A frequent, and hot topic in game design is something called N/G/S. This roughly breaks down into what aspects a game wishes to "lean" into. These are Narrative, Gamist, Simulation. This discussion comes up with Wargames, Board Games, Card Games, and Role-playing Games. Today, I wanted to spend a bit of time talking about these different aspects and how they may relate to your game design.
I discuss what it is, how to use it, and walk through an example with Castles in the Sky. Hopefully this is helpful for all you budding Wargame Designers out there.
Am I way off base, or is there another tool you use when thinking about this topic?
Weird, I think of it in terms of a 2-axis spectrum, abstract to simulation on one axis, narrative to gamist (or "rules-lite" to "crunchy") on the other.
chaos0xomega wrote: Weird, I think of it in terms of a 2-axis spectrum, abstract to simulation on one axis, narrative to gamist (or "rules-lite" to "crunchy") on the other.
In the 80s, the two poles were "realism" and "playability."
In practice, "realism" meant "complexity," but there was an assumption that including a rule for every factor of a conflict (no matter how inelegant) made it somehow closer to reality.
Today I think there's a sense that gaming can be both realistic and use simple mechanics. The key is understanding what you are trying to do. Back in the day, gamers wanted "chrome" to give a sense of history/detail. Now it is understood that too much of this cripples the design. Think of AD&D, which included "speed factors" and modifiers for the type of damage (piercing, slashing or bludgeoning) to make combat "realistic."
This in a game with magic spells.
Across the board, this level of needless detail has been rejected in favor of simplicity which fosters more imagination and give more time to actually role-play rather than run tactical combat scenarios.
So I don't know that a triangle is the proper way to look at it. It's more a question of asking if the design does what it is supposed to do. To give a well-known example, 40k is "designed" to sell models and new sets of rules. It does that very well. Elements such as simplicity and consistency in rules and game balance have always been tertiary at best.
I don't think I really buy the theory, specifically the idea that "narrative" and "simulationist" are two different things. Both are inherently about accurately representing a fictional event, as contrasted with the "gamist" element of playing the rules construct to win a game. The simulationist aspects support the narrative aspects by allowing players to make in-character choices and have them result in the appropriate outcomes within the game. The rules accurately simulate the value of pikes against cavalry so that when the player roleplaying as the leader of the army forms up their pike lines to protect the ranged troops the result is an effective counter to a cavalry charge.
As an example from your article, consider the battleship > cruiser > escort > battleship rock/paper/scissors match. You have this listed as a "narrative" element but in reality it's a pure "gamist" element. In real life battleships are simply the dominant unit (at least within the context of a major fleet engagement) and other units exist in a supporting role at most. A battleship has a cruiser or three worth of secondary guns dedicated to annihilating escorts and the escorts are largely reduced to scouting roles, fleeing from combat once the enemy is spotted. And from a narrative point of view you would expect the rules to follow this. Your heroic battleship captain has nothing to fear from escorts and can slaughter whole squadrons of them at will, only the enemy battleships represent a meaningful threat and they become the focus of the story. But from a gaming perspective this is bad for balance, and unless you impose historical force lists players will take all-battleship fleets and only buy cruisers or escorts once they run out of points and can't afford more battleships. So to make the game play better you invent a rock/paper/scissors system where you delete the secondary batteries on the battleships and invent some kind of "tracking" element where the big guns can't turn fast enough to engage small ships, allowing a swarm of escorts to overwhelm and destroy battleships as a viable strategy. It isn't realistic and it doesn't match the expected narrative but it does allow more strategy depth than lining up battleships and trading fire until someone runs out.
Similarly, you list "scale and model agnostic" as a "gamist" element but this doesn't fit the triangle model, with each point of the triangle being in tension with the others. It may be more of a priority for some players than others but nothing about, say, describing distances as "10 units" instead of "10 cm" has any conflict with narrative or simulationist goals. Same thing with models. A narrative-focused rivet counter player may be more likely to value using official models than a pure gamer who is fine with proxies. Or maybe the opposite is true, where the gamer is fine with buying the official stuff and going straight to playing while the narrative player really cares about using their third-party models to adapt the rules to their homebrew story and setting. But regardless of who cares more about it omitting rules references to the specific physical miniatures doesn't come at the expense of the other two points of the triangle, it's only in tension with business concerns about using rules to drive model sales.
In real life battleships are simply the dominant unit (at least within the context of a major fleet engagement) and other units exist in a supporting role at most. A battleship has a cruiser or three worth of secondary guns dedicated to annihilating escorts and the escorts are largely reduced to scouting roles, fleeing from combat once the enemy is spotted. And from a narrative point of view you would expect the rules to follow this. Your heroic battleship captain has nothing to fear from escorts and can slaughter whole squadrons of them at will, only the enemy battleships represent a meaningful threat and they become the focus of the story.
This is horribly misleadingly false. The number one threat to early battleships were torpedo boats (which as the name might imply were very small, cheap, and expendable craft), which necessitated the development of what later came to be known as the Destroyer in order to protect Battleships from them - a role which they were very successful at, to the point that Destroyers actually eventually replaced Torpedo Boats entirely as an attack platform. Later on, Battleships were ultimately rendered obsolete by aircraft, particularly small, fast, maneuverable ones that carried bombs or torpedoes. The reality is that more battleships were lost as a result of action by enemy "escorts" (i.e. torpedo boats, destroyers, cruisers, etc.) and aircraft than were lost to enemy battleships.
Narrative is about telling stories and spectacle, they do not have to be accurate to reality at all. They can be pure fantasy.
Simulation is about trying to recreate reality. A completely different desire in gamers.
Sure, sometimes they overlap with specific people trying to tell a realistic story, but for other gamers it is the opposite. They want the fantasy story from a Hollywood action movie to play out on the table.
To think they are "the same" is a bias about what wargames should do that you are bringing. I know I tend to emphasize the Narrative approach more than Gamist or Simulation. I struggle mightily on the Gamist side of things. Those are my Bias. It's okay. We all have them.
@ChaosxOmega- I used to think of them as two separate Axis as well. But then I found those two axis overlapped again to create a third "dimension" so to speak. Hence why I moved to a Triangle. Probably not "mathematically optimal" but that is not how my brain works.
Again, it is a concept I ran across in business. The old "you can have it done quick, good, or cheap: pick two"; saying. I had seen someone else represent this idea to me as a triangle a few years ago and that seemed to make sense in this case as well.
The model may not work for anyone else and that's fine.
Easy E wrote: Narrative is about telling stories and spectacle, they do not have to be accurate to reality at all. They can be pure fantasy.
Narrative doesn't have to be accurate to our reality, it has to be accurate to some reality. You can have a fantasy world with wizards and demons and such and it will be completely unrealistic by the standards of our world but it still has to have its own consistent rules for how things work. A narrative player needs to be able to take the actions their character would do and those actions need to have the expected consequences. If the lore of your magic system is that opposing elements are counters to each other then shooting an ice demon with a fireball should be effective, more effective than shooting the ice demon with an ice bolt spell. Simulationist design is how you achieve a consistent narrative, without it you may have spectacle but none of it forms a coherent story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: This is horribly misleadingly false. The number one threat to early battleships were torpedo boats (which as the name might imply were very small, cheap, and expendable craft), which necessitated the development of what later came to be known as the Destroyer in order to protect Battleships from them - a role which they were very successful at, to the point that Destroyers actually eventually replaced Torpedo Boats entirely as an attack platform. Later on, Battleships were ultimately rendered obsolete by aircraft, particularly small, fast, maneuverable ones that carried bombs or torpedoes. The reality is that more battleships were lost as a result of action by enemy "escorts" (i.e. torpedo boats, destroyers, cruisers, etc.) and aircraft than were lost to enemy battleships.
A Fletcher-class destroyer carries five 5" guns and up to fourteen 40mm guns. An Iowa-class battleship carries 20 of the same 5" gun and 80 of the same 40mm gun. The battleship's secondary battery alone is worth 4-5 destroyers. There was certainly some value in having screening units engage (and likely be destroyed by) an incoming threat at extreme range, with destroyers being cheap enough to take in the large numbers required for sufficient coverage, but the idea that a battleship is helpless against small targets is entirely a game balance creation.
And sure, more battleships may have been lost to small ships than other battleships but only because battleship vs. battleship engagements were incredibly rare. WWI was largely a "fleet in being" stalemate with the one major fleet engagement being indecisive and broken off before it could reach a real conclusion, and by WWII battleships were mostly reduced to being shore bombardment platforms and a source of mass AA guns to defend the carriers.
chaos0xomega wrote: This is horribly misleadingly false. The number one threat to early battleships were torpedo boats (which as the name might imply were very small, cheap, and expendable craft), which necessitated the development of what later came to be known as the Destroyer in order to protect Battleships from them - a role which they were very successful at, to the point that Destroyers actually eventually replaced Torpedo Boats entirely as an attack platform. Later on, Battleships were ultimately rendered obsolete by aircraft, particularly small, fast, maneuverable ones that carried bombs or torpedoes. The reality is that more battleships were lost as a result of action by enemy "escorts" (i.e. torpedo boats, destroyers, cruisers, etc.) and aircraft than were lost to enemy battleships.
Torpedo boats were something of a phantom menace - admirals feared them, but they rarely amounted to anything.
The real battleship killer was the submarine, and that was why there so many destroyers screening them. Against other surface units, they pretty much dominated the fight. Recall that the destroyers at Leyte Gulf never threatened the Japanese battleships, they just delayed and distracted them.
I also don't see how simulation is in tension with narrative. I guess you could say that the rules of the game don't reflect the "reality" of the fluff, but that seems to be a uniquely GW thing. In all other systems, the stories and rules are seamless.
Now sometimes that "reality" is off, such as the insane stats often accorded to late-model Panzers in tactical games, or overstated French Imperial Guard capability, but even there the tension is within the narrative, not against abstract simulation.
A Fletcher-class destroyer carries five 5" guns and up to fourteen 40mm guns. An Iowa-class battleship carries 20 of the same 5" gun and 80 of the same 40mm gun. The battleship's secondary battery alone is worth 4-5 destroyers. There was certainly some value in having screening units engage (and likely be destroyed by) an incoming threat at extreme range, with destroyers being cheap enough to take in the large numbers required for sufficient coverage, but the idea that a battleship is helpless against small targets is entirely a game balance creation.
Thats an incredibly amateur way of analyzing the capability and performance of two platforms relative to one another and fails to address limited fields of fire, weapon placement, elevation, and traverse, rate offire, etc. or to consider the torpedo armament of the destroyers themselves.
Recall that the destroyers at Leyte Gulf never threatened the Japanese battleships, they just delayed and distracted them.
I think that depends on what you mean by "threatened". Destroyed - no, but the reason the Japanese battleships were "delayed and distracted" is because of the heavy torpedo spreads fired from the destroyers which forced Yamato and Nagato to break away from the engagement, because it was and is widely understood that a torpedo is actually a fairly big *threat* to a battleship. Nagato did rejoin the battle after fleeing, but despite over 120 rounds fired from primary and secondary weapons at enemy vessels only lightly damaged one destroyer (so much for Owls theory on that secondary armament!). Haruna and Kongo were not "threatened" by torpedoes to the same extent as Yamato or Nagato (and Haruna struggled to land any hits on the American force, though Kongo made up for it), but were ultimately withdrawn from the battle because the *threat* posed by the tin can task force led Kurita to believe that he was engaging a much larger force of larger surface combatants, thinking he was engaging cruisers and fleet carriers instead of destroyer escorts and escort carriers.
chaos0xomega wrote: Thats an incredibly amateur way of analyzing the capability and performance of two platforms relative to one another and fails to address limited fields of fire, weapon placement, elevation, and traverse, rate offire, etc. or to consider the torpedo armament of the destroyers themselves.
Yes, of course it's a simplified version. So is the nonsensical rock/paper/scissors model OP proposed, where escorts simply beat battleships because Reasons. The reality is that battleships had abundant secondary weapons capable of engaging lighter ships, weapons that were put there for that specific purpose. A mass attack by torpedo-armed escorts might be a threat but it's far from a magic trump card, especially if the battleships are willing to turn away to avoid the attack and re-engage once the destroyers have fired their limited torpedo stocks. And once the torpedoes are gone the escorts get massacred.
thinking he was engaging cruisers and fleet carriers instead of destroyer escorts and escort carriers.
And this is the key point: he thought he was engaging something bigger. There was a mistake in identifying the enemy ships and had he known he was facing only the lighter units he would have committed to the attack, confident in his chances of winning. If escorts are the magic trump card to battleships as proposed by OP's rock/paper/scissors model he would have run even if he had known what he was really facing. In fact, he would have been more willing to run because under rock/paper/scissors his battleships are better against cruisers than against destroyers. Instead we see the exact opposite: paper runs away from scissors, but only because paper thinks it is running away from rock.
Ever consider the reason why Kurita thought he was fighting something bigger is because of the amount of firepower coming back his way and the perceived level of threat the American force displayed tp hos vessels? I'm sure the 4 heavy cruisers they sunk had something to do with it.
The fact that 2 of his 4 battleships failed to really hit much of anything through the engagement, despite many attempts to do so, should be a clear indicator that your infantile view of "more guns = invincible" isn't how real life works. Those secondary weapons may have been put there to fight smaller vessels in theory, that doesn't mean they were effective at doing so in practice- in the same way that bombers of the era were loaded up with machine guns to defend against enemy fighters in theory (to the point that bombers in combat box formation were initially believed to be invulnerable to aerial attack) but in practice the machine guns had limited effect and bombers were easy prey to fighters - hence the turrets and machine guns were gradually removed in subsequent designs and eventually eliminated entirely with the acknowledgement that the only defense for a bomber against aerial attack was to either fly higher and faster than the enemy fighters could or have a robust fighter escort.
The fact that battleships required escort at all should be a pretty big clue that you're just flat out *wrong*, there's a reason *why* battleships had escorts in the first place - because they were otherwise vulnerable to attack by vessels smaller than themselves. If they weren't vulnerable to such attacks, there would be no need for escort and the only ships major powers would bother to build at all would be battleships, because according to you they would be invulnerable to attack from anything except other battleships while smaller vessels would be easy prey guaranteed to be destroyed with no hope of victory. If those escorts were unable to harm enemy battleships as you contend, then those escorts surely wouldn't be there to escort and protect a battleship from enemy battleships, after all.
The rock-paper-scissors concept, despite seeming relatively gamey, is only a slight simplification of actual British and American naval doctrine of the era.
The issue with the rock-paper-scissor concept is that it comes with a hard counter expectation because, well the rock-paper-scissor game is one of hard counters. No matter how well you play a scissor, it will never be able to defeat a rock.
Meanwhile true hard counters are more rare in warfare. If you are creative, you can find soft counters to theoretical hard counters.
For example, the Taliban did conquer Afghanistan with a purely light infantry force after all vs tanks and aircraft (sure the fact that the GIRoA was unbelievable incompetent helped them a lot). They learned the operational tempo of the American aircraft to better dodge airstrikes and even if not entirely effective, it reduced casualties enough to the point they were able to push offensives into Afghan cities even while the Americans bombarded them.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ever consider the reason why Kurita thought he was fighting something bigger is because of the amount of firepower coming back his way and the perceived level of threat the American force displayed tp hos vessels? I'm sure the 4 heavy cruisers they sunk had something to do with it.
As has been well-established, Kurita believed he was fighting heavier forces than he was. He was not afraid of destroyers and jeep carriers. If he knew what was in front of him, the battle would have gone differently.
The fact that battleships required escort at all should be a pretty big clue that you're just flat out *wrong*, there's a reason *why* battleships had escorts in the first place - because they were otherwise vulnerable to attack by vessels smaller than themselves.
The word you are looking for is "submarine," which was far more lethal than a destroyer. Destroyer torpedo runs were desperation moves or the result of a single opponent (Bismarck) being subjected to a swarm attack.
Escorts also helped provide protection against air attack.
The rock-paper-scissors concept, despite seeming relatively gamey, is only a slight simplification of actual British and American naval doctrine of the era.
I think that concept can work in some areas, but not here. The primary advantage of destroyers over cruisers or carriers is that they are expendable. One can build a new one in few weeks vs a couple of years for a battleship. Tactically, they are hands-down weaker.
Getting back to game design, one problem is that designers force a construct where it doesn't work in an attempt to create some sort of offset or balance. In that case, realism is being sacrificed for playability.
I do find it curious the argument is about battleships when we have a perfectly fine example of ubership in the aircraft carrier.
I mean, aircraft carriers were one of the inventions that revolutioned warfare to the point that if you don't have a carrier then you don't really have a navy and made their dominance so blatant the battleships went extinct.
You simply cannot fit aircraft carriers in a rock-paper-scissor paradigm.
Tyran wrote: I do find it curious the argument is about battleships when we have a perfectly fine example of ubership in the aircraft carrier.
I mean, aircraft carriers were one of the inventions that revolutioned warfare to the point that if you don't have a carrier then you don't really have a navy and made their dominance so blatant the battleships went extinct.
You simply cannot fit aircraft carriers in a rock-paper-scissor paradigm.
Obviously if one is doing a game of naval warfare, it has to be set in a particular era. So if we are looking at surface combatants prior to 1918, torpedo boats were something of a non-starter in terms of actual combat results. Yes, there was a crippling fear of them because these flimsy little craft could sink mighty dreadnoughts, but in practice that did not happen.
Battleships had escorts not to save them from a swarm but to scout out the enemy fleet. Radar was unknown and radio was in its infancy. A battleship needed escorts so that it didn't inadvertently run into a five-to-one situation. While Jutland gets all the press, there were attempts at smaller engagements and swarms of escorts were needed to signal back who was where.
The point is that this was not a rocks-paper-scissors situation, but one where complimentary elements created a more favorable environment.
Are there tradeoffs? Of course, just as with all weapons systems. What's the old joke? Firepower, protection and speed: pick two. We could also add construction time/materials cost to that, but this wasn't really a points-style situation where 50 destroyers were a match for one battleship or something. such a ludicrous matchup would depend on other factors, like the sea state, distance from port, fuel situation.
Again, the worst offender in terms of forcing balance at the cost of realism/plausibility is GW, and they are in a class by themselves.
For the vast majority of games, bad/complicated mechanics are more of an issue than anything else. The 80s craze for "a rule for everything" created supremely kludgy designs and I see lots of that still out there today.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm sure the 4 heavy cruisers they sunk had something to do with it.
Sure, but that's yet another nail in the coffin of the rock/paper/scissors model. By OP's model heavy cruisers are supposed to be the counter to destroyers, yet somehow the destroyers won that engagement and did it so convincingly that the other side assumed they must be far heavier units.
The reality is that the engagement is an exceptional case of a heroic last stand won by sheer skill and suicidal bravery, not by the capabilities of the ships in question. It is not representative of what would normally happen when a small force of light units goes up against heavy cruisers and battleships.
Those secondary weapons may have been put there to fight smaller vessels in theory, that doesn't mean they were effective at doing so in practice
In the case of US battleships they were literally the same 5" gun that was mounted on smaller ships. Cruisers had them as a primary battery, battleships took the exact same twin 5" mount and used them as a dual-purpose secondary battery. If the twin 5" is not an effective weapon against destroyers then the rock/paper/scissors model is invalid as the cruisers mounting it are also incapable of engaging the destroyers they are supposed to be best against.
and the only ships major powers would bother to build at all would be battleships
Nonsense. Major powers needed to build smaller ships for a variety of roles: scouting for the fleet, convoy escort where a battleship would be expensive overkill, etc. But the fact that a destroyer is a great ship for escorting a couple of unarmed freighters has nothing to do with the rock/paper/scissors model OP proposes for major fleet engagements.
The reality is that historically every major naval power built as many battleships as possible, to the point of causing so much economic strain that after WWI everyone signed a treaty to end the arms race and limit each country to a fixed number of battleships. And minor naval powers attempted to get the biggest ships they could manage, sparking regional arms races (see the South American dreadnought race, for example). At no point did any serious naval power go with a strategy of countering battleships with a bunch of destroyers or torpedo boats. Nor were those things considered very important in the treaties that ended the battleship arms race. Such minor ships weren't accounted for at all in the Washington naval treaty, and were only subject to very loose limits in the subsequent London treaty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: I do find it curious the argument is about battleships when we have a perfectly fine example of ubership in the aircraft carrier.
Yep. In the era OP is drawing from battleships were the overpowered unit, as aircraft became more capable carriers became overpowered and battleships dropped to a supporting role at best until finally disappearing entirely. The balanced rock/paper/scissors scheme is purely a gameplay construct to promote a more diverse metagame.
Easy E wrote: I think you guys got hung-up on the wrong thing in this thread. This thread is NOT about Naval wargaming per se.
At least we got some discussion going down here in the wargame design ghetto.
It's a tangent, but it's a highly informative one on why the triangle model isn't a very good one. You think the rock/paper/scissors model is a thing for narrative players, chaos0xomega thinks it's an accurate model of real combat and directed at simulationist players, Commissar von Toussaint and I think it's purely a balancing tool that sacrifices realism to add more strategic depth to the game mechanics.
It's a tangent, but it's a highly informative one on why the triangle model isn't a very good one. You think the rock/paper/scissors model is a thing for narrative players, chaos0xomega thinks it's an accurate model of real combat and directed at simulationist players, Commissar von Toussaint and I think it's purely a balancing tool that sacrifices realism to add more strategic depth to the game mechanics.
It's not a tangent at all, it's a practical application of the model to see if it has validity, and the limits of the r/p/s model.
Honestly the best r/p/s example is Napoleonic combat where infantry, cavalry and artillery each have distinct ways where they beat one but lose to the other. Cavalry cannot charge prepared infantry, but artillery will savage infantry in a square. Skirmishers make a mockery of artillery, but are vulnerable to cavalry. Artillery needs support or both infantry and cavalry can destroy it.
I think that this point I've set a personal record for refraining from shameless self-promotion, but I'll break down and mention that Conqueror explicitly rejected any attempt to balance tactical effects. Certain weapons are just better, and the balancing is done through points. Just as in real life, pikes beat just about everything, though unarmored pikemen suffer from massed archery.
The key point is that realism dictates the system, rather than vice-versa.
Simulation is a subset of narrative. When the simulation-enjoyer's space marines aren't accurately scaled next to their guardsmen, it reduces the ability for these plastic figures to tell a story that feels accurate to life or lore. In other words it breaks their immersion. That desire for immersion is a narrative pursuit.
Simulation is also tightly linked to the desire for roleplay. Everyone who likes simulation is essentially an RP'er. They're not necessarily RP'ing the characters themselves, but they do want their game pieces to accurately represent the role assigned to them, just like how LARPers want to accurately play their roles.
