Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9240102" data-attributes="member: 7040941"><p>Don't design an uninteresting game. Kinda funny, but its more or less the answer. Or at least a answer, anyway. </p><p></p><p>Ive said before that games, even stripped down to their bare mechanics, should be compelling and fun. </p><p></p><p>Many times you'll still need some additional layers of content to make for a compelling experience, but conventional narratives aren't exactly crucial at this level, and examining how you can make the stripped game more fun pays dividends when you pull that more bespoke interesting stuff back in.</p><p></p><p>For example, rock/paper/scissors isn't terribly compelling, but as noted, the dynamic it produces is similar to a conventional narrative. You have an inciting incident, a rising tension, a climax, and a denouement (and even sequel bait). </p><p></p><p>So right off the bat, r/p/s doesn't need much to be more compelling, nor to provide a very rudimentary narrative through play. If we shift up to something like very basic Pokemon battles, adding an assumed constant damage (because status moves and all that is an even more advanced step) and then the Typing system, we get a form of RPS thats dramatically more compelling.</p><p></p><p>So much so its still satisfying even as an adult to just play Pokemon like when we were kids, just spamming our best attacks. </p><p></p><p>And thats all without considering any of the content trappings; the context that you're battling your science fiction/fantasy pets, which makes the overall dynamic, and the resulting narrative, that much more compelling. </p><p></p><p>And as we add more systems and content, that experience, and the narratives it produces, become that much more compelling. Competitive Pokemon is a lot of fun to watch as a result, as are Nuzlockes and Speed Runs and all that, and when done well, even authored narrative experiences are a compelling integration. Arceus, for example, does a really fine job of integrating the classic experience with a compelling, authored narrative. (Jurys out on if any of the mainline games did it too; I believe 5th gen was the popular one for that specifically)</p><p></p><p>Neither are conventional narratives, but they are really compelling, and become even more so with the meta narrative that often accompanies these games.</p><p></p><p> Hence why game streamers have such a consistent audience; they wouldn't be near as popular, nor have taken off like they have, without the fundamental dynamics being produced as a result of their persona interacting with either one really compelling game or, as is the case with most streamers, a whole bunch of them. The parasocial nature of Critical Role has been criticized, but a lot of that is also just the meta narrative of how their table interacts with the game of DND that Matt puts on, which is quite compelling in its own right. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats what playtesting and iteration is for, and why design patterns are such a useful shorthand. </p><p></p><p>Which does make sense. In other art forms, a lot of the process is the back and forth of consumption and design. When drawing, you do have to step back and look at whats being depicted. When writing, you do have to step back and read what you wrote. And so on. Revisions then follow. </p><p></p><p>Games are consumed by playing them, ergo playtest and iterate on, "revise", what was designed. </p><p></p><p>This is also why its important to have other people do this.</p><p></p><p>For example, when I was working on my combat system, my original idea was only 1 Action per turn, period. That was because I wanted the system to be really punchy, while also being much more indepth with the Actions themselves. </p><p></p><p>However, playtesting revealed that none of the punch, for the high octane high fantasy combat being depicted was lost upon allowing a 2nd Action, and in turn that nothing was lost by allowing technically infinite Reactions. (Practically its not a thing, but in some circumstances itll work out that way). This also, in turn, worked well to maintain my original goal of emphasizing input randomness.</p><p></p><p>BUT, recently, as in the past few days, I got distracted with a side project on trying to adapt the system to a Gun Fu style of combat, which by its nature is a lot more punchy and fast paced an aesthetic than the already bonkers high fantasy stuff I've been doing, particularly given I'm aiming for a good 50-50 on Gun to Fu. </p><p></p><p>So for the Gun Fu adaptation, playtesting has me figuring I'll be going back to the 1 Action per Turn idea (as that did feel better in testing), and I'll use the additional die that gets rolled to build up a new mechanic, that'll be about basically setting up your next move, and the overall dynamic, when interlinked with Momentum, should be something that feels similar to Gun Fu as we know it from Movies, but is fully interactive. </p><p></p><p>As for why the two felt different, thats just a matter of what aesthetically each take is presenting. The "fiction" if you will. While the high fantasy combat I'm going for is already pretty bonkers compared to the typical (casual dragon suplexing and all that), something about it just works better with a slower pace, and hence, more Actions being thrown around. </p><p></p><p>I'd kind of liken that difference to being the difference between a fight in Pacific Rim and a fight in, say, Extraction. More weighty and deliberate versus lighter and chaotic. </p><p></p><p>Suffice to say theres no real objective standard. We can try to quantify these things but its a matter of taste as to whether or not its what we want. One could easily flip the two ideas, and say the weighty, deliberate system wants only 1 Action whole the lighter, chaotic take wants more, if they aren't so much concerned with Pacing as I am and are more interested in controlling for some other aspect.