Common Pitfalls in Game Design

The reason you might not have seen your new idea out in the wild is that it’s not actually that great, not because you are the first to think of it. However, that is not to say you won’t be the first person to really crack it.
puzzle-693870_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

To help you on your games design journey, here are the common pitfalls in the journey you might like to be aware of. I have fallen for all of these in some way at some point. These are specific design choices or approaches that often lead to challenges or suboptimal outcomes.

The D12 Dice Trap​

There is an ocean of games that use D10 dice pools and all manner of D20 games. D6s are ubiquitous and while games like D&D use all the dice, the poor D12 tends to be rolled very rarely. Most designers notice this and seek to redress the balance by deciding to make a game system driven by only D12s. No one else is using this much maligned dice, making your new system unique.

Now I have nothing against the D12, it’s a great dice. But part of the problem here is the starting point. Trying to make a game specifically to use a certain dice is not a good idea. Use the dice that works best for the system you want to use instead. There is also the matter of marketability. Any gamer will have a crop of D10s and D20s, and any non-gamer will have a pile of D6s. Making a game based on D12s means a trip to the dice shop for most people (which is expensive but not all bad…).

The main reason the D12 tends to get left out as a core dice is the range though. Humans think mostly in base 10, so dealing in 5, 10 and 20 is more natural for most people. When it comes to difficulty numbers any dice with fewer than 10 sides might not give you enough variety, hence why many low sided dice systems use multiples of said dice. So for your “roll 1 dice to resolve an action” system we tend to come back to D10s and D20s.

So, if you are going to use a D12, use it to do something other dice can’t do. Just as with the Imperial versus Metric measurements, values of 12 can divide in half without going to fractions one more time. For a d12 that means 12, 6, 3 instead or 10, 5, 2.5. That gives you four distinct sections for any D12 roll (0-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12). However, a D20 can also break down to 4 sections (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, another reason they are popular) so you’ll need to create something that divides rather than just uses stages ideally.

Respecting the Tarot​

Many of us get into Tarot at some stage as plenty of geeks run with the alternative crowd. I’m an occasional Tarot collector myself so I get the attraction. Tarot has been used as a storytelling aid for many years and it works very well for this. You have four numbered suits and 22 numbered trump cards making them cry out to be used as a gaming tool. This is doubly so when the suits and trumps divide the same numerical results into different sections.

The problems with Tarot cards are twofold. Firstly, Tarot decks have significant spiritual meaning to some, both those who practice its use and those who are unfamiliar with it. This means that there is more likelihood people playing the game will be seen as “playing with dangerous occult forces,” to say nothing of just trying to get hold of a pack to play the game.

The other issue comes from those who do know Tarot. The cards have meanings that have been passed down over centuries and just grabbing them as a “say what you see” narrative tool or a random number generator can sound very disrespectful. While the meanings are often vague and complex, if you don’t know them better than the tiny booklet that came with your first deck, you will stand out as an amateur. So, you should know how the cards are used if you are going to use them. This is no bad thing as the meanings have stood the test of time and using them properly will give you better narrative options.

Having said all that, these last few years has seen several games driven by Tarot cards. Many are journaling games, which is very close to the Tarot storytelling that’s been going on for years. The joy of crowdfunding has also allowed such games to be delivered with a deck created for the game (although 78 images from an artist is expensive so count that into your budget). There are also several gaming companies that have made even standalone Tarot decks. However, most of these games use the pictures and meanings as narrative prompts rather than the numbers as a game mechanic. Tarot, when used respectfully and with some forethought, can make for a great game mechanic -- just be aware of the pitfalls.

Magical Narrative

If you tire of rules systems you can go too far in the other direction and let the narrative decide the whole system. Go completely diceless! Let players do anything they can imagine! Their very words define success and failure! On the face of it, that sounds like the purest form of role playing.

The problem here is that rules are not actually a burden, they are an assistant. Rules give you structure not to control or limit but to build upon. If you want a totally narrative game (and that’s fine) you actually have more work to do, not less, than a more rules heavy game.

Firstly you need to figure out how your narrative will guide the story so everyone can take part, not just the loudest player. If the words people use will become the keys to success and failure, you need to define which words, how they do this, and how the players will be able to know which ones. A lot of this can be figured out by just letting them do as they will. Most story games do this by setting up a situation and letting that give the players the parameters their characters work with.

The second problem is explaining how you do it. It is not enough for a game designer to just say “and then you just tell a story”. It’s not actually that easy to randomly tell a story for most people. They need some help, some prompts and guidelines. The rules usually do this by telling them what actions their character can do and how good they are at them. Narrative games are much harder to do this with.

Despite role playing being among the most imaginative and creative people, not everyone is able to just jump into a game or pull narrative out of a hat at a moment’s notice. When we made the Doctor Who game I remember talking to people at conventions who would ask “So what characters can you play?” to which my answer would be “Anything you like across all of time and space!” For me that’s a selling point, you can play literally anything or base a character on anyone in the series across 60 years. But for many people that was just a scary option with no direction to help them out. The same applies to rules and system. So whatever your game is like, write examples, for everything, a lot.

Your Turn: What common issues have you seen in game design or tackled yourself ... only to discover it in another game?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine


log in or register to remove this ad

I don't think they do though in any way that matters to this. I don't they think in a base at all for "small" math (which certainly includes up to 20), and I don't think that, without at least some attempt at science here, we can make claim as extreme as "d20s and d10s just make more sense to people!", which is the claim here.

Frankly if this was true, like to the point it impacted dice choices, d6s would be unpopular, as would d8s, whereas I don't think that's the case at all. If anything d6s are generally more popular than d10s.

