What does well designed mean?

[mearls]

So, how does one identify—in the design process or as a consumer of the end product—what will be enjoyed and will improve the play experience?

At this point in the history of game design as a professional field, we're still at the point of black magic and guesswork. Designing a game is much more like filming a movie than building a chair. You can understand everything that makes a game good, but there's still an X factor in terms of creativity, vision, and implemenation.

I think for me RPG products are similar to metal miniatures. I can look at a figure and think it really looks cool, and I usually have enough experience as a painter to know if I have the skill and patience to make it look nice when I paint it. But there are still times when I start a figure and learn that I just don't have the skill to do a good job with the details, or there's just too many fiddly belt buckles for the figure to be fun to paint, and so on.

With a lot of experience under my belt, I have a much better chance of determining if a figure will be fun to paint. Yet, my predictions are not perfect. I feel much the same way about RPG design. Hopefully, with more pracitce and study we can keep getting better at it.

 

[gizmo33]

I'll give you an example. I can read a poem and tell you if, by contemporary standards, it is a good poem or not. This has nothing at all to do with whether I like the poem or not. Nothing at all!

First, what good is knowing that a poem is "good" if it's not related to whether or not you like it?

"Good or Bad" is just one subjective category, but not the only one. Ruling out that your decision is one of "Good or Bad" does not logically prove that your opinion is objective or subjective.

While most people would read the poem subjectively and say whether it is good or note based on whether or not they liked it, I don't care about such things. I can tell you whether it is objectively good or not.

Seems like if your decision is based on objective measurements, you could write them down and define them rigorously. Then we could turn them into a computer program - I could repeatedly fill a poem "template" (choose any of the classical structures - say a sonnet) with random dictionary words and "measure" it's quality - throwing away the millions that scored poorly and keeping the few that did well. Let it run overnight and I'd have an award winning book of "good" poetry.

I'm not convinced that anyone in English lit. would call their poetry evaluations objective, but I don't really know. Perhaps you can cite a reference?

The same should be true of modules.

Even if the criteria existed, of what value would it be if it did not predict people's enjoyment? It seems like you're saying that you can have a "good" module that no one likes.

There could easily be some kind of academic scale on which to measure them,

Is there any other scale in any field that you could cite that has such properties? Granted, I am skeptical that it exists, but if you showed that it did it would be interesting to consider modifiying it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think artistic orthodoxies like the one you refer to are similarly not objective, don't represent the views of more than a few academics, and are usually poisonous to discussion and artistic creation. What use do you think an analysis of a work disconnected from the experience of it has?

First, what good is knowing that a poem is "good" if it's not related to whether or not you like it?

Because it helps you learn to write good poetry. Yes, there are ways to look at a poem that I don't like and utilized parts of it to improve my own writing ability. The same can be said of any artform: literature, painting, music, etc. You can look at what Ornette Coleman did for Jazz and hate it, but it is a mistake to not recognize the genius behind what he was doing and learn from it, even if you don't want to sound like him.

It's the nature of the beast. The way to learn to do something is not some inborn talent that you're born with. The way to learn to write good modules is to read good modules and learn what makes them good modules. This goes beyond whether you like the module in question or not. You might hate a module for mixing genres or having NPCs you find annoying or whatnot. It doesn't mean it was a poorly designed module.

I hate big dungeons. I think big dungeons are to be avoided at all cost. I do not think all modules with big dungeons are badly desgined modules. There's a difference, and I think its an important difference to make. Even though I dislike big dungeons, I know that it is possible to design a big dungeon well. See the difference? The amount you or I like a module is not indicative of how well put together said module is.

Seems like if your decision is based on objective measurements, you could write them down and define them rigorously. Then we could turn them into a computer program - I could repeatedly fill a poem "template" (choose any of the classical structures - say a sonnet) with random dictionary words and "measure" it's quality - throwing away the millions that scored poorly and keeping the few that did well. Let it run overnight and I'd have an award winning book of "good" poetry.

Nope, you can't do that. Just because contemporary poetry, for example, is Existential does not mean that throwing in tons of description text makes a good poem any more than running up and down jazz chords makes a jazz piece well written music. The basics are there, but actually putting these things into use is a completely different matter. On the other hand, a piece that completely ignores these tropes is going to be immediately recognizable, and while, say, a Romantic might like the poem in question, we can observe it for what it is, and that is a bad piece of contemporary poetry.

I'm not convinced that anyone in English lit. would call their poetry evaluations objective, but I don't really know. Perhaps you can cite a reference?

Objective from a contemporary viewpoint. IE objectively good or bad taking into consideration things like whether or not something is postmodern, whether it uses abject generalities. These things can be looked at regardless of placing value judgements on the subject matter itself.

