What does well designed mean?

[Hussar]

I've been reading Quasqueton's module threads about whether this or that module is well designed or not. During the Keep on the Borderlands one, I realized something: What does the question really mean? How do you determine if a gaming product is well designed? What criteria do we use?

It became very obvious that I was running from a different playbook than many on that thread. Which is fine. But, I'm curious. How do you define a well designed gaming product - whether module, source book or whatever?

Me, this is how I define "well designed" ((which in no way, shape or form should be taken as any sort of statement of universal value - merely and only my opinion.)) I have three basic criteria that I apply to a book when I decide whether it's well designed or not.

• 1. How easy is it to use this book? How much work do I have to do in order to use this in my game? To me, the best design would be a book that I read, and then immedietely use with no changes. The more work I feel I have to do in order to use X in my game, the more poorly it is designed.
  
• 2. Editing and production values. This is a big one for me. Typos are brutal and make it hard for me to read. Mislabeling entries causes all sorts of problems in the game. While I'm not terribly concerned about artwork and the like, it is nice and part of this is, can I actually read what's on the page? If they use funky colors in the background that makes the text hard or impossible to read, then it is a poorly designed product.
  
• 3. Mechanical accuracy. Again, if the mechanics in the product are screwed up, fix it before selling it. The best designed books don't need errata.

That's my criteria. What's yours?

 

[Meloncov]

Fun

 

[Turjan]

Let's see:

• I don't tear my hair out when I try to figure out how to use the material.
• I don't have to change much about the material, except for flavor reasons.
• I still like it after I used it - or tried to use it .

 

[ThirdWizard]

Fun

I'm of the oppinion that "fun" and "good" (or "well designed") are two very different things. Something can be fun but be truly horrendous in design or implementation. Take movies. Popcorn flicks can be fun. Does that mean they're "good?" Nope. Why not look at "fun" as whether or not a module is well designed? Because fun is way too ambiguous. A module can be full of typos, incorrect stat blocks, plot holes everywhere, etc etc and still be fun, but I wouldn't call that a well designed module.

For criteria, I'm pretty much in agreement with Hussar. I'd probably add Origionality and Pacing to the module design goals. Origionality because if its just a rehash of things done, that can detract from it significantly, seeing as how many players are quite jaded in the "been there done that" camp, I've noticed. Pacing because like any good form of entertainment, it should keep the audience (the PCs and DM in this case) excited and focused for its duration.

 

[Balgus]

to me, well designed means people enjoy using it, and there are little to no complaints. And even if there are complaints, it's trivial

 

[Jdvn1]

Fun and balanced by my estimation of d20/D&D balance.

 

[The Shaman]

A well-designed adventure module sets the stage, and that's all.

One of my favorite modules for any genre is Lost Abbey of Calthonwey. It is a classic site-based adventure, a (seemingly) abandoned abbey and an associated dungeon. There is a brief adventure background for the dungeon master, and a room by room description of the abbey and its inhabitants, including the monks who escaped the massacre that befell their brothers and the lich and its minions that caused it.

And that's it.

No description of what the different NPCs will do when the adventurers arrive, no flowchart of relations between the NPCs, no series of events building to a final encounter with the lich in its lair, no plot or story at all beyond the initial set-up. All of that is left to the dungeon master to create. The adventure presents the inhabitants and their environs, and the dungeon master supplies the rest. The beauty of it lies in the fact that the game master has so much to work with - the orcs living in the abandoned abbey, the lich and his minions, the monks who are sworn to destroy him (and have been granted immortality for that purpose), various monsters living in different portions of the abbey and its underchambers in a reasonable fantasy ecology, other adventurers who visited the abbey before the player characters arrive. It's brilliant, and it's exactly what I look for in an adventure as a referee: it inspires my imagination to discover what happens next, instead of laying it out for me.

 

[Hussar]

I can accept that. I don't necessarily ascribe to it, but I can see the appeal.

Something I have realized as I've gotten older. For me, I still really enjoy running a game. I do, I like to DM. What I don't like is spending large amounts of time preparing for a game. That's why I like modules. It cuts my prep down. However, if the module is only a bare skeleton, then I have to do more preparation to make the module function in the game. For me, that is not fun. I like running the game, I don't particularly enjoy prepping.

To me, there has never been a sense that I am going to "discover what happens next," in a module because, as a DM, I always know what's going to happen next. Or, at least, I have a pretty good idea. I know if they go into corridor A they are going to meet creature B. By having a more fleshed out Dungeon, I get a reactive environment. I can always remove or change the plot, which I find easier than making one up on my own.

To me, the best adventure, or any gaming resource, is one I can use right after reading. If it takes me several hours to finish the adventure because the developer only hands me a skeleton, then I don't consider that good design. Good design should be playable ASAP.

I really wonder if this is some of the root of the disagreement with some of WOTC's recent decisions. Look at the number of people pointing fingers at the new PrC format or the new monster format. People have leveled the criticism that the new format is too wordy, bloated. To me, it's great, because it means that I have less work to do.

To me, prep is not fun. Gaming is fun. DMing in the game is fun. Sitting at my desk and banging away on my computer during the week between games is not fun. For me.

 

[The Shaman]

To me, prep is not fun. Gaming is fun. DMing in the game is fun. Sitting at my desk and banging away on my computer during the week between games is not fun. For me.

For me, adventure and setting prep is gaming - it's the solo game I can play literally anytime that my brain isn't busy with something else.

 

[Numion]

Fun

Our group has had fun with pretty bad modules.