Our Most Elemental Designs

[Jack7]

"Don’t make something unless it is both necessary and useful; but if it is both necessary and useful, don't hesitate to make it beautiful."

Shaker proverb


What, exactly are the most fundamental elements of good game design?


Hussar's thread on Game Designers has led me to consider a series of questions about game design and what constitutes good game design. These questions are probably mostly concerned with good game design as referring to Role Playing Games, but should be applicable to most any type of game, RPG, video and computer game, Virtual Reality simulations, Alternative Reality Games, even some board and card games.

What are the most fundamental elements of good design?
What level of authority or influence should a designer wield over his game?
What makes for a good design?
What makes for a poor design?
What are good game design theories?
What are poor game design theories?
What kind of person makes a good designer?

Feel free to ask or answer any other question related to this general set of ideas. But I guess what I'm really driving at is this: what are the best principles to employ in design, and why?

 

[justanobody]

One of my favorite design philosophies is as follows:

"Form follows function"

Like you blueprint above notice how all the doors open towards a wall rather than into the middle of a room? With the exception of the strange closet door, this allows for every door to both block (closed) and allow (open) access beyond it to the next room.

Say for example the bathroom above bedroom (chambre) 3 had the door swinging towards the tub instead of the wall, you would have to enter and squeeze the door past you or even sit on the sink to close the door.

I know you intend for more than physical design and floorplans in your idea, but this is just an example of what is meant by form follows function that can be expressed as it is.

For other things just look at the purpose that what you are designing is supposed to serve, and then design it in a form that can achieve its function. Ideally you would do this minimally, as you can add more little things later when needed, but if you have a large bloat in the initial design and have to trim back it could cause a problem where starting with the smallest needed "thing" that you are designing always gives you room to add more and still see where the lower limits are to perform the function of what you are designing.

Does a trap intend to kill a party member? Does it only intend to pin them and slow the party down?

I will answer your direct questions later since I got a bit sidetracked on your floor plan, and want to download and work with it a bit to make a 3D image of it.

 

[Celebrim]

Those are questions without single answers.

Because different design theories lead to different types of games, and because different people enjoy games of different types no single design pattern can be objectively claimed to be better than the others.

Take the example of, "How much influence should a designer exert over the game?" A game design which sought to minimize how much influence the designer had over the game would create a sandbox game where the players produced significant portions of the game and could play the game in ways the designer never really imagined. It would be like giving players a set of blocks and saying, "Make the game you like playing." But this doesn't always produce a game that is enjoyable for everyone, and in particular one could argue that alot of the reason sandbox games became sandbox games was that the basic ruleset was so bad that it encouraged tinkering to try to fix it (whether 1st ed. AD&D, Monopoly, Carcasonne, etc.).

The opposing strategy would be to create a very tight game with rules that were very specific to the game that the designer intended such that they made no sense outside of the context of the game and did not encourage tinkering. But not everyone would enjoy this style of game either, and in particular it could be argued that the closer you adhered to this strategy the fewer games that actually existed in the game. Such a game would be in some sense the opposite of playful, with little room for exploration and would therefore - however fun it might be played a few times - never be a lasting favorite.

Or, more briefly, the question of what constitutes good game design can only be answered if you first define what you mean by 'good' and 'game'.

 

[FireLance]

Given that tastes in gaming are so varied, I think that flexibility, adaptability and modularity should be one of the principal tenets of good game design. However, accompanying that should be sufficient information to allow the players and DM to make an informed choice about which options to take.

I believe that there should be a "standard" or "baseline" to the game to give players from different games a common point of reference when they discuss with each other. However, I feel that setting aside some space to address ways to adapt the standard rules for other popular styles of play, and the potential effects of each change, would improve the game.

 

[Jack7]

I like all of the responses thus far.

Unfortunately I am swamped with work right now and can't properly respond. I'll try to respond to all of the threads I've been working on/commenting on/in which people have directed comments to me later this week. And I'll try to respond to my blog as soon as possible too. That's getting a lot of comments that I feel bad about not being able to respond to quickly enough to all of the comments, but I do appreciate the ideas and comments others have left. It's just I'm very busy.

As for this thread, I like the ideas posited. I thought it might also help some people who have decided to take part in Hargrove's Design Contest

You know, people establish some idea here about how to draw up a Design Scheme/Plan, and what elements should be included in such a scheme, then execute it later in the contest.

As for me, the way I always devise a plan is to list out simple ideas in numbered form, then underneath the Main Idea list out several possible examples or uses of the idea. Like this:

Fantasy Games Should include Monsters

Monsters should be original and unique rather than superfluous and ubiquitous
Monsters should be truly dangerous rather than just a nuisance
Monsters should serve a vital in-game role, rather than be usually employed as simple guardians or a diversionary harassing force

and so on.