Even if the criteria existed, of what value would it be if it did not predict people's enjoyment? It seems like you're saying that you can have a "good" module that no one likes.

Sort of. Predicting people's enjoyment should be a part of the module, but that is a subjective viewpoint that is difficult to figure out based on the guidelines I would be considering. In other words, people have a tendency to look at something and use their own viewpoint on whether or not it would be enjoyable to determine whether or not something is good or bad. Perhaps not so much around here, but it is quite a common occurance in the world. "This sucks" instead of "It isn't what I prefer."

I think in order to determine a module's worth on the grounds of pure design, one should try their best to ignore what they prefer. They might hate elves, and this module is full of elves (as a simple example), but one should be able to ignore this and figure out if the module is well designed without being biased for or against a module based on these things.

I'm not saying that value judgements aren't worth making. They are. You should know what you like and not be afraid of saying it. I just think the two can be uncoupled.

Is there any other scale in any field that you could cite that has such properties? Granted, I am skeptical that it exists, but if you showed that it did it would be interesting to consider modifiying it.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Admittedly, for me, critiques and objectively viewing something are more important bases for emulation. So, I didn't really mean a literal scale of 1-10, but more along the lines of "This module used a de-linearized plot with rolling site based encounters" and then we could weigh the merits of using a de-linearized plot with rolling site based encounters and then determine whether the module in question succeeded in those various merits and whether or not it used them in a way that is deemed poor.


I hope I've clarified myself.

 

[Faraer]

Module writing is a craft, and there are rules of thumb that can be taught and learned, and talking about those can certainly be worthwhile. But they're only a part of 'good design' -- if that means anything practical -- and I can't see the point of going back and judging modules by how they adhere to those rules of thumb -- which are means to ends, not ends in themselves.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Module writing is a craft, and there are rules of thumb that can be taught and learned, and talking about those can certainly be worthwhile. But they're only a part of 'good design' -- if that means anything practical -- and I can't see the point of going back and judging modules by how they adhere to those rules of thumb -- which are means to ends, not ends in themselves.

Because it helps form a braoder understanding of module design as a whole? Because to completely ignore the design of previous modules is ignoring a huge part of how we got to where we are today? Because breaking up what makes modules good into different parts and discussing each part separately helps us understand the modules better?

 

[seskis281]

I was browsing through this thread because I'm actually in the middle of designing a campaign setting and plan to market it, as well as writing adventure modules for it.

I asked the illustrious Mr. Gygax for some advice in "good" design, and he said something pretty basic that I think fits here: it really only matters to me and my gaming group as to what is "good" or "well-designed." I have bought published modules, as my fondest memory from youth was discovering the newest TSR release in the very early 80's (The Isle of Dread, The Drow Series), but as I am a writer I tend to create my own adventures for groups I play with - mining other material for ideas sometimes. But as I start looking to market my ideas I find myself reading comments intently to see what people like.

The one thing I have discovered is you can't please everyone - we all have different tastes and desires for RPGing. Generally I think gamers can be divided into two broad schools - "old" school which wants very traditional medieval-style D&D, and
"new" school which wants far more cross-over in styles, wildly imaginative alternate possibilities. Within each of these there is also division between "rules lite/detail lite" and "rules heavy/detail heavy." I'm an old school, rules lite kind of guy, so what I am designing is in the very general, less detailed vein of early D&D/Greyhawk (original).

People's opinion of "good design" is going to vary wildly depending on where they fit in the above - if they're new school and rules/detail heavy, something's not going to be well-designed unless it satisfies those needs. Conversely, to someone like me, too much detail is "bad."

In the end it's all a matter of tastes. Instead of asking "is it good or bad design" ask "is it well-done for what I want."

Cheers!

John Maddog Wright

 

[Faraer]

Because it helps form a braoder understanding of module design as a whole? Because to completely ignore the design of previous modules is ignoring a huge part of how we got to where we are today? Because breaking up what makes modules good into different parts and discussing each part separately helps us understand the modules better?

That all sounds good, but you don't need to make up a single theoretical standard of 'good design' to do those things, I doubt one could be agreed upon except by a self-selected group, and I don't think it would help.

 

[gizmo33]

Because it helps you learn to write good poetry.

I still have the same sort of question though. What good is writing good poetry if good poetry doesn't mean that people like it? My guess is that your answer would be that there is a correlation between good poetry and poetry that is enjoyed by the majority, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

You can look at what Ornette Coleman did for Jazz and hate it, but it is a mistake to not recognize the genius behind what he was doing and learn from it, even if you don't want to sound like him.