Simulation and roleplay both come down to players wanting their actors to tell convincing stories. Doesn't matter if the actors are real-life people, detailed figurines, abstract game pieces, digital avatars, or even just numbers in software. All of it falls under the umbrella of narrative.
artific3r wrote: Simulation and roleplay both come down to players wanting their actors to tell convincing stories. Doesn't matter if the actors are real-life people, detailed figurines, abstract game pieces, digital avatars, or even just numbers in software. All of it falls under the umbrella of narrative.
Wargaming started as a predictive exercise, where the results could be used to influence policy and tactics. I think of it as competitive modeling, and that's how I approach it.
artific3r wrote: Right. I'm speaking purely through the lens of game design of course.
There is ample scope for game design within the context of predictive realism. They key element is that the players/participants have to accept the results as plausible within their understanding of the situation.
This is why I think that using mechanics where they don't fit (like r/p/s on surface combatants) undermine the integrity of the design.
Now in some cases, the designer has total control of the setting and can absolutely impose this. Battletech is the perfect example. The designers came up with heat as a proxy for action points, and then had ballistic weapons as a cheat, albeit with a fixed capacity.
Thus, your Mech with a bunch of medium lasers can fire at full volume every turn, but will have a fraction of the AC20 delivery vehicle that gets six very powerful shots per game.
GW was in a similar position, and wrecked that balance by making changes to the game design that directly contradicted the fluff. Happily for them, people looked past it and successive generations have accepted the new mechanics as the fluff.
One could argue that the downfall of WHFB was in part because fantasy players had pre-existing notions of what was realistic that was less amenable to GW's manipulations, since the Old World was almost entirely a pastiche of existing settings.
Dune is a great example of an author doing something like this. Herbert liked the idea of knife-fighting being a very necessary skill, and so came up with personal shields to explain why it was "a thing." Within the context of that setting, it worked, and allowed an otherwise primitive people (Fremen) to dominate opponents who were obviously technologically superior (Sardaukar).
Just to point out, Destroyers were developed to deal with Torpedo Boats, and they quickly replaced the Torpedo Boat as they were better at the torpedo attack then the boats were. Reconnaissance duties were absorbed by Cruisers and Battle Cruisers while Destroyers remained as close escorts to all types of ships.
Therefore, when you think of "escorts" it mostly means Destroyers. To think that Battleship captains did not respect an individual Destroyer makes sense, but they DID respect a flotilla of Destroyers all armed with torpedoes. We can all think of battles where the fear of Torpedoes helped dictate the terms of the engagement.
Easy E wrote: Just to point out, Destroyers were developed to deal with Torpedo Boats, and they quickly replaced the Torpedo Boat as they were better at the torpedo attack then the boats were. Reconnaissance duties were absorbed by Cruisers and Battle Cruisers while Destroyers remained as close escorts to all types of ships.
Therefore, when you think of "escorts" it mostly means Destroyers. To think that Battleship captains did not respect an individual Destroyer makes sense, but they DID respect a flotilla of Destroyers all armed with torpedoes. We can all think of battles where the fear of Torpedoes helped dictate the terms of the engagement.
But in the real world, that threat never materialized, nor did destroyer swarms ever become a thing.
Torpedo boats arguably achieved their peak of power when the Russian Navy was randomly sinking British trawlers in 1905. They were scary because the battleship admirals overreacted.
Later on, destroyers made torpedo runs because that was a desperation move or the target was cornered and outnumber (i.e. the Bismarck).
If you are designing a game, the capability of the destroyer to do a torpedo attack may well rent space in various player's brains, but submarines were a far greater threat. That's where destroyers and frigates really became crucial.
And, as I've already said, you can crank out escorts in a matter of weeks. They're basically ablative armor for carriers and battleships.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, the supposed decisive naval battles battleships were designed to win also never really materialized.
For all their power, battleships turned out to be way too inflexible, expensive and vulnerable to newer technologies.
It wasn't about new technology, at least not in the pre-WWII era. It was about how important battleships were. In the only significant war (outside of the Russian fleet committing suicide against Japan) in the era Germany was hopelessly outnumbered in battleships vs. the UK, and therefore outside of a couple inconclusive attempts at splitting up the British fleet into manageable pieces they were forced to resort to a "fleet in being" strategy. Under the rock/paper/scissors model they could have built a bunch of destroyers to counter the British battleships and expected a successful fleet engagement, in reality that would have been suicide.
So an all battleship fleet is ahistorical, unrealistic and definitely not simulationist.
But we aren't talking about literally an all-battleship fleet. We're talking about mirroring the real situation, where battleships (and later aircraft carriers) were the dominant unit and the core of every fleet with smaller units acting in a supporting role. At no point did we ever have the rock/paper/scissors model with a "metagame" of different fleet strategies. Everyone built as many battleships as possible, and if you couldn't keep up in the battleship arms race you ceased to be a significant naval power.
Everyone also keep building destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers, etc.
Sure we never had a r/p/s, but we also didn't have one type of ship monopolizing fleet building.
Battleships needed destroyers and cruisers for scouting and for defense. An unescorted battleship is a dead battleship.
Destroyers don't counter battleships, but destroyers+cruisers+battleships will crush unsupported battleships. That's what the whole combined warfare is supposed to be about, different warships supporting each other and covering each other weaknesses.
Edit: the problem is that game design tends to be too focused on the guns you can bring and ignores more tricky questions like scouting.
A game that doesn't have fog of war and scouting mechanics cannot be simulationist, because those are among the most important concepts in warfare. And definitely far more important than the battleship measuring contest.
Of course Submarines and their torpedoes were the bigger threat than Torpedo Boats and Destroyers. There was no real counter to Submarines early on in WW1. However, you can't really have a "flying Battleship" game with Submarines. Therefore, Escorts take some of that load instead. It became a design choice.
In addition, in many games Escorts are useless ablative armor, and therefore no one takes them unless they have to. Then, they dash up and get blown up instantly after one, ineffective shot. Yeah, I am looking at you Dystopian Wars, and you BFG! Boring and no real decision making. So the challenge as a designer is how to make an escort worth taking.... ever!
In addition, if you have ever played Jutland you realize that it is a really boring game and gives a similar game play to Yahtzee but with more charts. Therefore, you have to change the dynamics up a bit for the sake of a game by making some decisions as a designer, and this will lead you to different choices.
Hence, the triangle helps you think about these choices in a framework. Going in I wanted some Simulationist elements, but I did not want that to be where the game ended up. How do you off set that then? You have to lean away from reality, and know how, why, and how far you are going to lean.
Easy E wrote: Of course Submarines and their torpedoes were the bigger threat than Torpedo Boats and Destroyers. There was no real counter to Submarines early on in WW1. However, you can't really have a "flying Battleship" game with Submarines. Therefore, Escorts take some of that load instead. It became a design choice.
Eh, a lot of sci fi has stealth ships that are pretty much submarines in space.
In addition, in many games Escorts are useless ablative armor, and therefore no one takes them unless they have to. Then, they dash up and get blown up instantly after one, ineffective shot. Yeah, I am looking at you Dystopian Wars, and you BFG! Boring and no real decision making. So the challenge as a designer is how to make an escort worth taking.... ever!
Funnily enough escorts are very useful in the videogame version of BFG, because fog of war.
You cannot shot what you cannot see, specially against the more stealthy faction. A pure battleship fleet is pretty much dead in the void against any half competent Eldar or Tyranid player.
Hence, the triangle helps you think about these choices in a framework. Going in I wanted some Simulationist elements, but I did not want that to be where the game ended up. How do you off set that then? You have to lean away from reality, and know how, why, and how far you are going to lean.
I don't believe you need to lean away from reality, because well reality has many reason for why escorts are still a thing.
But approaching that in a simulationist way tends to be quite complicated and if you want a practical game with a limited scope* it is probably better to lean away from reality.
*Obviously real warfare cannot be limited in scope, and thus a simulationist game needs to acknowledge outside scope elements if it has any hope of being a realistic depiction of combat.
Stealth technology is Out-of-Scope for Aeronef genre conventions. No flying submarines.
Now, I am glad you mention that escorts have a lot of utility! I tired to add that into Castles in the Sky in the following ways:
1. Escorts can add Point Defense to larger ships within X MU. - Narrativist
2. Escorts give bonuses to Initiative dice rolled, which can lead to earning more special commands. - Gamist
3. Escorts have the most speed and maneuverability, allowing them to choose when and how to engage larger ships. - Simulationist
4. Escorts can be used for establishing LOS for other ships. - Narrativist
I have had previous threads about how to make Escorts useful beyond their ability to shoot stuff or absorb hits, these various ideas were designed to lean into various parts of the triangle.
Easy E wrote: 1. Escorts can add Point Defense to larger ships within X MU. - Narrativist
2. Escorts give bonuses to Initiative dice rolled, which can lead to earning more special commands. - Gamist
3. Escorts have the most speed and maneuverability, allowing them to choose when and how to engage larger ships. - Simulationist
4. Escorts can be used for establishing LOS for other ships. - Narrativist
This is really highlighting how the triangle doesn't work as a model. Your category assignments here are completely arbitrary and could easily go in different categories. Why is escorts adding point defense bonuses a "narrativist" mechanic while escorts adding initiative bonuses is a "gamist" mechanic? Why is escorts establishing LOS a "narrativist" mechanic when it's a textbook example of a simulationist mechanic that represents exactly how the "real" ships were supposed to work? It really feels like you started with a set of mechanics and then arbitrarily split them up into different categories to justify the triangle model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: However, you can't really have a "flying Battleship" game with Submarines.
Why not? Maybe in your specific setting you can't have them for Reasons but I don't see any reason that has to be a genre-wide rule.
So the challenge as a designer is how to make an escort worth taking.... ever!
And again you're conceding the weaknesses of the triangle, or at least your interpretation of it. The simulationist argument is that if escorts aren't wroth taking in the lore then escorts just aren't a major ship class and won't see much use. You're coming up with supposed simulationist mechanics involving escorts but the whole thing is just you taking an exclusively gamist approach and designing for balance and strategy depth rather than narrative or realism.
Easy E wrote: Well, sorry it isn't useful for you guys.
Could someone recommend a different model I should be using to think about these issues?
Not a specific model but the general way to frame it is that different player archetypes (and there may be any number of them depending on your specific game/genre) have different needs but those needs are largely independent. A mechanic might benefit A at the expense of B, or A and B at the expense of C, or be a win for everyone, or even be a bad idea for everyone. And you may want a mass-appeal game where you try to keep everyone reasonably happy or a carefully targeted game that appeals to a specific audience as much as possible with no real concern given to other player types.
Easy E wrote: Well, sorry it isn't useful for you guys.
Could someone recommend a different model I should be using to think about these issues?
I think the best place to start is to examine the game as a simulation and ask yourself: "What role am I asking the players to assume?"
Are they fleet commanders? Flotilla leaders? Unitary national commanders?
Once you know that, the decision tree (and scale) starts to take shape. Again, I'm an odd duck - I did tons of wargaming growing up and then found myself in a higher headquarters contending with questions of what a commander actually needs to know.
So if we jump back to the naval example (which is useful), what role is the player assuming? Are they selecting a task force from scratch, or trying to use the assets available to them? A lot of the r/p/s element comes from players wanting to build their own fleets and min-maxing ship designs/tactical options.
There is a built-in bias against all lists looking the same, so designers go to extra efforts to create a variety of lists.
But in the real world, fleets all tend towards a certain mean because it balances all the factors we've discussed, like firepower, protection, speed and situational awareness (scouting).
To put it another way, no one playing a ground-based game would imagine an all-heavy tank force with zero scouts.
So, I think GNS theory and the BIG model are pretty terrible for a lot a reasons.
I could go into how it's creator was a toxic mess who said everyone who didn't agree with it was brain damaged, but that goes down a rabbit hole of issues that don't actually address the theories issues on their own merits. So sticking to the facts of GNS I would say the biggest issue is that the underlying principles on which the whole thing is built are fundamentally flawed.
GNS both proposes that these 3 factors are the 3 major game types AND that those are the 3 major motivators of players. Thus players are Gamists, Narrativists, or Simulationists and that they get the most enjoyment from a game that builds to their type. This idea of both the game types and player motivations were built of the idea of the (completely debunked as psuedo science nonsense) Meyers-Briggs personality types. So from the get go we have an idea built off an inherently flawed idea. But he goes further and builds worse. GNS theory goes on to state that a game that isn't "pure" in it's typing is thus a muddied experience and a inherently inferior game design.
Easy E, you are proposing the idea of you can do 2 but not all 3, and the creator of GNS would tell you you need to get that down to doing 1.
A different proposal of player motivations (that gathered actual data and is more useful though came to bad conclusions) was the Bartel Test. Now the Bartel Test was based on Meyers-Briggs to see % of player motivations in MMOs. So bad. But Bartel broke down player motivations into Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers. Bartel argued that a game based on PvP would appeal to killers. So on and so forth. But Bartel came to bad conclusions with his data. The one important take away from Bartel's data is that every result, Every. Single. One. had some % in all 4 categories. No player is only 1 thing. No player is 0% in any category.
When you look at GNS and the Bartel test and their failures it's that they tried to put games and players in boxes and build walls where no wall should exist.
In World of Warcraft they have PvP battlegrounds and whatever. And they get you gear. But that gear is only really good for PvP. So they put their Killer/Achievers in a box never considering that those players are ALSO explorers and socializers and that part of their achiever motivation would be served by doing dungeons and raids. Likewise they made raid gear bad for PvP so that players who went down that path felt that they couldn't compete in the BGs fairly so their killer motivation went unsatisfied.
The goal of good design is engagement and elegance in design. Simple mechanics with emergent play that keep players engaged. WH40k is a bad game because it is not engaging. It's long periods of downtime. The actual interaction with your opponent is minimal because you play against a (99%) static field on your turn. You make your moves, you take your shots, your opponent (HAS TO) roll their saves, and then you pass control over to the other guy. Its DREADFUL.
More important than thinking about GNS is thinking about engagement. Whether that engagement comes from gamist or narrativist elements doesn't matter. Dread is a TTRPG that uses a gamist mechanic (a Jenga Tower) as it's only mechanic to tell horror stories (a purely narrativist experience). The creator of GNS would call Dread awful in it's design. But it's SO elegant and SO engaging. With every action a player removes a block and in so doing builds tension over play as the tower becomes more precarious. Knock over the tower and you die. A GREAT game.
I don't think about GNS at all. And nobody should. It's built on a foundation of complete nonsense. The only thing that really matters is getting players engaged. Does this mechanic elegantly feed into the game play experience? Does it keep the player engaged? Are they making interesting choices? That can be a Dread or it can be Tetris. Doesn't matter. Fans of Tetris are not mutually exclusive from fans of Dread. And that should tell you everything you need to know about GNS.
Tyran wrote: Then the question would be what is "elegance"?
Simplicity versus Complexity. (As defined within Game Design)
An elegant design is simple. If you can take the equation of the mechanic and simplify it to it's MOST simple form to get the same effect then it is a elegant rule. When elegant rules interact in ways that create emergent game play, the results of their interactions are greater than the sum of their parts, you have elegant design.
In Dungeons and Dragons you generate your attributes by the following steps.
1) Roll 4d6 2) remove the lowest die and add the other 3 together. 3-12) do this 5 more times 13) assign a total to an attribute 14-18) 5 more times. 19) Perform the equation (((Attribute - 10) / 2) round down) or look up a chart to do the math for you to get a attribute modifier. 20-24) Do it 5 more times.
OR! Your attributes could just be the modifiers. Strength 3 instead of Strength 17 (+3). The complexity doesn't add anything to the game play experience. It's complication and the end result is you only use the modifier anyway.
Forbidden Lands gives you 13-15 attribute points to spend across 4 attributes. Everything needs to be minimum 2. So really 5-7 steps of spending points and then you're done.
This isn't even factoring in how much illusion of choice is in DnDs attributes or how much of a waste it is for a wizards strength score. It doesn't tell you how each attribute in FbL is like a health bar and so there are no "dump stats".
One of those is more elegant and the other is a complex mess.
An elegant design has trimmed all it's fat. In so doing it's as close as it can be to a engine of pure game play. Game Play of course being a series of interesting choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A thought I just had to add to that. Elegant Game Design is like elegant programing code.
You can have long complex resource intensive code that eats a lot of resources and takes forever to run and gets the the output. Or you have have this streamlined simple code that ultimately gets you the same result but does so with a fraction of the costs.
Elegant design works. And it works well without waste.
I think the idea of 4 boxes of peoples is pretty old, and yeah no one fits 100% into each box. However, there are preferences that people lean to, and to make it even more complicated people lean into different preferences at different points in time, for different reasons! There is the HBDI model for communication and thinking styles that has Controllers, Networkers, Relationship, and Analytics. Basically, a different version of Killers, Acheivers, Socializers, and Explorers.
Therefore, to use Bartel's categories of Killers, Achievers, Socializers, and Explorers a game needs to try to create spaces that appeal to all 4 groups within the framework of the game IF they want to appeal to a broad group of players.
However, it is still pretty obvious to me that the more you lean into one of the categories above for part of your game, the further you go from the other part. As a Designer, just know what parts you are leaning into when, and more importantly why. it really doesn't matter how you label the poles per se.
Really, it is a model for making design choices that fit your design goals..... no matter what the model or the goals are of the game.
I would also argue that there is no "right" goals for a game. Lance says it is elegance and emergent game play. I say it is meaningful choices. Some people say it is balance. Some say it is appealing to a broad base of players. The important thing is that the game does what the designer intended it to do. Different mechanics lead to different outcomes, the tough part is aligning those outcomes to the goals of the game.
Easy E wrote: I think the idea of 4 boxes of peoples is pretty old, and yeah no one fits 100% into each box. However, there are preferences that people lean to, and to make it even more complicated people lean into different preferences at different points in time, for different reasons! There is the HBDI model for communication and thinking styles that has Controllers, Networkers, Relationship, and Analytics. Basically, a different version of Killers, Acheivers, Socializers, and Explorers.
Therefore, to use Bartel's categories of Killers, Achievers, Socializers, and Explorers a game needs to try to create spaces that appeal to all 4 groups within the framework of the game IF they want to appeal to a broad group of players.
I think there is value in understanding player motivations. Understanding what motivates players is important for creating engagement. Placing players into distinct boxes of motivations and saying this guy over here is only ever motivated by that boxes criteria is where there is a problem.
The GNS model attempts to categorize not just player motivations but games by those distinct boxes. That isn't useful for anyone.
I would also argue that there is no "right" goals for a game. Lance says it is elegance and emergent game play. I say it is meaningful choices. Some people say it is balance. Some say it is appealing to a broad base of players. The important thing is that the game does what the designer intended it to do. Different mechanics lead to different outcomes, the tough part is aligning those outcomes to the goals of the game.
Small correction,
The goals is -Engagement- and elegant design. Meaningful choices are engaging choices. We are in agreement on the player facing side of design. I want the players to be making choices and for those choice to be engaging meaningful choices. That is the very definition of game play. But the fact that the choices are meaningful and engaging isn't enough if each choice is accompanied by massive downtime (See 40k). The whole game play experience needs to be engaging. From what happens within a decision point to the time between decision points. As much as is possible.
On MY side of the equation I want my mechanics to be elegant. If I can accomplish this engaging series of meaningful choice with the simplest set of rules possible then I have created a engine for fun to be proud of.
However, it is still pretty obvious to me that the more you lean into one of the categories above for part of your game, the further you go from the other part. As a Designer, just know what parts you are leaning into when, and more importantly why. it really doesn't matter how you label the poles per se.
Really, it is a model for making design choices that fit your design goals..... no matter what the model or the goals are of the game.
To address this, I am going to discuss Pokemon.
Pokemon is a game that hits all 4 categories of player motivations without losing anything.
The explorers are given a new region in every game and these new regions include a bunch of locations with nooks and crannies to explore. Items can be found by going off the beaten path and little rewards await everyone for literally spending their time exploring. Some of these items help evolve pokemon or teach them moves, or do other things that feed into other player motivations. Each section of the region (usually roads called routes) include a list of potential pokemon that can be caught there. Part of that exploration is seeing under what conditions you can find what things. Some pokemon only come out at night. Some need to be fished for. etc etc... Exploring the world they put you in is a key component of the game.
The achievers are given a large list of pokemon to capture (currently breaking 1000) with shiny versions on top of that. "Gotta Catch Em' All!", right? Pokemon have sizes so you can hunt or attempt to breed abnormally large or small ones. All kinds of stuff. If your goal is to accomplish gak, Pokemon gives you gak to accomplish. But it's not just completeing the pokedex. It's also finding all the TMs and HMs that teach pokemon moves. It's getting all the badges. It's finding all the items that give pokemon unique features (changing forms, adjusting types, mega evolutions, etc etc... (honestly this part of the game is exhausting to me at this point.)).
The socializers are an in built feature of the 2 versions of the games since the beginning. Social interaction and trading is the bread and butter of the series. In addition, some pokemon only evolve when traded, making social aspects a component of meeting achievement aspects. It's not just a social aspect online. There is a in person social aspect to playing a pokemon game.
And finally the Killers. Now killers are not simply PvP according to Bartel. Killers want to face and overcome challenges. And mostly the best challenges come from other players. Defeating the elite 4 and becoming the Pokemon champion is a goal within the game that appeals to the killers. It also appeals to the achievers. But the game goes a step further. it allows you to take that 1000+ pokemon, trade for pokemon you want, breed them for stats, training them with the skills of your choosing, and develop a team to compete against other players (building a social aspect into the Killer game as well). The COMPETITION is the motivation of the killer.
Pokemon is a game built from it's core to give avenues of appeasing all 4 player motivations as proposed by Bartel. You don't loose anything from any of them when the game builds for another. In fact, they all work synergistically together. A individual player can partake in all, some, or only 1 of those avenues if thats what they enjoy and it doesn't stop them or tell them they need to turn around and do something else. The game is simply designed in such a way that player motivations are accounted for.
Games don't need to pick 1 or 2 or risk loosing something by spreading too thin. Games need to be built to incorporate elegantly so that the players are engaged.
Lance845 wrote: The goal of good design is engagement and elegance in design. Simple mechanics with emergent play that keep players engaged. WH40k is a bad game because it is not engaging. It's long periods of downtime.
I completely disagree with this assessment. There are lots of games that use alternating turns and these can have a high engagement if done right. What you call "downtime" is actually space for the player to watch the play space evolve and begin to develop counters when it is his turn.
