Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9042119">Really the answer to that is you have to work at getting good at making games. This is like asking how focusing on writing songs that are moving is done. No one doubts that is one of the major priorities of song writing. But it isn't like having that as a priority provides you with a set of steps for writing music. And there are steps you can follow, there are things you can look for and theories you can learn, but it ultimately comes down to writing songs and testing them before an audience. I think game design is somewhat similar. Whatever school of thought you come from, whatever methods you are using to design your game, the big thing that should shape how you design is what works at the table, and what works at the table is going to be what people find fun about the game. By designing games with table play in mind and prioritizing things like playability, I think that is probably the most important thing. But I don't I can tell you how to design a game that is fun and playable, other than saying you need to truly keep an eye on how people react to the system at the table itself. Sure it is, if you are prioritizing it. For example you may have a mechanic that is broken on paper (overpowered, underpowered, busts the math somehow, etc). Balance is usually going to be a design goal, even if it isn't the design goal. But if you are prioritizing fun at the table, the overall level of excitement and engagement it produces, and you notice that despite being a broken mechanic people really seem to have fun with it, then in my mind that is designing with fun as a goal. Now the issue with fun is it is vague, and fun can vary from person to person. So it isn't as precise. But that doesn't mean it can't be a goal or can't be the most important thing in one's design. Would I say my sole goal is fun? No. Would I say my design goal is fun? I think that is one way of putting how I approach design. I would probably use different language, but I think it is a reasonable statement.</blockquote>

Verification