Game design has "moved on"

Umbran said:

I think GNS theory (however flawed it may be), the 1999 WotC Market Research, or the material presented in Section 2 of Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering all count as psychological models that didn't exist when Gygax created the game.

Oh, and hey, look here! Notable RPG game theories!

Certainly there have been mathematical insights that had not been applied to games by Gygax - each innovative dice mechanic counts, for example. As do discussions of "economies" or player and character resources.

And while it didn't provide any new mathematics to the academics, there was a time when nobody considered the tenets of mathematical game theory with respect to RPGs. Now, at least some do.

Click to expand...

I view GNS as an attempt to articulate one version of a taxonomy that represents a single (then-advancing) style of play and distinguishing it from previous styles -- sort of like the "rules" around how post-modern art is distinguished from modern art or why Rembrandt was part of the Dutch Golden Age painting style versus Baroque.

Robin's Laws didn't talk about rule design so much as campaign/group dynamics from memory - it's been a very long time since I've pulled it out of storage so I may misremember.

While the poll may have certainly pointed out aspects of the game(s) investigated the then-current audience enjoyed/did not enjoy, it represents a cross-section of current attitudes from the audience -- in effect categorising their styles of play in ways that depended on the assumptions of the survey creators. In effect, it measured acknowledged participation through the lens of the author's style biases more than developing new objectively better criteria for game creation.

The variation of dice mechanics certainly counts as a stylistic change -- typically in an attempt to adjust what is emulated and how the emulation works is viewed by the players/characters, but they are not specific objective improvements in design. Rolling for powers in Villains&Vigilantes is different than buying them in CHAMPIONS, but neither is objectively better even though some players prefer one to the other. Spending dice from a pool feels different than making three checks at penalties, but one is not better than the other save in context of the preferences of the audience and if one option fits the style attempted by the creators better.

Player/character economies extend back the 2nd gen era (very early '80s) -- 007 James Bond, CHAMPIONS, et al. had player/character economies to one degree of another. Adding action points to a game doesn't objectively improve it so much as change the player experience. Some audiences appreciate the change; others are indifferent; still others dislike it.

Certainly more work has been done to articulate different styles. What we have today is certainly a richer stylistic environment -- it is much more likely a dedicated searcher will find a game that speaks to their preferred style than in late '70s, but the games produced this decade don't seem to be objectively better than those made thirty years ago. The assumptions have changed. There are different cultural stressors and inspiration sources today. Therefore game design has been altered to accommodate. But those stressors and inspiration sources will continue to evolve. Game design will as well so that new games continue to match current cultural attitudes.

Hussar said:

I'm sorry, but the idea that there is no advancement in game design basically means that there can never be any improvement. That every RPG ever made is the epitome of good design.

That's obviously not true. We have learned things. Thousands and thousands of hours of play have revealed that some things are better than others. An initiative system that requires a dozen pages of explanation is a poorly designed system. A mechanic which requires cube roots in order to calculate is a poorly designed mechanic (and, yes, I have actually seen that in a game).

Now, obviously, mechanics have to be judged based on what that mechanic is trying to achieve, of course.

Click to expand...

I've seen a couple of systems with cube roots -- Other Suns is one. Although I thought the mechanic was poorly designed the cubic root wasn't what I objected to -- the drive system had a minimum mass but no minimum cost or power requirements so you could in effect have a gravity drive that weighed a half-ton and cost less than a soda drink and ran on AAA batteries.

A overly detailed mechanic is only a problem if the audience doesn't see the need for it. If it fits the genre and game assumption then it becomes a good mechanic and a feature of the system other games are missing. It could objectively poor in that it requires 12 pages of explanation because the writing isn't clear or if the mechanic does not fit with the genre assumptions for the game as laid out by the creators. If the audience doesn't like it because it doesn't match their style, they may also consider it a flaw, but that is a subjective consideration.

As cultural stressors change and inspirational sources change, audience expectations change. What becomes a better game subjectively is the one that best fits those expectations.

I think that one (possibly even the biggest) way in which game design has definitely improved in is organization.

Some of the earliest rpg books come off almost as stream of consciousness writings, with rules inserted into the text as they occurred to their creators. As those rules got reexamined, they got reorganized into a new order. Also, sometimes these rules got homogenized into a single "core mechanic."

Hussar said:

I'm sorry, but the idea that there is no advancement in game design basically means that there can never be any improvement. That every RPG ever made is the epitome of good design.

That's obviously not true. We have learned things. Thousands and thousands of hours of play have revealed that some things are better than others. An initiative system that requires a dozen pages of explanation is a poorly designed system. A mechanic which requires cube roots in order to calculate is a poorly designed mechanic (and, yes, I have actually seen that in a game).

Now, obviously, mechanics have to be judged based on what that mechanic is trying to achieve, of course.

Click to expand...

I think there are mechanics that do worse than others, and some that do better. And there are some fundamental truths, like you want your rules to be understandable. But a lot of times in these arguments "design has moved on" seems like a cudgel to impose what really boils down to taste or preference. If design has truly moved on, then bad mechanics will be rejected by the people who buy the games. We do not need a set of theories or guidelines asserting certain types of mechanics are now off limits because they are outdated.

I would say its tiered. Broken math is broken math. If you have mechanics that dont do what they are supposed to, that is not good design (though it could still accidentally be a good game). So some mechanics can be judged as good or bad. But a lot of this stuff boils down to what people like (do you like intricate subsystems, unified mechanics, kots of granulatity, comprehensive mechanics, gritty mechanics, high octane mechanics, narratove mechanics, etc). I see this stuff as preference and most mechanics that get debated seem to fall in that zone. And then a lot of system, really is just fashion. There are trends in rpgs, like in music. This isn't necessarily advancement though. What matters ultimately I think, isnt whether a system measures up to some vague rubric of good design, but whether it measures up for the people who play it at the table. If your customers are happy, then you are probably doing things right

(excuse typos: ipad acting up)

innerdude said:

I might define the term "moving on" to more specifically mean, "Achieving a more accurate result of an abstracted simulation with fewer calculations / fewer variables / clearer results / more consistent application of existing mechanical principles."

Click to expand...

Agreed.

delericho said:

Engineering.

Click to expand...

Agreed again

Lwaxy said:

To me it has moved on to ever more rules and regulations, away from common sense and creativity for the group. It has also moved away somewhat from the dungeon crawl and monster bashing stereotype to more roleplay focused encounters. Yes, the art definitely changed, although not always for the better - or for the worse, sometimes it just changed.

Click to expand...

And here your experience really doesn't match mine - at least not in the first part. My rule of thumb on whether I'll GM or teach a system is that I won't GM or teach any system where I need to look something up in the rulebook in the course of play. And I won't GM or teach any system you can't cram down onto two sides of A4 and the character sheets (bonus if character sheets are index card sized) if you are really trying. And NPCs can fit on an index card. I can play such systems (I used to be and in many ways still am a GURPS fan) but I've enough to think about when running the games. I think that's a pretty good indication of a simple system.

Games I know I can run in such a manner because I have done so:

• Dread (2006)
• Fate Core and FAE (2013)
• Marvel Heroic Roleplaying (2012)
• Dungeon World (2011)
• Monsterhearts (2011)
• Leverage (2010)
• Fiasco (2009)
• Firefly (2014)

Games I consider on the borderline for such an attempt - either borderline for the two page rule or that I think I could run but haven't tried:

• 4e (2008) (I must finish my trifold for it - it does offload a lot onto the character sheets, however)
• Smallville (2009)
• Apocalypse World (2010)
• Dogs in the Vineyard (2004)
• WFRP 3e (2010)
• Serenity (2005)
• Star Wars: Edge of Empire (2013)
• Feng Shui (1996)
• oD&D/Rules Cyclopaedia D&D (1974)
• Marvel FASERIP (1986)

Games I own and have played that wouldn't even try to run without a rulebook handy because they have a lot of rules

• GURPS (1986)
• RIFTS (1990)
• AD&D (1979)
• D&D 3.X (2000)
• Vampire: The Masquerade (1989) + family
• Ars Magica (1987)
• WFRP 1e (1985)
• Traveller (1977)
• Rolemaster (1980+) (Actually the rules of most editions aren't bad - it's just the tables).

Notice any patterns? Just about anything coming with a pedigree traceable through the Forge tends to be simpler than anything dominant in the 80s or 90s. And the OSR isn't quite as pro-simplicity and elegance, but definitely looks to "Rulings, not rules". For the last ten years in my experience roleplaying has moved away from rules and minuatae and towards creativity.

Shemeska said:

It's a crock.
...
I never saw the term applied to RPGs till circa 2008 when it was being used as a defense of 4e versus 3e

Click to expand...

That just shows where you were looking to be honest. The Forge was going from at least 1999 and Usenet had been making arguments long before that. However most of the discussion on good rules was taking place away from D&D circles, normally by disgruntled White Wolf players (which is how The Forge started). No one even bothered to critique AD&D's design (or bolt ons), and one of the impressive things about The Forge in the circles it emerged from was that it was slightly pro-D&D. But the idea that game design and improvements are a crock is itself a giant steaming crock. FATAL isn't just a bad game because of the subject matter.

Hussar said:

And, like, say, music, one can certainly apply science principles to the creation of music. And, again, there are a number of things one can do today that you simply could not do a hundred years ago.
0.

Click to expand...

True some of the technology we use to perform and record music has advanced tremendously, but overall understanding of music theory, composition, etc has arguably declined in many respects as well. But I don't know one can say music has gotten better or worse. I love classical, but i also love folk, rock, metal and pop. They all have very different goals and aims, but it is all good music. There are more tools in the tool box today, but there people are not throwing away their violins. There is still plenty of value in performing music written two hundred years ago.

Neonchameleon said:

That just shows where you were looking to be honest. The Forge was going from at least 1999 and Usenet had been making arguments long before that. However most of the discussion on good rules was taking place away from D&D circles, normally by disgruntled White Wolf players (which is how The Forge started). No one even bothered to critique AD&D's design (or bolt ons), and one of the impressive things about The Forge in the circles it emerged from was that it was slightly pro-D&D.

Click to expand...

And I stand corrected, because I wasn't in any of those place. So thank you

The biggest advancements, I think, deal in game coherence and the ability of designers to reach the results that they're after. Not only results in math and other crunchy bits. But, I mean creating a game that actually plays in the method they're after at the table, and the ability to convey how the game will be best played through the rules to achieve that target gameplay.

EDIT: So [MENTION=12037]ThirdWizard[/MENTION] goes and writes a very concise version of my thoughts while I have this up and get distracted by the kids....

Morrus said:

I see this phrase all the time: game design has moved on. Game design has progressed. The 'technology' of game design has improved.

What does that mean to you?

Click to expand...

Kinda subtle, but basically I think it comes down to "we can do X better now." Where I think that gets confusing is when people have different ideas about whether "X" is desirable or not. Also, those ideas do change with time. I know that there are many things that I would have demanded out of any game in say...1992, that I've grown out of by now.

Morrus said:

Is game design a science or an art?

Click to expand...

Yes....

Morrus said:

What elements are "improvements" to you?

Click to expand...

I think the biggest thing is the recognition that different goals of play are often served by different rules. So now, if we want a story-focused, character driven game we can produce that. Alternatively, if we want a very challenge-oriented game with fine-grained tactical options, we can do that as well. Previous generations of games and designers didn't have that advantage, and often produced...well, self-contradictory games.

Pre-WotC D&D, at times, suffers greatly from its incoherence in this area, IMO. However, it also benefited from it, because it was hidden behind the incoherent editing and production values. Folks came to AD&D and BECMI and took from it what they wanted. In a broad sense, all the basic motivations for playing a tabletop rpg were invented (or rather first experienced) by people playing one of those early versions of D&D. On the other hand, you might say that WotC D&D has suffered from its coherence. Whatever else you might say about them, 3e and 4e hit very hard on their design notes, which drove some folks away as much as it attracted others.

I think this kinda leaves D&D (or its designers) in a tough spot. While other games can pick and choose which goals to support, and what mechanics to even consider, they get to start "fresh" and with a "clean slate". No one cares if Savage World or FATE don't have a 5d6 Fireball for a 5th level mage...or even if there are classes or levels at all in those games! But no matter what their play goals/styles, most people seem to want D&D to serve it, but also want to see all those sacred cows lying about the field.

Morrus said:

Are any of these things merely fashions?

Click to expand...

....there may be some amount of fashion to peoples tabletop preferences, but I think its primarily a matter of taste. I consider the continued strong participation in 3.PF to reflect the general preference for that type of system. I don't think "fashion" has moved many people from one style to another very often. Of course, people can evolve over time. However, I don't think that it seems to follow the sort of "tidal" shifts that fashion does.

Morrus said:

Can flaws be features?

Click to expand...

ahhh...At a small scale, no. At a large scale, only rarely. (As in, I think the chaos of early D&D helped it a bit...but not much.)

Morrus said:

Is the reason older games get played less simply because they are less supported, or because they are not as good?

Click to expand...

Yes and yes, honestly. I recently got to play in an AD&D (1e) game that was as RAW as we could make it from the original books we had...and I know I'm committing sacrilege here...I was astounded, I mean utterly astounded at how horrible it was. Between the disorganization, contradiction, and incoherence of the rules, it was one of the worst TRPG experiences I've recently had. Comparing that to almost any modern game...I have difficulty imagining that many young persons would choose to learn and play AD&D over the modern game. (...and that's the game I cut my teeth on!) Also, when you consider that (until the recent reprints) those books weren't readily available to a newcomer to the hobby, I think you basically end up with a one-way street that leads to people playing the new games. Even my OSR-minded group uses Castles and Crusades as a starting point, rather than one of the previous editions.

Nagol said:

((And appologies for the mis attribution before. My bad))Player/character economies extend back the 2nd gen era (very early '80s) -- 007 James Bond, CHAMPIONS, et al. had player/character economies to one degree of another. Adding action points to a game doesn't objectively improve it so much as change the player experience. Some audiences appreciate the change; others are indifferent; still others dislike it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...gn-has-quot-moved-on-quot/page4#ixzz2mTdqLvjC

Click to expand...

But, that's not what game design improvements really mean. It's not that one game is better than another game. That's too hard to argue. Again, as you say, it's like trying to say that Picasso is better than Rembrandt.

But, we can certainly look at elements and critique them from a much more systematic point of view. For example, games with Action Points can be compared and critiqued on how those action points work, how are they awarded and what can the players actually do with them. And, yes, Action Points, in various forms, have evolved over the years. Sometimes we get action points like Bennies, that are awarded largely by DM Fiat, other times, they become a player resource and are replaced by an extended rest.

We can then look at how these different systems work in context and can generally judge whether or not these mechanics are successful within their respective systems and whether or not they might be a better fit with a different system.

The points of saying that something is well designed or poorly designed isn't so much to say that X is good or bad, but, it's a much more specific criticism, generally based on what's actually in context with the game. The Forest Oracle is a poorly designed adventure. It really is. We can objectively say that, yup, it's bad.

A game that requires cube roots might not be bad, depending on context, but, by and large, I'd say that any game that requires that level of math is probably trending into the "poorly designed" category. At least for that element.