take photos of the amazing hobby spectacle playing out in front of me. I can't just stop the game to take photos - unless I'm playing with a close friend, it would likely come off as rude. But as luck would have it, there is usually just enough time in my opponent's movement phase for me to get a few nice angles with my phone and take some shots. If there was no downtime this would not be possible.

So in this particular case, for a certain kind of play, the forced downtime is totally working in favor of the overall experience.

That's an interesting perspective!

Older gamers think of just the game. But today, people want to share their gameplay, documenting and sharing it. Giving one side time to line up some quick photos very much counts as "engagement."

I've noticed that the 1990s-era White Dwarf battle reports are careful to state that the photos were made after the game. Given the technology of the era (digital cameras were hideously expensive) this made sense. The positions of the units were noted and subsequently properly lit and positioned for photos. Today, we take it for granted that photos are being done while the game is ongoing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.

Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.

Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!

Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?

If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.

That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?

While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.

I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.

The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.

I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.

Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.

Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.

Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!

Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?

If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.

That leads to the question of what is the definition of "success" for an Indie gamer, which is a whole different kettle AND how do you define a game as "Good".

It is almost as hard to find consensus on those two issues as it is about what "Fun" is.

 Lance845 wrote:
That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?

While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.

That sort of begs the question, though. You're assuming that people who aggressively market a product don't believe in it or that good marketing is indicative of an inferior product.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The "breakout" period of GW growth as unquestionably when they were at their most innovative and creative. They later focused on profit-taking, but that was only possible because of their earlier success.

Marketing should be thought of as an extension of the overall product experience. It's an extremely important one that can absolutely have a huge impact on a player's perception of a game, even after they've bought it and experienced it for themselves. I would be weary of boxing yourself in too early with particular truths you've learned about game design. They can totally be useful in certain contexts, typically narrow in scope. But if you tunnel vision too much on them too early, I guarantee you will miss things at the bigger scope. When that happens you will find that your design choices don't result in the behavior you intended, and it will be very difficult for you to explain why until you start getting honest with yourself about how important some of these larger scope, "not-related-to-game-design" factors are.

None of this matters if you're designing for yourself of course. Designing games as a hobby or as a creative outlet to fulfill your personal ideals of what games should be, that's great. It's a wonderful thing.

However if your goal is to reach people, to design games that people actually play, to design a product that is meant to be sold to a customer, that's completely different. You cannot ignore the business side of things. Things like logistics, marketing, team building, community management. All of these things have a far greater impact on the perceived quality of the experience to the end user than an entry-level game designer might expect. I'd encourage everyone embarking on this task to take a broader view of game design and game creation as a whole. Really take the time to stop and ask yourself, who is it for?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?

While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.

That sort of begs the question, though. You're assuming that people who aggressively market a product don't believe in it or that good marketing is indicative of an inferior product.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The "breakout" period of GW growth as unquestionably when they were at their most innovative and creative. They later focused on profit-taking, but that was only possible because of their earlier success.

I very specifically said they were not mutually exclusive. I also said they were not directly related. You can have quality products that don't market well and disappear. You can have complete garbage that makes a million being marketed like crazy. And you can have any other combination of the 2. Sales does not equal quality. Which is the point that has been made. YOU claim that you can tell what is good/people like based on sales numbers. Reality doesn't reflect that. Bad things sell well all the time. Good things never get the recognition they deserve. Dollars CAN indicate quality. Dollars on their own are not enough to indicate quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

artific3r wrote:
Marketing should be thought of as an extension of the overall product experience. It's an extremely important one that can absolutely have a huge impact on a player's perception of a game, even after they've bought it and experienced it for themselves. I would be weary of boxing yourself in too early with particular truths you've learned about game design. They can totally be useful in certain contexts, typically narrow in scope. But if you tunnel vision too much on them too early, I guarantee you will miss things at the bigger scope. When that happens you will find that your design choices don't result in the behavior you intended, and it will be very difficult for you to explain why until you start getting honest with yourself about how important some of these larger scope, "not-related-to-game-design" factors are.

