Design approachs.

[triqui]

I have recently read a good article about a different approach to game design: Subtractive design.

I'd like get some material about game design, and specially, about different approach to them. Not talking about Narrative vs Gamist vs Simulationist here, but about Exception Based Design vs Subtractive Design vs Modular Design, for example. Would be nice if some of the game developers regulars in the forum would give their opinions about the pro and con of each of them (and many other that I'm sure they exist, just that I haven't heard about them)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have recently read a good article about a different approach to game design: Subtractive design.

I'd like get some material about game design, and specially, about different approach to them. Not talking about Narrative vs Gamist vs Simulationist here, but about Exception Based Design vs Subtractive Design vs Modular Design, for example. Would be nice if some of the game developers regulars in the forum would give their opinions about the pro and con of each of them (and many other that I'm sure they exist, just that I haven't heard about them)

That is an interesting article. It looks like article is written more with video games in mind, IMO. What he is calling subtractive design, is what I think most people who RP would just call streamlining (and I think I prefer the later term).

When I design games, I typically go for streamlined, but it also depends on my design goals.

I actually think a lot of this jargon that gets thrown around, makes things appear much more complicated than they really are. I tend to think more in terms of how "deep" or "light" I want each aspect of the game to be.

 

[Zhaleskra]

As a former Planescape fan, I remember one product talking about multiple methods of adventure design. While I can't remember the name of the product, its main point seemed to be linear vs. matrix-based design, talking about the latter as "hanging plot hooks".

I also wrote a short adventure as an outline (1 page or a little over). Here's what's happening. Here's why it's happening. This is what happens if the PCs deal with it one way (yeah, said adventure is a One Wrong Way adventure, all other ways are "right").

I've also been giving some thought to adapting a linear D&D adventure to a goal based adventure in HARP. Changing scripted events into events that just happen into events that could happen.

Of course, the "dungeons" will still be fairly restrictive: there are only so many ways you can go.

 

[RSKennan]

I don't think subtractive design is about limited options, per se. Though I didn't know the name of the technique, I'm using it to design a generic RPG meant to emulate as many genres as it can as closely as possible. The subtractive part of the design is about eliminating redundancy between systems. Combat is combat, whether it takes place verbally, physically, or internally. That kind of thing.

 

[triqui]

I don't think subtractive design is about limited options, per se. Though I didn't know the name of the technique, I'm using it you design a generic RPG meant to emulate as many genres as it can as closely as possible. The subtractive part of the design is about eliminating redundancy between systems. Combat is combat, whether it takes place verbally, physically, or internally. That kind of thing.

I think the term for that is Consistency. Back in the Old Days, games ussualy had different approachs to different things: for example in ADnD, one would use one method for some skills, like blacksmithing, and another one for others, like climb. Now, games try to build systems that work for everything using a similar technique. Like in Robert Schwalb A Song of Fire and Ice.

But imho, substractive design is quite different. It's more like thinking what's absolutely needed, and discard what is not. The approach would mean to shake the very foundations of regular systems. For example: do we need a to hit roll? do we need skills? Do we need dice? Maybe you wont end discarding everything. But it is worthy to question yourself about it, specially if you are trying to get a streamlined product.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The article is somewhat deceptive, IMO, because it sort of glosses over the first phase of design: Brainstorming.

Ico's designer drew on industry-wide brainstorming to create a big pile of "platformer ideas" that he then began subtracting elements from. Portal was actually refined from a completely different game.

Reading through that link will also show how, at key moment in the design process, things were added which were deemed to be missing form the experience.

I think there are two important lessons here:

(1) Set specific goals for what you're trying to achieve.

(2) Analyze the baggage of the genre/medium you're working in. Figure out how much of that baggage is unnecessary.

(3) Throughout your design process, remember that problems can be solved by removing problematic elements, not just adding new stuff.

By the same token, you have to make sure that you've accurately identified your goals. This is particularly true if you're designing something for a wide audience. And even more true if you're revising something with an existing fan/customber base. If you misidentify your audience's needs ("word processing software is about writing things, therefore this support for including pictures is irrelevant" or "D&D is all about killing monsters") then your audience will be less than happy with you.

 

[Smoss]

It looks like an interesting thought process. A "point of view" to look at the design.

Certainly when I worked on my own RPG system there were some "subtractive" moments. I had a certain feel and style I wanted. So I subtracted out what I did not need. I cut out classes. I cut out levels.

