Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rules, Rulings and Second Order Design: D&D and AD&D Examined
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9042101" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Okay. Why? There are <em>many</em> priorities in game design. Considering fun alone, and nixing all other possible concerns, is very likely to cause significant issues.</p><p></p><p></p><p>An excellent question! Unfortunately, <em>there is no single answer</em>. There is no formula for good design. It'd be pretty cool if there was, but there isn't. Instead, you have to do a mix of three things: choose something you think players will find worth doing, read others' work and seeing what stuff they decided players would find worth doing, and talk to people you think would be interested in the kinds of things you'd like to make and find out what they already think is worth doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. But if you simply sear it and taste it, you can't learn that deglazing with balsamic vinegar after you're done cooking takes the flavor into the stratosphere, because you'll never bother with this ingredient that is <em>horribly not-tasty</em> on its own (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters" target="_blank"><em>The Vinegar Tasters</em></a> notwithstanding.) This is the fundamental problem with any method like this, what is apparently in marketing terms called "A/B testing": the problem of <em>local maxima</em>. Every direction away results in locally worse outcomes, so you can't tell whether there are other, equally-valid but <em>distinct</em> maxima elsewhere, nor whether the maximum you have is global (if one even exists.) In mathematics terms, strict optimization along these lines is a "naive" algorithm. You need further tools, thing s truly beyond "</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do think the design <em>approach</em> is bad. That doesn't mean I think the <em>design</em> is bad (really, the worst I would call it is <em>incomplete</em>.) Which is another part of my point here.</p><p></p><p>And as for that last bit, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I want. I'm saying that announcing "just make the game fun 4head" IS distracting from actually discussing how you achieve the goal of making the game (more) fun. Because you discuss how to make the game (more) fun by <em>talking about the destinations you're aiming at and how you mean to get there</em>, not by saying 'Well just do the most fun thing. Done." "Just design for fun" is <em>by intent</em> a conversation-ender, not a conversation-starter. It terminates analysis, pushes discussion into the ineffable (and thus often into infuriating and intractable debates about philosophical notions), and just generally is counterproductive.</p><p></p><p>Instead, one should start from an actual design goal, like "gameplay focused on long-term strategy and problem-solving through logistics, resource and personnel management, battlefield diplomacy, and carefully mapping/documenting the environment." Or, "gameplay focused on naturalistic reasoning used to predict future outcomes based on understanding the mechanics of play and collecting (potentially incomplete) knowledge about relevant things, people, or events." Or, "gameplay focused on high-action adventure, through dynamic encounters, irreducible tactical decision-making*, and player-driven motivators." <em>These</em> are design goals. And you can almost certainly guess which games I'm referencing with those goals, because whether their implementation was good, bad, or indifferent, they really did have goals and really did pursue them.</p><p></p><p>*Meaning, choices that cannot be reduced to mere calculations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9042101, member: 6790260"] Okay. Why? There are [I]many[/I] priorities in game design. Considering fun alone, and nixing all other possible concerns, is very likely to cause significant issues. An excellent question! Unfortunately, [I]there is no single answer[/I]. There is no formula for good design. It'd be pretty cool if there was, but there isn't. Instead, you have to do a mix of three things: choose something you think players will find worth doing, read others' work and seeing what stuff they decided players would find worth doing, and talk to people you think would be interested in the kinds of things you'd like to make and find out what they already think is worth doing. Sure. But if you simply sear it and taste it, you can't learn that deglazing with balsamic vinegar after you're done cooking takes the flavor into the stratosphere, because you'll never bother with this ingredient that is [I]horribly not-tasty[/I] on its own ([URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters'][I]The Vinegar Tasters[/I][/URL] notwithstanding.) This is the fundamental problem with any method like this, what is apparently in marketing terms called "A/B testing": the problem of [I]local maxima[/I]. Every direction away results in locally worse outcomes, so you can't tell whether there are other, equally-valid but [I]distinct[/I] maxima elsewhere, nor whether the maximum you have is global (if one even exists.) In mathematics terms, strict optimization along these lines is a "naive" algorithm. You need further tools, thing s truly beyond " I do think the design [I]approach[/I] is bad. That doesn't mean I think the [I]design[/I] is bad (really, the worst I would call it is [I]incomplete[/I].) Which is another part of my point here. And as for that last bit, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I want. I'm saying that announcing "just make the game fun 4head" IS distracting from actually discussing how you achieve the goal of making the game (more) fun. Because you discuss how to make the game (more) fun by [I]talking about the destinations you're aiming at and how you mean to get there[/I], not by saying 'Well just do the most fun thing. Done." "Just design for fun" is [I]by intent[/I] a conversation-ender, not a conversation-starter. It terminates analysis, pushes discussion into the ineffable (and thus often into infuriating and intractable debates about philosophical notions), and just generally is counterproductive. Instead, one should start from an actual design goal, like "gameplay focused on long-term strategy and problem-solving through logistics, resource and personnel management, battlefield diplomacy, and carefully mapping/documenting the environment." Or, "gameplay focused on naturalistic reasoning used to predict future outcomes based on understanding the mechanics of play and collecting (potentially incomplete) knowledge about relevant things, people, or events." Or, "gameplay focused on high-action adventure, through dynamic encounters, irreducible tactical decision-making*, and player-driven motivators." [I]These[/I] are design goals. And you can almost certainly guess which games I'm referencing with those goals, because whether their implementation was good, bad, or indifferent, they really did have goals and really did pursue them. *Meaning, choices that cannot be reduced to mere calculations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rules, Rulings and Second Order Design: D&D and AD&D Examined
Top