Design approachs.

[Guest 85555]

It's a minor nitpick and a matter of terminology, but those weren't, imho, Subtractions. While I could see them as streamlining the system, they did so through Consistency. They replaced things, but did not subtract (ie: remove) anything from the game. Climb is still there, just the mechanic is different.

I think we just have a different sense of what constitutes subtraction. IMO Climb is still there, but the mechanic of roll a percentage to climb, pick pockets, etc is gone. So they did remove a number of mechanics, even if they brought they retained the concepts the mechanics supported. In theory they could have removed every mechanical element but one, and retained all the same concepts (say make a d20 roll for absolutely everything). I would still regard that as subtractive design.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think this is what the article is actually about.

.

I agree. What I think I was trying to say was one can get hung up on the idea of subtraction as an end to itself, rather than its actual end which is efficient and workable mechanics.

 

[triqui]

I think we just have a different sense of what constitutes subtraction. IMO Climb is still there, but the mechanic of roll a percentage to climb, pick pockets, etc is gone. So they did remove a number of mechanics, even if they brought they retained the concepts the mechanics supported. In theory they could have removed every mechanical element but one, and retained all the same concepts (say make a d20 roll for absolutely everything). I would still regard that as subtractive design.

That bassically would mean that anything that subsitute a rule for other is a Subtraction. I don't see it that way. Sega Sonic is a platform game. Mario is another. They do X things differently, but they aren't done with a subtraction design approach. Ico, on the other hand, is.

And yes, this mean that, imo, subtractive design makes *removing* things as a goal itself. Just like minimalism art does. When you enter in a minimalist room, you see that the goal is to be, well, minimal.

Even if some mechanic is not wrong, per se (like, say, having more than one stage in a platform game), a Subtract Design *tries* to remove it, as long as removing it do not harm the final product. Apple iMac without Floppy Disk is an example: there is nothing wrong with having a Floppy. It's not a "bad thing" to have. But you can remove it and the final product isn't severely hampered, so Apple did.

Same goes with minimalist decoration It's not only that you remove the furniture that are excesive, bad, wrong, or ugly. It's that you try to make it as clean as possible:

If you look at Verssailles Garden, there's nothing "wrong" there. Not a single thing you would need to "remove" to gain "elegance". However, if you see a Zen Garden, it's obvious that goals are different.

Versailles:

Zen Garden.

That's why not *every* game out there use this approach. That's why Ico is used as an example while, say, Super Sonic is not.

 

[Guest 85555]

That bassically would mean that anything that subsitute a rule for other is a Subtraction. I don't see it that way. Sega Sonic is a platform game. Mario is another. They do X things differently, but they aren't done with a subtraction design approach. Ico, on the other hand, is.

I think we just disagree on this point, which is fine. IMO because you are eliminating one mechanic, and replacing it with an existing mechanic (and therefore not adding a new one) you are subtracting. I think the core mechanic in d20 accomplishes this quite elegantly. It eliminates a number of mechanics and replaces them with a single mechanic. So I would still call that subtractive design. Now it isn't as subtractive I suppose as completely elminiting the concepts those mechanics support, but it is still subtractive I think. Also d20 isn't guided fully by this principal. Clearly in the end you have a bigger game, but there are subtractive elements.

And yes, this mean that, imo, subtractive design makes *removing* things as a goal itself. Just like minimalism art does. When you enter in a minimalist room, you see that the goal is to be, well, minimal.

I was basing my interpretation on this on the guy's 1st paragraph:

"Subtractive design is the process of removing imperfections and extraneous parts in order to strengthen the core elements. You can think of a design as something you build up, construct and let grow, but it&#8217s pruning away the excess that gives a design a sense of simplicity, elegance, and power."

To me that sounds like he is to produce efficiency and elegance, and subtraction is simply the means to achieve that.

Even if some mechanic is not wrong, per se (like, say, having more than one stage in a platform game), a Subtract Design *tries* to remove it, as long as removing it do not harm the final product. Apple iMac without Floppy Disk is an example: there is nothing wrong with having a Floppy. It's not a "bad thing" to have. But you can remove it and the final product isn't severely hampered, so Apple did.

My sense is it removes things that are not essential I think. But it wouldn't remove essential elements for the sake of subtraction. I believe we basically agree and just have expressed our conclusions a little differently.