There is a wide space for "beer and pretzel" wargames like Risk, Axis and Allies, the old MB "Gamemaster" series that are primarily social and don't require massive amounts of mental investment.
I'm also going to rise to defend D&D (especially it's early iteration which seems to have returned in new garb) because the archetypal approach to character generation is very intuitive and results in quick entry into the game. This is why it endures.
In all cases, there is a tendency for rules creep to set in, and expansions and optional rules to slowly strangle what was once an elegant design.
I do agree that "personality tests" are hot garbage. It's not even that people are a blend of them, it's that in gaming people can seek one experience with one game and something else with another. I love the social aspect of games like AH's Civilization, but I also enjoy immersive and detailed simulations, and I'm not alone in this. The diversity of forums on this site is testimony that people will play multiple games in multiple genres.
Gamers gotta game, and while different features appeal to different subsets, there are clear examples of games that hit that sweet spot and became mass-market successes because of it.
Easy E wrote: However, it is still pretty obvious to me that the more you lean into one of the categories above for part of your game, the further you go from the other part.
Hard disagree. For some mechanics favoring one player type will come at the expense of another but that's far from a general rule. Take balance as an easy example. The common (but incorrect IMO) perception is that balance is most important for tournament players and "casual" players don't really care about it. But improving balance for competitive play doesn't come at the expense of anyone else. Casual/social/narrative/etc players don't require overpowered or underpowered options to enjoy the game. In fact, improving balance benefits them by removing the tension between "what is best within the game mechanics" and "what does the story/my best painted models/etc dictate". Improving balance is a win/win for everyone.
(Except, I suppose, the tiny minority of virtue signallers who celebrate balance problems as proof that the designer loves "casual" play and hates competitive players as much as they do, but you don't want to target those TFGs anyway.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: What you call "downtime" is actually space for the player to watch the play space evolve and begin to develop counters when it is his turn.
Maybe in theory. In practice the game is so shallow and the turns are so long that developing counters is maybe 5% at most of the downtime, the rest is pure waiting. And a big part of that is how the IGOUGO structure makes the game shallow.
I'm also going to rise to defend D&D (especially it's early iteration which seems to have returned in new garb) because the archetypal approach to character generation is very intuitive and results in quick entry into the game. This is why it endures.
I don't see it. RNG stat generation is unrealistic, frustrating, and not intuitive. Derived modifiers are unintuitive and only exist because the system has to use D6s for generation. Point buy systems with direct stats are simpler, more intuitive, and far more satisfying for most players.
Lance845 wrote: The goal of good design is engagement and elegance in design. Simple mechanics with emergent play that keep players engaged. WH40k is a bad game because it is not engaging. It's long periods of downtime.
I completely disagree with this assessment. There are lots of games that use alternating turns and these can have a high engagement if done right. What you call "downtime" is actually space for the player to watch the play space evolve and begin to develop counters when it is his turn.
Look, you can try and talk up what that down time is "meant" to he used for all you want. Here is the facts. There is no way for you to plan your next turn until you know how many models in what units you have left and what state they are in. Until wounds have been dealt and MAYBE this new battle shock phase does it's thing nothing you "plan" matters. Once the other players turn starts and they begin moving models you can go make a sandwich or take a gak and it doesn't make any actual difference.
Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.
There is a wide space for "beer and pretzel" wargames like Risk, Axis and Allies, the old MB "Gamemaster" series that are primarily social and don't require massive amounts of mental investment.
There is! I agree with this. That wide space for those kinds of games doesn't make the bad design decisions in them any less bad. And as designers we should be assessing the good and the bad and trying to learn from them.
I'm also going to rise to defend D&D (especially it's early iteration which seems to have returned in new garb) because the archetypal approach to character generation is very intuitive and results in quick entry into the game. This is why it endures.
I am calling full bs on this. Dnds mechanics are anything but intutive or quick. Its complex and draconian. I can make a character in forbidden lands with life path character generation out of the box within 5 minutes. Equipment and everything. DnD is popular because of brand recognition and a parade of podcasts constantly promoting it despite its rules, not because of them. You might notice the complete lack of episodes dedicated to character creation.
In all cases, there is a tendency for rules creep to set in, and expansions and optional rules to slowly strangle what was once an elegant design.
I do agree that "personality tests" are hot garbage. It's not even that people are a blend of them, it's that in gaming people can seek one experience with one game and something else with another. I love the social aspect of games like AH's Civilization, but I also enjoy immersive and detailed simulations, and I'm not alone in this. The diversity of forums on this site is testimony that people will play multiple games in multiple genres.
Gamers gotta game, and while different features appeal to different subsets, there are clear examples of games that hit that sweet spot and became mass-market successes because of it.
Lance845 wrote: Look, you can try and talk up what that down time is "meant" to he used for all you want. Here is the facts. There is no way for you to plan your next turn until you know how many models in what units you have left and what state they are in. Until wounds have been dealt and MAYBE this new battle shock phase does it's thing nothing you "plan" matters. Once the other players turn starts and they begin moving models you can go make a sandwich or take a gak and it doesn't make any actual difference.
I think in terms of 40k, we're clearly talking past each other. I only play a streamlined version of 2nd, and it's very much possible to note your opponent's moves and then begin to think of what you will do next.
Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.
The phone thing is annoying, and reflects the collapse of social conventions. Conversation, however, is part of the social experience of gaming and in my experience it's often running commentary on what is going on.
Breaking out of the GW frame, there are quite demanding board games where you really do need the opponent's turn to go and check your supply logs, prepare new orders for the next turn and yes, go to bathroom or get a snack. Having pauses built in is a feature, not a bug.
And I personally hate the inability to make coordinated sweeps in an alternating activation game.
There is! I agree with this. That wide space for those kinds of games doesn't make the bad design decisions in them any less bad. And as designers we should be assessing the good and the bad and trying to learn from them.
Of course not, no one is saying that IGO-UGO is the ne plus ultra of gaming design, I'm merely pointing out that it has its place and purpose. GW's flagrant abuse of it should not condemn the format across the board.
I am calling full bs on this. Dnds mechanics are anything but intutive or quick. Its complex and draconian. I can make a character in forbidden lands with life path character generation out of the box within 5 minutes. Equipment and everything. DnD is popular because of brand recognition and a parade of podcasts constantly promoting it despite its rules, not because of them. You might notice the complete lack of episodes dedicated to character creation.
D&D is the Sherman tank of RPGs. It's old, and if you go trait by trait it is outclassed by multiple rivals, but the thing just keeps trundling on. The quick-start rules get you up and running.
But people can disagree. I think the design was destroyed by decades of clutter, but the core rules are fun and pretty easy.
Lance845 wrote: Look, you can try and talk up what that down time is "meant" to he used for all you want. Here is the facts. There is no way for you to plan your next turn until you know how many models in what units you have left and what state they are in. Until wounds have been dealt and MAYBE this new battle shock phase does it's thing nothing you "plan" matters. Once the other players turn starts and they begin moving models you can go make a sandwich or take a gak and it doesn't make any actual difference.
I think in terms of 40k, we're clearly talking past each other. I only play a streamlined version of 2nd, and it's very much possible to note your opponent's moves and then begin to think of what you will do next.
Well, generally speaking when i bring up a game as an example i think its fair to assume i am not talking about the version that is 8 editions old and house ruled that you play. The fact that the only 40k you do play is houseruled to hell says everything about how bad the game is. I think it goes without saying that we could all house rule 40k until it's completely unrecognizable mechanically and get a different game play experience.
Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.
The phone thing is annoying, and reflects the collapse of social conventions. Conversation, however, is part of the social experience of gaming and in my experience it's often running commentary on what is going on.
No it doesn't. The game itself should be engaging. If its not engaging people fill their downtime with distractions. Don't make up some "back in my day, we sucked it up!" To excuse the negative space that exists in the game play experience. 40ks gameplay is so shallow that there really isn't much to say. Oh, did you go for an objective? No gak. Did you point the anti tank guns at the tank? Shock and awe.
Breaking out of the GW frame, there are quite demanding board games where you really do need the opponent's turn to go and check your supply logs, prepare new orders for the next turn and yes, go to bathroom or get a snack. Having pauses built in is a feature, not a bug.
No its not. Any game can be paused by ending a turn, noting whats happening, and the players deciding to take a break. The game doesn't need that built into the game play experience to force people who have nothing to do to find something to do. If its not a bug its fething AWFUL design and the designer should feel bad.
And I personally hate the inability to make coordinated sweeps in an alternating activation game.
Great. Never mind that AA doesn't preclude the ability to make coordinated sweeps. Nobody here is discussing a secondary option. This whole bit started with what 40k is. I don't know or have any interest in debating your house rules when the discussion is actually about the major principles of design and what designers should be considering when making a game (any game).
There is! I agree with this. That wide space for those kinds of games doesn't make the bad design decisions in them any less bad. And as designers we should be assessing the good and the bad and trying to learn from them.
Of course not, no one is saying that IGO-UGO is the ne plus ultra of gaming design, I'm merely pointing out that it has its place and purpose. GW's flagrant abuse of it should not condemn the format across the board.
My specific example was GWs use of it. I never actually mentioned the turn structure specifically. I mentioned the games in built downtime which you seem to want to defend for some reason as good design?
I am calling full bs on this. Dnds mechanics are anything but intutive or quick. Its complex and draconian. I can make a character in forbidden lands with life path character generation out of the box within 5 minutes. Equipment and everything. DnD is popular because of brand recognition and a parade of podcasts constantly promoting it despite its rules, not because of them. You might notice the complete lack of episodes dedicated to character creation.
D&D is the Sherman tank of RPGs. It's old, and if you go trait by trait it is outclassed by multiple rivals, but the thing just keeps trundling on. The quick-start rules get you up and running.
But people can disagree. I think the design was destroyed by decades of clutter, but the core rules are fun and pretty easy.
And i think the core rules. The real basic nutts and bolts of dnd. (Roll d20 vs DC), the completely passive no decisions defending yourself, the HP is meaningless until its 0, the prevasive almost oppresive illusion of choice at every mechanical decision point, the down time, is awful design. Like... Its 50+ years old. Time to learn to be better.
Lance845 wrote: Well, generally speaking when i bring up a game as an example i think its fair to assume i am not talking about the version that is 8 editions old and house ruled that you play. I think it goes without saying that we could all house rule 40k you til it's completely unrecognizable mechanically and get a different game play experience.
It's in my signature and if you click, you'll see that the house rules don't touch the core mechanics, it's all about dialing down fiddly weapon rules and simplifying dice rolling.
No its not. Any game can be paused by ending a turn, noting whats happening, and the players deciding to take a break. The game doesn't need that built into the game play experience to force people who have nothing to do to find something to do. If its not a bug its fething AWFUL design and the designer should feel bad.
Well alrighty then. Thanks for sharing that.
Great. Never mind that AA doesn't preclude the ability to make coordinated sweeps. Nobody here is discussing a secondary option. This whole bit started with what 40k is. I don't know or have any interest in debating your house rules when the discussion is actually about the major principles of design and what designers should be considering when making a game (any game).
If each player can only activate a fraction of its forces before the opponent moves, it's becomes impossible to launch concentric attacks. If you have an option to "hold" then you're creating IGO-UGO in reverse.
They both have their place, but one is not inherently better than the other in all applications.
There is also an option for an integrated IGO-UGO system or one with reactions.
My specific example was GWs use of it. I never actually mentioned the turn structure specifically. I mentioned the games in built downtime which you seem to want to defend for some reason as good design?
Because it is good game design for certain things, and I mentioned Axis and Allies, Risk, and other designs. GW has made a hash of it, but other systems use it well.
Like... Its 50+ years old. Time to learn to be better.
Age alone is not a disqualifier for game design and I would argue that its longevity and prevalence indicates that it does have some virtues.
The goal is engagement and elegant design. Building your game to give players nothing to do isn't engaging. The things they do to fill that space are not the game. Its just people making up gak to entertain themselves.
When dnds turn structure means in a 5 player versus 5 monster fight a player only has a decision to make 1/10th of the time AND those decisions are riddled with illusion of choice making them non-meaningful, non-engaging (what does the fighter do? Swing his sword. What does the warlock do? Eldritch blast.) You have a disengaging experience. Both 40k and d20 are prone to players checking out. That isn't the players fault. It's the designs.
The goal is engagement and elegant design. Building your game to give players nothing to do isn't engaging. The things they do to fill that space are not the game. Its just people making up gak to entertain themselves.
Or it's a "beer and pretzels" system to bring people together socially, which is why these are so popular.
In more involved settings (with multiple phases and bookkeeping), it actually prevents downtime because by the time the first player has finished, the second has his orders put in and is ready to roll. I'm talking specifically about the Brigade Series and operational/strategic games here, not GW nonsense.
When dnds turn structure means in a 5 player versus 5 monster fight a player only has a decision to make 1/10th of the time AND those decisions are riddled with illusion of choice making them non-meaningful, non-engaging (what does the fighter do? Swing his sword. What does the warlock do? Eldritch blast.) You have a dise gaging experience. Both 40k and d20 are prone to players checking out. That isn't the players fault. It's the designs.
You're treating it as a squad-level combat simulation, not as a roleplaying game. Yes, the player swings his sword, but how does he describe swinging it? How does the DM describe its result?
Also, in the encounter you describe, the DM will run the five monsters, so it's 1/6, but even that ignores the cross talk of instructing a moving player to fall back for healing on someone else's impulse.
And of course there's the fact that some people don't want to make that many decisions. I'd say roughly half of the people I played D&D with were only marginally attached to the system or its mechanics. Rolling a few dice here or there was about as much detail as they wanted.
You may not care for it, but it has stood the test of time. As a combat simulator, it was long ago rendered obsolete, but as a social activity, people seem to like it.
Which brings us back to the triangle discussion, and how different players want different things. You clearly want an immersive system that commands the complete attention of the players.
I do like very complex systems, specifically boardgames with dozens of charts, tables and a turn sequence that runs two pages.
But I can also appreciate the virtues of a system that is less mentally demanding. I like 2nd ed. 40k because of the odd bits of detail that generate stories about tank turrets flying off and killing someone important. It was also fun because there were fewer factions, fewer weapons and the system did not try to do too much (no aircraft!).
I think it comes down to a case-by-case situation. Alternating activation works for some games, but if you're doing certain eras (linear warfare), it's not a good choice. My preference is a hybrid system that includes interrupts or includes a reaction phase - not necessarily to engage the other player, but to reflect the reality that troops should not cross open ground under enemy observation without drawing fire, or march 100,000 men 50 miles while the other player remains inert.
In all cases the elegance of the design is determined by how well it meets the intended function, not an arbitrary one-size-fits-all matrix.
The goal is engagement and elegant design. Building your game to give players nothing to do isn't engaging. The things they do to fill that space are not the game. Its just people making up gak to entertain themselves.
Or it's a "beer and pretzels" system to bring people together socially, which is why these are so popular.
In more involved settings (with multiple phases and bookkeeping), it actually prevents downtime because by the time the first player has finished, the second has his orders put in and is ready to roll. I'm talking specifically about the Brigade Series and operational/strategic games here, not GW nonsense.
These are not "so popular". The games you are discussing and the genre you are discussing is at best niche. The entire marketshare of minature war games is niche before you start dividing it into individual systems. Nevermind that "popularity" is an entirely different thing from good. Marvel movies are some of the most popular cinema in the last decade. You would be hard pressed to call even 5 of them really great cinema.
Again, i don't want to get into discussing your favorite house ruled miniature war game specifically. When i argued that 40k had downtime it was an example of the unengaging bad design that it is. If you think players should have so little to do or what they have to do is so boring that they check out of the game all together then, hey, go design that game. Best of luck to you.
When dnds turn structure means in a 5 player versus 5 monster fight a player only has a decision to make 1/10th of the time AND those decisions are riddled with illusion of choice making them non-meaningful, non-engaging (what does the fighter do? Swing his sword. What does the warlock do? Eldritch blast.) You have a dise gaging experience. Both 40k and d20 are prone to players checking out. That isn't the players fault. It's the designs.
You're treating it as a squad-level combat simulation, not as a roleplaying game. Yes, the player swings his sword, but how does he describe swinging it? How does the DM describe its result?
Not a mechanic of the game. Placing the burden of making boring mechanics interesting on the player and gm doesn't make the mechanic any less boring. We have all seen a slog of a fight degrade into "i swing my swird again". We all share that experience because the game is built to deliver it.
Also, in the encounter you describe, the DM will run the five monsters, so it's 1/6, but even that ignores the cross talk of instructing a moving player to fall back for healing on someone else's impulse.
All 5 monsters get actions. If all actors in the scene have the same amount of actions then the 5 players will watch the GM roll dice 5 times and wait to be told if they took damage or not. 1/10th.
Ah yes, the cross talk of other players telling one player how to make their decisions on their turn. I am failing to see how that makes that players decision point any more interesting, engaging, or meaningful.
And of course there's the fact that some people don't want to make that many decisions. I'd say roughly half of the people I played D&D with were only marginally attached to the system or its mechanics. Rolling a few dice here or there was about as much detail as they wanted.
Or, just throwing this out there, the system you were playing with was so dull that they never got interested in doing the uninteresting thing.
You may not care for it, but it has stood the test of time. As a combat simulator, it was long ago rendered obsolete, but as a social activity, people seem to like it.
Ttrpgs are a great social activity. Agreed. D20 is just a bad version of one.
Which brings us back to the triangle discussion, and how different players want different things. You clearly want an immersive system that commands the complete attention of the players.
I am not discussing my personal preferences. This is an academic discussion on fundamental principles of design. What is game play? What makes games good? What makes games bad? What do you need to keep in mind when designing a game? As I said GNS doesn't help because it's principles are flawed. Being aware more of how your mechanics keep players engaged in the game play is a better metric.
I do like very complex systems, specifically boardgames with dozens of charts, tables and a turn sequence that runs two pages.
I very specifically vouched for simplicity. Not complexity. Complexity is not engaging game play. Its work.
But I can also appreciate the virtues of a system that is less mentally demanding. I like 2nd ed. 40k because of the odd bits of detail that generate stories about tank turrets flying off and killing someone important. It was also fun because there were fewer factions, fewer weapons and the system did not try to do too much (no aircraft!).
I think it comes down to a case-by-case situation. Alternating activation works for some games, but if you're doing certain eras (linear warfare), it's not a good choice. My preference is a hybrid system that includes interrupts or includes a reaction phase - not necessarily to engage the other player, but to reflect the reality that troops should not cross open ground under enemy observation without drawing fire, or march 100,000 men 50 miles while the other player remains inert.
In all cases the elegance of the design is determined by how well it meets the intended function, not an arbitrary one-size-fits-all matrix.
i never said there was a one size fits all. You don't seem to understand what i am saying. I am not arguing for mental load and complexity. I am arguing for meaningful, engaging decisions. Decisions that matter. Players should be in the game, playing the game. You can get bigger more complex games that are engaging (but they should never be more complex than they need to be) and you can get small incredibly simplistic games. But if they are not engaging there is a problem.
These are not "so popular". The games you are discussing and the genre you are discussing is at best niche.
Risk and Axis and Allies are not niche, they are mass-market brands that reach far beyond the tiny miniatures community.
You can turn your nose up them, but there is a huge market for games with this level of complexity - and engagement.
Again, i don't want to get into discussing your favorite house ruled miniature war game specifically. When i argued that 40k had downtime it was an example of the unengaging bad design that it is. If you think players should have so little to do or what they have to do is so boring that they check out of the game all together then, hey, go design that game. Best of luck to you.
Can we just agree to throw 40k overboard? It's clearly a distraction.
The point is that games should have varying levels of engagement to suit the needs of players.
Not a mechanic of the game. Placing the burden of making boring mechanics interesting on the player and gm doesn't make the mechanic any less boring. We have all seen a slog of a fight degrade into "i swing my swird again". We all share that experience because the game is built to deliver it.
It's a role-playing game. A system for collective storytelling. People assume identities and talk in character. Some even dress up. That's a huge part of its draw. It is not a squad-based tactical combat system.
That's not a design defect, it is tailoring the design to the intended purpose. If people do not want to move in 2-second increments, going back in forth on specific parries, sword maneuvers, etc., they will be drawn to a "roll a die, see what happens, we assume you're trying not to get hit."
Ah yes, the cross talk of other players telling one player how to make their decisions on their turn. I am failing to see how that makes that players decision point any more interesting, engaging, or meaningful.
How do you make decisions in your RPG play, then? It sounds like you regard the whole social interaction thing as a bother.
Or, just throwing this out there, the system you were playing with was so dull that they never got interested in doing the uninteresting thing.
They were very interested in it, they just didn't want lots of complexity.
I am not discussing my personal preferences. This is an academic discussion on fundamental principles of design. What is game play? What makes games good? What makes games bad? What do you need to keep in mind when designing a game? As I said GNS doesn't help because it's principles are flawed. Being aware more of how your mechanics keep players engaged in the game play is a better metric.
Now we come to the heart of it.
What counts as engagement? You seem to think it consists entirely of moving pieces and rolling dice. It could also be other interactions, like negotiating commodity trades in a merchant game, or planning the next move for the RPG campaign.
Many people use gaming as an excuse to get together and they therefore want a game that does not reduce social interaction to terse statements of combat results.
I very specifically vouched for simplicity. Not complexity. Complexity is not engaging game play. Its work.
But earlier you said that simply declaring an action to be swinging a sword and rolling a die to see if it worked wasn't enough for you. You said there had to be a more complex process, and that players had to do things like declare active defenses.
Every example you give of engagement carries with it more design complexity. You have repeatedly said that IGU-UGO is terrible because one side gets a break from "engagement," but they can still be very much engaged, looking up their rules, planning various counters, doing some bookkeeping. What they are not doing is moving things and throwing dice, which seems to be your definition of engagement.
i never said there was a one size fits all. You don't seem to understand what i am saying. I am not arguing for mental load and complexity. I am arguing for meaningful, engaging decisions. Decisions that matter. Players should be in the game, playing the game. You can get bigger more complex games that are engaging (but they should never be more complex than they need to be) and you can get small incredibly simplistic games. But if they are not engaging there is a problem.
More decisions necessarily require a higher mental load. Conversely, games with few decisions allow for less complexity and more space for social interaction.
Consider Uno. You have two actions, play or draw. You cannot interrupt a player, but must wait your turn. You may even lose your turn, sometimes repeatedly. Are you unengaged when someone plays a "skip" card on you? It is an immensely popular game because of its simple, elegant design.
Indeed, most card games follow the same limited options (draw, play, pass) and they are highly engaging.