Of course people should do it anyway that works best for them. And just because ideas are numbered doesn't mean those elements are necessarily linearly linked in a formation document. (As a matter of fact I think most good plans/schemes are non-linear, especially when it comes to design, or at the very least hyper or multi-sequenced as to the way separate elements interface and interact.)

But in this thread people should be able to get some idea, by taking the different elements suggested, of how to devise a Game Design Schematic, or some way to develop a Working Creation Plan.

Anyways, keep working it guys.
I gotta go.

 

[Jack7]

In closely examining design elements I'd like to radically overhaul in RPG gaming systems, and as part of this Design Contest, I'm going to concentrate on the following elements:

COMBAT - I have never thought die rolls reflected anything even remotely resembling the chaos of a real combat, even in the sense of merely emulating "the friction of chance." Too many things happen in a real combat that simply exceed both training (as a control element of intentional action on the part of the combatant) and mere chance (as an element of seemingly random entropy, which is, in fact, not really entropic at all). There are elements like heightened awareness and supersensory intuition on the part of individuals engaged in fights for their lives, team cohesion or lack thereof, morale, environmental disposition, technological advantage or disadvantage, the psychological differences inherent in close quarters combat versus indirect combat or combat from a distance, and so forth and so on. So combat is gonna get a radical overhaul. The first step of course will be a careful and accurate analysis of what really happens in a combat versus what is imagined to happen, and how to weave those separate elements together into a single, fluid, unencumbered, and uncomplicated mechanic that both flows and projects realistically.

MAGIC - For many of the same reasons as the weaknesses that are so apparent in most RPGs regarding combat, I intend a radical overhaul in the way magic is imagined to function versus how it would likely really function, if such a thing really existed.

COUNTER-REALISM - This goes to the entire issue of milieu relevance and of psychological sympathy and interaction with the developed background ideals. It extends of course into arenas like history, real world areas of player interest, TSS, Character Classes (Professions really), Races, and so forth, and how such milieu elements affect both player and character conduct in-game.

HEROISM - Heroism needs to be reintroduced into many modern RPGs, not as an abstract mechanical mode of advancement, or as a generalized background game supposition (of, well, we're playing heroic characters, so ergo, we must be heroes - aren't we? - duh!), but as a functioning ideal of personal conduct.


I'll probably also address other issues as the project proceeds, but for now I suspect these will be the top four areas of concern I'll address.

 

[FireLance]

HEROISM - Heroism needs to be reintroduced into many modern RPGs, not as an abstract mechanical mode of advancement, or as a generalized background game supposition (of, well, we're playing heroic characters, so ergo, we must be heroes - aren't we? - duh!), but as a functioning ideal of personal conduct.

Of the four issues you mentioned, I'd be most interested to read your thoughts on this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For game design in general, you'll need to take it out of the realm of D&D and even the realm of RPG's, into a huge umbrella that includes everything from Double Dutch to Poker to Mouse Trap to Make Believe to Football to what lion cubs do.

"Games" are a very primordial, evolutionary thing.

When looking at any game, even across species, the function of the game becomes education -- games TEACH you things. Every game teaches you things.

Double Dutch teaches you rhythm, memorization, speed...

Poker teaches you deception, basic math, value, pattern recognition...

Make Believe teaches you basic storytelling, the essentials of conflict, exploration...

Football teaches you team strategy, war theory, physical coordination, power....

Lion cubs at play teach them the hunting and stealth skills they'll need to kill prey later in life.

Videogames, board games, and even D&D...all are teaching you skills.

That's why the basic universal component of game design is this: What does it teach you to play this game?

Jack Chick was wrong that D&D teaches you how to cast spells. But it does teach you about imagination. About creative interpretation. About mythology and magic tales from humanity's past and present. It teaches you some basic math. Social skills.

This is the fundamental rule of game design, a rule so elemental that Nature herself obeys it.

To teach you, there kind of needs to be some metric to grade your success (and "how much fun you have" is too nebulous to be a good grade). There has to be some way you can say "I have learned this," or "I need to work harder to learn this." Nature is fairly brutal about it -- if you haven't learned it, you don't eat, and you die. Human games tend to be more casual, because they tend to feature so many different skills, not all of which are really essential to your survival to learn.

More anthroplogical/sociological views of games might be keenly analytical of the major games of certain groups or subgroups.

For instance, the fact that we all play PnPRPG's tells an observer that there are particular skills that we want to learn or that we enjoy employing even after we have mastered them (like a good Mario player enjoys their mastery). Storytelling. Mythologizing. Socializing. Mathematics. The differences between these games will tell us more about our own personalities.