I think music theory at some point in history would have considered Jazz to be noise. In fact there were classical rules about scales and stuff that are not followed by modern composition. AFAIK any sort of musical theory was created after the fact, after a set of norms had already been established in practice. And as a famous musician once said: "there is a fine line between clever and stupid."

Although I absolutely respect the spirit in which you are describing this. Especially the part where you say you study a wide variety of works to improve your own. However, I would be concerned that a universal rating system would impose a kind of orthodoxy on creativity that I don't think is good for the hobby. I think it would cause people to self-censor according to some theories that may or may not be able to anticipate all possible products that would be enjoyed by the majority.

Such a thing already goes on with 3E, which to some extent has defined design principles that I think are a bad idea. But people treat these design principles as objective truths.

You might hate a module for mixing genres or having NPCs you find annoying or whatnot. It doesn't mean it was a poorly designed module.

I absolutely agree with this statement inspite of the fact that it might be for different reasons.

The amount you or I like a module is not indicative of how well put together said module is.

I think I'm clear on the point that what you like as an individual is not a criteria for well-designed. I'm less clear on whether what the "majority" likes is connected to good design.

Good design, for example, could be defined to mean that every adventure module has a map. Someone might come along and design a module that everyone likes with no map. Then you might study the module and find some other property that makes it good, thereby being tempted to create a rule saying "a well-designed module has a map unless condition X applies". Your rule would only stand as long as no one discovered yet another condition that allowed a module to not have a map.

So while I agree with your remarks point by point in most places, I think the one place we might be disagreeing is that you can define any of this stuff a priori. The only thing one knows at this point, IMO, is what modules people generally like, but that's always a backward-looking approach.

a Romantic might like the poem in question, we can observe it for what it is, and that is a bad piece of contemporary poetry.

So how did "we" gain the authority that a Romantic apparently does not have? I guess it just comes back to what I was saying before - I can't figure out what the object criteria really are.

The history of music, novels, etc. seems to bear this out. "Good" English in 1500 AD is not "good" english in 2006. Well-written is probably not the same either. Even objective measurements and rules are built on a foundation of subjective taste - even if that's the subjective taste of the majority.

The majority could be a useful "jury" for judging these things, but the majority has a tendency to change it's mind. People considered master classical composers in modern times caused riots in France (I'm thinking of at least one Russian dude) when they first performed their stuff.

These things can be looked at regardless of placing value judgements on the subject matter itself.

If I follow you, perhaps an example is saying that one can judge a module "bad" by old school standards, if, by definition, all old school modules must have a map and the module in question has no map.

"This module used a de-linearized plot with rolling site based encounters" and then we could weigh the merits of using a de-linearized plot with rolling site based encounters and then determine whether the module in question succeeded in those various merits and whether or not it used them in a way that is deemed poor.

Those are the two levels of subjectivity. I agree with the idea that the community could use some standardized language to describe module concepts. For example, I'm not really sure what you mean by "de-linearized" and it would help in a discussion to have a rigorous definition. Even if "de-linearized" is well-defined though, I still see the following two layers of subjectivity:

1. Is "de-linearized" a bad thing or good thing for modules?
2. To what degree is the module "de-linearized"?

If "old school" design philosophy says de-linearized is bad, then at least we can save time in debating #1. And perhaps some consensus would develop over time that would allow us to reasonably predict what the majority of old-school people at this time would say about #2. However, I would not call that process objective, although it might be useful, especially for folks that look to buy "old school" modules because of what the consensus of like-minded persons tells them they will find.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think I agree with much of what you're saing, actually.

I still have the same sort of question though. What good is writing good poetry if good poetry doesn't mean that people like it? My guess is that your answer would be that there is a correlation between good poetry and poetry that is enjoyed by the majority, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

Well, poetry is largely based in philosophy. So, poetry that reflects the majority view on philosophy is going to be what is considered good contemporary poetry. You're right, though, that it isn't exactly an objective viewpoint. It's sort of a subjective objectivity. Because its not that one piece of poetry is objectively better than another.

It's that if we assume that the current philosophical viewpoint is the correct one, then it is good or bad. When our viewpoint changes later, what is good and what is bad changes along with it, like when we went from a modern philosophy to a postmodern one (or old school dungeon design to 2nd Edition design). So, what is good and what is bad is based on what we believe at the time, but Person A and Person B who have never met and are both postmodernists, then they'll come to the same conclusions on a particular piece.

I think music theory at some point in history would have considered Jazz to be noise. In fact there were classical rules about scales and stuff that are not followed by modern composition. AFAIK any sort of musical theory was created after the fact, after a set of norms had already been established in practice. And as a famous musician once said: "there is a fine line between clever and stupid."

