Game design has "moved on"

[Umbran]

But more advanced does not inherently equal "better," aesthetics aside. You could also argue that a car built in the 1950s or 1960s is "better" than a 2013 car because when the 1950s/1960s car gets in a fender-bender with the 2013 car, it requires $20 worth of body work to knock out a dent (if the dent occurs at all) while the 2013 car needs $1000 worth of repairs to replace the bumper - even though you may find the styling of the 2013 car more aesthetically-pleasing.

Of course, there will be times when the new thing is not better. Any time we say something is "better" we should elucidate - "Better at what, exactly?"

Yes, that old car required only $20 in body work. But with all that mass, and that old engine design, exactly how much gas are you burning to make it go? If the overall operational costs are large enough, the savings in the accident doesn't mean much. Which is better - low repair bill after a minor accident, or low operating cost?

And, yes, it costs more to repair the 2013 car after an accident. But, much of that is design for passenger safety - the car crumples so energy doesn't get transferred to the passengers. How much does it cost to repair *you* after the accident? Which is better - low car repair bill after an accident, or the car that saves you from injury?

So, I agree, we do have to be careful when we use terms like "better".

 

[Hussar]

But more advanced does not inherently equal "better," aesthetics aside. You could also argue that a car built in the 1950s or 1960s is "better" than a 2013 car because when the 1950s/1960s car gets in a fender-bender with the 2013 car, it requires $20 worth of body work to knock out a dent (if the dent occurs at all) while the 2013 car needs $1000 worth of repairs to replace the bumper - even though you may find the styling of the 2013 car more aesthetically-pleasing.

True, it's not inherently better. But, by and large, most advancements are improvements. Ones that are not, tend to fall by the wayside the next time around. There's a certain level of evolutionary forces that get applied here.

Take the example of a 3e Rope Trick spell. In the description of the spell, it mentions that bringing extra dimensional spaces into a rope trick can be "hazardous". But, there is no actual definition of what that means. Is it lethal? Is it a minor bit of damage? Who knows? That's a bad bit of game design right there. If you are going to introduce some sort of consequence for doing something, you have to mechanically back that up. Leaving things completely vague is poor game design.

And, that's something we generally don't see in games anymore. You rarely see new games produced where the mechanics are completely silent or very vague on common character actions. We have skills or proficiencies in the game for a reason. It would be very unlikely to see a modern produced RPG come out where you have no mechanical guidelines whatsoever governing something as simple as how far a character can jump, for example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

True, it's not inherently better. But, by and large, most advancements are improvements. Ones that are not, tend to fall by the wayside the next time around. There's a certain level of evolutionary forces that get applied here.

this is why i think cars are a bad analogy. That kind of tech, you have pretty clear improvements. But games are more like movies or music. Some of the underlying tech of the medium may advance, but most of the design evolution is in techniques, fashion, trends etc. Filmakers certainly have more tools in their toolbox now. But a lot of the differences (such as pacing or how much emphasis there is non dialogue over action) are style and trend issues.

Take the example of a 3e Rope Trick spell. In the description of the spell, it mentions that bringing extra dimensional spaces into a rope trick can be "hazardous". But, there is no actual definition of what that means. Is it lethal? Is it a minor bit of damage? Who knows? That's a bad bit of game design right there. If you are going to introduce some sort of consequence for doing something, you have to mechanically back that up. Leaving things completely vague is poor game design.

this is where i think you'll find many people disagree. Sure there is an appetite for clarity on these individual points among some gamers, but the whole 'rulings over rules' trend you see is a response to too much of that in games. These days i know a lot of players and gms who prefer the vagueness here over having yet another rule to remember because of a minor point mentioned in a spell. Their attitude is just let the GM handle it. I dont think either approach is bad design. These ae just different approaches to design. Personally, i am fine in either camp myself. Both types of games are fun to me. But there is definitely something to be said for games that leave a lot of the details open to gm interpretation.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Take the example of a 3e Rope Trick spell. In the description of the spell, it mentions that bringing extra dimensional spaces into a rope trick can be "hazardous". But, there is no actual definition of what that means. Is it lethal? Is it a minor bit of damage? Who knows? That's a bad bit of game design right there. If you are going to introduce some sort of consequence for doing something, you have to mechanically back that up. Leaving things completely vague is poor game design.

