Your Three Golden Gates of Game Design

[am181d]

Is it easy to play? (this is less about being easy to learn than it is being straightforward to play at the table)
Is it fun to play? (fun for a horror RPGS might mean being really freaked out)
Does it adequately cover the content? (hopscotch can be fun and easy, but that doesn't make it a good version of D&D)

 

[Harlock]

Is it appealing?

I prefer this question to is it interesting. Synnibar was interesting, but did dragons attacking mutant-driven hover bikes with mages on the backseat really have much appeal in a general sense?

Is it original (or needed)?

Is this really a new concept? If it is, is it one that is needed to make actual game play better? Let's take a simple game of darts in a roleplaying sense. Some folks would simply say roll a d20 and whoever roles higher wins the throw. Some would add a Dex modifier. Some might decide a series of roles with a Dexterity modifier, bonuses or penalties for level of intoxication, size bonus (small characters receive a penalty), a percentile check for the drafty room blowing the dart slightly off course, and a concentration check to avoid looking at the pretty barmaid are very important to the realism of the game. But, and this relates to question one, is that level of detail needed, and is it broadly appealing (assuming the point of designing a game is to garner as large an audience as possible and not just provide a game for a select few, which is an entirely different question of game design!)

Is it fun?

Subjective, yes, but with feedback and looking at sales and comparing it to other games or previous editions of the same game, one can get an idea.

 

[1Mac]

"Fun" isn't going to be one of my gates, because these are what make the game fun for me. Fun is the goal, not the means of getting there.

1.) Are the rules elegant? By elegance, I mean making the most out of as few rules as possible, given the scope of the system. "Elegant complexity" is not an oxymoron (nor is "inelegant simplicity" for that matter).

2.) Are they balanced? Does everyone have a chance to meaningfully contribute? Or failing that, are power expectations between different character choices made explicit, e.g. Ars Magica?

3.) Do they emulate the world they set out to create? A great stunt system enhances a swashbuckling setting, but not a gritty horror setting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Agree that fun and interesting are goals, not tests. Mine are adapated from the software, "make it accurate; make it usable; make it fast," in that order:

1. Make rules that do what they intend to do, and really pull it off.
2. Make rules that work the way you expect, that are easy to internalize and absort--frequently "elegant" is needed here.
3. Make the version that is playable, handles well, doesn't require a lot of lookup--even if this causes you to compromise the purity of the first two a bit.

But don't do the last one until the first two have been met, and make the compromises as conscious choices.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You could apply the same approach to game design. My three gates (for now ) would be: "Is it balanced?" "Is it plausible?" and "Is it interesting?"

What would yours be?

Do I as the designer really want to be playing using the rules I'm creating?

Are these going to be rules that CONSUMERS will be able to (and encouraged to) do what they like with - or am I going to try to keep them dependant upon ME to continue to provide corrections, updates, and official "approvals" for how to play?

Am I more concerned with writing rules or encouraging fun?

 

[Campbell]

1. Does it acknowledge the human element? To my mind the primary advantage of RPGs over other types of games is that you have a human layer between the fiction and the rules of the game.

2. Does it map to actual play? Do the rules of the game actually encourage the play style the game is aiming for? Note: Assumed here is that stuff like 'Players take on the role of violently capable heroic figures that strive to do the right thing' is just as much a rule as 'a roll of 20 on an attack is a critical hit'.

3. Does the economy of the game rules encourage tough choices? I'm not necessarily talking about fictional money here. Any resource can be substituted in here - spell slots, actions/special abilities, choice of weapon, character decision points, meta mechanics, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

1) Are the game mechanics clear, concise and specifically focused on empowering the DM and players towards the game requirements of consistently creating both meaningful, tension-producing, conflict-resolution (out of combat) and towards demanding tactical and strategic resource deployment (in and out of combat)?

2) Do the DM tools free me up (from both a time and mental resource standpoint) to focus on and support the fiction through their intuitiveness/ease of use/seemlessness in both prep and play?

3) Are their PC build tools and fiction-interface tools that allow my players to capture their favored archetypes and empower them with varying and interesting resource deployment decision-points (both metagame tools to shape the fiction from author stance and gamist resources in actors stance) to drive the story onward without my intervention? At the same time, do they also constrain the proliferation and impact of scene-obliterating PC resources to curtail the never-ending Rock-Paper-Scissors GM Mindgame when composing intrigue, investigatory, exploratory plot device that results from unconstrained, or mildly-constrained, Divinations and Transmutations?

 

[I'm A Banana]

1) What do you want the player to do?
2) How do you get them to do it?
3) Does it deliver the experience you desire to the player?

To me, a lot of what people seem to be saying they want (simplicity, balance, etc.) are tools in service of one of these three goals. Design as I see it is about taking the human element into account. Placing anything other than the end user onto the central pedestal means enshrining some dogma over people. This way lies madness and supervillain plots.

 

[Mengu]

Whenever examining a mechanic, three questions I would ask:

How intuitive is it to go from the conflict to the resolving mechanic?
How gratifying is the resolution?
How could it be better?

 

[TarionzCousin]

Is it secret?

Is it safe?

Is it so obviously the One Ring that it's stupid to assume its not?