Game design has "moved on"

[Bedrockgames]

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?"

But musical conventions change. Modern pop music doesn't adhere to many of the structures, rules and conventions of Rennaissance or classical music. There are some rules of composition people adhere, but those can change dramatically over time. Just look at the difference in structure between jazz and baroque. And in music, breaking the rules is often quite okay. Roy Orbison didn't follow standard song structure from his time (not because he was intentionally flaunting convention, but becsuse he didn't have a handke on song structure). This led to some pretty memorable work. At the time, folks could have argued it was bad design, because that wasn't pop songs were supposed to be structured. Even the notes we use can change. Most western music had 12 tones, but arabic music has 24. For a while western composers experimented with 24 tones (and many still do). Scales and chord progressions also vary a lot by place and time.

That said, there would be some really odd musical choices one could make that I think most folks wiuld agree are bad unless you had a good reason to do so (things like changing time signature ever single bar). But those genuinely bad things are extreme cases, and eve some of those can change.

 

[Hussar]

"I like it" is not proof of good design. Nor is "I don't like it", for that matter.

Vague mechanics with no guidance as to how to interpret that vagueness is bad game design. In rules light games, for example, you generally get one (or a small number) of baseline rules that would be applied in a variety of situations. So, in a rules light system, hazardous would be a keyword that would link to a general rule that would be applied.

What you don't have is this sort of trailing mechanic that doesn't actually lead anywhere. What does "hazardous" mean in context? Well, we have no idea. I might say it's X or Y. Thus, it's a poorly designed mechanic.

Rulings not rules does not mean that we should go back to poorly written rules that lead nowhere. Rulings are based on sound principles, that are clearly defined by the system. "Hazardous" can mean anything. Does it mean that my character might get cancer 20 years down the line? That I spontaneously explode? What?

A better example would be something like Jumping. In D&D, it's a pretty common thing for a character to jump. Jump over a pit, through a window, whatnot. This is a pretty basic action. Yet, for the first two (or more depending on how you count) editions (OD&D and AD&D 1e) you cannot actually answer that question. There are no jump mechanics. 2e kinda tried, by having a jump proficiency, but, since there's no rules for jumping without that proficiency, we're still pretty much left in the dark. 3e steps up and with some pretty simple mechanics (skills, plus untrained skill rules) allows everyone playing to answer the question.

Right there, that's better design. Other games handle it differently. It might be, "You can jump whatever the DM feels is appropriate" but, at least it's handled. There isn't a giant gaping hole in the mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"I like it" is not proof of good design. Nor is "I don't like it", for that matter.

Vague mechanics with no guidance as to how to interpret that vagueness is bad game design. In rules light games, for example, you generally get one (or a small number) of baseline rules that would be applied in a variety of situations. So, in a rules light system, hazardous would be a keyword that would link to a general rule that would be applied.

What you don't have is this sort of trailing mechanic that doesn't actually lead anywhere. What does "hazardous" mean in context? Well, we have no idea. I might say it's X or Y. Thus, it's a poorly designed mechanic.

Rulings not rules does not mean that we should go back to poorly written rules that lead nowhere. Rulings are based on sound principles, that are clearly defined by the system. "Hazardous" can mean anything. Does it mean that my character might get cancer 20 years down the line? That I spontaneously explode? What?

A better example would be something like Jumping. In D&D, it's a pretty common thing for a character to jump. Jump over a pit, through a window, whatnot. This is a pretty basic action. Yet, for the first two (or more depending on how you count) editions (OD&D and AD&D 1e) you cannot actually answer that question. There are no jump mechanics. 2e kinda tried, by having a jump proficiency, but, since there's no rules for jumping without that proficiency, we're still pretty much left in the dark. 3e steps up and with some pretty simple mechanics (skills, plus untrained skill rules) allows everyone playing to answer the question.

Right there, that's better design. Other games handle it differently. It might be, "You can jump whatever the DM feels is appropriate" but, at least it's handled. There isn't a giant gaping hole in the mechanics.

But you are just saying you dont like vagueness and it is therefore bad designs. Others have shown why it can be useful. It allows for flexibility within the circumstances of the game. One way to designdrules light is to privide concrete principles that can be applied across the board consistently. Another is to leave things more in the hands of individual gm and group interpretation. That allows the dro play the game in a way they like (they might like that hazardous means characters die, while another group. Like it to mean something much less lethal).

I think the 2E jump rules and 3E jump rules are a perfect example. 3E has clarity but its much more to remember. 2E worked better for me, because its more in the hands of the individual gm, with less stuff to remember or look up. Again, you can assert this is bad design all you want. That doesn't maje it si, when there are so many people who prefer this sort of vagueness.

now I am happy to play both types of games. 3E is great at what it does. But that isnt the only way to design a game. They both offer very different play experiences. But both are valid forms if design because they both meet needs that are out there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"I like it" is not proof of good design. Nor is "I don't like it", for that matter.

.

One person liking it isnt. Many people liking it suggests your claim it is bad design may be shaky. Too many people use and prefer vague mechanics like this for you to be correct in my opinion.

 

[Storminator]

There's a difference between "someone changed a rule" and "game design has moved on".