 

[triqui]

Sirlin is brilliant! He's written an excellent series of articles called "Playing to win". That was a real eye-opener for me.

If those are the ones about a University Doctor doing a sociologycal research about the reaction of people when constantly beaten by him with unconventional but legal use of powers in City of Heroes, then yes, it's an awesome serie of articles

 

[triqui]

I think we just disagree on this point, which is fine. IMO because you are eliminating one mechanic, and replacing it with an existing mechanic (and therefore not adding a new one) you are subtracting. I think the core mechanic in d20 accomplishes this quite elegantly. It eliminates a number of mechanics and replaces them with a single mechanic. So I would still call that subtractive design. Now it isn't as subtractive I suppose as completely elminiting the concepts those mechanics support, but it is still subtractive I think. Also d20 isn't guided fully by this principal. Clearly in the end you have a bigger game, but there are subtractive elements.

Yes, we disagree. In my opinion, Subtractive design is one step beyond that. That would be streamlining, but not subtractive design. In d20, you got that streamlining through consistency. I once had a very good link to Consistency, but lost it. A quick search in google got me this article, which is just fine, and a better definition that I could make one for:
Consistency is the art of making sure that all similar elements in a game are described the same.

I was basing my interpretation on this on the guy's 1st paragraph:

"Subtractive design is the process of removing imperfections and extraneous parts in order to strengthen the core elements. You can think of a design as something you build up, construct and let grow, but it&#8217s pruning away the excess that gives a design a sense of simplicity, elegance, and power."

I find the key sentence being the Einstein one:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." —Albert Einstein
It's not like you say "ok, this part of the game is simple enough, so I don't need to touch it". It's more like you go "ok, this part of the game is simple enough, but can it be even simpler?"

My sense is it removes things that are not essential I think. But it wouldn't remove essential elements for the sake of subtraction. I believe we basically agree and just have expressed our conclusions a little differently.

Sure, it can't remove essential parts. But what's essential, and what not, is exactly the boundary. A Zen Garden can start removing non-essentials elements, and end itself removing *the plants*. Yet it remain a garden. Without plants. This shockingly disturbing idea awes me.

That's the difference between a elegant, simple and streamlined design, such as Mario Galaxy 2, and a minimalist design such as Ico. Every single design is going to have parts removed, yes. Even the more complex RPG you can think of, I'm pretty sure someone brainstormed an idea that finally was cut off. But in a lot of designs, we think about what we can add to the game. While sometimes, the developers think about what they can remove. Kinda like when you are designing D&D Red Box, for example.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, we disagree. In my opinion, Subtractive design is one step beyond that. That would be streamlining, but not subtractive design. In d20, you got that streamlining through consistency. I once had a very good link to Consistency, but lost it. A quick search in google got me this article, which is just fine, and a better definition that I could make one for:
Consistency is the art of making sure that all similar elements in a game are described the same.

Sure, but in this case consistency was achieved by eliminating who groups of mechanics. There is a definite subtractive element in that design process. They removed an enormous amount of mechanical clutter.

I find the key sentence being the Einstein one:
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." —Albert Einstein
It's not like you say "ok, this part of the game is simple enough, so I don't need to touch it". It's more like you go "ok, this part of the game is simple enough, but can it be even simpler?"

Sure, but that is just the process you are using to achieve an end product that is workable and efficient. You aren't eliminating things for elimination's sake, you are using elimination to produce a better game.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think when designing a tabletop RPG any design approach or decision that removes the "anything can happen in any given moment" (infinite possibilities) factor through rules rather than in-game circumstances fundamentally limits the situational gameplay and distances the tabletop RPG from the inherent core philosophy of tabletop RPGs. It's the guidelines vs rules argument, of course, and manifests itself most obviously in how much the resultant system relies on in-game adjudication of gameplay.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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

Call it an object lesson in subtractive design.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Yes, we disagree. In my opinion, Subtractive design is one step beyond that. That would be streamlining, but not subtractive design. In d20, you got that streamlining through consistency.

The problem with your argument is that not one single example from the article being linked to in the OP would qualify for your definition of "subtractive design". Whether you're talking about Portal, Ico, or the iPod, none of them subtracted elements without adding anything new to the equation.