"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

pemerton · May 10, 2024

Umbran said:
I submit that this attitude, which seems painfully common in the design theory segment of our community, is a large part of what has left our body of design knowledge and principles in such a mess.

<snip>

Good design doesn't come from, "I know what is good for you." I comes from, "I listen to you to know your needs and desires."

From Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World, pp 287-8:

IMMEDIATE GAME INFLUENCES
Sorcerer; Sorcerer’s Soul; Sex & Sorcery, Ron Edwards
Spione, Ron Edwards
. . .
Trollbabe, Ron Edwards . . .

Stakes questions are based on stakes in Trollbabe, by Ron Edwards. . . .

Threat countdowns are based on bangs in Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The character sex moves were inspired by Sex & Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.

This idea that RPG design principles are a mess, and that Edwards has nothing to contribute to good RPG design, doesn't seem very well-founded to me.

kenada · May 10, 2024

zakael19 said:
Good design in all things tends to come from "I have a strong vision for what I want to achieve, and set out to do so."

I am reminded of this clip of David Bowie.

Maxperson · May 10, 2024

niklinna said:
Note: This is part 3 of 3. If you're the sort of person who prefers context for things (Ron certainly is), here are parts 1 & 2....

Part 1

Part 2

TL;DL

Umbran · May 10, 2024

zakael19 said:
Games like AW came out of a desire to achieve a vision and play experience from the designer, not fulfilling "other's needs."

I am not an expert on Apocalypse World and the stated reasons their creators may have given. I cannot easily verify or contradict your assertion here, so... shrug.

It isn't like design and art are mutually exclusive! They can both exist in the same piece, without exploding. To the extent that they didn't care about the needs of players, it is art. To the extend they did, it is designed. If it is as you say, that it is primarily about their vision, then it is primarily a work of art.

zakael19 said:
A lot of exceptional games in the video game space came from, again, the creator or team having a strong creative vision and executing on it.

And? So, they made successful art? Ain't nothing wrong with that!

But, what we find with that is that art isn't very replicable. You cannot take the underpinnings of a successful work of art, repeat them, and expect to get another successful work of art. The next piece is a roll of the dice.

The precepts of design, however, lead to replicable results - if you design a comfortable chair, other chairs made by the same design principles will also generally be comfortable. The creator will be highly constrained by the design principles, but they'll have high confidence the thing will perform as intended.

And that's why if we confuse our works of art for design, we get design principles that are kind of a mess, and don't seem to work very well when we try to apply them.

zakael19 · May 10, 2024

Umbran said:
I am not an expert on Apocalypse World and the stated reasons their creators may have given. I cannot easily verify or contradict your assertion here, so... shrug.

It isn't like design and art are mutually exclusive! They can both exist in the same piece, without exploding. To the extent that they didn't care about the needs of players, it is art. To the extend they did, it is designed. If it is as you say, that it is primarily about their vision, then it is primarily a work of art.

And? So, they made successful art? Ain't nothing wrong with that!

But, what we find with that is that art isn't very replicable. You cannot take the underpinnings of a successful work of art, repeat them, and expect to get another successful work of art. The next piece is a roll of the dice.

The precepts of design, however, lead to replicable results - if you design a comfortable chair, other chairs made by the same design principles will also generally be comfortable. The creator will be highly constrained by the design principles, but they'll have high confidence the thing will perform as intended.

And that's why if we confuse our works of art for design, we get design principles tat are kind of a mess, and don't seem to work very well when we try to apply them.

Beyond full dismissal of the points given in this discussion, I'm struggling to understand what you're adding here. Creative breakthroughs in new forms of game/product/etc are almost never aligned with "lets design for committee/user/company" but instead "lets execute on a creative vision, if we do it well enough they [people who also appreciate that vision] will come."

If your sole criteria is mass adoption, you're placing median products above creativity and innovation. Is this your contention?

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

zakael19 said:
Beyond full dismissal of the points given in this discussion, I'm struggling to understand what you're adding here. Creative breakthroughs in new forms of game/product/etc are almost never aligned with "lets design for committee/user/company" but instead "lets execute on a creative vision, if we do it well enough they [people who also appreciate that vision] will come."

If your sole criteria is mass adoption, you're placing median products above creativity and innovation. Is this your contention?

I mean if, in the interest of artistic vision, you don't give a crap about the people playing your game, and you don't give a crap about how many people end up playing it, then by all means, go for it. Maybe someday someone will see the brilliance. Maybe your idea will be brilliant, and you'll be Apple. But many people design things to actually be used. I'm not saying don't push the envelope, don't throw away your vision, but it's not wrong to understand what people are looking for in games. The arrogance of thinking you know what is good for other people without actually, you know, understanding what's wrong with them, is the kind of condescension in the hobby folks are talking about.

The other thing to keep in mind is that often what people think they want, isn't necessarily what they want. People often aren't good at expressing what is really bothering them, and that's where good design comes in. They may say, "I'm feeling left out of my game" when what's really happened is that their character class isn't designed to give them agency. It could also mean they have a toxic table. The expression of "feeling left out" is still valuable, and it's up to the designer to understand what that actually means.

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

kenada said:
I am reminded of this clip of David Bowie.

I totally agree. BUT. I would still say even David Bowie was taking the temperature of the culture and society around him, and feeling a vibe in music he thought folks would be receptive to.

kenada · May 10, 2024

zakael19 said:
Games like AW came out of a desire to achieve a vision and play experience from the designer, not fulfilling "other's needs." A lot of exceptional games in the video game space came from, again, the creator or team having a strong creative vision and executing on it.

This doesn't mean ignoring input in your testing phase to clarify things or adjust edge cases where it turns out some elements compromise the totality once others experience it. Also, very good design often becomes art. MOMA exists, yeah?

Edit: also, while not all creative agendas do or should include an element of "I know what's good for you" but instead "I know what I want to achieve"; a certain massive tech company has made an practice of design + "I know what's good for you" work very well.

I think games are art. They’re more than just products that are designed. A good game inspires its audience. Look at the way Arneson and Gygax changed the way people play with the release of OD&D or the way 5e has inspired tens of millions of people to get into RPGs, creating whole communities of people inspired by D&D that didn’t exist before. While the latter’s designers did solicit community feedback, they still had a vision, and that wasn’t up for a vote.

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
However, there's "imperfection" and there's "persistent irritation". I quite agree that some people are prone to having standards that are far more rigid than others and that the latter don't need to upend their gaming experience just because something is imperfect, but if the system is putting a rock in your shoe you should seriously think about taking it out.

In think in the video he draws a clear distinction between jamming with musical collaborators that are all invested in the same thing and having an "okay" (imperfect) session ("we'll do better next time,") and someone who is a clear outlier and is consistently miserable in their game. He wants to address the latter, the former is all good, expected and even encouraged. But he even references the "every time I drink coffee my eye hurts" joke for the latter group.

Emberashh · May 10, 2024

kenada said:
I think games are art. They’re more than just products that are designed. A good game inspires its audience. Look at the way Arneson and Gygax changed the way people play with the release of OD&D or the way 5e has inspired tens of millions of people to get into RPGs, creating whole communities of people inspired by D&D that didn’t exist before. While the latter’s designers did solicit community feedback, they still had a vision, and that wasn’t up for a vote.

The whole thing is that there isn't that big of a distinction between design and art. Design is art.

"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

pemerton

Legend

kenada

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Umbran

Mod Squad

zakael19

Adventurer

Wolfpack48

Hero

Wolfpack48

Hero

kenada

Legend

Wolfpack48

Hero

Emberashh

Hero

Similar Threads