I think you'll find one of the aspects of modern game design is a movement away from simulation and over-definition of things in a lot of circles. So, that would be seen as one of the better design decisions for 3e by some. Why would you want to have a defined consequence of this event when, for example, when it happens that defined event might not be interesting based on the current situation. Why constrain yourself to something that won't always be the desired outcome or that you won't be able to tailor to the current context? Thus, good design.

 

[Janx]

I think you'll find one of the aspects of modern game design is a movement away from simulation and over-definition of things in a lot of circles. So, that would be seen as one of the better design decisions for 3e by some. Why would you want to have a defined consequence of this event when, for example, when it happens that defined event might not be interesting based on the current situation. Why constrain yourself to something that won't always be the desired outcome or that you won't be able to tailor to the current context? Thus, good design.

Or its an example of 2 distinct preferences being at odds with this specific game design element.

Hussar seems to dislike mentioning "might be hazardous" in the spell description with absolutely no reference to backing it up mechanically. When is it hazardous? What's the % chance of it happening? What happens if it does?

Whereas, ThirdWizard seems to like that nebulous declaration of "might be hazardous". As a GM, he doesn't have to ever bring it up, but if he feels it might be valuable, he can invoke the hazardous effect.

As individuals, I don't think either person is wrong in the preference for the rule.

However, if the given game's design objective is to reduce DM fiat (as some people used to alleged 3e attempted to do), then the 3e Rope Trick may be guilty of breaking that objective.

The key to my point is that a game (or any other project) often has design goals or principles that are held internally to the designers. So "make a good product" is an obvious publically shared goal. What may (or may not) be shared is any specific patterns or principles that the product is supposed to adhere to that the general consumer may not be concerned with (us gamers talking about game design are not the general consumer).

I don't know what Monte has specifically disclosed about his design goals for 3e. It seems obvious that he tried to make things mechanically consistent (ex 1d20+modifiers compared to a DC). I don't know if he also desired to reduce DM Fiat, or reduce nebulous text that implies rules that don't exist.

So, outside of a specific game and it's declared design goals, neither one of you is wrong about the quality of that rule example. Both ways are reasonable depending on your personal preference for design.

I could only arbitrarily decide which one of you is "right" for a specific game that the case was brought up for (3e) and its declared design goals (that I don't have on hand).

As this relates to game design "moving on", consider that early games did not commonly have declared design goals (beyond just like D&D but better). The parlance of game design has matured, so now we can talk about what a game's design goals were and determine if the rules achieved those goals or worked against them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Or its an example of 2 distinct preferences being at odds with this specific game design element.

Hussar seems to dislike mentioning "might be hazardous" in the spell description with absolutely no reference to backing it up mechanically. When is it hazardous? What's the % chance of it happening? What happens if it does?

Whereas, ThirdWizard seems to like that nebulous declaration of "might be hazardous". As a GM, he doesn't have to ever bring it up, but if he feels it might be valuable, he can invoke the hazardous effect.

As individuals, I don't think either person is wrong in the preference for the rule.

However, if the given game's design objective is to reduce DM fiat (as some people used to alleged 3e attempted to do), then the 3e Rope Trick may be guilty of breaking that objective.

The key to my point is that a game (or any other project) often has design goals or principles that are held internally to the designers. So "make a good product" is an obvious publically shared goal. What may (or may not) be shared is any specific patterns or principles that the product is supposed to adhere to that the general consumer may not be concerned with (us gamers talking about game design are not the general consumer).

I don't know what Monte has specifically disclosed about his design goals for 3e. It seems obvious that he tried to make things mechanically consistent (ex 1d20+modifiers compared to a DC). I don't know if he also desired to reduce DM Fiat, or reduce nebulous text that implies rules that don't exist.

So, outside of a specific game and it's declared design goals, neither one of you is wrong about the quality of that rule example. Both ways are reasonable depending on your personal preference for design.

I could only arbitrarily decide which one of you is "right" for a specific game that the case was brought up for (3e) and its declared design goals (that I don't have on hand).

As this relates to game design "moving on", consider that early games did not commonly have declared design goals (beyond just like D&D but better). The parlance of game design has matured, so now we can talk about what a game's design goals were and determine if the rules achieved those goals or worked against them.