This differs from something like art design (or graphic design) where the ultimate function is to communicate something, though there is a lot of overlap.

That overlap is why games are sometimes also art: in teaching you something, they communicate a particular idea as well. I'd say a game like Katamari Damacy fits this mold, because it has a particular message to convey: The idea that love makes the universe beautiful. It communicates this message by teaching you to get things close together, smush things together, make all the world one in a great attractive force, because that attractive force is what will fill the sky with lights.

Obviously, that's a particular creator's vision, and it's also the lesson the game teaches: by cramming more things together (at a fast enough speed) you learn that the world is love.

That's also why, IMO, the best games unify mechanics with their story: the create art while they create a game, a playable message that teaches you a lesson (but also is just one voice).

Too often in game design, I think the wrong questions are asked. It makes sense that they are asked -- games are big business (though PnPRPG's by themselves aren't, games as a whole are), and profit is the prime mover. But if you look at the games from a purely functional perspective, you see that "what people like doing" is only the surface of a deep evolutionary and very human need to learn, to experience, and, sometimes, to communicate.

That's why I fancy myself a game designer, in my more noble moments. I am a creator and a teacher.

I kind of wish more companies were looking for a real game designer rather than just someone with a handle on rules or programming or whatever. But it's a fairly new concept, so I'll see if I can't have a hand in bringing it to the realization I think it deserves.

 

[Hussar]

Damn, I cannot Posrep KM for his excellent thoughts. Someone give that man some rep.

And, in a bizarre twist of fate, I find myself agreeing with JustaNobody. I think the best games are designed backwards. Take the effect you want, and then work backwards to create mechanics that lead to that effect. I started a thread way back when on Flavor First vs Game First that pretty much encapsulates my views on design.

To me, another of the fundamental elements of any game design is to realize that it is, in fact, a game first. Look at how you want things to work at the table and then make mechanics to fit that.

 

[Celebrim]

I like KM's post, but I think he needs to enlarge on the idea. In my earlier post I suggested that to answer the question, we first had to define 'game' and 'good'. KM has defined 'game' as something competitive with an educational purpose, and 'good' as 'serves its purpose while communicating some beautiful idea'.

I'm not sure every designer would agree with those definitions, and even to the extent that I do agree with them I've this vague feeling that someething is missing in those definitions.

I think the most contriversial aspect of KM's definition is that he says that for a game to serve its purpose, their must be some non-subjective metric by which you can judge your performance. That is to say, KM suggests that the game must give you feedback on whether you are learning or not learning the lesson it is designed to teach. It seems to me that is as much to say that KM defines a game as something where you can win or lose. Particularly in the context of a discussion of RPG design, that a pretty startling game since generally, at least in PnP games, we normally things of RPGs as game without winners or losers and which adhere to a non-competitive model. Now, it may be that that perception is false, and that in fact 'good' RPGs meeet KM's criteria, but I'd like to hear how he plans on demonstrating it.

Even more interestingly, if an RPG doesn't meet those criteria, then by KM's definition it's not that it isn't a good game, but that isn't a game at all. So should we strictly speaking call cooperative games without winning conditions recreations rather than games?

The other thing bothering me about KM's definition is the feeling that it doesn't really encapsulate what a game is fully. For example, we've all probably encountered so called 'educational games' where a game is adopted to teach some valuable skill or impart some valuable knowledge. Toddlers in particular get subjected to these games alot by overzealous parents, and I do mean subjected because they are usually very bad games. By KM's definition though, we couldn't really call these games bad games because they are instructional and serve that purpose. You can learn from them, and yet it is a chore to play them because they aren't fun. But at the same time, we can probably think of games that teach unfun subjects - spelling (Scrabble), vocabulary (D&D!), physics, etc. in ways that are interesting. So I suggest that there is something about a good game that is in some way subversive, in as much as that you don't set out to play it in order to learn some skill but that you learn from the game as a result of having some other motive. And I think that motive has something to do with 'fun', which is a concept I think KM has neglected a bit. It's all well and good to construct educational games, but they also have to be 'fun' as well. So I think we have to come up with some characteristics that separate fun games from unfun ones.

Finally, I think KM has implicitly suggested that a game by necessity teaches something valuable or valued by the game player. I'm not convinced that that holds true. I think it's quite possible that a 'fun' game could be teaching valueless lessons, and indeed whether the skill is valuable or not that the game player derives no enjoyment from the skill being taught and simply enjoys the game. It's quite possible to envision a RPer who learns enough mathematics and visual conceptualization skills to enjoy an RPG, but who never applies those skills outside of that context widely or with any relish.