That's what I'm talking about. You can have a game that is engaging - that is, keeps players interested - without requiring their constant intervention and participation. Many people aren't interested in expending the mental effort for that sort of thing, they want a break between decisions and there are systems that thoughtfully build that "recharge" right into the game. They sweat out the plan for their move and then sit back and chill as other players do their thing.
I am firmly on the side of that approach, and the older I've gotten, the more appreciate games that provide that space for social interaction and break between decision points.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: That's not a design defect, it is tailoring the design to the intended purpose. If people do not want to move in 2-second increments, going back in forth on specific parries, sword maneuvers, etc., they will be drawn to a "roll a die, see what happens, we assume you're trying not to get hit."
The problem with D&D is that it's not a simple game like that. Combat bogs down in a bunch of sequencing, tracking and calculating modifiers, trying to figure out how to get modifiers, etc. And most of the time the result is that you roll a D20 and on a 17+ you do D6+4 damage. There's a whole bunch of false depth created by how the system obscures everything with layers of rules bloat but in the end the fighter and the monster are still standing next to each other trading attacks while the rogue stabs for 2D6+1 damage (same average as the fighter) on a 17+ and the cleric heals D6+4 damage per turn for the fighter.
Consider Uno. You have two actions, play or draw. You cannot interrupt a player, but must wait your turn. You may even lose your turn, sometimes repeatedly. Are you unengaged when someone plays a "skip" card on you? It is an immensely popular game because of its simple, elegant design.
Key difference: an Uno turn takes a matter of seconds. A bad string of "skip" cards is a minute or two of sitting idle at most and then you're back in the action. A typical IGOUGO wargame has you sitting idle for an extended period of time, and with a bad wargame like 40k you can go get lunch while you wait for your opponent to finish calculating how many models you need to remove.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: The problem with D&D is that it's not a simple game like that. Combat bogs down in a bunch of sequencing, tracking and calculating modifiers, trying to figure out how to get modifiers, etc. And most of the time the result is that you roll a D20 and on a 17+ you do D6+4 damage. There's a whole bunch of false depth created by how the system obscures everything with layers of rules bloat but in the end the fighter and the monster are still standing next to each other trading attacks while the rogue stabs for 2D6+1 damage (same average as the fighter) on a 17+ and the cleric heals D6+4 damage per turn for the fighter.
It very much depends on the specific edition and the type of game one is playing.
You can have problems with other systems bogging down in minutae or poor game management. In many ways, it is so open-ended as to be relevant only as a cautionary example of rules bloat. It's like Star Fleet Battles - your rule books can also serve as your seat.
Key difference: an Uno turn takes a matter of seconds. A bad string of "skip" cards is a minute or two of sitting idle at most and then you're back in the action. A typical IGOUGO wargame has you sitting idle for an extended period of time, and with a bad wargame like 40k you can go get lunch while you wait for your opponent to finish calculating how many models you need to remove.
The scope of the game matters a lot in this respect and again we have to determine what one means by "idle." I know people who really enjoy watching other people game. Back when we had a local shop with open gaming, people would gather around the tables and offer commentary. They weren't players, but they were very much "engaged."
I get that 40k comes up a lot because there are so many crappy elements of design in it, one of which is the model count. Simply the tedium of moving all those individual figures, checking for cohesion, etc. is a royal pain. It is a terrible design.
But that's an indictment of GW, not IGO-UGO. They could break any system you give them.
I will say I'm getting a sense that you and Lance are the kind of players who get antsy if they aren't actually doing something they think meaningful or productive. You like to be heavily involved the entire time. I had some friends like that, chafing at the speed with which RPG players made up their minds, fuming at their opponent taking forever to measure something and disdaining sidebar chatter and small talk because they wanted to finish THE GAME.
But not all players want that intensity. They see the game as primarily a social activity, and having to devote constant attention to it wears them out.
This is another example of why the triangle model doesn't work - people can like the same type of game format (narrative, simulation or whatever) while having very different ideas how much effort they are willing to put into it.
Neither approach is better than the other because they are geared to different player needs.
I'll grant I'm less familiar with the earliest editions but pretty much every D&D game I've played has had combat involving a whole bunch of extra rules to get to the same end result. The fighter hits on a 17+ on the D20, the rogue has a lower base attack bonus but has stealth bonuses such that once you add up everything the rogue hits on a 17+ on the D20. And then you progress a few levels and get better to-hit stats, the monsters get higher AC, and the end result is at level 20 you still need that same 17+ on the D20 to hit except now you have to add up more modifiers to get to that target number.
Same thing with the stat thing. Even though the raw number is never (almost never?) used you still have to calculate a modifier from a base stat because the obsolete 3D6 method for character generation produced numbers from 3 to 18 and you need a modifier in the +/- 5 range. If you dump support for the obsolete RNG stat generation method and use a modern point buy system instead you can just have attribute values in the +/- 5 range and use them directly.
The scope of the game matters a lot in this respect and again we have to determine what one means by "idle." I know people who really enjoy watching other people game. Back when we had a local shop with open gaming, people would gather around the tables and offer commentary. They weren't players, but they were very much "engaged."
I suppose that's true but now you're limiting the game to being played in a context where, in addition to the two players for the actual game, you need some additional non-players hanging around to entertain the inactive player. If you only have the two people playing the game you aren't going to have an enjoyable experience. If the bystanders decide to go play a game of their own you aren't going to have an enjoyable experience. And to me it sounds like pretty poor design to have a "two player" game that needs 3-5 people to play.
And that's just addressing the engagement issues with IGOUGO, not even considering the realism issues where your whole army stands there helplessly doing nothing while the enemy attacks. Alternating systems give much more fluid gameplay where you're reacting immediately in something closer to real time.
This is another example of why the triangle model doesn't work - people can like the same type of game format (narrative, simulation or whatever) while having very different ideas how much effort they are willing to put into it.
This though, is very true. A limited triangle/two axis grid/etc will never capture the nuances between player archetypes and those differences can be very important.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: I'll grant I'm less familiar with the earliest editions but pretty much every D&D game I've played has had combat involving a whole bunch of extra rules to get to the same end result. The fighter hits on a 17+ on the D20, the rogue has a lower base attack bonus but has stealth bonuses such that once you add up everything the rogue hits on a 17+ on the D20. And then you progress a few levels and get better to-hit stats, the monsters get higher AC, and the end result is at level 20 you still need that same 17+ on the D20 to hit except now you have to add up more modifiers to get to that target number.
Same thing with the stat thing. Even though the raw number is never (almost never?) used you still have to calculate a modifier from a base stat because the obsolete 3D6 method for character generation produced numbers from 3 to 18 and you need a modifier in the +/- 5 range. If you dump support for the obsolete RNG stat generation method and use a modern point buy system instead you can just have attribute values in the +/- 5 range and use them directly.
The first big push (the Basic and Expert boxed sets) were very simple and early on the concept of the "THAC0" was created ("To Hit Armor Class Zero") so that all the mods were worked out in advance. There was none of the subsequent nonsense about bludgeoning vs piercing, or speed factor, and initiative, actions, etc., were very loosely defined. In my group, I think the party rolled as a whole against the DM, and then we just went around the circle talking about what we wanted to do, the DM ruled on it, and so on.
Very conversational, very open. No figures, no grids, sketch maps when needed, and we had fun. I'd say those games were some of the most enjoyable I played because there were so few rules to lawyer up about.
RPGs really depend on player interaction more than the system because ultimately the system itself is optional.
My understanding is that D&D has reverted to a simpler style of play, more in line with what was used 40 years ago. This appeals to players who want less in the way of mechanics and who don't want to have to declare defensive actions, just get on with the story.
There are better systems, though. I think the Storyteller (Vampire, Werewolf) system is superb. It is not as tactical, so not suitable for a dungeon crawl, but in terms of actual role-playing, it's hard to beat.
And that's just addressing the engagement issues with IGOUGO, not even considering the realism issues where your whole army stands there helplessly doing nothing while the enemy attacks. Alternating systems give much more fluid gameplay where you're reacting immediately in something closer to real time.
Again, GW is not the only game that uses IGO-UGO, it just does so in a uniquely terrible way. It's the perfect storm of bad design choices - you have massive amounts of figures that must be individually moved, endless amount of special rules to be deconflicted, a constantly-expanding universe and reboots every three years to ensure no one ever truly understands the game.
Even with activations it would still be terrible, just terrible in a different way.
However, that does not indict IGO-UGO as a whole. It is easy and intuitive, and in certain types of games, works very well. It can also be modified to allow opposing player interaction, either through specific reactions or an integrated turn sequence. This is where the active player's turn contains actions for the opponent. Conqueror takes this approach by having both players participate in the shooting phase. I didn't do it to foster engagement, but to provide for "reaction fire" without creating a special set of rules for it. Elegant design and all that.
The broader point is that sometimes what is seen as an inferior mechanic is the best one for the job. For example, a few years back I was demonstrating a wargame to the Air University wargaming cell. One of them questioned my use of point-to-point movement, which he felt was unduly restrictive. Surely a hex grid overlay would provide more options.
I replied that part of the wargame's purpose was to educate the players on the lines of communication in the theater of operations, which were extremely restrictive. A hex overlay might tempt participants to do things like drag mechanized divisions through swamps or something, thinking that movement point penalties were acceptable. This way, they'd get that the only way to effectively move stuff was along discrete routes. My questioner agreed that in this application, point-to-point was a better choice.
That being said, one mechanic that I really hate is the re-roll. I'll tolerate it for an RPG when losing a PC would be really upsetting, but as a standard mechanism to shift probabilities, I hate it. Do the math and just adjust the scores!
This though, is very true. A limited triangle/two axis grid/etc will never capture the nuances between player archetypes and those differences can be very important.
Yes, and the fact is that different levels of engagement are fine so long as all the people involved share them. Upthread it was remarked that crosstalk and people checking their phones is a symptom of bad game design. I disagree; it's clearly someone for whom gaming simply isn't that serious a task. They're playing a game, chatting with friends but also keeping tabs on a dinner date or whatever. That's perfectly acceptable so long as you don't slight your opponent.
That's why I bring up games like Axis and Allies because that market segment is huge. People who want to have a beer and talk while moving pieces across a map and rolling dice are just as valid as focused tacticians who see only the tabletop.
So in addition to mechanics, designers must also consider how much is being asked of the players. Currently, GW's asking an awful lot - money for books, money for figures, paints, modeling glue, time to paint and glue and then slogging through endless cycles of rules.
Gamers gotta game, and while different features appeal to different subsets, there are clear examples of games that hit that sweet spot and became mass-market successes because of it.
.... and there are just as many or more that DON"T hit the sweet spot and still become mass market successes.
So, what is that special OTHER secret sauce? It is clearly not mechanics alone.
Gamers gotta game, and while different features appeal to different subsets, there are clear examples of games that hit that sweet spot and became mass-market successes because of it.
.... and there are just as many or more that DON"T hit the sweet spot and still become mass market successes.
So, what is that special OTHER secret sauce? It is clearly not mechanics alone.
They key is knowing the kind of game you want to make, and making it so that the intent and rules blend together seamlessly.
If you set out to make a "beer and pretzels" game, make just that. Don't add layers of special rules, super-detailed expansions, etc.
Each element has to be subjected to a "why do I have this?" test. Whether doing designs for the military or for fun, I find that I routinely end up deleting half the rulebook once playtesting gets underway.
Axis and Allies and Risk work because they don't try to be realistic, just fun, with enough of a gloss to make people feel like they're playing an actual wargame.
People who get hung up on mechanics are ignoring that they are but a means to an end.
Much of our discussion has focused on the crimes of IGO-UGU in creating downtime. But does it? As we've seen, Uno has that system and has negligible downtime. Why? Well, the decisions and physical movement are limited.
This tells us that IGO-UGO can work where the decision matrix is simple and there is little physical manipulation of the components (i.e., you don't have to advance 100 individual models across a tabletop each turn).
There is also the possibility of including reactions or using an integrated turn sequence where one side moves their entire force, and then the opponent gets to take reaction moves or shoot. You still have one player doing most of the work, but it is not without the opponent having the say.
Consider an American Civil War game. The one side marches forward during their turn, moving all of their units. The other now gets to fire volleys and artillery. The phasing player tests for morale, and then conducts its own fires or close assaults. No one is going to be swept away on turn one, and both sides are going to be watching to see how the volleys impact each side.
But it is still largely an IGO-UGO system - there is a Union turn and a Confederate turn.
I think there is some confusion in the conversation due to certain terminology being used in different ways. So I am going to start this post with some definition of terms to get us on the same page here.
Game Play: A series of interesting choices.
What makes a choice interesting has some debate but is generally considered to be consequences. Or at the very least non-obvious or non-solvable solutions.(which eliminates Illusion of Choice) There is ALSO some debate about what makes for Non-Solvable solutions. About the only thing everyone can agree upon is hidden information always creates Non-solvable solutions and thus some measure of risk/reward when presented with good options at a decision point, which in turn makes for interesting choices. Can you have non-solvable solutions without hidden information? Still debated. No clear answer. You can have solvable solutions that are so complex that they are meaningfully non-solvable (The game Go).
Complexity: Technically this is 2 things. It is both the mental load needed to calculate a decision at a given decision point and the number of steps necessary to complete actions to reach decision points.
Some refer to the second bit as "house keeping" to differentiate it. Both a deck of cards and a dice roll can be used to generate a random number. A deck of cards that needs to be reshuffled and cut each time is a more complex operation (it has more steps) or involves more house keeping. The mental load can be alleviated with player facing tools. UI elements (character sheets, cheat sheets, unit cards, etc...) so that with quick reference the mental load becomes manageable.
Depth: The number of viable choices at a decision point.
When you reach your decision point the more viable choices you have that then shape and change the game state for the next decision point the more deep the decision point is and the more interesting the choice. DEEP game play is a desirable outcome.
Mechanics: The rules as written. RAW.
Mechanics structure the Game Play. Without Mechanics there are no consequences. Decision points become so abstract as to be meaningless. You set the rules of play through mechanics, they create decision points which, when designed well, have depth, that shape the game play.
Elegance: Simplicity of Design.
When mechanics are elegantly designed they function well with the rest of the machine and produce without needless complexity or waste. Every attribute serves a purpose. That purpose is impactful to the Game Play Experience.
Emergent Game Play: The result of mechanics interacting to produce a Game Play outside of the scope of rules as written.
Super simple example. No rule in poker tells you to lie. The rules tell you you CAN up the bid. It defines how everyone can do it. It provides ways for players to bow out of the round by folding. The mechanical structure of the game poker provides an emergent Game Play (series of interesting choices) in which players bluff each other or don't in attempts to win the pot. Emergent Game Play is the result to mechanics interacting in ways beyond the scope of RAW. Emergent Game Play in a positive light is almost always the result of Elegantly written rules. Simple mechanics interacting in emergent ways to produce interesting choices. In a negative light it undermines planned depth and creates shallow experiences. You might design a level to be interacted with in a specific way to create a specific experience. But X ability allows players to by pass that. The emergent Game Play is that (Players gravitating towards paths of least resistance) the majority of your level is simply skipped. Wasted design. Complexity without purpose.
The Game Play Experience: The net output of the machine that is the game.
What the player experiences by playing. The depth. The Shallows. The complexity. The elegance. The game play experience is a complex output that requires a competent designer to both understand how their mechanics interact with each other AND what kind of psychological impact those mechanics have on the player to influence their Game Play. It doesn't matter if you design a vast complex skill tree with many player abilities. If one of those abilities is clearly "the best" and solves all the problems, then psychologically players will gravitate towards that ability and while you hoped your design would have deep decision making it will in fact be riddled with illusion of choice and be shallow.
Engagement: The way in which the Game Play experience captures the attention of the players and invests them in the game.
Uninterested players check out. They get bored. They do things that are not the game. I played a MMORPG which had players gather resources to build cities. You needed a LOT of stone and wood. You also raised attributes and skills by doing things. Swimming was great for raising a bunch of attributes at once. The Emergent Game Play of this way watching friends sit at their desk reading a book while they clicked on a tree every couple minutes. Or finding a dock where they could toggle on a auto run script swimming into a post while they did ANYTHING else. The game had a ton of people logged on at any given time. But SO MANY of them were not PLAYING the game. If players are not engaged with the game they are not playing the game. And the Game Play Experience suffers.
Again, i don't want to get into discussing your favorite house ruled miniature war game specifically. When i argued that 40k had downtime it was an example of the unengaging bad design that it is. If you think players should have so little to do or what they have to do is so boring that they check out of the game all together then, hey, go design that game. Best of luck to you.
Can we just agree to throw 40k overboard? It's clearly a distraction.
The point is that games should have varying levels of engagement to suit the needs of players.
I don't think throwing out 40k all together is productive on a forum about 40k more than anything else. We have shared experience there that makes the conversation easy.
See the definitions above. No. Engagement should be as high as possible at all times. You may have varying degrees of pacing. But even a slower paced game needs to have things going on that keep players engaged. If players want to play a game casually, they can. But the game shouldn't be designed to be an afterthought or distraction to a social gathering.
Not a mechanic of the game. Placing the burden of making boring mechanics interesting on the player and gm doesn't make the mechanic any less boring. We have all seen a slog of a fight degrade into "i swing my sword again". We all share that experience because the game is built to deliver it.
It's a role-playing game. A system for collective storytelling. People assume identities and talk in character. Some even dress up. That's a huge part of its draw. It is not a squad-based tactical combat system.
That's not a design defect, it is tailoring the design to the intended purpose. If people do not want to move in 2-second increments, going back in forth on specific parries, sword maneuvers, etc., they will be drawn to a "roll a die, see what happens, we assume you're trying not to get hit."
Okay, so first, we are talking about D20 here. Not RPGs in general. D20, mechanically, is very specifically a squad based tactical combat system that has the ability to role play laid over top of it. It's mechanical roots are chainmail. A miniature war game. The grid based movement and positioning, the way combat occurs, the central focus on combat, the way characters progress not as people but as engines for combat, all of that is because it is, in fact, a squad based tactical combat system. That is a FAILING of it being a RPG. It's rooted in it's 50 year old design.
Part of that is either the complete lack or near complete lack of Role Play based mechanics or emergent game play. Outside of things like Backgrounds giving you some skill proficiency in 5th edition DnD has basically no mechanical support for role play. And it gets worse, not better, the older the edition. Yes, players CAN role play and in that role play there are interesting choices (starting fights, diplomacy, etc) but Murder Hobos is the Emergent Game play of DnDs design. You are built to fight. When you progress you fight better. So you DO fight. And in fighting you gain both experience and loot and progress to your next milestones. Murder Hobos is not a phenomena experiences in most other RPG systems. It is the result of the mechanical interactions of D20.
Contrast, I talked with Easy E about a Highlander game he wanted to run with a meta currency of Quickening. I suggested tying quickening generation to character driven traits. Ties, Bonds, and Goals. Acting in pursuit of the characters own agendas would generate the meta currency to fuel abilities. Players were incentivized to role play mechanically. It was quick and simple. It was elegant. And it made the Role Play ENGAGING. The fact that some of these things were negatives, things that could be used against them or would cause the player to have the character act against the group or their own interest, made the decisions they had to make, the Game Play, interesting choices.
D20 doesn't have that. D20 has understanding action economy and understanding probability on dice rolls to determine what is the best ability to use against what target to tip action economy into our favor.
Ah yes, the cross talk of other players telling one player how to make their decisions on their turn. I am failing to see how that makes that players decision point any more interesting, engaging, or meaningful.
How do you make decisions in your RPG play, then? It sounds like you regard the whole social interaction thing as a bother.
I don't find social interaction a bother. I think shallow game play that results in backseat drivers, Alpha Gamers that dictate decisions to other players, bad game play. Yes, that one guy is gong to tell the healer to go heal that guy that needs it. What else was the healer ever going to do? And if that decision point is so obvious, so solved, then that social interaction isn't a conversation and that decision point isn't interesting. It's just drudgery. It's dull. The healer heals the guy who needs it and then they check out until their next turn when they heal the guy who needs it then.
Have you heard of 5th eds rubber banding? Players go down. Healer gives them 1 HP so they get back up. They attack. They go down again. Repeat.
That immortal bouncing up and down until a fight ends is the result of the mechanics of Death Saving Throws, infinitely castable small heal spells, and the fact that injury doesn't matter and recovery is the statement "I take a long rest". The end result is a goofy ass game play experience. Not intentional. Paranoia has goofy ass game play on purpose. It's great. DnDs game play is the result of bad design.
Or, just throwing this out there, the system you were playing with was so dull that they never got interested in doing the uninteresting thing.
They were very interested in it, they just didn't want lots of complexity.
This is part of the reason I wrote out the definitions. Depth is not complexity. Interesting choices are not complex choices. Engagement is not the result of complexity. According to your story these people were uninterested in the mechanics of the game. They just did the thing that had no mechanical support what so ever. You could have not played DnD and just taken an improv class together and it would have been just as if not more engaging. Again, that is a failure of the games design.
I am not discussing my personal preferences. This is an academic discussion on fundamental principles of design. What is game play? What makes games good? What makes games bad? What do you need to keep in mind when designing a game? As I said GNS doesn't help because it's principles are flawed. Being aware more of how your mechanics keep players engaged in the game play is a better metric.
Now we come to the heart of it.
What counts as engagement? You seem to think it consists entirely of moving pieces and rolling dice.
I never said that. In fact thats just the complexity/book keeping necessary to play the game. Read the definitions.
It could also be other interactions, like negotiating commodity trades in a merchant game, or planning the next move for the RPG campaign.
Many people use gaming as an excuse to get together and they therefore want a game that does not reduce social interaction to terse statements of combat results.
Agreed! 100%. They should play ANYTHING other than D20 then. Because literally ANY other system provides at least some support for anything else.
I very specifically vouched for simplicity. Not complexity. Complexity is not engaging game play. Its work.
But earlier you said that simply declaring an action to be swinging a sword and rolling a die to see if it worked wasn't enough for you. You said there had to be a more complex process, and that players had to do things like declare active defenses.
No I didn't. I said the decision should be more interesting. Active defenses, when built well, provide more decision points with more interesting choices. The enemy attacking you is ALSO game play for you. Thats not complexity. It's depth and engagement.
Every example you give of engagement carries with it more design complexity. You have repeatedly said that IGU-UGO is terrible because one side gets a break from "engagement," but they can still be very much engaged, looking up their rules, planning various counters, doing some bookkeeping. What they are not doing is moving things and throwing dice, which seems to be your definition of engagement.