The real issues with d12s, AFAICT are:

1) As the OP says, a lot of people don't have many of them.

2) Some people confuse them with d10s visually, something I find mystifying yet I must admit it is a phenomenon I have observed.
There actually is anthropologic research-backed evidence to corroborate the belief that humans do think in base 10 for good reason, and it surrounds our ... fingers and toes! Most of us don't, in fact, have 12 fingers and 12 toes.
 

The problem there is that the more you fine-tune the playstyle, processes, and purpose(s) you're aiming for, the smaller your potential audience and player-base becomes.

The quoted post is a good example: Wildsea works for you but doesn't work for @Willie the Duck and thus, of the sample size of the two of you, the game's potential audience has already been cut in half.

Unless I'm designing purely for myself or my table without thought of sales or profit, ideally I'd want my game to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. This means making it multi-purpose, and able to easily adapt its processes to different playstyles while still keepign the same general idea.

For example, 1e D&D as written was all about treasure hunting and (to a degree) combat sim. Take out xp-for-gp (i.e. adapt the process) and that focus changes significantly. Take out or rewrite some of the fussy combat-sim pieces (initiative, weapon-vs-armour-type, etc.) and the focus changes again.

What 1e didn't do was tell us any of this, though in fairness it was still early days. Were I writing 1e now there'd be options and suggestions as to how to make changes like these and what their effects on play might look like; and I think this is something any game with big-tent aspirations needs to do.

I don't feel the valid approaches both of you have mentioned towards game design contradict one another; a designer can hold these in the same container and benefit from them.

I think what's changed significantly is the navigation one takes with their game from ideas > development > play testing > finished product; how that's done compared to in the past has influenced what kinds of games we are seeing now:

  • Systems that were kitchen sink (GURPS is one that comes to mind) were more common. The trend now is more towards specificity and clear intent, games of shorter length (a campaign having less sessions on average); players seek games that do some handful of rpg-things in a game really well! Capsule-style games would be an example e.g. Mythic Bastionland.
  • More notably, designers that have backing iterate their ruleset to other genres (e.g. Free League's YZE titles, or more recently Grimwild's MOXIE, whose creator has plans for a Western setting among others) through scaled plans.
  • Newer or smaller designers can more easily leverage crowdsharing (by licenses or otherwise) now to spur evolution of their original system to other spaces through community-building jams, word-of-mouth (use Ironsworn for Mouseguard!), and so on.
 

Facts not in evidence.

Without a source for this claim, I don't think you can rely on it, especially many human cultures used a base-12 system for thousands and thousands of years. I don't think most people "think in base 10" to that degree at all, nor that it impacts what dice work for them even if they do.


Do we though? Seems like the problem is more with "roll 1 die" itself inherently having a lot of problems, not least having a flat probability curve which is not, imho, a good probability curve. I don't think it's an accident that the vast majority of games that aren't explicitly OSR/NSR/D&D-derived use at least two dice

So I would say a good example of a "common pitfall" in RPG design is people trying use 1 die systems when what they're actually trying to achieve would work better with two or more dice, or even a dice pool.


But do any games do this? Because I can't think of any. It's not really something you could sell! That's kind of how RP used to work in a lot of IRC chats and the like, back in the day (and still does on some Discords, I hear).

With your Doctor Who example, that's trivial to solve, just give people some example character concepts. Those who need them will work from there, those who don't don't. The DM who didn't even offer suggestions was, frankly, not being terribly helpful! Especially as not every concept from across time and space does actually work, tonally, for that kind of game. Anyone who is both an extreme thug and really good at it is going to be a big problem, for example. You could have a Viking warrior, say, but you'd need one who was thoughtful and open to talking, not hitting with axes, or at least basically incompetent (c.f. Erik the Viking). If they just kept going berserk and decorating the interior of the TARDIS with the blood their enemies (and friends, perhaps!), that wouldn't really be cricket now would it?

And clearly using more narrative/fictional-positioning-based approaches can bring huge benefits for a lot of game designs (c.f. Daggerheart, or just the fact that PtbA, BitD, Ironsworn, etc. have been insanely successful).

I will say, if we're talking common pitfalls, "rules-as-simulation" used to be a common one, but it is pretty damn rare now.

I think the biggest common pitfall in TTRPG remains the same as it ever has - failure to keep the goals of your system, what you're trying to achieve vibes-wise and in terms of what works and is rewarded mechanically, in mind when designing the mechanics of the system. I think quite a lot of well-meaning RPGs have smashed on these rocks, including literally every Star Trek RPG.
D&D has been insanely successful. PbtA, BitD, Ironsworn, etc have been sufficiently successful (which IMO is all any game needs to be, and all any game company should drive toward).

Not sure what your problem with Star Trek Adventures (as an example of "literally every Star Trek RPG") is. To me the mechanics play perfectly well into feeling like Star Trek. Do you just not like any Sim mechanics at all?
 

D&D has been insanely successful. PbtA, BitD, Ironsworn, etc have been sufficiently successful (which IMO is all any game needs to be, and all any game company should drive toward).

D&D has been insanely successful because it was good and because it was the first of its type. No other game can ever be the first RPG. I would say that in any context other than 'replaces D&D and penetrates the mainstream' PbtA has been insanely successful.
 

D&D has been insanely successful because it was good and because it was the first of its type. No other game can ever be the first RPG. I would say that in any context other than 'replaces D&D and penetrates the mainstream' PbtA has been insanely successful.
How so? Is there a line that separates "successful" from "insanely successful"? Ignoring D&D specifically as you say, what makes any RPG "insanely successful"?
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top