"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

[Wolfpack48]

Edwards is hardly the only condescending self-appointed expert in the gaming community. Also not the only person who has a mad on about a particular game or games.

I submit that this attitude, which seems painfully common in the design theory segment of our community, is a large part of what has left our body of design knowledge and principles in such a mess. That condescension is a mark of lack of empathy. But empathy is required to develop practical design principles - the game must serve the people playing it, and you can't figure out what serves them if you don't empathize with them.

Good design doesn't come from, "I know what is good for you." I comes from, "I listen to you to know your needs and desires."

I don't have any history with Edwards or the Forge, but I thought I saw Edwards' empathy for those unhappy players in the video, and not a lot of condescension or "you're doing it badwrong" at least here. Maybe that's historical stuff. He might have some scorn for systems he feels lead to that unhappiness, but even then, I sense he's more focused on approach these days, and finding ways to help.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I had to find the right people and the right structure/system.

Until I had a conversation with Ron I was still putting too much emphasis on the system to facilitate things. Afterwards I focussed on finding the right people and it worked out. Part of that process was realising I couldn’t just play with friends because some of them wanted fundamentally different things than me. I mean it seems blindingly obvious in hindsight so maybe I’m dumb.

There's a very good segment where he talks about good friends gaming together don't necessarily make for the best game. It's really about finding players who want the same things out of their game -- they may not even like each other in other venues! You're not dumb at all; this isn't something that's obvious -- we always think our best friends are aligned on everything. But like in his example, if you were playing pickup football, you'd look for people who enjoy football before going to your pool of friends, some of whom may dislike sports.

 

[Umbran]

I am reminded of this clip of David Bowie.

Yep. But Bowie wasn't a designer. He was an artist, speaking to artists.

 

[kenada]

I totally agree. BUT. I would still say even David Bowie was taking the temperature of the culture and society around him, and feeling a vibe in music he thought folks would be receptive to.

True, there’s a balance that needs to be struck between being able to make a vision and being able to execute on a vision. Not everyone can afford to do vanity projects uncompensated. My issue is there’s too much being put on the needs of the players. Sometimes they don’t know what they want. You mentioned Apple in post #106, so this Steve Jobs quote seems appropriate.

Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, 'If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.' People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.​

 

[Emberashh]

Yep. But Bowie wasn't a designer. He was an artist, speaking to artists.

I suggest you read "Theory of Fun" by Raph Koster. It explains in detail why games are a form of art.

It would be kind of silly in a very pedantic way to agree that games themselves are a form of art but to then say the process to create them isn't.

 

[Wolfpack48]

True, there’s a balance that needs to be struck between being able to make a vision and being able to execute on a vision. Not everyone can afford to do vanity projects uncompensated. My issue is there’s too much being put on the needs of the players. Sometimes they don’t know what they want. You mentioned Apple in post #106, so this Steve Jobs quote seems appropriate.

Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, 'If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.' People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.​

Yep, that's what I meant when I said this:

The other thing to keep in mind is that often what people think they want, isn't necessarily what they want. People often aren't good at expressing what is really bothering them, and that's where good design comes in. They may say, "I'm feeling left out of my game" when what's really happened is that their character class isn't designed to give them agency. It could also mean they have a toxic table. The expression of "feeling left out" is still valuable, and it's up to the designer to understand what that actually means.

What I am saying, though, is it's still valuable to know "I'm feeling left out of my game" or "I want a faster horse." Interpreting what that means is the designer's job. What Ford is saying is when people say they want a faster horse, they mean they want a faster mode of transportation, or even that they want to be able to travel further. It's the designer's job to find the real need underneath the expressed need.

 

[kenada]

The whole thing is that there isn't that big of a distinction between design and art. Design is art.

I hadn’t caught up fully when I made that post, so I hadn’t seen post #104 yet, but I would contrast my position with the one expressed that post. I don’t think there is a reliable process for producing good games like there is for chairs (though considering how people still make terrible office chairs, maybe there’s not one for those either). Otherwise, everyone would be producing good games all the time.

 

[Emberashh]

I hadn’t caught up fully when I made that post, so I hadn’t seen post #104 yet, but I would contrast my position with the one expressed that post. I don’t think there is a reliable process for producing good games like there is for chairs (though considering people still make terrible office chairs, maybe there’s not one for those either). Otherwise, everyone would be producing good games all the time.

Thats because unlike more classical art forms, we don't have centuries of extensive and exhaustive study behind it.

Game design as a serious avenue of study is may be less than 50 years old, if that.

And besides that, unlike say Music or Cooking, where there is a performative element inherent to their consumption, games are closer to paintings or even creative writing, in that it isn't strictly important that repetitive replication is possible. Obviously corporations ruin everything and will force that repetition, but that has nothing to do with whether something is an art or not.

Like a painting or poem, a game doesn't have to be an immaculate example of some standard of game design. It just has to appeal to the person who consumes it, and even then. These are all things that can just exist as the expression of the artist, no matter how people feel about it.

For example one of my favorite games is Solomons Boneyard, which is a neat little timewaster Mobile game. There isn't anything about it on a design level thats really worth noting on its own, but as a designed experience its fantastically fun and addictive in a healthy way, and for the game's relatively small audience it just ticks all the right buttons in the brain to be endlessly satisfying to play.

When you get swarmed by 50k jumping demons that explode into 5 more, and then again into 5 more when you destroy them, its this hectic crazy thing and depending on your build, you can just sit there and hold that entire onslaught back as your killcount starts screaming upwards.

Sooooo satisfying and its beautifully elegant in how the game's design conspires to result in that.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think games are art. They’re more than just products that are designed. A good game inspires its audience. Look at the way Arneson and Gygax changed the way people play with the release of OD&D or the way 5e has inspired tens of millions of people to get into RPGs, creating whole communities of people inspired by D&D that didn’t exist before. While the latter’s designers did solicit community feedback, they still had a vision, and that wasn’t up for a vote.

I think bolded is the key point. It's important to understand the context of where things are in society, be empathetic to where people are, and even solicit feedback -- that can be done directly or serendipitously or subconsciously, but at the end of the day, you are designing the game according to your vision. You aren't designing by committee or taking a vote, but all that input is probably being taken into account even if unconsciously. If it strikes a chord and becomes popular when done, then you've got a hit game. In any case, you've fulfilled your vision.

 

[Scott Christian]

I had to find the right people and the right structure/system.

Until I had a conversation with Ron I was still putting too much emphasis on the system to facilitate things. Afterwards I focussed on finding the right people and it worked out. Part of that process was realising I couldn’t just play with friends because some of them wanted fundamentally different things than me. I mean it seems blindingly obvious in hindsight so maybe I’m dumb.

So many people don't know what they want until they get it. It has been true for myself, many of my friends, and students. The people around you have a huge impact on your perception of an activity.