Looking up rules is not game play. It's a testament to the complexity of the game that you need to do that. There are no counters in 40k. 40ks tactical depth involves throwing weight of numbers at problems according to a flow chart dictated by your strategy and list building to tip fire power into your favor. You shoot the gun that has the best probability of removing as many models as possible at the target it is best against. And you do that over and over. Being good at 40k is about understanding the complexities of the equation in a very complex game and then solving that equation accurately when it's your turn to swing the club that is your army at the other player. 40ks game play is unbelievably complex for it's incredible lack of depth. But, despite that incredible complexity.... it's so simple. Are those desirable targets in range? Then shoot them. Would charging and tying them up in combat be favorable? Do it. Would grabbing that objective score me a VP? Then move to it. You get good at 40k by setting your priorities to a flow chart and just following the steps. Good players have better flow charts and can read the board on their turn to understand how to read their flow chart properly.
i never said there was a one size fits all. You don't seem to understand what i am saying. I am not arguing for mental load and complexity. I am arguing for meaningful, engaging decisions. Decisions that matter. Players should be in the game, playing the game. You can get bigger more complex games that are engaging (but they should never be more complex than they need to be) and you can get small incredibly simplistic games. But if they are not engaging there is a problem.
More decisions necessarily require a higher mental load. Conversely, games with few decisions allow for less complexity and more space for social interaction.
No they don't. Many decisions can each have incredibly small mental loads. You make decisions every single second of play in a FPS. The mental load of those decisions is very light and eased greatly by UI elements. Which guns do you have, where are you going, how much ammo do you have. Where can you find your next weapon. Etc etc...
Mental Load is what you need to keep track of for a SINGLE decision point. It's what you are paying attention to at any one moment. Not the accumulative mass of every thing you paid attention to for the entire game.
Consider Uno. You have two actions, play or draw. You cannot interrupt a player, but must wait your turn. You may even lose your turn, sometimes repeatedly. Are you unengaged when someone plays a "skip" card on you? It is an immensely popular game because of its simple, elegant design.
You are never disengaged in UNO. The actions of every other player impacts you directly and indirectly. You need to be counting how many cards the other players have and pay attention to the what color/card is on top of the stack. If you see there is a Green 4 on the deck and that player is drawing cards you know he doesn't have greens or 4s. That is information you can use. It's important. And it's engaging. When someone plays a draw 4 on another player that card effects YOU because it reshapes your priorities, who is a threat, and what your next action can/should be. Uno is a great example of an engaging game. You should study it more and understand it better.
Indeed, most card games follow the same limited options (draw, play, pass) and they are highly engaging.
That's what I'm talking about. You can have a game that is engaging - that is, keeps players interested - without requiring their constant intervention and participation. Many people aren't interested in expending the mental effort for that sort of thing, they want a break between decisions and there are systems that thoughtfully build that "recharge" right into the game. They sweat out the plan for their move and then sit back and chill as other players do their thing.
I am firmly on the side of that approach, and the older I've gotten, the more appreciate games that provide that space for social interaction and break between decision points.
I am going to repeat something from before. You are talking about the pace, the tempo, of the game. That is a different thing from what I was talking about. And it doesn't apply to the examples I gave.
Gamers gotta game, and while different features appeal to different subsets, there are clear examples of games that hit that sweet spot and became mass-market successes because of it.
.... and there are just as many or more that DON"T hit the sweet spot and still become mass market successes.
So, what is that special OTHER secret sauce? It is clearly not mechanics alone.
Marketing. Art. Promotion. Brand Recognition. There is a lot to be said about the business side of selling a product that has nothing to do with the quality of it's construction.
Lance845 wrote: I don't think throwing out 40k all together is productive on a forum about 40k more than anything else. We have shared experience there that makes the conversation easy.
Actually, I don't think we do. I last played "current" 40k about 20 years ago, so I'm not able to comment on what it does wrong or right. I just know that I enjoy 2nd, and don't care about whatever they're doing now.
Okay, so first, we are talking about D20 here. Not RPGs in general. D20, mechanically, is very specifically a squad based tactical combat system that has the ability to role play laid over top of it. It's mechanical roots are chainmail.
Yeah, I know the origin story and even had a copy of Chainmail at one point (sold it when I was unemployed). The D&D Basic rules were anything but "tactical." Only three types of armor, and variable weapon damage was an optional rule. The combat system was...elastic, as was just about everything else.
Part of that is either the complete lack or near complete lack of Role Play based mechanics or emergent game play.
So are you saying role-playing didn't happen? I'm pretty sure that it did, it just was less hemmed in by mechanics. Instead of rolling a die and consulting your "Persuade" skill, you made a case to the DM, who decided if it worked. Dice were for tie-breakers or points where things were uncertain.
It was only later that dice became the final decision-makers on everything.
One of the funny side-effects was players with zero Charisma playing high Charisma characters, throwing dice with lots of plusses and insisting that their asinine arguments were accepted. This happened a lot with the Storyteller system.
I don't find social interaction a bother. I think shallow game play that results in backseat drivers, Alpha Gamers that dictate decisions to other players, bad game play. Yes, that one guy is gong to tell the healer to go heal that guy that needs it. What else was the healer ever going to do? And if that decision point is so obvious, so solved, then that social interaction isn't a conversation and that decision point isn't interesting. It's just drudgery. It's dull. The healer heals the guy who needs it and then they check out until their next turn when they heal the guy who needs it then.
Please, share this amazing system that makes unpleasant players charming. Seriously.
Have you heard of 5th eds rubber banding? Players go down. Healer gives them 1 HP so they get back up. They attack. They go down again. Repeat.
And the DM sits motionless, rooted to his chair, helpless to stop this rules exploit.
You could have not played DnD and just taken an improv class together and it would have been just as if not more engaging.
Really? I was in middle school.
I never said that. In fact thats just the complexity/book keeping necessary to play the game. Read the definitions.
I couldn't do that until you gave them to me.
Agreed! 100%. They should play ANYTHING other than D20 then. Because literally ANY other system provides at least some support for anything else.
Again, your hatred of the system is duly noted.
No they don't. Many decisions can each have incredibly small mental loads.
But they do add up.
Mental Load is what you need to keep track of for a SINGLE decision point. It's what you are paying attention to at any one moment. Not the accumulative mass of every thing you paid attention to for the entire game.
Wait, so mental load magically refreshes without any fatigue? I find the opposite to be the case: the more decisions, the faster players get tired.
Okay, after reading all of that, my point still stands - there are a large number of players who regarding games as primarily a social activity, an excuse to get together with friends and talk over rolling dice and moving pieces.
How does one cater to such people? By keeping it simple. Create a design that has a minimal mental load so that they can play and also socialize.
IGO-UGO is the most intuitive mechanic available. I move. You move. He moves. She moves. Everybody gets a turn.
Depending on the scope and purpose of the game, other mechanics may be preferable. Battletech has a low model count and considerable detail devoted to each machine, so individual activations make sense. Some games use a variable activation, or activations that can be hoarded. This can be because of balance, but also because of the nature of the combat being simulated.
The key point is keeping these factors in harmony. Another way of putting it is: know your audience. You seem to like a very well-defined system where there is little ambiguity and players focus solely on the gaming experience.
Cross-talk about kids, gossip and jokes are anathema to this, evidence of design failure.
For me, they are a major part of the gaming experience and I therefore choose systems that facilitate this behavior.
So my question for you is: where does this fit in your design matrix?
Part of that is either the complete lack or near complete lack of Role Play based mechanics or emergent game play.
So are you saying role-playing didn't happen? I'm pretty sure that it did, it just was less hemmed in by mechanics. Instead of rolling a die and consulting your "Persuade" skill, you made a case to the DM, who decided if it worked. Dice were for tie-breakers or points where things were uncertain.
No. I am saying that the way D20 supports role play is telling you to do whatever you want. Which is something you can do without D20. You and I can go out to a field, point fingers and each other and make Pew Pew noises with the exact same amount of rules governing our role play. The GAME of DnD tells you to play pretend without providing mechanics to incentivize playing pretend. All the RP that comes out of DnD is a result of the players, not the game.
I don't find social interaction a bother. I think shallow game play that results in backseat drivers, Alpha Gamers that dictate decisions to other players, bad game play. Yes, that one guy is gong to tell the healer to go heal that guy that needs it. What else was the healer ever going to do? And if that decision point is so obvious, so solved, then that social interaction isn't a conversation and that decision point isn't interesting. It's just drudgery. It's dull. The healer heals the guy who needs it and then they check out until their next turn when they heal the guy who needs it then.
Please, share this amazing system that makes unpleasant players charming. Seriously.
I am not talking about unpleasant players. I am talking about the mechanics of the game.
Have you heard of 5th eds rubber banding? Players go down. Healer gives them 1 HP so they get back up. They attack. They go down again. Repeat.
And the DM sits motionless, rooted to his chair, helpless to stop this rules exploit.
These are the rules of the game as written. I called D20 a bad game. You are defending it. Is your defense that the GM should house rule the game? In what way does that defend the game?
You could have not played DnD and just taken an improv class together and it would have been just as if not more engaging.
Really? I was in middle school.
I never said that. In fact thats just the complexity/book keeping necessary to play the game. Read the definitions.
I couldn't do that until you gave them to me.
Agreed! 100%. They should play ANYTHING other than D20 then. Because literally ANY other system provides at least some support for anything else.
Again, your hatred of the system is duly noted.
I am critically analyzing the system for what it is. Or would you like me to turn it around and comment on your nostalgia fueled fanboyism? Is that getting us anywhere?
No they don't. Many decisions can each have incredibly small mental loads.
But they do add up.
Mental Load is what you need to keep track of for a SINGLE decision point. It's what you are paying attention to at any one moment. Not the accumulative mass of every thing you paid attention to for the entire game.
Wait, so mental load magically refreshes without any fatigue? I find the opposite to be the case: the more decisions, the faster players get tired.
Okay, after reading all of that, my point still stands - there are a large number of players who regarding games as primarily a social activity, an excuse to get together with friends and talk over rolling dice and moving pieces
How does one cater to such people? By keeping it simple. Create a design that has a minimal mental load so that they can play and also socialize.
Yes. Many "social" games are incredibly simple. Pictionary for example.
IGO-UGO is the most intuitive mechanic available. I move. You move. He moves. She moves. Everybody gets a turn.
Depending on the scope and purpose of the game, other mechanics may be preferable. Battletech has a low model count and considerable detail devoted to each machine, so individual activations make sense. Some games use a variable activation, or activations that can be hoarded. This can be because of balance, but also because of the nature of the combat being simulated.
The key point is keeping these factors in harmony. Another way of putting it is: know your audience. You seem to like a very well-defined system where there is little ambiguity and players focus solely on the gaming experience.
Cross-talk about kids, gossip and jokes are anathema to this, evidence of design failure.
For me, they are a major part of the gaming experience and I therefore choose systems that facilitate this behavior.
So my question for you is: where does this fit in your design matrix?
Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't care if players cross talk, joke, gossip, whatever. People hanging out will hang out. I bs with my friends while playing my games as well. You don't DESIGN peoples friendships in games. And you don't need to DESIGN space for them to do it. People just do it. 40ks downtime is, to you, a feature that allows space for this. Space that you don't need to be given. If there was no downtime in 40k you would still do it and nothing would change in your socializing.
But the Game Play Experience suffers because it is there. Not as some design choice where the designers wanted to hand it to you. The designers who initially did this moved on and made other games that actively eliminated it (Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). This, like D20s attributes and dull, full of illusion of choice combat, are hold overs of ancient game designs that should have evolved and learned to be better and don't because either the designers or more likely the corporations won't change them.
The design IS bad. The Game Play Experience DOES suffer.
And hey, if you like it good. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. I like bad movies. Liking bad movies doesn't make the movies good. You enjoying an old game with outdated terrible design doesn't make it not outdated or terrible. You're just liking what you like. More power to you.
It's kind of weird how my position that "D&D was fun and can be fun" is such a trigger in this debate.
Lance845 wrote: These are the rules of the game as written. I called D20 a bad game. You are defending it. Is your defense that the GM should house rule the game? In what way does that defend the game?
Making an RPG referee-proof is beyond any design's capability.
I am critically analyzing the system for what it is. Or would you like me to turn it around and comment on your nostalgia fueled fanboyism? Is that getting us anywhere?
Saying people should take improv drama classes is hyperbole. It is not serious analysis.
D&D created a whole new industry, and for you to say that it worthless - or worse than worthless - is not insightful analysis.
Actual analysis would look at why it took off, what need it fulfilled, what people liked about its mechanics that made it the default RPG, the one everyone has heard of. Even now, decades later, movies carry its title because the associations with it are so positive.
I've tried to point them out to you, not because I'm an ageing fanboy, but because I was there, and I have in the years since compared it with subsequent systems. Some years ago I ran a campaign with it to compare its mechanics to the current state of the art and held up better than I thought it would.
Is it my hands-down favorite? No. I've repeatedly said that the Storyteller system is superior, so I'm not sure what you want from me.
Yes. Many "social" games are incredibly simple. Pictionary for example.
And there is a continuum. Risk, Axis and Allies, Shogun, even Battlemasters. Sometimes people want a game that doesn't require a lot of effort to play, even if it involves conflict. Where does that fit in your metrics?
Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't care if players cross talk, joke, gossip, whatever. People hanging out will hang out. I bs with my friends while playing my games as well. You don't DESIGN peoples friendships in games. And you don't need to DESIGN space for them to do it.
Actually, you do. Pictionary, Cards Against Humanity, and a host of other party games are built around this. They are essentially a vehicle for social interaction. I mean look at Twister. Talk about player engagement!
People just do it. 40ks downtime is, to you, a feature that allows space for this. Space that you don't need to be given. If there was no downtime in 40k you would still do it and nothing would change in your socializing.
I don't play current 40k, so I have no idea what it's like. People seem to hate it, but they strangely keep buying each new edition. The edition I play is closer to "beer and pretzels," which is why I still play and enjoy it.
In fact, after I finished Conqueror, I decided to do a Conqueror: 40k, but when it came down to it, I couldn't come up with a way to meaningfully improve 2nd ed. beyond the universally-accepted fixes. For what it is, it's the best.
But the Game Play Experience suffers because it is there. Not as some design choice where the designers wanted to hand it to you. The designers who initially did this moved on and made other games that actively eliminated it (Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). This, like D20s attributes and dull, full of illusion of choice combat, are hold overs of ancient game designs that should have evolved and learned to be better and don't because either the designers or more likely the corporations won't change them.
The design IS bad. The Game Play Experience DOES suffer.
I'm not going to argue with you about the current sad state of GW game design. On this we agree.
And hey, if you like it good. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. I like bad movies. Liking bad movies doesn't make the movies good. You enjoying an old game with outdated terrible design doesn't make it not outdated or terrible. You're just liking what you like. More power to you.
By the same token, a movie being old does not necessarily mean it is inferior to a new release. And people saying "oh, it's filled with cliches" may be a sign of its significance insofar as it was heavily copied, which is why its plot seems like a cliche.
All of which is to say, if you want to debate mechanics, let's do that, rather than trying to vilify systems that did it badly.
Similarly, if you want to start a thread on the virtues (and vices) of the various D20 systems, that could be interesting.
But if we are to stay on topic, my point stands that many of these games provide what they promise. Even D&D insofar as you could kick in the door, kill the monster, and take the loot.
I think 40k stands out because expectations are not in alignment with the design. At this point, it's hard to know what the fluff actually is, or what the game is trying to do (other than make GW money).
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: It's kind of weird how my position that "D&D was fun and can be fun" is such a trigger in this debate.
Which is not what is being discussed.
Lance845 wrote: These are the rules of the game as written. I called D20 a bad game. You are defending it. Is your defense that the GM should house rule the game? In what way does that defend the game?
Making an RPG referee-proof is beyond any design's capability.
No it's not. Lots of games work without a referee. In fact, the vast majority of them do. Of all the games that exist in all the various mediums that exist it is a vast minority of them that are so incomplete that they require a referee to fill in the blanks and make the game functional.
I am critically analyzing the system for what it is. Or would you like me to turn it around and comment on your nostalgia fueled fanboyism? Is that getting us anywhere?
Saying people should take improv drama classes is hyperbole. It is not serious analysis.
D&D created a whole new industry, and for you to say that it worthless - or worse than worthless - is not insightful analysis.
Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.
Actual analysis would look at why it took off, what need it fulfilled, what people liked about its mechanics that made it the default RPG, the one everyone has heard of. Even now, decades later, movies carry its title because the associations with it are so positive.
Ah! Right. Actual analysis is about praise. Got it. Nothing to see here folks. DnD in every edition is a perfect game. Don't take notes. Just make more DnD. Thats an actual analysis of the game.
I've tried to point them out to you, not because I'm an ageing fanboy, but because I was there, and I have in the years since compared it with subsequent systems. Some years ago I ran a campaign with it to compare its mechanics to the current state of the art and held up better than I thought it would.
You say it's not because you are an aging fan boy, but I am not seeing it. Kind of hard to defend that position when you cannot accept any flaws and think an analysis involves only praise.
Is it my hands-down favorite? No. I've repeatedly said that the Storyteller system is superior, so I'm not sure what you want from me.
Id like you to apply a critical eye to the game and accept it's flaws. Doing nothing but defending things despite the evidence to the contrary is disingenuous.
Yes. Many "social" games are incredibly simple. Pictionary for example.
And there is a continuum. Risk, Axis and Allies, Shogun, even Battlemasters. Sometimes people want a game that doesn't require a lot of effort to play, even if it involves conflict. Where does that fit in your metrics?
The same as anything else. Engagement and elegance in design. Uno fits the bill. So does Elden Ring.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't care if players cross talk, joke, gossip, whatever. People hanging out will hang out. I bs with my friends while playing my games as well. You don't DESIGN peoples friendships in games. And you don't need to DESIGN space for them to do it.
Actually, you do. Pictionary, Cards Against Humanity, and a host of other party games are built around this. They are essentially a vehicle for social interaction. I mean look at Twister. Talk about player engagement!
Do you read what you write? Where is the negative space downtime in Twister equivalent to the IGOUGO of 40k?
People just do it. 40ks downtime is, to you, a feature that allows space for this. Space that you don't need to be given. If there was no downtime in 40k you would still do it and nothing would change in your socializing.
I don't play current 40k, so I have no idea what it's like. People seem to hate it, but they strangely keep buying each new edition. The edition I play is closer to "beer and pretzels," which is why I still play and enjoy it.
In fact, after I finished Conqueror, I decided to do a Conqueror: 40k, but when it came down to it, I couldn't come up with a way to meaningfully improve 2nd ed. beyond the universally-accepted fixes. For what it is, it's the best.
But the Game Play Experience suffers because it is there. Not as some design choice where the designers wanted to hand it to you. The designers who initially did this moved on and made other games that actively eliminated it (Bolt Action, Beyond the Gates of Antares). This, like D20s attributes and dull, full of illusion of choice combat, are hold overs of ancient game designs that should have evolved and learned to be better and don't because either the designers or more likely the corporations won't change them.
The design IS bad. The Game Play Experience DOES suffer.
I'm not going to argue with you about the current sad state of GW game design. On this we agree.
And hey, if you like it good. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. I like bad movies. Liking bad movies doesn't make the movies good. You enjoying an old game with outdated terrible design doesn't make it not outdated or terrible. You're just liking what you like. More power to you.
By the same token, a movie being old does not necessarily mean it is inferior to a new release.
Never said it did. But the FIRST movies where shot with wide angles from a single fixed position as though they were recording a stage play. Because thats what they were trying to do. Capture plays on film. Not actual plays mind you. They simply didn't understand what a camera was capable of. Different types of shots. Different angles. The impact that can have on the way the viewer experienced the scene. THOSE movies ARE bad pieces of film. Because they don't use any of the strengths of the medium and create an inferior product as a result.
My favorite movie is Alien. And even in the director cut when they are propping up Ash's head so they can talk to him they have a hard cut from the prop head to his real head in a hole in the table. Even though the scene has multiple reaction shots and any one of which could have been placed between the fake head shot and the real head shot to break it up and make the transition less noticeable they didn't. That is a flaw in the film. Performing a critical analysis of the film (A fething great one) I can still point to that and say that is a bad decision and that scene does loose something because of it. Aspiring film makers can still look at that scene and point out how that was done poorly and how it could have been cut differently to make for a better edit.
D20s basic underlying mechanics is the shooting a movie as though it was a stage play of TTRPGs. Being old isn't the problem. Breaking new ground and not knowing what the hell they were doing isn't their fault. Continuing to do it 50 years later IS.
And people saying "oh, it's filled with cliches" may be a sign of its significance insofar as it was heavily copied, which is why its plot seems like a cliche.
All of which is to say, if you want to debate mechanics, let's do that, rather than trying to vilify systems that did it badly.
Similarly, if you want to start a thread on the virtues (and vices) of the various D20 systems, that could be interesting.
But if we are to stay on topic, my point stands that many of these games provide what they promise. Even D&D insofar as you could kick in the door, kill the monster, and take the loot.
I think 40k stands out because expectations are not in alignment with the design. At this point, it's hard to know what the fluff actually is, or what the game is trying to do (other than make GW money).
And that wasn't really the conversation I was having when I chimed in on the designers triangle. What I was saying is that GNS isn't a good model and people shouldn't be looking to it to keep track of their designs. The goal of game design is Engagement and elegance in design. Something you seem to disagree with and are arguing against by denying that house ruled 2nd ed 40k or dungeons and dragons has any flaws.
Engagement and elegance in design are certainly things to strive for but saying they are the end goal of all game design suggests an extremely narrow view. The notion that downtime is somehow intrinsically bad is frankly absurd. More engagement isn't always better. There are people out there who literally don't have the mental capacity for highly engaging games - they may only enough bandwidth to play terribly simple games that you and I would consider boring and unengaging. There are even more people out there who do have the mental capacity, but are too fried after a long day's work to play anything but the simplest mobile game. You and I may not play these kinds of games, because we're the kind of people who seek high engagement. But for the people that do play them, that level of engagement is just right.
Your ideas are generally correct but only for a specific kind of game, aimed at a specific kind of gamer. I'm personally a huge fan of the kinds of highly engaging games you're talking about, for all the same reasons you're describing. But it is silly to think that our personal definitions of 'good' are somehow more valid than those of say, people who love Risk. You may need to take a step back and ask yourself this question: who are you designing the game for? Is it for yourself? Or is it for an audience?
And if it's for an audience, then can you really say that all audiences everywhere will always prefer maximally engaging games?
artific3r wrote: Engagement and elegance in design are certainly things to strive for but saying they are the end goal of all game design suggests an extremely narrow view. The notion that downtime is somehow intrinsically bad is frankly absurd. More engagement isn't always better. There are people out there who literally don't have the mental capacity for highly engaging games - they may only enough bandwidth to play terribly simple games that you and I would consider boring and unengaging. There are even more people out there who do have the mental capacity, but are too fried after a long day's work to play anything but the simplest mobile game. You and I may not play these kinds of games, because we're the kind of people who seek high engagement. But for the people that do play them, that level of engagement is just right.
