Design approachs.

[triqui]

One interesting link about Game Dessign glossary

Two interesting books I hope to read are
"Rules of Play" by Eric Zimmerman and Katie Sales (excerpt here )and Game Design, Theory and Practice, by Richard Rouse III, which you can read a little bit here

However, a lot of the theory seems to be made for Videogames, and mostly multiplayer competittive videogames (somethings also apply to RPG, though). I'd like some Theory about RPG design too

 

[steenan]

I think there is one thing worth noting:
The subtractive design, in its pure form, is exactly the opposite of what game companies are doing. And I don't think it will change soon.

Let me explain what I mean here.

In subtractive design, you remove everything you don't really need. You examine every part of the game, see if it is necessary for the experience you aim for, and if not - away with it.

It won't give you a game you may sell supplements for. If a "subtractive designed" game is fun, you don't need more detailed setting information. Nor new classes, feats, monsters or items. If they were removed as not necessary before, what use is adding them back now?

Thus, subtractive design is good for homebrews and indie games - where you put only a little money in the work and don't expect to get a lot out of it. But the companies that try to make money on RPGs are fixated on selling more and more books for their system, so that doesn't work. Subtractive design won't give you anything alike D&D, WoD or GURPS.
Narrow, focused computer games may make money if they sell to a lot of people. But there is not enough roleplayers today for such approach to work with RPGs.


For games where the main goal is economic, another approach is necessary. We may call it "extensible design" - building games in such a way that more and more things may be added to them without the whole breaking apart. It shares some aspects with subtractive design: it's much easier to expand a game that is streamlined, with clear structure, instead of a random mix of subsystems. But other aspects are opposite: subtractive design removes all that is not crucial, extensible design look for free design spaces to add new things.

D&D 4e is, IMO, a good example of extensible design. It stays reasonably balanced and understandable with many supplements added (much better than earlier editions). It also uses several design patterns that aim for extensibility: exception-based (allows adding more specific rules contradicting earlier, general ones), "everything is core" (all things usable in every game, no setting-specific material) etc.

On the other hand, no matter how you look at it, this game does not fit the subtractive design paradigm. At all.

 

[Guest 85555]

However, a lot of the theory seems to be made for Videogames, and mostly multiplayer competittive videogames (somethings also apply to RPG, though). I'd like some Theory about RPG design too

With RPGs I think the most important thing is to have clear design goals and know your audience. I also think not limiting yourself to just one approach or one design philosophy is helpful. I tend to prefer streamlined systems with unified mechanics. But I think there are also going to be times when being inefficient and less unified can be very effective. There are advantages to both approaches. One of the obvious downsides of a unified mechanic (what I believe you called consistency triqui) is your core mechanic may not be the optimal choice for all aspects of the game. It might be clunky to have different mechanics for different rules (like in AD&D with different die rolls for non-weapon proficiencies, attacks, initiative, thieve skills, etc), but the one advantage is you have way more control each of those aspects of the game.

To use the AD&D 2E system, which I am running again after not playing it for over a decade. I think there is something to be said for their non-weapon proficiency mechanic. It is much easier to contain than the 3E skill system with its wide ranging modifiers. I believe the result is a much more grounded skill system (though the specific skills definitely needed some work IMO).

Again, that isn't how I usually design games. I am very much into streamlined systems. But down the road I am going to try to make something more mixed with lots of different mechanics for different rules so I can take advantage of that approach.

 

[triqui]

I think there is one thing worth noting:
The subtractive design, in its pure form, is exactly the opposite of what game companies are doing. And I don't think it will change soon.

I agree. That's why Portal or Ico are not exactly mainstream, and rather look like innovative and different.

 

[triqui]

With RPGs I think the most important thing is to have clear design goals and know your audience. I also think not limiting yourself to just one approach or one design philosophy is helpful. I tend to prefer streamlined systems with unified mechanics. But I think there are also going to be times when being inefficient and less unified can be very effective. There are advantages to both approaches. One of the obvious downsides of a unified mechanic (what I believe you called consistency triqui) is your core mechanic may not be the optimal choice for all aspects of the game. It might be clunky to have different mechanics for different rules (like in AD&D with different die rolls for non-weapon proficiencies, attacks, initiative, thieve skills, etc), but the one advantage is you have way more control each of those aspects of the game.

