Just to be clear, that isn't the kind of thing I had in mind. This is an example of loudness wars approach to fun I mentioned earlier
Okay. Why? There are many priorities in game design. Considering fun alone, and nixing all other possible concerns, is very likely to cause significant issues.
An excellent question! Unfortunately, there is no single answer. There is no formula for good design. It'd be pretty cool if there was, but there isn't. Instead, you have to do a mix of three things: choose something you think players will find worth doing, read others' work and seeing what stuff they decided players would find worth doing, and talk to people you think would be interested in the kinds of things you'd like to make and find out what they already think is worth doing.
Sure. But if you simply sear it and taste it, you can't learn that deglazing with balsamic vinegar after you're done cooking takes the flavor into the stratosphere, because you'll never bother with this ingredient that is horribly not-tasty on its own (The Vinegar Tasters notwithstanding.) This is the fundamental problem with any method like this, what is apparently in marketing terms called "A/B testing": the problem of local maxima. Every direction away results in locally worse outcomes, so you can't tell whether there are other, equally-valid but distinct maxima elsewhere, nor whether the maximum you have is global (if one even exists.) In mathematics terms, strict optimization along these lines is a "naive" algorithm. You need further tools, thing s truly beyond "
But those things you mention "long-term strategy and problem solving ... " are not fun for me. They are design patterns that you can implement. They may be what you want out of a game. I don't. In any case if you enjoy those types of activities then those activities will be ... wait for it ... fun for you. The goal remains making a fun game.I do think the design approach is bad. That doesn't mean I think the design is bad (really, the worst I would call it is incomplete.) Which is another part of my point here.
And as for that last bit, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I want. I'm saying that announcing "just make the game fun 4head" IS distracting from actually discussing how you achieve the goal of making the game (more) fun. Because you discuss how to make the game (more) fun by talking about the destinations you're aiming at and how you mean to get there, not by saying 'Well just do the most fun thing. Done." "Just design for fun" is by intent a conversation-ender, not a conversation-starter. It terminates analysis, pushes discussion into the ineffable (and thus often into infuriating and intractable debates about philosophical notions), and just generally is counterproductive.
Instead, one should start from an actual design goal, like "gameplay focused on long-term strategy and problem-solving through logistics, resource and personnel management, battlefield diplomacy, and carefully mapping/documenting the environment." Or, "gameplay focused on naturalistic reasoning used to predict future outcomes based on understanding the mechanics of play and collecting (potentially incomplete) knowledge about relevant things, people, or events." Or, "gameplay focused on high-action adventure, through dynamic encounters, irreducible tactical decision-making*, and player-driven motivators." These are design goals. And you can almost certainly guess which games I'm referencing with those goals, because whether their implementation was good, bad, or indifferent, they really did have goals and really did pursue them.
*Meaning, choices that cannot be reduced to mere calculations.
The thing is that the things that make a steak taste good are, generally speaking, not the same things that make an apple pie taste good, and the desired tastes of the two are generally not all that similar either. So "make it taste good" is not a particularly useful instruction in a recipe.
So you first need to decide what type of experience you want from your food (or from your game). Then you work on making the best type of that food (or game), and hopefully you'll enjoy a meal that tastes good (or game that is fun) at the end.
If I were developing a word party game it would look different than D&D. I would still design that word party game with the goal of being it being a fun game. Obviously it's targeting different experiences.
Does any of this have an actual point other than to just argue?
I mean...I started with D&D. The Red Box. Trying to save the cleric from the evil wizard Bargle. So I consider myself that type of gamer, and DM: whatever I say goes and I utterly don't care about the rules. Though BECMI D&D, much like 5E did not have rules for "much" anyway.
I often bring up the "second order" type things when discussing D&D. So many games add so much "second order" to a game under all sorts of other words "gentile mans agreement, homebrew, theme, session 0, or whatever.
So...so..so many will complain endless about "the game rules" and how the game is "broken", when it's THEIR style of playing that is at fault and the cause.
Take the beyond classic Mundane vs Magic:
Player "Flying monsters? My mundane pure melee warrior has no ranged attacks? So what do i do for the whole battle?"
DM-"Sucks to be you. Mundane characters suck. Just sit back, do nothing and be quiet while the magic characters play."
VS
Mundane Player: "Humm..wonder if we will EVER encounter something like an anti magic field?'
DM-"ABSOULUTELY NOT! NEVER! It would be SO WRONG to force the player of a magic using character to EVER just sit back and do nothing even for just one round. Er..um...oh, I mean anti-magic is super rare."
Mundane Player ".........
To experience a cool story? To explore different facets of themselves? To test their abilities when it comes to game design? To understand how it may feel to be like another person, in a pretend manner? To engage with and learn about others through a unique form of roleplaying? To roll dice rocks? To partake in a group activity because your friends are doing so, and you're interested in it?I play games to have fun. Not sure why else you would play a game.
Additional text omitted. Bravo!What we keep coming back to is that D&D wasn't ever designed as a cohesive game. I would argue that it still isn't; all WotC have done is take that lack of design and enshrine it as a feature, not a flaw...and I think they might be right! (The closest they got to a fully designed D&D game was 4e, and look what that got them).
It might be fun. It could be played for comedy, or to establish that the city is an oppressive police state, for example.