Your ideas are generally correct but only for a specific kind of game, aimed at a specific kind of gamer. I'm personally a huge fan of the kinds of highly engaging games you're talking about, for all the same reasons you're describing. But it is silly to think that our personal definitions of 'good' are somehow more valid than those of say, people who love Risk. You may need to take a step back and ask yourself this question: who are you designing the game for? Is it for yourself? Or is it for an audience?
And if it's for an audience, then can you really say that all audiences everywhere will always prefer maximally engaging games?
I appreciate the input. I feel like me saying "engagement should be high" is somehow being read as being stressful or intense. Lets look at mobile games. Match 3s like candy crush, or marvel puzzle quest, or whatever. The actual game play is incredibly simple. swipe a tile into other times to make a line of 3 or more tiles to destroy them and then new tiles drop down. Some of these have a timer on the level or whatever, but others don't. The ones that don't (Marvel Puzzle Quest falls into this category) can be played almost thoughtlessly and idly. Almost a fidget spinner of a game. But the games "downtime" is measured in fractions of a second as new times fall in. That down time attempts to keep the players engagement with sounds, graphical effects, and the fact that the new tiles are important for the new state of the play space.
Look at Sudoku or Crosswords or puzzle games like Flow Free on cell phones. No timer. No rush. Engaging. No downtime. Played at the tempo of the player.
The person who sits down to play a simple time waster after a long day fries them IS playing. They are not sitting there waiting for the cellphone to tell them they can play. Even when the actions ARE simple they are keeping the player engaged. Tetris is incredibly simple. Once a game of tetris begins there is Zero downtime. It is all engagement. There are nothing but interesting choices. (Piece orientation. Piece placement. Destroy one line or build toward multiple at once).
We talked about Uno and how even other players turns were engaging because there was factors in it that impacted you. You have no game play on the other players turns but you are still engaged. That downtime isn't negative space. I have never played Uno as anything but simple and light fun.
Let's try another. Guess Who. Guess Who is a super simple game. Easy set up. Quick play. Very low mental load. On my turn I am engaged because I am trying to narrow down my options. On your turn I am engaged because I am the component of the game you are interacting with to carry out your turn.
Engagement doesn't have to mean stressful. It just means you are there, in the game, playing.
I'll be more specific. What I'm arguing is that this dead space you're describing here:
Lance845 wrote: Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.
...is not an intrinsically bad thing. Yes, it is bad for specific kinds of games aimed at specific kinds of players. But not all. Games that give you a lot of time to mentally "check out" often provide a completely different kind of experience than games that demand maximum engagement at all times. In games like Risk, Axis and Allies, MB games, and 40k, that unengaging, beer and pretzels, dead space is a huge part of what makes the overall experience enjoyable for certain people. The downtime exists by design. It sets up a particular pace for the game, in terms of mental engagement and, just as Commisar stated, there is a wide space for games with slower pacing.
In 40k the downtime gives players time to relax, to take a break from the mentally taxing activities of strategy and decision-making. It offers players a chance to admire the spectacle of the miniatures, to pull out their phones and take pictures of the awesome moments they're acting out on the battlefield. It lets people socialize with the players around them. While it's true that not everyone enjoys this aspect of the experience, many (maybe even most) players do.
This is not a question of good vs bad, this is vanilla vs chocolate.
Again, if we limit the conversation to the very narrow subset of games aimed at, lets say, "hardcore" players, then yes, more engagement is generally desirable. But as a designer it's important to understand that not all audiences are the same, and you the designer are absolutely not and never will be representative of all audiences. That's impossible.
artific3r wrote: Right. I'm speaking purely through the lens of game design of course.
There is ample scope for game design within the context of predictive realism. They key element is that the players/participants have to accept the results as plausible within their understanding of the situation.
This is why I think that using mechanics where they don't fit (like r/p/s on surface combatants) undermine the integrity of the design.
This is an interesting point. If the goal is to construct a system that allows players to act out a narrative with "predictive realism", then yes, often times rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics can disrupt that goal. In such cases it may be better to sacrifice certain aspects of playability, puzzle solving, or meaningful decision-making in favor of mechanics that better support the goal of predictive realism. That's very much a narrative goal by the way. Predictive realism, simulation, and role-playing all boil down to players wanting to tell engaging stories. Simulation is just the flavor of narrative gaming for players who will only be engaged if the game offers some degree of predictive realism.
However, in my experience designing games and working with designers, I've found the opposite problem to be far more common. Not all real-life stories map well to games. Often times, the more realistic you make a game, the less "fun" it becomes. Here I mean "fun" in an abstract puzzle-solving sense - meaningful decision-making, high engagement, low periods of busywork/downtime/meaningful action. So of course, in games where the goal is predictive realism, you will absolutely sacrifice abstract puzzle-solving-derived fun for more simulation-derived fun or "immersive role playing"-derived fun. In other words, narrative fun. Flight simulators have absurd amounts of downtime and meaningless busywork, but that's because the real-life activity has those things, and to remove them for the sake of "better gameplay" would defeat the purpose of making a flight simulator in the first place.
And that brings us to the crux of the issue. The subset of real-life stories that map well to games is extremely limited. You can't turn any scenario into a highly engaging game, because highly engaging games have extremely specific properties related to pacing, user interface, and player ability that cannot be altered. As humans we can only parse so much information. Our attention spans and reaction times are limited by our biology. We're also saddled with a bunch of baked-in cultural expectations on how much time and effort we're willing to invest in playing a new game (and these can vary significantly across a ton of different demographic axes, like culture, age group, profession, etc).
So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.
artific3r wrote: I'll be more specific. What I'm arguing is that this dead space you're describing here:
Lance845 wrote: Regardless of how you feel that dead space is meant to be used it is in fact unengaging. That is why players regularly end up staring at their phone, chatting with others around them, and generally doing anything but paying attention to how the other guy is moving his 50 bits of plastic.
...is not an intrinsically bad thing. Yes, it is bad for specific kinds of games aimed at specific kinds of players. But not all. Games that give you a lot of time to mentally "check out" often provide a completely different kind of experience than games that demand maximum engagement at all times. In games like Risk, Axis and Allies, MB games, and 40k, that unengaging, beer and pretzels, dead space is a huge part of what makes the overall experience enjoyable for certain people.
I accept that people like it. I am not debating it. There is always somebody who likes anything. Despite there being objectively absolutely horrible dreadful movies out there there are people who legitimately find enjoyment in watching those movies. They LIKE them. Those movies are still bad. I am not comparing DnD and 40k to anything on this https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/worst-movies-of-all-time/ list. Outside of the scope of psychological components of design like a players tendency towards simplest solutions or whatever it's difficult at best to use "Some people like this" in any meaningful way.
That negative space is an intrinsically bad thing. Players who want to play at a slower pace, do it relaxed, check out and chat with someone else, they can do that. It doesn't need to be built into the games design. They can take literally any board, miniature war, card, etc... game and they can play at the pace they enjoy. When it is DESIGNED that way, it forces all players into a negative space that takes them out of the game. The people who want to beer and pretzels style chill can do so with every game on the market. They can do it while playing MTG for example. Or poker. Or anything. The pace they enjoy and the style of enjoyment they want is not needed to be designed. It's a product of the PLAYERS, not the game.
The downtime exists by design. It sets up a particular pace for the game, in terms of mental engagement and, just as Commisar stated, there is a wide space for games with slower pacing.
So the designers of 40k who initially made the game with that design tried to move the game away from it after a few editions. The main actor in this is Rick Priestley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Priestley Those designers ended up quitting GW and making different games that did move away from it. In their games you can see the 40k roots while not suffering from those particular 40k problems. Calling it designed for at this stage is an assumption that ignores the facts of history.
This is the result of corporate mandates about a decade of pushing model sales and mostly ignoring the game.
In 40k the downtime gives players time to relax, to take a break from the mentally taxing activities of strategy and decision-making. It offers players a chance to admire the spectacle of the miniatures, to pull out their phones and take pictures of the awesome moments they're acting out on the battlefield. It lets people socialize with the players around them. While it's true that not everyone enjoys this aspect of the experience, many (maybe even most) players do.
I am trying to not make statements about what I or others enjoy and avoid commenting on statements about what I or others enjoy. Enjoyment is a case by case personal thing that varies wildly. It's why I comment on the design in terms of design and not coming in saying what I want or what I like. I am only going to point to the above comments about how anyone can slow the pace of a game to a crawl and take the time to socialize if they wanted to. Poker has no real negative space in it's design, but it can and is often played at a crawl with lots of chatting and banter. Also with literal beer and pretzels. Designing a game to be unengaging doesn't GIVE you the ability to do that. It just forces it on everyone.
This is not a question of good vs bad, this is vanilla vs chocolate.
Again, if we limit the conversation to the very narrow subset of games aimed at, lets say, "hardcore" players, then yes, more engagement is generally desirable. But as a designer it's important to understand that not all audiences are the same, and you the designer are absolutely not and never will be representative of all audiences. That's impossible.
I agree with this! I am trying to give a wide breadth of games as examples to show how the principle is applied across various spectrums of types of games and types of play. From "hardcore" cut throat games to casual games. From games designed for adults to introductory games for children. Card games, board games, video games, role playing games, sports.
artific3r wrote: Right. I'm speaking purely through the lens of game design of course.
There is ample scope for game design within the context of predictive realism. They key element is that the players/participants have to accept the results as plausible within their understanding of the situation.
This is why I think that using mechanics where they don't fit (like r/p/s on surface combatants) undermine the integrity of the design.
This is an interesting point. If the goal is to construct a system that allows players to act out a narrative with "predictive realism", then yes, often times rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics can disrupt that goal. In such cases it may be better to sacrifice certain aspects of playability, puzzle solving, or meaningful decision-making in favor of mechanics that better support the goal of predictive realism. That's very much a narrative goal by the way. Predictive realism, simulation, and role-playing all boil down to players wanting to tell engaging stories. Simulation is just the flavor of narrative gaming for players who will only be engaged if the game offers some degree of predictive realism.
However, in my experience designing games and working with designers, I've found the opposite problem to be far more common. Not all real-life stories map well to games. Often times, the more realistic you make a game, the less "fun" it becomes. Here I mean "fun" in an abstract puzzle-solving sense - meaningful decision-making, high engagement, low periods of busywork/downtime/meaningful action. So of course, in games where the goal is predictive realism, you will absolutely sacrifice abstract puzzle-solving-derived fun for more simulation-derived fun or "immersive role playing"-derived fun. In other words, narrative fun. Flight simulators have absurd amounts of downtime and meaningless busywork, but that's because the real-life activity has those things, and to remove them for the sake of "better gameplay" would defeat the purpose of making a flight simulator in the first place.
And that brings us to the crux of the issue. The subset of real-life stories that map well to games is extremely limited. You can't turn any scenario into a highly engaging game, because highly engaging games have extremely specific properties related to pacing, user interface, and player ability that cannot be altered. As humans we can only parse so much information. Our attention spans and reaction times are limited by our biology. We're also saddled with a bunch of baked-in cultural expectations on how much time and effort we're willing to invest in playing a new game (and these can vary significantly across a ton of different demographic axes, like culture, age group, profession, etc).
So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.
I find this to be closer to suspension of disbelief.
It doesn't actually matter what the laws of physics are in a thing so long as they are presented consistently. Nobody questions the force in the original trilogy of Starwars. The rules of it are established and then they carry forward consistently. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any actual sense.
Your mechanics can be anything. R/P/S style balancing and whatever can all apply. They just need to apply in such a way that the games internal logic is presented to the players consistently. The issue comes when the game play breaks from expectation and creates disconnect with the player. All the same rules apply. Rule of Cool, Rule of Fun, and YMMV all live here.
artific3r wrote: So if we're trying to make a game that tells a convincing, realistic story, we're forced to use abstractions. The more you abstract those real-life interactions into crude facsimiles of themselves, using turns and dice rolls, the further away you get from having authentic representations of those things. More often than not, it is actually just impossible to convert a real-life story into a fun game. Scale in tabletop wargames is a great example of one of those cursed problems. The ranges of our guns in 40k will never bear any resemblance to gun ranges in real life, because those real life values simply do not map well to fun gameplay. You will never have a big enough board to accurately convey the range difference between a bolter and basilisk. So you have to make concessions. And you have to choose. Is simulation more important? Or is gameplay more important? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific design problem you're trying to solve and the specific kind of game you're making.
So when I talk of "predictive realism," I mean things that even casual players find plausible and that they can anticipate. For example, the performance of various unit types in Axis and Allies are not terribly realistic (no logistics, the variable spaces make a mockery of range circles) but within the context of the game, people accept it. The accept the ratings as somewhat rooted in reality and can therefore make judgements about their use that are not entirely built on the game experience.
This makes it intuitive.
Where 40k runs into problems is that there are various design elements that either contradict observable reality or the fluff, and people find this particularly grating.
It is like providing a Snowspeeder with a character and artifact weapon that allows a single strafing run to kill all the AT-ATs in a single turn.
A game like Risk pushes the boundaries of realism because the scope of the combat is so vast and sweeping, but it also does not purport to be realistic, so it remains popular.
In building a good design, the challenge is to capture the essence of this balance, so that players feel the rules suit the reality but not creating a heaver mental burden than they were expecting.
The discussion of the merits of D&D brings to mind another element that we have not considered, which is the modularity of the design, by which I mean the ability of the players to modify it to suit their needs.
Now I'm sure Lance is horrified at the though of people needing house rules or in any way altering a system, but in fact people love to tinker with things and rules are no exception.
Just as 40k players love to kit-bash and show off their creativity with models, so players also like to alter a system to better suit their needs.
In this respect, game design serves as something akin to an automobile chassis, the basic model of a car that will be torn apart and rebuilt in new and creative ways. Certain makes and models are beloved of gear-heads not for the "stock" version, but for the potential they embody.
I think this is also very important in weighing the merits of a design.
If a certain mechanic continues to see use over many decades, even though it is modified, there is clearly something to it.
Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.
Where 40k runs into problems is that there are various design elements that either contradict observable reality or the fluff, and people find this particularly grating.
Kinda inevitable when the fluff itself is a contradictory mess.
Wanna quote me saying that? Me pointing out the ways in which the mechanics are bad/fail is not the same thing as calling it "worthless or worse than worthless". Who is talking in hyperbole? You are simply offended that I pointed at the flaws in something you enjoy.
Please name the good points of the D20 system.
It utilizes a single consistent and simple resolution mechanic with clear and concise guidelines for setting and modifying difficulty. You would be amazed how many ttrpgs fail to do this. For example storyteller 2nd ed has both requiring a certain number of successes and changing the TN on the d10s to get a success with no clear instructions and when or why you should use either of them.
Challenge Rating is a good idea. A tool for "level designers" to understand the general difficulty of an encounter is great. They have failed to accurately implement it in every edition so far. But GM tools are good and the idea and attempt are good.
5th ed advantage/disadvantage is a quick and simple mechanic for adjusting difficulty on the fly. A si.ple elegant mechanic that has a tacttile feel for the players to let them know this is good/bad.
4th eds at will abilities to give everyone things to do that are not "i swing my sword" was a nice change of pace.
Now I'm sure Lance is horrified at the though of people needing house rules or in any way altering a system, but in fact people love to tinker with things and rules are no exception.
Just as 40k players love to kit-bash and show off their creativity with models, so players also like to alter a system to better suit their needs.
Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.
House rules are great. There is no wrong fun. WE cannot discuss the quality of a games design when including the infinite experiences of infinite potential house rules. They simply don't apply here, in this discussion.
At this point, it's pretty widely known, but to prove my bona fides, I'll mention the obvious ones.
Armor class is a terrible mechanic. They should have gone with a flat roll to hit and have armor provide damage resistance. They've tried multiple ways to try to get this to work, but it never comes out quite right. AC was okay for a miniatures system where troops didn't level up, but it's not meant for an RPG. The best thing I can say for it is that it renders combat really easy. You either hit or don't.
Hit point inflation is another painfully obvious limitation that you already mentioned. No one really likes it. People like having more resilient characters, but it tends to get out of hand.
Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.
Demanding that someone research all your writings before posting is a pretty big ask.
You threw a ton of shade at home-brewed rules fixing various deficiencies, which led to the logical conclusion that you didn't like them. As others have noticed, you've also said you are annoyed by people not fully engaged with a game (i.e. checking phones, having cross-talk), from which it was logical to assume that you believed games should only be played as written and only use a style featuring maximum engagement.
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
At this point, it's pretty widely known, but to prove my bona fides, I'll mention the obvious ones.
Armor class is a terrible mechanic. They should have gone with a flat roll to hit and have armor provide damage resistance. They've tried multiple ways to try to get this to work, but it never comes out quite right. AC was okay for a miniatures system where troops didn't level up, but it's not meant for an RPG. The best thing I can say for it is that it renders combat really easy. You either hit or don't.
Hit point inflation is another painfully obvious limitation that you already mentioned. No one really likes it. People like having more resilient characters, but it tends to get out of hand.
Love the complete lack of understanding of my position. Check my post history in my profile. See how much of it is house rules.
Demanding that someone research all your writings before posting is a pretty big ask.
You threw a ton of shade at home-brewed rules fixing various deficiencies, which led to the logical conclusion that you didn't like them.
Like i said. A misunderstanding of my position. I didn't throw shade at house rules. I threw shade at the idea that house rules were somehow an actual response to an example criticism of a system as published in a discusion about game design.
Let me clear that up for you. If you click my profile you don't need to research my posts. You just need to see that 12% (roughly 1300 posts) were made in the forums sub section "Proposed Rules". A section of the forum about house rules.
You also mentioned kit bashes as something i would for some reason be opposed to. But all my painting and modeling and gallery posts/images are my kit bashes.
As others have noticed, you've also said you are annoyed by people not fully engaged with a game (i.e. checking phones, having cross-talk),
I didn5say i was annoyed. I said it was a symptom of bad design. I said that wasn't the fault of the players. Its a fault of the design.
from which it was logical to assume that you believed games should only be played as written and only use a style featuring maximum engagement.
Games should be engaging yes. When pointing towards games as examples of design principles RAW is the only way for us all to be discussing the same thing. We can discuss how specific house rules change the Game Play experience and why, but we all need to know what those house rules are for that to be a productive conversation. Just saying "40k isn't bad in my experience! I only play a house ruled version of 40k!" doesn't actually answer any point made by using 40k as an example of bad design.
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
You can't actually. What sells has many contributing factors that have nothing to do with enjoyment. We see spikes in the sales of models and armies that are OP flavor of the month. That doesn't make playing them enjoyable. It means they win. Marketing and brand recognition go way farther then most people give it credit for and it already gets a lot of credit. DND gets constant promotion from podcasts and id say they are greatly responsible for a surge in popularity over the last 7ish years. Even though listening to the rp and story has absolutely no bearing and provides no representation of what the game is mechanically like.
Lance845 wrote: Like i said. A misunderstanding of my position.
And a fortuitous one! look at the resulting debate! Who wants a thread where one person takes a position and everyone's replies are: "you are so right." No one, that's who.
Let me clear that up for you. If you click my profile you don't need to research my posts. You just need to see that 12% (roughly 1300 posts) were made in the forums sub section "Proposed Rules". A section of the forum about house rules.
That would presume I had the time or motivation for that. I had neither. But I encourage everyone else to not only click on my profile but also visit my web site and purchase my entire catalog of books.
Games should be engaging yes. When pointing towards games as examples of design principles RAW is the only way for us all to be discussing the same thing. We can discuss how specific house rules change the Game Play experience and why, but we all need to know what those house rules are for that to be a productive conversation. Just saying "40k isn't bad in my experience! I only play a house ruled version of 40k!" doesn't actually answer any point made by using 40k as an example of bad design.
That was why I suggested taking 40k off the table because even if you strip out fixes, there are no less than ten editions to try to wedge into the discussion, with such variation between them that they arguably aren't even the same game system.
On the other hand, I think it is worthwhile to examine the design to see whether the flaws are intrinsic or the result of improper development. My contention is that 40k 2nd ed. had good core mechanics, and that the flaws were found in secondary materials, such as the army lists and expansions. One could counter by saying "if it's in the boxed set, it's core," but I think the rulebook itself is a reasonable place to draw the line, particularly when wargear would later be changed as more books emerged. Rolling scatter for jump packs or having to roll expansion for plasma blasts are not core rules; they are tied to weapons and equipment, and it is things like that which marred the system.
You can't actually. What sells has many contributing factors that have nothing to do with enjoyment. We see spikes in the sales of models and armies that are OP flavor of the month. That doesn't make playing them enjoyable. It means they win. Marketing and brand recognition go way farther then most people give it credit for and it already gets a lot of credit. DND gets constant promotion from podcasts and id say they are greatly responsible for a surge in popularity over the last 7ish years. Even though listening to the rp and story has absolutely no bearing and provides no representation of what the game is mechanically like.
Actually, all of these factors have to do with enjoyment. Who (other than GW fanboys) buys products they hate?
The thing is, enjoyment can be found in many things, and clearly a lot of GW players find that in the setting and aesthetic of 40k rather than gameplay. Indeed, one could argue that these factors trump quality of play for most of the remaining fan base. There are whole threads on this, so it's not entirely unknowable.
The same applies to other systems. For many of them setting is the dominating factor. Is this an element of game design? Depends. GW Lord of the Rings gets zero credit for setting; that came from someone else. Did people play it for the setting? Absolutely.
We can contrast this with 40k, which boasts an original but highly derivative setting. Partial credit for the designers on that - they knew the best parts to steal. The same is true of Battletech, which got caught up in lawsuits over exactly who created what.
In the case of D&D, the same factors are in play, with the added element of longevity and universal cultural awareness. Rather than play Rolemaster, or GURPs, some choose to play D&D because it's a known brand. One can write that off to marketing, but having a massive pool of players is a big plus when looking at a system.
While I can't catapult Conqueror into international media, I can design it to appeal to an existing set of players (the dispossessed of WHFB), allowing it a much greater potential for growth.
D&D's flaws are known, but are they fatal? That's a subjective question, and the answer seems to be a resounding "no" for its many legions of fans. Would I turn my nose up at a game? Probably not, but it would depend on the edition. 4th is right out. Probably 2nd as well. First would be fun as an exercise in satire and would almost certainly involve fighting the Cthulhu gods.
But that's just me. Other folks seem to like it for the virtues we already highlighted, and for them, they outweigh the flaws.