If literally no game designers use a certain rule that used to be prevalent, we can say game design has moved on. We aren't going to see descending AC with positive armor bonus that subtract again. Game design has moved on. Jenga towers have not replaced dice. Someone changed that rule.
PS

 

[Bedrockgames]

"I

What you don't have is this sort of trailing mechanic that doesn't actually lead anywhere. What does "hazardous" mean in context? Well, we have no idea. I might say it's X or Y. Thus, it's a poorly designed mechanic.

.

And this allowance for it being x or y depending on taste of group, GM interpretation, etc, to many, many people is a good thing not a bad thing. I am not saying doing it the other way is wrong. Certainly designers could be more explicit about what hazardous means if they wish, but there are perfectly good reasons for choosing to leave it vague.

this sort of thing has come up with my own design team on a current project. On some spell entries, we debated leaving some things deliberately vague. Not because we couldn't be bothered to provide a clear answer, but because any decision we made would potentially reduce enjoyment of the game by one of the three player types we had in mind from the outset. We realized it was better to allow, in some key instances, for the gm and players to interpret what an aspect of the spell meant. And in playtests we saw that this worked better for our ourposes thaan when we were explicit. It allowed all the GMs to fit the spell to their style of play. There was no direct analog to your rope trick example, but this sort of thify did come up. I do understand, a player who wants perfect clarity and consistency wont like that. That doesn't make it bad design, unless they were our target audience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There's a difference between "someone changed a rule" and "game design has moved on".

If literally no game designers use a certain rule that used to be prevalent, we can say game design has moved on. We aren't going to see descending AC with positive armor bonus that subtract again. Game design has moved on. Jenga towers have not replaced dice. Someone changed that rule.
PS

I think what Morrus was asking though is if game design is more of a science where technologies would be genuinely obsolete or more like an art where techniques may simply fall from fashion. Granted that is an oversimplification, because even in an art it isn't always fashion, there are developments that allow artists greater freedom to express their idea. But generally, i would label it an art. Something like a jenga tower or Thac0, while there are good reasons for not using them, are not necessarily bad under the right circumstances. While i don't think we will see thac0 again, because it takes work to impoement during play, i do think we might see attack matrices come back (and thac0 is derived from that sustem). Jenga towers we've only seen once, and I can't say i am into dread, but lots of people still spakchighly of th system. I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes that core idea and uses it for something new (might not be a jenga tower, could be something else with the same sort of goal in mind).

 

[Sunseeker]

Being a "science" or an "art" doesn't mean something can't progress in a generally upward direction. While there are certainly different styles in art, that doesn't mean that there aren't arguably more skilled pieces within those styles. Even art as a whole has generally improved in technical quality, skill and so on, there are techniques and methods that we never knew about 500 years ago that are used to create art. There is science in art. The idea that art is some kind of wishy-washy "do whatever you want" genre where anything goes because it's art and YOU CAN'T JUDGE ME!! is an obnoxious and totally false conception.

Even pure mathematics can be artistic, because a lot of art relies heavily on mathematics. You may not see the math in a great painting as you would in a fractal, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Our definition of "art" and "beauty" are tied to our mathematical perceptions(regardless of if you are aware of them). "Art" and "science" are not a dichotomous pair.

Game design improves just as anything does, it "moves on" from what didn't work, what wasn't popular, and just changes over time, people try new things (see: cubism) and sometimes those things succeed in becoming considered "art" or not. So yes, game design has "moved on" because change is inevitable.

Whether or not game design has learned from it's mistakes is a better question. Science and art, just as game design, does not always do that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Morrus;

Being a "science" or an "art" doesn't mean something can't progress in a generally upward direction. While there are certainly different styles in art, that doesn't mean that there aren't arguably more skilled pieces within those styles. Even art as a whole has generally improved in technical quality, skill and so on, there are techniques and methods that we never knew about 500 years ago that are used to create art. There is science in art. The idea that art is some kind of wishy-washy "do whatever you want" genre where anything goes because it's art and YOU CAN'T JUDGE ME!! is an obnoxious and totally false conception.

Even pure mathematics can be artistic, because a lot of art relies heavily on mathematics. You may not see the math in a great painting as you would in a fractal, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Our definition of "art" and "beauty" are tied to our mathematical perceptions(regardless of if you are aware of them). "Art" and "science" are not a dichotomous pair.

Game design improves just as anything does, it "moves on" from what didn't work, what wasn't popular, and just changes over time, people try new things (see: cubism) and sometimes those things succeed in becoming considered "art" or not. So yes, game design has "moved on" because change is inevitable.

Whether or not game design has learned from it's mistakes is a better question. Science and art, just as game design, does not always do that.

but it isn't a steady trajectory in art the way it has been in science. Yes new techniques and methods develop and even new technologies emerge that make the medium more flexible. But one wbdn't drive an 80 year old car for anything other than novelty, one coul definitely listen to an 80 year old song for the pure pleasure of it.

 

[Farscape]

Op: I don't think "game design" progresses or moves on per say. It changes yes, but what came before it isn't necessarily obsolete. There are some rules from previous editions of games that were better than some of the rules now.

I don't believe there is a one true answer to this question.