What does well designed mean?

[RFisher]

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that different people want different things in adventures, but the industry & community haven't really done a good job of defining categories of audience. (Which would surely be imperfect, but would be better than the scatter-shot & hope you hit enough that we have now.) It's hard to judge good design if you don't know who the audience is.

Also, modules often have a purpose beyond being an adventure. B1 tried to teach DMing. B2 tried to teach a bit of DMing & also dungeon/setting design. The Sunless Citadel was meant to showcase the new edition. Some modules are intended to introduce a setting. Achieving such a purpose in as natural way as possible is an important aspect of good design.

 

[buzz]

I sense Chris Chinn may have been reading this thread.

"Good Design"

A game with good design makes playing it easy. There may be a large range of skill in how "well" you can play it, but the basic act of being able to play the game- from set up to comprehension in play, should be easy.

Naturally, bad design makes playing the game hard. In order to just play the game at all, requires work and effort, often requiring you to take up the role of game designer to figure out what parts to excise and what to add.

and...

Throwaway Encounters

The reason it's really hard to find GMs who can build good crunchy tactical encounters... is that they only get one chance to see how an encounter works.

Like most people consider about playtest cycles- it's better if you get to see something work in multiple iterations, making adjustments until it's just right. For encounters, though, you don't get that. And there's also the complexity factor that as a GM, you're looking at the players' resources and tactical options as a gestalt, and you have to think about all that when you make a challenge- the players don't need to think -too- hard about each other's options, much less the total gestalt factor. Players will get to keep using their choices over and over, and master those, while the GM has to try to pick up and master a new set for each encounter.

Obviously, for crunchy gamist play, what people need is not more options, or specific sets (like modules), but rather more specific guidelines about how to "read" the gestalt effect of the player's options and how to fit them together for play.

 

[yeloson]

Hi Buzz,

Actually, I didn't know of this thread until you tossed me the link. Those thoughts were from playing in a game of Iron Heroes last night at a local mini-con, plus perusing various game books at the store it was being held at, and mulling over different game experiences.

But yeah- a well designed game makes it easier to play, not harder.

Chris

 

[The Shaman]

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

You find creative people exercising their creativity "nuts?"

 

[buzz]

You find creative people exercising their creativity "nuts?"

I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion from my actual post.

If you bought a new car, and, in order to get it to run, had to do many hours of repair work, would you consider it a well-designed car? I wouldn't.

However, it seems like in gamer-dom, the answer to this question is typically, "Yes, you always have to do a little repair work on brand-news cars to get them to run."

I find this nuts.

 

[Crothian]

For me, well designed is something I can place into my game and have fun with it.

 

[The Shaman]

If you bought a new car, and, in order to get it to run, had to do many hours of repair work, would you consider it a well-designed car? I wouldn't.

However, it seems like in gamer-dom, the answer to this question is typically, "Yes, you always have to do a little repair work on brand-news cars to get them to run."

I buy a stock four-by-four pickup and add a desert racing kit to it - how is that nuts, if my purpose is to race in the desert?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I buy a stock four-by-four pickup and add a desert racing kit to it - how is that nuts, if my purpose is to race in the desert?

The example, though, was a module that was basically unusable as a module to the person doing the review of the aforementioned module. (Lets see how many times I can use the word module in a sentence!) So the equivalent would be a car that doesn't run on the road. Or a boat that doesn't run on the water.

The nuts thing is that people expect a module not to work when they get it. And, then no one faults the module for having problems, because, hey, its supposed to be like that right? But, shouldn't people at least be able to play a module as it appears in the text? (And, I'm not talking about campaign setting localization, and things like that.)

 

[The Shaman]

So the equivalent would be a car that doesn't run on the road. Or a boat that doesn't run on the water.

When I first read buzz's example, I thought the analogy didn't hold - then I mistakenly played along. My bad. :\

A module isn't a car, and it's not a set of golf clubs, and it's not a goldfish - it's a gaming tool that gamers with different tastes and styles may use as written, or adapt to their needs, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

The nuts thing is that people expect a module not to work when they get it. And, then no one faults the module for having problems, because, hey, its supposed to be like that right? But, shouldn't people at least be able to play a module as it appears in the text? (And, I'm not talking about campaign setting localization, and things like that.)

I didn't see the review buzz mentions, so I can't say for sure what the reviewer's specific critiques were, but I don't necessarily agree that gamers expect modules to be broken in the sense that they can't be played due to rules mechanics errors.

My impression is that what we're talking about here is editing, not actual design. Maybe if someone could offer a specific example of a module that must be "fixed" to be playable, and why...?

 

[buzz]

...but I don't necessarily agree that gamers expect modules to be broken in the sense that they can't be played due to rules mechanics errors.

To be more specific, I wouldn't say that gamers commonly expect all modules (or RPG products in general), but just that it's expected it'll be common enough, and that's okay.

I can't think of a specific module off the top of my head, though. I can think of at least one award-winning RPG that, as published, is nigh-unplayable without the fistfull of corrections and additions available on its website. And yet, it has a devoted fanbase and supposedly sold pretty well.

I'm hesitant to give its name solely because I don't want to derail the thread into a specific discussion of its merits/flaws.