None of this matters if you're designing for yourself of course. Designing games as a hobby or as a creative outlet to fulfill your personal ideals of what games should be, that's great. It's a wonderful thing.

However if your goal is to reach people, to design games that people actually play, to design a product that is meant to be sold to a customer, that's completely different. You cannot ignore the business side of things. Things like logistics, marketing, team building, community management. All of these things have a far greater impact on the perceived quality of the experience to the end user than an entry-level game designer might expect. I'd encourage everyone embarking on this task to take a broader view of game design and game creation as a whole. Really take the time to stop and ask yourself, who is it for?

Agree with all of this. Products need to be planned from the beginning. If the intention is to market a product, designing it from the get go to be marketed and the way in which you market it being a part of the package is the way to go. Car companies need to have car designers designing vehicles to marketable specifications. Pick up trucks need to fill certain criteria to meet customer needs and marketed and sold to meet those needs. All true.

The question here isn't the value of marketing or even planning for marketing. It's what profits and sales figures are indicators of. Do sales figures = enjoyment by the consumer? Do sales figures = quality of the product? Do sales figures = quality of the marketing campaign or brand recognition or any other thing? Sometimes it's any one of those things. Sometimes it's all of them. Sometimes it's none of them. Profits and number of units moved alone only tell you how much money you have in your account.

 Lance845 wrote:
YOU claim that you can tell what is good/people like based on sales numbers. Reality doesn't reflect that. Bad things sell well all the time. Good things never get the recognition they deserve. Dollars CAN indicate quality. Dollars on their own are not enough to indicate quality.

Oh, I don't think sales indicate quality, but they do demonstrate popularity. We can say that X movie or Y game sucks, but if it has a following, we could be the ones with the terrible taste.

Basic market analysis is seeing what's selling and figuring out why. I don't think it's unknowable, I think there can be many different answers ("I like the artwork!" "I like the setting!" I like the IGO-UGO turn sequence!") but they all point to the reason for the thing.

This is why Jim Dunnigan playfully suggested plagiarizing as the starting point for game designers. Look at what's out there, see what works, and then tinker with it. Sometimes a truly original design will catch fire, but just as often, creating a product-improved version of an existing system is enough.

Of course, Dunnigan was a terrible businessman, at one point unaware that he was selling games at a loss, but that just emphasizes the importance of having someone who knows what they are doing on the business end.

"The good ones borrow the great ones steal" is an adage that has been around since long before any kind of game design discussion.

One I agree with. If mechanics work. Take them.

 Lance845 wrote:
"The good ones borrow the great ones steal" is an adage that has been around since long before any kind of game design discussion.

One I agree with. If mechanics work. Take them.

It is worth repeating, because a lot of people feel the need to do something wholly original. I run into the same issue with fledgling authors who want to express their unique talent. Um, no. People should write what they know, and the greatest literary minds didn't create something new so much as take something already there and modify it.

Game design works the same way. Find a mechanic that works and bend it to what you have in mind. Sometimes it takes a while to work it through. A few years back I was moved to obsessively play Solitaire (with actual cards) while doing battlewatch during an exercise. There were a few raised eyebrows, but people knew I was the simulations guy, and figured I was working on something, which I was.

Which I will hopefully bring to the civilian market at some point.

Since D&D was brought up, I've never liked the simplicity of "I attack," since it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. I also don't like the, "I strike my blade betwixt his eyes and shout forth an insult too foul to speak!" and then attacks.
The best system for me ended up being a system where my description matters, and isn't too gamey. If I say, "I stab him through the chinks in his armor with all my strength," I'm declaring an all out attack targeting the chinks in their armor, giving me a penalty to hit, but reducing the armor they have against my strike.
Disagree if you will, but I think GURPS is pretty elegant in its design.
Also, someone mentioned point buy being great. I love point buy.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Oh, I don't think sales indicate quality, but they do demonstrate popularity. We can say that X movie or Y game sucks, but if it has a following, we could be the ones with the terrible taste.

