-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What 3 Things?
- Thread starter Jack7
- Start date
Jack7
First Post
1. I'd make much better use of technology for gaming purposes (and designs), whether that be board games, RPGs, wargames, PRGs, etc. About the only fields where technology is properly exploited for games is electronic and on-line games.
2. I'd redefine and redesign adventure modules, especially to take advantage of technology. I'd add on applications that enhance the sensory experiences of the module.
3. I'd start layering game design (so that this become the norm), to include simple, median, and advanced versions so that the user can make use of whatever level of complexity they wished during play. Complimentary to this I'd place much greater emphasis on the DM/GM/referee and their ability to "gamewright" rather than trying to settle every minute detail of game play at the moment of design.
This type of "micromanagement" at the level of initial and predetermined (by that I mean the attempt to predetermine everything) design is very similar to governmental micromanagement and is only counterproductive to the aims it claims to be promoting.
The more free use and loose structure use given to the end-user (to modify to their own needs and wants) the better the overall design, and the easier the game is to apply in the way the end-user desires most.
Game design needs to move away from "hyper-regulation" and systemic overcomplexity.
Hyper-regulation and systemic overcomplexity place the emphasis upon the game and system designer, and not upon the gamewrights (such as the DM), the players, and the end-users. But any consumer product should be aimed at the advantages and benefits of the consumer, they should not emphasize the supposedly clever design principles of the manufacturer and inventor. (Though inventors, designers, and manufactures should of course strive to be clever, they should not strive to be clever and useful for merely their own aggrandizement, but to be of benefit to the consumer, who is after all the market for whom they create and sell their products.)
Without a well serviced end user market then designs, no matter how seemingly ingenious and sophisticated, are of no real utility. In cases where the end user is a secondary consideration you are designing for yourself, and to display your own supposed cleverness, not for your market.
2. I'd redefine and redesign adventure modules, especially to take advantage of technology. I'd add on applications that enhance the sensory experiences of the module.
3. I'd start layering game design (so that this become the norm), to include simple, median, and advanced versions so that the user can make use of whatever level of complexity they wished during play. Complimentary to this I'd place much greater emphasis on the DM/GM/referee and their ability to "gamewright" rather than trying to settle every minute detail of game play at the moment of design.
This type of "micromanagement" at the level of initial and predetermined (by that I mean the attempt to predetermine everything) design is very similar to governmental micromanagement and is only counterproductive to the aims it claims to be promoting.
The more free use and loose structure use given to the end-user (to modify to their own needs and wants) the better the overall design, and the easier the game is to apply in the way the end-user desires most.
Game design needs to move away from "hyper-regulation" and systemic overcomplexity.
Hyper-regulation and systemic overcomplexity place the emphasis upon the game and system designer, and not upon the gamewrights (such as the DM), the players, and the end-users. But any consumer product should be aimed at the advantages and benefits of the consumer, they should not emphasize the supposedly clever design principles of the manufacturer and inventor. (Though inventors, designers, and manufactures should of course strive to be clever, they should not strive to be clever and useful for merely their own aggrandizement, but to be of benefit to the consumer, who is after all the market for whom they create and sell their products.)
Without a well serviced end user market then designs, no matter how seemingly ingenious and sophisticated, are of no real utility. In cases where the end user is a secondary consideration you are designing for yourself, and to display your own supposed cleverness, not for your market.
lulzapalooza
First Post
I'm sorry for parring you down, but I agree completely with your points. Having a system which helps the D/GM run, plan and arbitrate a game fairly would be most welcome. The famed "Page 42" comes to mind.