Then came a different thing - replacements. I replaced out a lot of "old familiar" things with simpler things (Attributes for example. Instead of 3-18, I use a 0-7 standard scale. attribute = bonus. No math). I replaced magic and toxins with whole new (integrated) systems. I replaced the horror of grappling with something much simpler... etc.

I can't say I consciously chose subtractive design at any point - But I certainly looked to hack out anything that didn't work and left it to die. (Various game breaking magics, I shall not miss thee). Sacred cows were shot. Beaten with clubs. Then viciously mocked.

Design has a lot of elements. Thanks for the article. I like things that make me think. Found a link somewhere about "subtext" for authors in their writing that also made me think for my setting (and novel). Good stuff.

Smoss

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...What he is calling subtractive design, is what I think most people who RP would just call streamlining (and I think I prefer the later term).

Would you differentiate between the terms streamlined and elegance in terms of design? For me streamlining is a subtractive process that focuses on simplification of a design. Elegance then becomes a measure of how well the simplfied design imitates the functions of its former structure; the more elegant, the more identical the functionality but with the benefit of simplicity and less redundancy.

Subtractive design as presented in that article (I love stuff like this!) is about starting with maximum scope of the end product (the brainstorming part that Beginning of the End mentions) and then paring it down, maintaining functionality but with increased elegance. Kind of like having an aqueous solution and then crystallizing out the impurities. Along the way, the designer may decide that certain fields of this design are extraneous (for example leaving just the castle element used in the article).

I think the interesting thing is how D&D embodies to different degrees both subtractive and additive design. The "core" is subject to subtractive design, but once this core is developed, different (subtractively designed?) fields are then added to the overall game, expanding it (as we saw with the complete series in 3e and certain elements of 4e where the original scope or boundaries of the design were expanded). Depending upon the efficiency of the core determines how elegant the overall structure will be. I think it fair to say that 3e suffered a little in this regard while 4e as a design is a little more resilient (although both in terms of efficient design are quite elegant in my opinion).

I love this sort of stuff on design so thank you for starting the topic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[triqui]

The article is somewhat deceptive, IMO, because it sort of glosses over the first phase of design: Brainstorming.

Yes, he should had made that much more clear. To "subtract" things there must be things over there to subtract . So first step is to build up a concept of *everything* that the design has. As you mention, the "baggage" of the genre.

I think there are two important lessons here:

(1) Set specific goals for what you're trying to achieve.

(2) Analyze the baggage of the genre/medium you're working in. Figure out how much of that baggage is unnecessary.

(3) Throughout your design process, remember that problems can be solved by removing problematic elements, not just adding new stuff.

So, which one of those three isn't important? Just kidding.

Number 3) is, imo, the key from the article. If, let's say, you are having a lot of problem trying to build Ritual Magic in your own game mechanic, you could ask yourself "Do I really need Ritual Magic"? Becouse it *might* be unnecessary for the genre you are trying to develope.

By the same token, you have to make sure that you've accurately identified your goals. This is particularly true if you're designing something for a wide audience. And even more true if you're revising something with an existing fan/customber base. If you misidentify your audience's needs ("word processing software is about writing things, therefore this support for including pictures is irrelevant" or "D&D is all about killing monsters") then your audience will be less than happy with you.

So, your suggestion is: Before I start a design, I should make a list of goals. Which seems quite logic. Should those be "broad" or should they be very well defined? Or both, in different stages of the process?

 

[triqui]

It looks like an interesting thought process. A "point of view" to look at the design.

Certainly when I worked on my own RPG system there were some "subtractive" moments. I had a certain feel and style I wanted. So I subtracted out what I did not need. I cut out classes. I cut out levels.

While related, I think Subtractive dessign is doing that, just one step beyond. Think on Apple iPhone. It does have one button, compared to Samsung Galaxy S, which have 3. Apple went with substractive design. Their *goal* was to get as few buttons as possible. It was not a side-effect, it was their goal.

While we all have done those subtractive moments you mention, and we have streamlined things, Subtrative Design make simplicity a goal itself. For example: "I'm going to build a Diceless RPG" might be Subtractive design. A DMless rpg might be too.

It's a strong approach. Not every design should use this, but for sure, some would benefit from it.

Even if you might not end doing it for the whole design development, you might find yourself doint it for parts of the game. A good example could be: "in 3e, being stun by pain, being stun by nausea, and being stun by fear, are different status. I can simplify that."

As every other design approach (like Exception Based Design vs Modular Design), it has some merits, and some flaws. However, I found it to be shockingly interesting. It's like some sort of "remember: you don't *have* to use a mechanic just becouse *it is there* or *always have been done*"