It is an inescapable truth that game designers are a fickle lot - some are very discerning and will rule out a game because a single mechanic drives them nuts. Yet the same person will put up with an otherwise incomprehensible rules set because a single mechanic is so beautiful. I think casual players are much easier to read.
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.
Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.
Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.
Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.
Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!
Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?
If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.
Been thinking about this topic, and wanted to come back with a personal example.
In 40k there are actually times when I've felt that I didn't have enough downtime. I am so busy rolling saves and watching for moments to use reaction stratagems that I don't have enough time to stop and take photos of the amazing hobby spectacle playing out in front of me. I can't just stop the game to take photos - unless I'm playing with a close friend, it would likely come off as rude. But as luck would have it, there is usually just enough time in my opponent's movement phase for me to get a few nice angles with my phone and take some shots. If there was no downtime this would not be possible.
So in this particular case, for a certain kind of play, the forced downtime is totally working in favor of the overall experience.
artific3r wrote: Been thinking about this topic, and wanted to come back with a personal example.
In 40k there are actually times when I've felt that I didn't have enough downtime. I am so busy rolling saves and watching for moments to use reaction stratagems that I don't have enough time to stop and take photos of the amazing hobby spectacle playing out in front of me. I can't just stop the game to take photos - unless I'm playing with a close friend, it would likely come off as rude. But as luck would have it, there is usually just enough time in my opponent's movement phase for me to get a few nice angles with my phone and take some shots. If there was no downtime this would not be possible.
So in this particular case, for a certain kind of play, the forced downtime is totally working in favor of the overall experience.
That's an interesting perspective!
Older gamers think of just the game. But today, people want to share their gameplay, documenting and sharing it. Giving one side time to line up some quick photos very much counts as "engagement."
I've noticed that the 1990s-era White Dwarf battle reports are careful to state that the photos were made after the game. Given the technology of the era (digital cameras were hideously expensive) this made sense. The positions of the units were noted and subsequently properly lit and positioned for photos. Today, we take it for granted that photos are being done while the game is ongoing.
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.
Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.
Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!
Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?
If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.
That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?
While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.
Easy E wrote: To Lance's point, there is only one thing I 100% KNOW about game design.
I have no idea what people like to play or why they like to play it. That is what I know.
The only thing I sort of, sometimes know is what I like to play. Therefore, I tend to design with one main audience in mind. Me.
I can tell what people like to play based on what's selling. Why they like it is harder to determine.
Nah, that just tells you what they are buying, not if they are playing or if they like it.
Wargamers are notorious for hording stuff and never using it, buy stuff and use it on something else, or playing games and complaining about them; but they play because that is what is available locally.
Still doesn't really tell us what people like. I mean, look at how many people on this GW focused forum slag on GW games!
Isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? I mean, if people snap up your product as fact as you can fill the orders, do you really question their motivation?
If 10,000 people decided to buy my books and use them as shot traps, I'm not sure I'd care, so long as the royalty check cleared.
That leads to the question of what is the definition of "success" for an Indie gamer, which is a whole different kettle AND how do you define a game as "Good".
It is almost as hard to find consensus on those two issues as it is about what "Fun" is.
Lance845 wrote: That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?
While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.
That sort of begs the question, though. You're assuming that people who aggressively market a product don't believe in it or that good marketing is indicative of an inferior product.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The "breakout" period of GW growth as unquestionably when they were at their most innovative and creative. They later focused on profit-taking, but that was only possible because of their earlier success.
Marketing should be thought of as an extension of the overall product experience. It's an extremely important one that can absolutely have a huge impact on a player's perception of a game, even after they've bought it and experienced it for themselves. I would be weary of boxing yourself in too early with particular truths you've learned about game design. They can totally be useful in certain contexts, typically narrow in scope. But if you tunnel vision too much on them too early, I guarantee you will miss things at the bigger scope. When that happens you will find that your design choices don't result in the behavior you intended, and it will be very difficult for you to explain why until you start getting honest with yourself about how important some of these larger scope, "not-related-to-game-design" factors are.
None of this matters if you're designing for yourself of course. Designing games as a hobby or as a creative outlet to fulfill your personal ideals of what games should be, that's great. It's a wonderful thing.
However if your goal is to reach people, to design games that people actually play, to design a product that is meant to be sold to a customer, that's completely different. You cannot ignore the business side of things. Things like logistics, marketing, team building, community management. All of these things have a far greater impact on the perceived quality of the experience to the end user than an entry-level game designer might expect. I'd encourage everyone embarking on this task to take a broader view of game design and game creation as a whole. Really take the time to stop and ask yourself, who is it for?
Lance845 wrote: That depends. Is your motivtion to push product and make a profit, or are you interested in game design?
While those 2 are not mutually exclusive they are different and the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. An understanding of good design doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good marketing. And good marketing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a quality product. We are not posting in the sales and marketing sub-forum.
That sort of begs the question, though. You're assuming that people who aggressively market a product don't believe in it or that good marketing is indicative of an inferior product.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The "breakout" period of GW growth as unquestionably when they were at their most innovative and creative. They later focused on profit-taking, but that was only possible because of their earlier success.
I very specifically said they were not mutually exclusive. I also said they were not directly related. You can have quality products that don't market well and disappear. You can have complete garbage that makes a million being marketed like crazy. And you can have any other combination of the 2. Sales does not equal quality. Which is the point that has been made. YOU claim that you can tell what is good/people like based on sales numbers. Reality doesn't reflect that. Bad things sell well all the time. Good things never get the recognition they deserve. Dollars CAN indicate quality. Dollars on their own are not enough to indicate quality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
artific3r wrote: Marketing should be thought of as an extension of the overall product experience. It's an extremely important one that can absolutely have a huge impact on a player's perception of a game, even after they've bought it and experienced it for themselves. I would be weary of boxing yourself in too early with particular truths you've learned about game design. They can totally be useful in certain contexts, typically narrow in scope. But if you tunnel vision too much on them too early, I guarantee you will miss things at the bigger scope. When that happens you will find that your design choices don't result in the behavior you intended, and it will be very difficult for you to explain why until you start getting honest with yourself about how important some of these larger scope, "not-related-to-game-design" factors are.
None of this matters if you're designing for yourself of course. Designing games as a hobby or as a creative outlet to fulfill your personal ideals of what games should be, that's great. It's a wonderful thing.
However if your goal is to reach people, to design games that people actually play, to design a product that is meant to be sold to a customer, that's completely different. You cannot ignore the business side of things. Things like logistics, marketing, team building, community management. All of these things have a far greater impact on the perceived quality of the experience to the end user than an entry-level game designer might expect. I'd encourage everyone embarking on this task to take a broader view of game design and game creation as a whole. Really take the time to stop and ask yourself, who is it for?
Agree with all of this. Products need to be planned from the beginning. If the intention is to market a product, designing it from the get go to be marketed and the way in which you market it being a part of the package is the way to go. Car companies need to have car designers designing vehicles to marketable specifications. Pick up trucks need to fill certain criteria to meet customer needs and marketed and sold to meet those needs. All true.
The question here isn't the value of marketing or even planning for marketing. It's what profits and sales figures are indicators of. Do sales figures = enjoyment by the consumer? Do sales figures = quality of the product? Do sales figures = quality of the marketing campaign or brand recognition or any other thing? Sometimes it's any one of those things. Sometimes it's all of them. Sometimes it's none of them. Profits and number of units moved alone only tell you how much money you have in your account.
Lance845 wrote: YOU claim that you can tell what is good/people like based on sales numbers. Reality doesn't reflect that. Bad things sell well all the time. Good things never get the recognition they deserve. Dollars CAN indicate quality. Dollars on their own are not enough to indicate quality.
Oh, I don't think sales indicate quality, but they do demonstrate popularity. We can say that X movie or Y game sucks, but if it has a following, we could be the ones with the terrible taste.
Basic market analysis is seeing what's selling and figuring out why. I don't think it's unknowable, I think there can be many different answers ("I like the artwork!" "I like the setting!" I like the IGO-UGO turn sequence!") but they all point to the reason for the thing.
This is why Jim Dunnigan playfully suggested plagiarizing as the starting point for game designers. Look at what's out there, see what works, and then tinker with it. Sometimes a truly original design will catch fire, but just as often, creating a product-improved version of an existing system is enough.
Of course, Dunnigan was a terrible businessman, at one point unaware that he was selling games at a loss, but that just emphasizes the importance of having someone who knows what they are doing on the business end.
Lance845 wrote: "The good ones borrow the great ones steal" is an adage that has been around since long before any kind of game design discussion.
One I agree with. If mechanics work. Take them.
It is worth repeating, because a lot of people feel the need to do something wholly original. I run into the same issue with fledgling authors who want to express their unique talent. Um, no. People should write what they know, and the greatest literary minds didn't create something new so much as take something already there and modify it.
Game design works the same way. Find a mechanic that works and bend it to what you have in mind. Sometimes it takes a while to work it through. A few years back I was moved to obsessively play Solitaire (with actual cards) while doing battlewatch during an exercise. There were a few raised eyebrows, but people knew I was the simulations guy, and figured I was working on something, which I was.
Which I will hopefully bring to the civilian market at some point.
Since D&D was brought up, I've never liked the simplicity of "I attack," since it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. I also don't like the, "I strike my blade betwixt his eyes and shout forth an insult too foul to speak!" and then attacks.
The best system for me ended up being a system where my description matters, and isn't too gamey. If I say, "I stab him through the chinks in his armor with all my strength," I'm declaring an all out attack targeting the chinks in their armor, giving me a penalty to hit, but reducing the armor they have against my strike.
Disagree if you will, but I think GURPS is pretty elegant in its design.
Also, someone mentioned point buy being great. I love point buy.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Oh, I don't think sales indicate quality, but they do demonstrate popularity. We can say that X movie or Y game sucks, but if it has a following, we could be the ones with the terrible taste.
We could be, but very often the thing in question is trash with great marketing. The entire marketing industry is built on manipulating people into buying stuff they don't really need or want. If we see that a game is popular despite X/Y/Z reasons why its rules are bad it's probably a triumph of marketing, not game design.
Which brings us back to the question of goals. If your goal is to make money as a game designer you pay attention to marketing. You emphasize FOMO and blind buy mechanics designed to exploit gambling addiction, you make sure there are constant obstacles to enjoyment with an easy solution involving paying more to bypass them, etc. And TBH you don't bother with tabletop games at all. In the time it takes you to make a single tabletop game you could have made a dozen F2P loot box mobile games and one whale in one of those games will give you more profit than your tabletop game will ever make. If you're posting in this sub at all and asking questions other than "how can I maximize the addictive behavior and excessive spending of my whales" you're clearly interested in something other than financial success.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: We could be, but very often the thing in question is trash with great marketing. The entire marketing industry is built on manipulating people into buying stuff they don't really need or want. If we see that a game is popular despite X/Y/Z reasons why its rules are bad it's probably a triumph of marketing, not game design.
While I agree that marketing is a factor, I disagree with the assumption that most popular gaming products are trash. It is true that mass market games often lack the design elements that we consider important, but that doesn't make them defective.
I'm old enough to have seen a lot of very slick designs and marketing campaigns that fell completely flat because the design just wasn't that good. If I'm not mistaken, even fairly established games have wrecked their positions through design missteps.
Which brings us back to the question of goals. If your goal is to make money as a game designer you pay attention to marketing. You emphasize FOMO and blind buy mechanics designed to exploit gambling addiction, you make sure there are constant obstacles to enjoyment with an easy solution involving paying more to bypass them, etc. And TBH you don't bother with tabletop games at all. In the time it takes you to make a single tabletop game you could have made a dozen F2P loot box mobile games and one whale in one of those games will give you more profit than your tabletop game will ever make. If you're posting in this sub at all and asking questions other than "how can I maximize the addictive behavior and excessive spending of my whales" you're clearly interested in something other than financial success.
Right, but if I could design a mobile app, I wouldn't be here. I'm interested in the tabletop market, and there is success to be found there.
I think the best hope of success is likely to be found building a relatively simple system with a big IP tie-in, especially after a movie comes out.
But for the dedicated gamers, there is no substitute for quality.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: While I agree that marketing is a factor, I disagree with the assumption that most popular gaming products are trash. It is true that mass market games often lack the design elements that we consider important, but that doesn't make them defective.
Weren't you just arguing that in discussing the merits of IGOUGO we need to exclude 40k because the dominant market leader is such obvious trash that it biases the comparison and obscures the real merits of IGOUGO?
But for the dedicated gamers, there is no substitute for quality.
If you care about money who cares about dedicated gamers. Things like how real-world naval strategy worked, or even the simplified rock/paper/scissors model, are irrelevant to financial success. The most important thing is that destroyers are sold in a package of four, but the overpowered way to use them requires units of five. And then once you've milked that cash cow dry you give a balance buff to battleships that improves their secondary battery, except it's an upgrade sprue that can't be attached to your existing battleship models if you already glued the original guns in place. Oh, and all the stat cards for the ships prominently feature huge-breasted anime characters with one in ten packs containing a special swimsuit version of the character that adds +1d6 damage.
Exactly three questions matter in for-profit design: how can I get new players to start the game and maximize my chances of getting the whales, how can I exploit FOMO to get people to buy too many copies of each new release "just in case", and how can I encourage gambling addicts to hand over their credit cards and spend themselves into homelessness. Look to MTG and 40k for inspiration, not your favorite niche historical game.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: We could be, but very often the thing in question is trash with great marketing. The entire marketing industry is built on manipulating people into buying stuff they don't really need or want. If we see that a game is popular despite X/Y/Z reasons why its rules are bad it's probably a triumph of marketing, not game design.
While I agree that marketing is a factor, I disagree with the assumption that most popular gaming products are trash. It is true that mass market games often lack the design elements that we consider important, but that doesn't make them defective.
I'm old enough to have seen a lot of very slick designs and marketing campaigns that fell completely flat because the design just wasn't that good. If I'm not mistaken, even fairly established games have wrecked their positions through design missteps.
Shoots and Ladders (Originally Snakes and Ladders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders ) is one of the oldest "games" in print today. It originates in India around the 2nd century. I think it's fair to assume that every single one of us has played this "game". Not only played it, but it was probably in your house at some point. The marketing/brand recognition of this product is pervasive to say the least.
Here's the thing. It's not even a game (hence the quotes). You make no decisions and there fore there is no game play. It's a random number generator where blind luck determines if you make it to the end first or not. This product, sold as a game but isn't, is actual trash. And yet it's made Milton Bradley (and now Hasbo) so much money that they continue to produce it since 1943. If it wasn't selling they would stop producing it.
Most of the games and "games" you grew up with are this. You think battleship, blind guesses with coordinates is an actual good game? There are entire articles about how terrible this kind of decision making in a DnD style game is.
If you care about money who cares about dedicated gamers. Things like how real-world naval strategy worked, or even the simplified rock/paper/scissors model, are irrelevant to financial success. The most important thing is that destroyers are sold in a package of four, but the overpowered way to use them requires units of five. And then once you've milked that cash cow dry you give a balance buff to battleships that improves their secondary battery, except it's an upgrade sprue that can't be attached to your existing battleship models if you already glued the original guns in place. Oh, and all the stat cards for the ships prominently feature huge-breasted anime characters with one in ten packs containing a special swimsuit version of the character that adds +1d6 damage.
Exactly three questions matter in for-profit design: how can I get new players to start the game and maximize my chances of getting the whales, how can I exploit FOMO to get people to buy too many copies of each new release "just in case", and how can I encourage gambling addicts to hand over their credit cards and spend themselves into homelessness. Look to MTG and 40k for inspiration, not your favorite niche historical game.
This right here is the entire discussion on profit based design. Pin the post. Reference it at your leisure. It's not a complicated topic to discuss.
Owl is right on about Profit based design. Nice post!
However, I think there could be some niche discussion about how do you make profit based design, when you are an Indie rules designer that doesn't make the models or the accessories for your game. The game IS the product? (RPG design might also fall into this category)
Here are some thoughts:
1. Card mechanics and upgrade cards (As Owl mentions)
2. Incomplete rules sold in pieces. I.e. main rules, army lists, QRS, and scenario books all sold separately.
3. Supplements or add-on rules. You don't need them to play the game BUT they do enhance the experience.
4. Off-shoots of the same basic game at different scales/periods/genres etc.
5. Scenario Packs (similar to rules supplements) but focus on a campaign or set of scenarios for the game with new Maps, set-ups, scenario specific rules, scenario specific lists, etc.
I am sure there are other ways, and would love to see this short list expanded.
Now we are way off topic, but this seems to be where we are actually talking. Let's keep it rolling!
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Weren't you just arguing that in discussing the merits of IGOUGO we need to exclude 40k because the dominant market leader is such obvious trash that it biases the comparison and obscures the real merits of IGOUGO?
No, I was arguing that because there are 10 very different editions and I am unfamiliar with anything produced since 2004, it is a very poor frame of reference.
If you care about money who cares about dedicated gamers. Things like how real-world naval strategy worked, or even the simplified rock/paper/scissors model, are irrelevant to financial success. The most important thing is that destroyers are sold in a package of four, but the overpowered way to use them requires units of five. And then once you've milked that cash cow dry you give a balance buff to battleships that improves their secondary battery, except it's an upgrade sprue that can't be attached to your existing battleship models if you already glued the original guns in place. Oh, and all the stat cards for the ships prominently feature huge-breasted anime characters with one in ten packs containing a special swimsuit version of the character that adds +1d6 damage.
Exactly three questions matter in for-profit design: how can I get new players to start the game and maximize my chances of getting the whales, how can I exploit FOMO to get people to buy too many copies of each new release "just in case", and how can I encourage gambling addicts to hand over their credit cards and spend themselves into homelessness. Look to MTG and 40k for inspiration, not your favorite niche historical game.
Again, I dispute the contention that only trash can succeed. I think many game designers find it annoying when they see what they consider a trash design doing well, but again, how do we define that objectively? You mention a collectible naval strategy game with mechanics you consider unrealistic, but earlier in this thread we had a heated discussion - proving that your "overpowered" destroyers are actually historically accurate.
Going all-in for the player is the product model does have downside risk, and several games got greedy and paid the price for it.
The 4th edition of D&D did this, pushing cards and expansion packs and in short order WotC found itself being outsold by Pathfinder, which used the previous incarnation of D20 that had been made open source!
As for looking at successful designs, I think that's prudent move. Familiarity counts. When asked why I was using playing cards to power a planning simulation my answer was: everyone knows how to use them, keeping my training time short. (Our wargaming area in my squadron looked like we were running a casino - cards, poker chips, a baccarat shoe, and lots of maps. Good times.)
Again, I dispute the contention that only trash can succeed. I think many game designers find it annoying when they see what they consider a trash design doing well, but again, how do we define that objectively?
By doing it. By defining it. Defining this isn't some abstract that is impossible to do. You can, factually, define the criteria for good movie making. You can break it up into sound design, shots, acting, scripts, lighting, etc etc... You can, factually, define a well made film from a poorly made film. Likewise, you can, factually, objectively, define a well made game from a poorly made one. Don't try to shift that into what people "like". Like has nothing to do with it. As spelled out constantly people like everything, including the trash.
I can look at a Rembrandt painting and objectively tell you it's a great painting versus a child's finger painting which is trash a painting. Objectively those statements will be true.
We are not reinventing the wheel in this discussion. Game designers have been discussing what makes a game good for decades. GNS theory is provably wrong. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. His mark of "quality" being in relation to a focus on a game/player type doesn't work.
You mention a collectible naval strategy game with mechanics you consider unrealistic, but earlier in this thread we had a heated discussion - proving that your "overpowered" destroyers are actually historically accurate.
Historical accuracy seems to have nothing to do with a game being good then, does it?
Going all-in for the player is the product model does have downside risk, and several games got greedy and paid the price for it.
The 4th edition of D&D did this, pushing cards and expansion packs and in short order WotC found itself being outsold by Pathfinder, which used the previous incarnation of D20 that had been made open source!
I don't think that has anything to do with DnD not being successful. All those add ons are still available for 5th.
As for looking at successful designs, I think that's prudent move. Familiarity counts. When asked why I was using playing cards to power a planning simulation my answer was: everyone knows how to use them, keeping my training time short. (Our wargaming area in my squadron looked like we were running a casino - cards, poker chips, a baccarat shoe, and lots of maps. Good times.)
I would like you to note that historically the masters of various crafts died destitute and only gained recognition for their "genius" long after they were dead and their works entered the public domain.
"Success" is not a prudent criteria for determining what is "good". Since bad things can be successful and great things can tank, it's not a metric that correlates.
Easy E wrote: Owl is right on about Profit based design. Nice post!
However, I think there could be some niche discussion about how do you make profit based design, when you are an Indie rules designer that doesn't make the models or the accessories for your game. The game IS the product? (RPG design might also fall into this category)
Here are some thoughts:
1. Card mechanics and upgrade cards (As Owl mentions)
2. Incomplete rules sold in pieces. I.e. main rules, army lists, QRS, and scenario books all sold separately.
3. Supplements or add-on rules. You don't need them to play the game BUT they do enhance the experience.
4. Off-shoots of the same basic game at different scales/periods/genres etc.
5. Scenario Packs (similar to rules supplements) but focus on a campaign or set of scenarios for the game with new Maps, set-ups, scenario specific rules, scenario specific lists, etc.
I am sure there are other ways, and would love to see this short list expanded.
Now we are way off topic, but this seems to be where we are actually talking. Let's keep it rolling!
We're very much on the topic of game design fundamentals.
I'll take a stab at a few of these by saying that in the for-profit arena, having expansions is a solid plan, and it doesn't have to be of the "planned obsolescence" GW model. I'm thinking of historical games that use the same core rules and produce scenario packs. Squad Leader is an obvious example.
By the way, authors talk a lot about this - the value of creating a recurring series or multi-volume work rather than individual standalone books. Having done both, I will say that going for the trilogy is where the money is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: By doing it. By defining it. Defining this isn't some abstract that is impossible to do. You can, factually, define the criteria for good movie making. You can break it up into sound design, shots, acting, scripts, lighting, etc etc... You can, factually, define a well made film from a poorly made film. Likewise, you can, factually, objectively, define a well made game from a poorly made one. Don't try to shift that into what people "like". Like has nothing to do with it. As spelled out constantly people like everything, including the trash.
I can look at a Rembrandt painting and objectively tell you it's a great painting versus a child's finger painting which is trash a painting. Objectively those statements will be true.
No, it's all subjective, which is the point. You can't argue taste. You hate a game that others love. You have reasons. They have reasons.
We are not reinventing the wheel in this discussion. Game designers have been discussing what makes a game good for decades. GNS theory is provably wrong. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. His mark of "quality" being in relation to a focus on a game/player type doesn't work.