We could be, but very often the thing in question is trash with great marketing. The entire marketing industry is built on manipulating people into buying stuff they don't really need or want. If we see that a game is popular despite X/Y/Z reasons why its rules are bad it's probably a triumph of marketing, not game design.

Which brings us back to the question of goals. If your goal is to make money as a game designer you pay attention to marketing. You emphasize FOMO and blind buy mechanics designed to exploit gambling addiction, you make sure there are constant obstacles to enjoyment with an easy solution involving paying more to bypass them, etc. And TBH you don't bother with tabletop games at all. In the time it takes you to make a single tabletop game you could have made a dozen F2P loot box mobile games and one whale in one of those games will give you more profit than your tabletop game will ever make. If you're posting in this sub at all and asking questions other than "how can I maximize the addictive behavior and excessive spending of my whales" you're clearly interested in something other than financial success.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
We could be, but very often the thing in question is trash with great marketing. The entire marketing industry is built on manipulating people into buying stuff they don't really need or want. If we see that a game is popular despite X/Y/Z reasons why its rules are bad it's probably a triumph of marketing, not game design.

While I agree that marketing is a factor, I disagree with the assumption that most popular gaming products are trash. It is true that mass market games often lack the design elements that we consider important, but that doesn't make them defective.

I'm old enough to have seen a lot of very slick designs and marketing campaigns that fell completely flat because the design just wasn't that good. If I'm not mistaken, even fairly established games have wrecked their positions through design missteps.

Which brings us back to the question of goals. If your goal is to make money as a game designer you pay attention to marketing. You emphasize FOMO and blind buy mechanics designed to exploit gambling addiction, you make sure there are constant obstacles to enjoyment with an easy solution involving paying more to bypass them, etc. And TBH you don't bother with tabletop games at all. In the time it takes you to make a single tabletop game you could have made a dozen F2P loot box mobile games and one whale in one of those games will give you more profit than your tabletop game will ever make. If you're posting in this sub at all and asking questions other than "how can I maximize the addictive behavior and excessive spending of my whales" you're clearly interested in something other than financial success.

Right, but if I could design a mobile app, I wouldn't be here. I'm interested in the tabletop market, and there is success to be found there.

I think the best hope of success is likely to be found building a relatively simple system with a big IP tie-in, especially after a movie comes out.

But for the dedicated gamers, there is no substitute for quality.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
While I agree that marketing is a factor, I disagree with the assumption that most popular gaming products are trash. It is true that mass market games often lack the design elements that we consider important, but that doesn't make them defective.

Weren't you just arguing that in discussing the merits of IGOUGO we need to exclude 40k because the dominant market leader is such obvious trash that it biases the comparison and obscures the real merits of IGOUGO?

But for the dedicated gamers, there is no substitute for quality.

If you care about money who cares about dedicated gamers. Things like how real-world naval strategy worked, or even the simplified rock/paper/scissors model, are irrelevant to financial success. The most important thing is that destroyers are sold in a package of four, but the overpowered way to use them requires units of five. And then once you've milked that cash cow dry you give a balance buff to battleships that improves their secondary battery, except it's an upgrade sprue that can't be attached to your existing battleship models if you already glued the original guns in place. Oh, and all the stat cards for the ships prominently feature huge-breasted anime characters with one in ten packs containing a special swimsuit version of the character that adds +1d6 damage.

Exactly three questions matter in for-profit design: how can I get new players to start the game and maximize my chances of getting the whales, how can I exploit FOMO to get people to buy too many copies of each new release "just in case", and how can I encourage gambling addicts to hand over their credit cards and spend themselves into homelessness. Look to MTG and 40k for inspiration, not your favorite niche historical game.