While I think overdoing any game design theory is a flaw (ie: shoehorning some rule to fit into other rule you already have for consistency), I tend to think that, given two approachs that both work, the one with consistency is better. Using as an example, 3e: While it *might* be a mistake using the d20vsDC for, say, damage, it *has* merit to build all skills, attacks, and saving throws, under the d20 system.

My point with the thread is that, before I read the Rule of Consistency for the first time, I wasn't even aware of this. I wasn't aware, for example, that D&D stats and skills weren't consistent (ie: 3-18 vs ranks), while World of Darkness stats and skills are (1-5 dots). This does not mean whenever I build a game system I'd make stats and skills consistent. Sometimes I'll do, sometimes not. But the fact now I know this exist, I'll look at it.

And yes, I'd also like to make use of different approachs, depending on what I try to acomplish. That's the point: to use different tools, those tools have to be known. In modern science and techniques (be it economics, engineering, software development, whatever), having precise definitions of techniques help a lot to organize work, avoid flaws, and increase efficiency.

Knowing the difference between Realism, Believability and Verosimilitude for example, helps to clean out rules for a given desired effect, just like understanding the difference between Accuracy

and Precision

would help to build the right firearm for a given military job or the difference between effectivenes and efficiency in economics. They might sound pretty similar, but if you build careful definitions, it's obvious they aren't.

 

[Guest 85555]

While I think overdoing any game design theory is a flaw (ie: shoehorning some rule to fit into other rule you already have for consistency), I tend to think that, given two approachs that both work, the one with consistency is better. Using as an example, 3e: While it *might* be a mistake using the d20vsDC for, say, damage, it *has* merit to build all skills, attacks, and saving throws, under the d20 system.

I tend to prefer consistency as well. But I guess my point is, as time goes on, and it becomes the rule rather than the exception, the less enamored I am with using it all the time or for every project. I also think it is rare for both approaches to work equally in the same situation. They both produce very different results. Consistency generally makes an elegant design that is predictable (in a good way). Whereas the other approach is far less predictable, far less elegant, but makes it much easier to customize the mechanic for things like probability.

 

[triqui]

Certainly it has become a bit out-fashioned. Got its peak during the Vampire the Masquerade takeover of RPG enviroment, but now has faded a bit.

However, sometimes I see consistent rules that really shock me. FATE 2.0 rules in Spirit of Century/Dresden Files/Legend of Anglerre are quite nice, and Robert J. Schwalb A Song of Fire and Ice really shine (a lot)

 

[Guest 85555]

However, sometimes I see consistent rules that really shock me. FATE 2.0 rules in Spirit of Century/Dresden Files/Legend of Anglerre are quite nice, and Robert J. Schwalb A Song of Fire and Ice really shine (a lot)

The strength of a streamlined approach is predictability IMO. It is much easier to run a game as a GM if you can anticipate how to use a mechanic before you even look it up (which means you often don't need to look it up during play). This is why used a consistent dice pool system in TN. I do believe there is a trade off for realism (a system with more mechanical variations can specialize and achieve realism more easily IMO---i.e. when you make a mechanic for using a blow torch on a person's face, you focus everything you can on replicating that as much as possible--but with consistency you kind of have to shoe horn your central mechanic, or one of your central mechanics, into the concept). But because the predictability really allows the system to fade into the background. That is also a benefit of simplicity I think. I've played games where the mechanics were quite involved and simulated reality pretty well, but despite that I often had trouble getting lost in the game because I was always thinking about the system.

 

[Guest 85555]

Certainly it has become a bit out-fashioned. Got its peak during the Vampire the Masquerade takeover of RPG enviroment, but now has faded a bit.
)

What do you think about a game like Savage Worlds?

 

[triqui]

What do you think about a game like Savage Worlds?

Haven't played the recent update, did play the original Deadlands (which I think it's based on). A friend of mine is playing Savage Worlds right now, I'll try to ask him the book to take a look.

Based on Deadlads, I think it's a very good system, with a property often overlooked (specially among the amateur and aficionado"homebrew developer" like me, which often go for general rules): its system is perfectly adapted to the game enviroment. Things like using poker cards for initiative and poker hands for magic is just gold to give the Wild West feeling.

I had same feeling with Legends of Five Rings, for example: the system fit the world so well. 5 rings, Void, you need to seek "excellency at everything" becouse your ring score is the compound of physical and mental stats.... It worked perfectly for that world, but won't work in others. I didn't have the same feeling with 7th Sea, despite the adaptations, for example.