GNS theory being wrong doesn't eliminate argument among designers. We just had a pretty good one over IGO-UGO. People look for different things, which is fine.
Historical accuracy seems to have nothing to do with a game being good then, does it?
It depends on the purpose of the game.
I don't think that has anything to do with DnD not being successful. All those add ons are still available for 5th.
I was referring to the card-centric play style, which as far as I know, is completely dead.
I would like you to note that historically the masters of various crafts died destitute and only gained recognition for their "genius" long after they were dead and their works entered the public domain.
Some did, some didn't. Some artisans had fabulous wealth. There's no single rule.
"Success" is not a prudent criteria for determining what is "good". Since bad things can be successful and great things can tank, it's not a metric that correlates.
There are various levels of success, and that depends on the type of game and the size of the market. If you are interested in detailed, realistic naval warfare rules, then success may mean that within your genre, you're the default game and outside of it, no one has heard of you.
I think it's important to keep that in mind. If you want to design a mass-market party game, you'll approach design very differently than someone who wants an authentic feel for destroyers' role in naval operations.
No, it's all subjective, which is the point. You can't argue taste. You hate a game that others love. You have reasons. They have reasons.
No. It's not. We are not arguing taste. We are arguing craft. This isn't about love and hate. This is about the quality of the work.
We are not reinventing the wheel in this discussion. Game designers have been discussing what makes a game good for decades. GNS theory is provably wrong. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. His mark of "quality" being in relation to a focus on a game/player type doesn't work.
GNS theory being wrong doesn't eliminate argument among designers. We just had a pretty good one over IGO-UGO. People look for different things, which is fine.
We really didn't have this discussion. I never participated in a discussion in which I discussed the merits and flaws of IGOUGO as a mechanic. I discussed what it did in 40ks design. As a single component in a larger mesh of mechanics that results in problems. YOU don't want to discuss 40k. So this whole discussion you are claiming occurred never took place on both our parts.
Historical accuracy seems to have nothing to do with a game being good then, does it?
It depends on the purpose of the game.
Disagree. But if you think it does, define it. Make your case.
I don't think that has anything to do with DnD not being successful. All those add ons are still available for 5th.
I was referring to the card-centric play style, which as far as I know, is completely dead.
The cards were only ever a prop to show abilities. Those cards are well and truly alive. I was in a Barnes and Nobel the other day and saw the little class specific cards packs sitting right there on the shelf.
I would like you to note that historically the masters of various crafts died destitute and only gained recognition for their "genius" long after they were dead and their works entered the public domain.
Some did, some didn't. Some artisans had fabulous wealth. There's no single rule.
Right. It's almost like success has nothing to do with quality.
"Success" is not a prudent criteria for determining what is "good". Since bad things can be successful and great things can tank, it's not a metric that correlates.
There are various levels of success, and that depends on the type of game and the size of the market. If you are interested in detailed, realistic naval warfare rules, then success may mean that within your genre, you're the default game and outside of it, no one has heard of you.
I think it's important to keep that in mind. If you want to design a mass-market party game, you'll approach design very differently than someone who wants an authentic feel for destroyers' role in naval operations.
It is important to keep it in mind. In the way Owl pointed out. There is no mystery. If I want to design a game to make money then the ways to do it are well documented.
If I want to make a GOOD game that is a different thing.
Lance845 wrote: No. It's not. We are not arguing taste. We are arguing craft. This isn't about love and hate. This is about the quality of the work.
But craft has all sorts of subjective elements to it.
We really didn't have this discussion. I never participated in a discussion in which I discussed the merits and flaws of IGOUGO as a mechanic. I discussed what it did in 40ks design. As a single component in a larger mesh of mechanics that results in problems. YOU don't want to discuss 40k. So this whole discussion you are claiming occurred never took place on both our parts.
I use "we" as in this thread, not you specifically.
The cards were only ever a prop to show abilities. Those cards are well and truly alive. I was in a Barnes and Nobel the other day and saw the little class specific cards packs sitting right there on the shelf.
I stand corrected.
Right. It's almost like success has nothing to do with quality.
No, it has quite a bit to to do with it. There are lots of examples of quality achieving success. Of course, what particularly quality one is looking for is open to debate.
It is important to keep it in mind. In the way Owl pointed out. There is no mystery. If I want to design a game to make money then the ways to do it are well documented.
I disagree. This is like saying anyone can be rich if they just sell out enough. I've met plenty of people who were desperate to sell out and still ended up broke.
Just as quality movies can be wildly successful, so can quality games. Now you may not like them, and you can pick apart their design, but that's how you view it.
I also think we should beware of a false dichotomy that financial success is incompatible with good game design - indeed it is proof that the design is defective. I don't agree. I think there are numerous examples of craftsmen who experienced success on the basis of their quality work.
I also think a lot of great artists died poor because they were terrible at managing their money, not because their work failed to find an audience.
I guess a key consideration - perhaps the key consideration - is the reason for the designing the game.
That is, are you just wanting to design a game, or do you want to design a specific type of game, say about a historic period or genre?
Lance845 wrote: No. It's not. We are not arguing taste. We are arguing craft. This isn't about love and hate. This is about the quality of the work.
But craft has all sorts of subjective elements to it.
Without saying this person likes this or hates that, tell me what they are. You are making an assertion that there are subjective factors to the quality of the craftsmanship. Give them to us. Tell me whats subjective.
Right. It's almost like success has nothing to do with quality.
No, it has quite a bit to to do with it. There are lots of examples of quality achieving success. Of course, what particularly quality one is looking for is open to debate.
You are not getting it....
If I give somebody a brand new medicine and 50% of the people get better and 50% of the people didn't get better then the medicine doesn't seem to have any effect on the disease. OTHER factors are at play in determining what made someone get better. You need a consistent rate of correlation to even start to head down the path of saying that this thing is the cause of/representative of the effect.
Some examples of quality finding success is canceled out by the many examples of quality finding failure. OTHER factors are at play. You cannot use that as a reliable metric.
It is important to keep it in mind. In the way Owl pointed out. There is no mystery. If I want to design a game to make money then the ways to do it are well documented.
I disagree. This is like saying anyone can be rich if they just sell out enough. I've met plenty of people who were desperate to sell out and still ended up broke.
Just as quality movies can be wildly successful, so can quality games. Now you may not like them, and you can pick apart their design, but that's how you view it.
This is the last time I am saying this and then I am just going to refuse to respond to it again. This doesn't have to do with like. I am not discussing what I like. I am not commenting on what others like. I am not commenting on what I don't like. Like has nothing to do with it. Like IS subjective. Like doesn't tell any of us anything.
I also think we should beware of a false dichotomy that financial success is incompatible with good game design - indeed it is proof that the design is defective. I don't agree. I think there are numerous examples of craftsmen who experienced success on the basis of their quality work.
I also think a lot of great artists died poor because they were terrible at managing their money, not because their work failed to find an audience.
I guess a key consideration - perhaps the key consideration - is the reason for the designing the game.
That is, are you just wanting to design a game, or do you want to design a specific type of game, say about a historic period or genre?
Which starts to break down your personal game theory into something like GNS where you build a model that only supports the niche you feel like talking about. Not one of those game theories has ever held up under scrutiny. Not one.
Lance845 wrote: Without saying this person likes this or hates that, tell me what they are. You are making an assertion that there are subjective factors to the quality of the craftsmanship. Give them to us. Tell me whats subjective.
We're talking about game design, not building a rocket ship. So the factors you consider superior may drive other players away.
This isn't hard to understand.
Pick any artistic endeavor and you will find rival schools arguing about which is better. There is no single, agreed-upon, objective standard. You mention Rembrandt as universally acclaimed, but he's not. His work is old, which gives it historic value, but as an aesthetic there are several schools that stand in strident opposition to his aesthetic.
You are not getting it....
If I give somebody a brand new medicine and 50% of the people get better and 50% of the people didn't get better then the medicine doesn't seem to have any effect on the disease. OTHER factors are at play in determining what made someone get better. You need a consistent rate of correlation to even start to head down the path of saying that this thing is the cause of/representative of the effect.
Some examples of quality finding success is canceled out by the many examples of quality finding failure. OTHER factors are at play. You cannot use that as a reliable metric.
Obviously, but your contention that success has zero relationship with quality is equally unfounded. There is a relationship, and the difficulty in evaluating this in an artistic endeavor is the lack of any objective measure of quality.
Medicine? Yep, we can do studies, create huge sample sizes because there is an objective standard: the health of the patient. But in gaming, there is none - one man's trash is another man's treasure.
It is very clear that if we were to draw up factors of quality, they would be very different. Obviously, you think yours would be totally objective.
This is the last time I am saying this and then I am just going to refuse to respond to it again. This doesn't have to do with like. I am not discussing what I like. I am not commenting on what others like. I am not commenting on what I don't like. Like has nothing to do with it. Like IS subjective. Like doesn't tell any of us anything.
Name your objective, scientific standards then! Because I guarantee as soon as you finish typing, people will disagree over whether they have merit, whether they are properly applied, etc.
This happens all the time in design schools. Pick your discipline and I'll show you contending schools. Not only will the schools contend with each other, they will also argue about which features epitomize their own school.
Which starts to break down your personal game theory into something like GNS where you build a model that only supports the niche you feel like talking about. Not one of those game theories has ever held up under scrutiny. Not one.
It's not a theory, it's a practice, a technique. Figure out what you want to make, and focus on just that. Ignore abstract principles or externalities, focus on what is essential to the task at hand.
If you want a mass-market game, your design should include only features supportive of that. If you want an accurate historical naval game, then that is your focus, and don't concern yourself with mass-market success.
It sounds stupidly simple, but lots of game designers lose the plot and clutter up their designs - or omit key elements.
While there probably are game designers who have zero interest in anything other than making a time-waster (though these guys are probably into apps rather than physical items like cards or figures), I think the group that populates Dakka is more inclined to make games based on topic of interest rather than mass market appeal.
Settlers of Catan-style games do quite well, but they bore me. So I won't be designing one of the those. When I get an itch to design, it's a specific topic, and so I have to start asking myself - how should that topic be represented? What is the balance between complexity and accessibility? How long should sessions last?
Basically, I see game design as akin to any other planning - you determine the things you want to achieve and then look at ways to do that, weighing your options based on their applicability to that goal.
Easy E's questions are very useful because of their applicability over a variety of genres and designs. If the point of the design is merely to cover one specific and limited topic, expansions are off the table.
However, even a one-off game can have 'external' effects by establishing a reputation or filling out a catalog. My books cover a slew of genres, and I'm guessing the Venn diagram of someone who is interested in all of them is me. But their quantity and scope do help establish me as someone people might want to read.
Now I could have done market research, looked at which genres sell most, come up with a multi-part (or open-ended) series, and mined the hell out of it. Game designers certainly do that as well.
But that's not what inspires me, so I will take the potential loss of income in exchange for the pleasure of creating something I care about.
Because that's also part of game design - doing something you enjoy.
Easy E wrote: However, I think there could be some niche discussion about how do you make profit based design, when you are an Indie rules designer that doesn't make the models or the accessories for your game. The game IS the product? (RPG design might also fall into this category)
TBH in that case you learn to code and start making F2P loot box mobile games. Rules-only games are never going to work well for maximizing profit because they're too easy to pirate. Once a game becomes popular enough to have a chance of bringing in significant income pirated pdfs of it will be easily available and the whales can just download everything for free. If you want to make money you need a physical component (miniatures, cards in a CCG, etc) that can't be pirated easily.
IMO if you are committed to not getting into the miniatures business you should discard the marketing-based profit focus entirely. It won't bring in many sales but it will do an excellent job of driving away the customers who do care about a quality game. Just take the cap on your potential profit and enjoy making games for fans of your niche.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: No, I was arguing that because there are 10 very different editions and I am unfamiliar with anything produced since 2004, it is a very poor frame of reference.
What you said:
Of course not, no one is saying that IGO-UGO is the ne plus ultra of gaming design, I'm merely pointing out that it has its place and purpose. GW's flagrant abuse of it should not condemn the format across the board.
and
I get that 40k comes up a lot because there are so many crappy elements of design in it, one of which is the model count. Simply the tedium of moving all those individual figures, checking for cohesion, etc. is a royal pain. It is a terrible design.
But that's an indictment of GW, not IGO-UGO. They could break any system you give them.
Right there, the most popular game in the entire miniatures hobby is so badly designed that you want to keep it out of the conversation and focus on a theoretical good IGOUGO game.
Again, I dispute the contention that only trash can succeed.
Succeed at all? No, obviously non-trash games can succeed and make a modest profit for the creator.
Succeed like MTG? Absolutely only trash can succeed. The mechanics that drive sales most effectively are inherently destructive to the quality of the game. Essentially you light your game on fire, sell as many loot boxes as possible to gambling addicts before it burns down entirely, and replace it with the next disposable loot box game.
You mention a collectible naval strategy game with mechanics you consider unrealistic, but earlier in this thread we had a heated discussion - proving that your "overpowered" destroyers are actually historically accurate.
The difference is that "my" overpowered destroyers are overpowered to sell boxes of destroyers, not because of historical accuracy or any game balance reasons. All of their rules (such as a squadron buff requiring units of 5 to activate when they are sold in boxes of 4) are based on sales metrics. And once I've hit diminishing returns on manipulating players into buying boxes of destroyers they will be nerfed and replaced by the next overpowered thing I want to sell.
As for looking at successful designs, I think that's prudent move. Familiarity counts. When asked why I was using playing cards to power a planning simulation my answer was: everyone knows how to use them, keeping my training time short. (Our wargaming area in my squadron looked like we were running a casino - cards, poker chips, a baccarat shoe, and lots of maps. Good times.)
But that's quality-focused design not profit-focused design. Profit-focused design would have you use something like playing cards but sold in blind buy packs with rarity levels, special promo versions at extreme rarity, etc, to get the gambling addicts to keep chasing the thrill of opening a rare card.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: TBH in that case you learn to code and start making F2P loot box mobile games. Rules-only games are never going to work well for maximizing profit because they're too easy to pirate. Once a game becomes popular enough to have a chance of bringing in significant income pirated pdfs of it will be easily available and the whales can just download everything for free. If you want to make money you need a physical component (miniatures, cards in a CCG, etc) that can't be pirated easily.
Yes, some sort of physical components are a must if sales is in any way a consideration.
What you said:
Right there, the most popular game in the entire miniatures hobby is so badly designed that you want to keep it out of the conversation and focus on a theoretical good IGOUGO game.
Context is everything. You'll notice I'm trying to turn the subject away from 40k because that's not what I am wanting to discuss. I want to discuss IGO-UGO outside of GW. To that end, I'm agreeing with the person who hates its use in 40k. I'm accepting their premise and trying to move the discussion to more fruitful areas because:
1. I don't think GW is the best example of IGO-UGO. I hated how it was used in 3rd and 4th.
2. I can't defend its use in the last 6 editions because I never played them.
3. The example I can give of it working in 40k is an edition (2nd) very few people have played.
If that wasn't clear before, it should be clear now.
Succeed at all? No, obviously non-trash games can succeed and make a modest profit for the creator.
Succeed like MTG? Absolutely only trash can succeed. The mechanics that drive sales most effectively are inherently destructive to the quality of the game. Essentially you light your game on fire, sell as many loot boxes as possible to gambling addicts before it burns down entirely, and replace it with the next disposable loot box game.
And yet people love that game, and would fiercely dispute the notion that it is trash. As a design, it has a lot going for it. I remember admiring it when it came out and wishing I'd thought of it.
I think you would do well to look at mechanics other than financial ones to see why designs endure because there are tons of cash-grab games that vanish without a trace. It's also true that the success of the design leads to reworking to continue the cashflow, just like movie sequels and prequels start appearing after a box office success.
That doesn't make the original trash.
The difference is that "my" overpowered destroyers are overpowered to sell boxes of destroyers, not because of historical accuracy or any game balance reasons. All of their rules (such as a squadron buff requiring units of 5 to activate when they are sold in boxes of 4) are based on sales metrics. And once I've hit diminishing returns on manipulating players into buying boxes of destroyers they will be nerfed and replaced by the next overpowered thing I want to sell.
There was a discussion elsewhere on the site about how X-wing lost the plot and tried to over-monetize itself and crashed as a result. They did exactly what you suggest can't fail - raised prices, produced pirate-proof cards and tried to force a new edition.
I will also point out that GW could only turn to this approach after it had achieved market dominance and been in operation for 30 years. It was not their opening gambit.
Knowing a few naval miniatures fans, I think doing that would ensure zero sales.
But that's quality-focused design not profit-focused design. Profit-focused design would have you use something like playing cards but sold in blind buy packs with rarity levels, special promo versions at extreme rarity, etc, to get the gambling addicts to keep chasing the thrill of opening a rare card.
It depends on the market segment. Columbia Games tried that and failed. Turns out that military history buffs want to pay for an order of battle, not engage in a scavenger hunt.
Which goes back to my point about knowing the type of game you want to make and who is likely to play it.
I mean the counterpoint to all the "profit = trash" is that many otherwise successful designs failed because the designers had no idea of how to properly monetize them. TSR and SPI are obvious examples of this.
So including financial considerations is very much an element of design if only to ensure that robust sales don't end in personal bankruptcy.
Lots of addicts think their drug of choice is the greatest thing ever.
I do agree that MTG had some good ideas but by far the best one was the blind buy mechanic. Take that away and would it have done anywhere near this well? Or would it have been one of many forgotten card games that had some interest but never really went anywhere?
I think you would do well to look at mechanics other than financial ones to see why designs endure because there are tons of cash-grab games that vanish without a trace.
Of course they fail. But failure is already accounted for in the business model. All of your games are disposable and if 90% of them fail the 10% that succeed make enough profit to pay for the failures. And even the 10% that succeed aren't meant to be long-term projects. Maximizing profit inherently destroys a game and gives it a very limited lifespan. You know that your game will be dead 2-3 years after launch and you don't care because you made $$$$$$ from its destruction and you have ten more games lined up behind it to repeat the process.
There was a discussion elsewhere on the site about how X-wing lost the plot and tried to over-monetize itself and crashed as a result. They did exactly what you suggest can't fail - raised prices, produced pirate-proof cards and tried to force a new edition.
Whether X-Wing failed depends on how you define "failure". Did the reboot do significant damage to the long-term health of the game? Yes. Did it make a very nice quarterly financial report? Absolutely, and that's what matters. FFG cashed in and killed the game for short-term profit but short-term profit is the entire goal of profit-focused design.
From a profit-focused point of view X-Wing's biggest failure wasn't the cash grab of the conversion kits, it was two things: FFG's parent company handing the game over to the clowns at AMG and letting them further trash the game without extracting any additional profit, and milking the cash cow to death without any replacement ready to go.
I will also point out that GW could only turn to this approach after it had achieved market dominance and been in operation for 30 years. It was not their opening gambit.
But GW in its early days was also a much smaller company. They didn't start making hundreds of millions in profit every year until the ruthless profit-focused management came in and started doing things like driving independent stores out of business with questionably legal tactics and replacing them with GW-only stores where customers would never even know that non-GW products exist.
Knowing a few naval miniatures fans, I think doing that would ensure zero sales.
But you aren't selling to naval miniaures fans. Who cares about that niche. You're selling to MTG addicts who see a cool flying battleship game with huge-breasted anime characters as the captains and buy 100 packs because the ultra-rare foil version (one in every ~1000 packs) has full nudity.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Lots of addicts think their drug of choice is the greatest thing ever.
So is every long-term player just an addict, devoid of taste, sensitivity or any kind of intelligence? What a dark view of the gaming market.
I do agree that MTG had some good ideas but by far the best one was the blind buy mechanic. Take that away and would it have done anywhere near this well? Or would it have been one of many forgotten card games that had some interest but never really went anywhere?
Lots of games had a buy blind mechanic. Are you kidding? What kept MTG afloat was that people enjoyed the game play.
Of course they fail. But failure is already accounted for in the business model. All of your games are disposable and if 90% of them fail the 10% that succeed make enough profit to pay for the failures. And even the 10% that succeed aren't meant to be long-term projects. Maximizing profit inherently destroys a game and gives it a very limited lifespan. You know that your game will be dead 2-3 years after launch and you don't care because you made $$$$$$ from its destruction and you have ten more games lined up behind it to repeat the process.
Who are you talking about, and how it is relevant to this discussion?
Whether X-Wing failed depends on how you define "failure". Did the reboot do significant damage to the long-term health of the game? Yes. Did it make a very nice quarterly financial report? Absolutely, and that's what matters. FFG cashed in and killed the game for short-term profit but short-term profit is the entire goal of profit-focused design.
No, it's long-term sustainable profit. You know, like 40k or MTG.
From a profit-focused point of view X-Wing's biggest failure wasn't the cash grab of the conversion kits, it was two things: FFG's parent company handing the game over to the clowns at AMG and letting them further trash the game without extracting any additional profit, and milking the cash cow to death without any replacement ready to go.
Maybe they figured the license was going to go away, and had to cash out while they could. This is an inherent risk in licensed games.
But GW in its early days was also a much smaller company. They didn't start making hundreds of millions in profit every year until the ruthless profit-focused management came in and started doing things like driving independent stores out of business with questionably legal tactics and replacing them with GW-only stores where customers would never even know that non-GW products exist.
Right, so what works for the GW of today is terrible advice for the aspiring independent game designer, no?
But you aren't selling to naval miniaures fans. Who cares about that niche. You're selling to MTG addicts who see a cool flying battleship game with huge-breasted anime characters as the captains and buy 100 packs because the ultra-rare foil version (one in every ~1000 packs) has full nudity.
No, I'm not. That wasn't the game under discussion. We were arguing about a rock/paper/scissors game of naval combat and there was heated debate about whether that was historically accurate. Then you said it didn't matter, and sell figures in packs designed to make collecting difficult to maximize short-term profit.
Now you've introduced soft core porn into the equation and I'm not sure where the hell that came from.
I suppose if you did want to do a "Hot Sailor Destroyer Moon" CCG, it might sell. Maybe you should run with that, just give me a developer credit for the title.
Getting back to game design, I was reminded today how designers can crank out expansions but also branch out. Steve Jackson comes to mind. GURPS obviously had built-in expansion capability, but that wasn't the only thing in play. I've got a few GURPS books, but lots of Munchkin sets. Are they crass expansions? Maybe, but they are much enjoyed because of the different genres.
I think that's the essence of good game design - it fulfills player expectations and also is financially viable.
Another approach is expansions in terms of historical work, like Squad Leader, the Brigade Series, etc. