• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Game design has "moved on"

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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? Is game design a science or an art? What elements are "improvements" to you? Are any of these things merely fashions? Can flaws be features? Is the reason older games get played less simply because they are less supported, or because they are not as good?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Going to agree with DannyA again. It's more art than science. That said, even art can makes technical progress as people develop sophisticated skills in game design and I think some technical progress has been made since D&D first appeared.
 

Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Put me down for "Art."

Agreed.

That said, I think there does need to be some sort of internally-consistent structure in place so that the question "Why?" can always be answered. Of course, that answer could simply be, "This worked out to be more fun in play," but at least it's not the 1E (or Mongoose) answer, "No idea. We were up against a deadline as always so we slapped this together at the last minute."

I'm sure there is some art-based analogy for that.
 

innerdude

Legend
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."

The "science" of game design is pretty straightforward, actually. Numbers can be manipulated in any way necessary to produce a "proper" range of results, based on inputs.

The thing about an RPG is that we want as accurate a result as possible with as few inputs as possible.

That's where the art comes in. The art is knowing what result you should expect based on inputs . . . and then defining the least intrusive, fewest-calculation way of achieving that result.

There's no question that there are ways to objectively rank rules "effectiveness." Different mechanics that represent the same basic outcome -- "Your character has taken damage" -- can be more or less effective based on desired result.

I think in most cases, when we prefer a newer system to an old one, it's because the changes to the system have improved the process for achieving the result.

One of the strengths of the d20 system is that at its core, it is a very effective "shorthand" for simulating a wide variety of situations. A d% / roll under system is more granular for certain . . . but do we really care that someone with a skill rating of 77 is in fact 2% more likely to succeed at a task than someone with a 75 rating? In most "real world" situations that matter, that 2% chance is trivial.
 


Yora

Legend
What I can say with quite some certainty is that in all the games I've seen in the past 10 years, none of them had such convoluted and irregular math as AD&D. Looking back and comparing with more recent games, the whole THAC0 and saving throw design was really terribly designed.
 

Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Engineering.

If you treat game design purely as science, you'll end up with something soulless. If you treat game design purely as art, you'll probably end up with nothing at all. It requires both skills.

Good answer, possibly the best so far.

What I can say with quite some certainty is that in all the games I've seen in the past 10 years, none of them had such convoluted and irregular math as AD&D. Looking back and comparing with more recent games, the whole THAC0 and saving throw design was really terribly designed.

And thieves. Who would think to design a class utterly incapable of doing what it was supposed to do? ;)
 

Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
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.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
If you treat game design purely as science, you'll end up with something soulless. If you treat game design purely as art, you'll probably end up with nothing at all. It requires both skills.
Yep, like all interesting things, it's both an art and a science. And RPG Design has definitely 'moved on' a lot since the olden' days of D&D. I really don't want to go back. Over time, many systems have introduced new, original ideas to the genre that have been picked up, integrated and evolved by others. These days, there's plenty of highly polished systems that expertly support particular game-styles with specialized mechanics. Who wants or needs a generic system when there's such a great selection of rpgs?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top