Cook was kind enough to let me interview him on our blog earlier in the year. He answered some questions about design and design trends (as well as 3E), that may be useful to the discussion (thiugh he didn't adress this specific point):

http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/an-interview-with-monte-cook-game.html

 

[GreyLord]

this is why i think cars are a bad analogy. That kind of tech, you have pretty clear improvements. But games are more like movies or music. Some of the underlying tech of the medium may advance, but most of the design evolution is in techniques, fashion, trends etc. Filmakers certainly have more tools in their toolbox now. But a lot of the differences (such as pacing or how much emphasis there is non dialogue over action) are style and trend issues.

I absolutely agree. Unlike technology advances, which is where cars would be, RPGs are more in the artistic realm, which is what Music and Movies are.

Let's take a current Pop band...such as Robbie Williams. Is Robbie Williams that much better than Mozart? He's later, the music has evolved, but is Robbie Williams better, or is it simply that tastes have changed and the music produced also changed to fit those tastes?

 

[steeldragons]

Not much, other than the person saying "design has moved on" is wrong. They're trying to couch heir personal preferences/tastes in terms of some kind of theory about the history of RPG design that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. RPG design itself isn't analogous to technology, so there's nowhere you can really go with that argument.

I read statements of that kind as: "I like X and not Y". I accept them as true, I'm happy to read the reasons why a person likes X (and not Y), because it's interesting to see how different people react to and use different gaming techniques/mechanics/abstraction & resolution methodologies, but --so far-- I'm not convinced those reasons can ever add up to a demonstration game design is progressing to an objectively better state.

On the whole, production values have gotten better thanks to technology, but the rules themselves? Nope.

Art with a side of math.

This. Practically to the letter. Thanks for saving me a lengthy post I would have had to think way too much about to get written!

It's a crock.

And this.

It's like saying food tastes or fashion styles have "advanced". No, they haven't. They're just different now than a decade ago, and they'll be different in another decade in some way or form. But by no means is the fashion sensibility of today "better" than the fashions a decade ago. It isn't technology. There isn't a clearly measurable metric by which to measure "progress".

I never saw the term applied to RPGs till circa 2008 when it was being used as a defense of 4e versus 3e, because 3e was old and 4e was progressive game design whatever that means. I've seen it used more lately by folks bashing 5e online as "backsliding" or "going backwards" in terms of game design. It doesn't make sense there either if you ask me. It's just edition warring framed with a different coat of paint to justify as something other than personal taste.

Thanks, also, as something along these lines (probably citing both food and fashion, for that matter) woulda been part of a response from me as well.

Full agreement. "Game design has moved on" is just another way to be a dick on the internet.

And, well, just for good measure...this too.

 

[Hussar]

I absolutely agree. Unlike technology advances, which is where cars would be, RPGs are more in the artistic realm, which is what Music and Movies are.

Let's take a current Pop band...such as Robbie Williams. Is Robbie Williams that much better than Mozart? He's later, the music has evolved, but is Robbie Williams better, or is it simply that tastes have changed and the music produced also changed to fit those tastes?

But, that's the problem. It's a nonsensical question. The question that should be asked is, "Is this song by Robbie Williams a well written song, given what we have learned over the past thousand years or so of critical thinking analysing music and art?"

Saying something is well or poorly designed does not automatically make it better or worse than anything else. A Model T is a very well designed car. Is it a good car today? Well, no, but that's for lot so of reasons, but, that doesn't make it a poorly designed car.

A Pinto, OTOH, is a poorly designed car. Exploding when rear ended is a pretty big design flaw.

Going back to Rope Trick, I'd argue that a vague statement, "Might be hazardous" is pretty poor game design. It's largely meaningless. You have no guidance for what "hazardous" might mean. Which basically means that you might as well leave it out - why add it in when all it does is cloud the issue? Either define it, or leave it out. Don't be coy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Going back to Rope Trick, I'd argue that a vague statement, "Might be hazardous" is pretty poor game design. It's largely meaningless. You have no guidance for what "hazardous" might mean. Which basically means that you might as well leave it out - why add it in when all it does is cloud the issue? Either define it, or leave it out. Don't be coy.

It isn't meaningless. It is widely open to interpretation. This is a flaw or feature depending on your point of view. The fact that several people here have said they'd prefer it vague, shows there is an appetite for that kind if design. If I am making a game for those people (and there is a very big block of 'rulings over rules' type players out there) then rope trick as written would be good design. If I were majing a game for you, it would be a bad design choice. Goals and audience matter. You can create a rule like "never be vague" but it isn't a very useful rule to adhere to if lots of gamers want a degree of vagueness in the rules.