The Parable of the Toaster | When "It's a Player Issue" is no excuse

[SableWyvern]

And when the designer's preferences and the end user's how-to-use-it disagree, who is right? That's the whole question here, it seems.

The designer is right to set their own goals for the sort of game they wish to make, and to work towards that vision.

The end user is right to play or not play that game as they prefer.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And when the designer's preferences and the end user's how-to-use-it disagree, who is right? That's the whole question here, it seems.

Well, if the designer makes clear what he's trying to do, the design is written with that in mind, and the end-user uses it a different way, if that goes badly, well, you can hammer nails with a wrench but the fact its unsuited to that purpose is not the designers fault.

The question is one of communication; did the designer go to enough trouble to explain it, did the end-user go to the trouble to understand it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

They are different considerations, yes, and can dovetail: I agree that focused design can create high utility in its specialty. However, it seems like what's being asked for is some kind of maximalist "utility", as if a game like Masks could just simply add something --- anything --- and the designer or us should "consider" it solely for the reason of casting a wider net with a broader scope. I see it as, Masks could target heroes of any age, or have detailed crafting mechanics, and yield some hypothetical net increase in "utility", but why, if that's not what the designer wants? Design isn't linearly related to breadth.

Well, that's certainly not my point at least; specialty designs are fine as long as the specialization is made clear to people up front. Personally I think most of this thread arguing about what constitutes "made clear" to people.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And when the designer's preferences and the end user's how-to-use-it disagree, who is right? That's the whole question here, it seems.

How can we prevent this disagreement?? Is it a small percentage of users?? How can an end user identify a game with preferences they like??

 

[Gradine]

Don't let them know that every rule is optional

 

[Thomas Shey]

Don't let them know that every rule is optional

Well, if you're a GM.

 

[Lanefan]

How can we prevent this disagreement??

We can't. My question is how can we resolve it when (not if) it arises.

Here, we're running into a conflict between "The customer is always right" and "The designer is always right". Who prevails? (I think we can agree that "The marketer is always right" has no sway here)

How can an end user identify a game with preferences they like??

In the end, likely only by buying it and playing it. Marketing, reviews, and word-of-mouth can help some, but none of those (especially marketing!) are foolproof.

The problem is, buying it and playing it also identifies preferences they don't like, if such are present; but by that point it's too late: the commitment's been made and the money's been paid.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, the money's been paid by someone. These days its not that hard to sit in on a game you aren't playing in to ge a feel for it if you're not allergic to remote play (or even in some cases, just watching a less theatrical Let's Play).

Edit: And yes, I know with more obscure games this may not always be trivial. The world is not a perfect place.

 

[SteveC]

We can't. My question is how can we resolve it when (not if) it arises.

I think this is a really important question, and one that can be really useful for both designers and gamers looking to buy a new game to think about.

From a designer standpoint, that is making it really clear what your game is, and what it isn't. In the ongoing Masks example, I believe it would have been a good idea to be clearer about this. The best examples I can think of in terms of doing this well are the games Monster of the Week and Monster Hearts. If you look at them at a high level, they might seem similar, but they aren't. And I think the designers did a great job of making sure everyone knows that.

Did Masks do that? There is a disagreement. I knew about it, but there are clearly people who weren't on the same page. You will have to ask yourself if that's a reasonable discussion to have. I do think that it's instructive if you're creating a game that is different from other games in what people would think of as a similar genre. As a designer, saying "Hey, you should have known better" is not going to win you any goodwill.

From the perspective of someone buying a game, you need to do your due diligence. This is easy for us here at EnWorld because of all of the awesome work that everyone does in showcasing new games (hey, if you haven't heard it said recently, I appreciate you!)

Looking into what a game is crucial if you don't expect to have a game sitting on your shelf or in your Dropbox. And there are a ton of resources about that. Of course, me saying that will be useless, as the sort of people who need to hear that aren't coming on EnWorld or similar sites.

I think there's a useful conversation to be had even if you think Masks is a great game and entirely clear in its presentation.

 

[Umbran]

Here, we're running into a conflict between "The customer is always right" and "The designer is always right". Who prevails?

That's not an appropriate question. I am not in a struggle with the vendor!

If you sell coffee, and I don't like coffee, who prevails? Nobody - you don't get a sale, and I don't get a drink!

One time, on my way to work, I stepped into a Dunkins on my way, and ordered a big iced tea. When i was blocks away, I took a mouthful, and found they gave me iced coffee! So, I made due, because I was hot and thirsty, and it was super cold and wet, and I didn't have time to go back and argue with them.

The failure is in thinking that somebody must "prevail". This isn't about winning or losing in a struggle. It is about managing in a sub-optimal situation.