Yep, and like I was saying, what is good and bad changes over time. Often, based on a few visionaries in a field. The same would be true of module design. Someone would come along and create something so good that we would all have to re-examine our belifes. That's fine.

Although I absolutely respect the spirit in which you are describing this. Especially the part where you say you study a wide variety of works to improve your own. However, I would be concerned that a universal rating system would impose a kind of orthodoxy on creativity that I don't think is good for the hobby. I think it would cause people to self-censor according to some theories that may or may not be able to anticipate all possible products that would be enjoyed by the majority.

The truly great poets are those that know when to break the rules.

Perhaps that's a bit contradictory, but its the truth, and I would assume it goes for any form of entertainment. I think the benefits, however, would be worth the possibility of stagnation.

I think I'm clear on the point that what you like as an individual is not a criteria for well-designed. I'm less clear on whether what the "majority" likes is connected to good design.

This I'm not sure about. Is sales most important? How well a market sample of DMs can understand and use it? Or are Players reactions more important? How much is based off of format and representation in the text? This would take thinking of people far more knowledgable than me. I don't doubt that it is possible, however.

So how did "we" gain the authority that a Romantic apparently does not have? I guess it just comes back to what I was saying before - I can't figure out what the object criteria really are.

For a great part, that was the two World Wars that greatly changed the outlook of people in philosophy. Transcendentalism didn't have much place left in an industrialized wartorn Europe and the Cold War. (This is, of course, highly simplified.) Think of 2E as the World War to module design. *ba dum bum*

The history of music, novels, etc. seems to bear this out. "Good" English in 1500 AD is not "good" english in 2006. Well-written is probably not the same either. Even objective measurements and rules are built on a foundation of subjective taste - even if that's the subjective taste of the majority.

Agreed.

The majority could be a useful "jury" for judging these things, but the majority has a tendency to change it's mind. People considered master classical composers in modern times caused riots in France (I'm thinking of at least one Russian dude) when they first performed their stuff.

Agreed again!

If I follow you, perhaps an example is saying that one can judge a module "bad" by old school standards, if, by definition, all old school modules must have a map and the module in question has no map.

If that were a hypothetical criterian, then more or less. More or less, because as I said above, its important to know when to break the rules and when to stay with them. I guess it means the "rules" are "more important guidelines."

Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about module desgin to make any claims about it one way or the other, since I haven't bought modules since 2E (with rare exception). I'm way out of the loop. I could say what would make a good 2E Planescape module possibly, but I'm too behind to offer any actual contemporary critique. Though, we do seem to be going oldschool recently, so perhaps retro is good right now?

 

[Hussar]

Yep. IMO, this would not be a good product.

I think that gamers are generally so used to folding, spindling, and dodgering RPG products in the process of using them that the bar for design tends to be set very low. E.g., I read a review recently where the product was given a pretty decent score, despite the fact that the reviewer, within the review, listed a whole set of tweaks he felt he'd have to implement in order to make the game something he would want to play. I questioned him about this, and the disconnect was kind of interesting; putting this sort of work into a product he paid money for was just a no-brainer, as far as he was concerned.

Lately, I've been finding that whole attitude (one I've shared, too) just nuts.

Which is a point of view that spawned this thread.

Good design, for example, could be defined to mean that every adventure module has a map. Someone might come along and design a module that everyone likes with no map. Then you might study the module and find some other property that makes it good, thereby being tempted to create a rule saying "a well-designed module has a map unless condition X applies". Your rule would only stand as long as no one discovered yet another condition that allowed a module to not have a map.

But, what's wrong with that? Why should the "Rules of Good Module Design" be static? Any artistic genre is fluid and is constantly being changed by what is coming out. What is a good poem, for example, has radically changed in the past 50 years. Granted, DnD is a much younger form and, as Mearls so rightly points out, we're still in the black magic, voodoo phase, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the attempt.

Any critical thinking of any art form is not purely objective. It is a construct built by the society which spawns it. Thus, as you say, a 16th century work is not judged by the same standards then as it is now.

In Quasqueton's module discussions, something that is brought up quite a few times is that Module X is good "for the time". And that's a valid criticism. Using the standards of the day to judge the module is perfectly fine. However, it is also perfectly fine to judge by later standards as well. Thus a module could be judged by two (or more) different standards, come up with two almost opposite opinions, but, someone coming along later who looks at those two standards could make an informed (hopefully) decision for himself. If our hypothetical person ascribes to School A or School B, he can look for modules that receive good reviews from School A or School B.

It's still subjective. Of course it is. Any judgement of an art form is subjective. However, it could be argued that it is less subjective, or at least more scientific (ugh, wrong word) than "I like it so it's good" or "This sucks because I don't like it."