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9240102, member: 7040941"] Don't design an uninteresting game. Kinda funny, but its more or less the answer. Or at least a answer, anyway. Ive said before that games, even stripped down to their bare mechanics, should be compelling and fun. Many times you'll still need some additional layers of content to make for a compelling experience, but conventional narratives aren't exactly crucial at this level, and examining how you can make the stripped game more fun pays dividends when you pull that more bespoke interesting stuff back in. For example, rock/paper/scissors isn't terribly compelling, but as noted, the dynamic it produces is similar to a conventional narrative. You have an inciting incident, a rising tension, a climax, and a denouement (and even sequel bait). So right off the bat, r/p/s doesn't need much to be more compelling, nor to provide a very rudimentary narrative through play. If we shift up to something like very basic Pokemon battles, adding an assumed constant damage (because status moves and all that is an even more advanced step) and then the Typing system, we get a form of RPS thats dramatically more compelling. So much so its still satisfying even as an adult to just play Pokemon like when we were kids, just spamming our best attacks. And thats all without considering any of the content trappings; the context that you're battling your science fiction/fantasy pets, which makes the overall dynamic, and the resulting narrative, that much more compelling. And as we add more systems and content, that experience, and the narratives it produces, become that much more compelling. Competitive Pokemon is a lot of fun to watch as a result, as are Nuzlockes and Speed Runs and all that, and when done well, even authored narrative experiences are a compelling integration. Arceus, for example, does a really fine job of integrating the classic experience with a compelling, authored narrative. (Jurys out on if any of the mainline games did it too; I believe 5th gen was the popular one for that specifically) Neither are conventional narratives, but they are really compelling, and become even more so with the meta narrative that often accompanies these games. Hence why game streamers have such a consistent audience; they wouldn't be near as popular, nor have taken off like they have, without the fundamental dynamics being produced as a result of their persona interacting with either one really compelling game or, as is the case with most streamers, a whole bunch of them. The parasocial nature of Critical Role has been criticized, but a lot of that is also just the meta narrative of how their table interacts with the game of DND that Matt puts on, which is quite compelling in its own right. Thats what playtesting and iteration is for, and why design patterns are such a useful shorthand. Which does make sense. In other art forms, a lot of the process is the back and forth of consumption and design. When drawing, you do have to step back and look at whats being depicted. When writing, you do have to step back and read what you wrote. And so on. Revisions then follow. Games are consumed by playing them, ergo playtest and iterate on, "revise", what was designed. This is also why its important to have other people do this. For example, when I was working on my combat system, my original idea was only 1 Action per turn, period. That was because I wanted the system to be really punchy, while also being much more indepth with the Actions themselves. However, playtesting revealed that none of the punch, for the high octane high fantasy combat being depicted was lost upon allowing a 2nd Action, and in turn that nothing was lost by allowing technically infinite Reactions. (Practically its not a thing, but in some circumstances itll work out that way). This also, in turn, worked well to maintain my original goal of emphasizing input randomness. BUT, recently, as in the past few days, I got distracted with a side project on trying to adapt the system to a Gun Fu style of combat, which by its nature is a lot more punchy and fast paced an aesthetic than the already bonkers high fantasy stuff I've been doing, particularly given I'm aiming for a good 50-50 on Gun to Fu. So for the Gun Fu adaptation, playtesting has me figuring I'll be going back to the 1 Action per Turn idea (as that did feel better in testing), and I'll use the additional die that gets rolled to build up a new mechanic, that'll be about basically setting up your next move, and the overall dynamic, when interlinked with Momentum, should be something that feels similar to Gun Fu as we know it from Movies, but is fully interactive. As for why the two felt different, thats just a matter of what aesthetically each take is presenting. The "fiction" if you will. While the high fantasy combat I'm going for is already pretty bonkers compared to the typical (casual dragon suplexing and all that), something about it just works better with a slower pace, and hence, more Actions being thrown around. I'd kind of liken that difference to being the difference between a fight in Pacific Rim and a fight in, say, Extraction. More weighty and deliberate versus lighter and chaotic. Suffice to say theres no real objective standard. We can try to quantify these things but its a matter of taste as to whether or not its what we want. One could easily flip the two ideas, and say the weighty, deliberate system wants only 1 Action whole the lighter, chaotic take wants more, if they aren't so much concerned with Pacing as I am and are more interested in controlling for some other aspect. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
Top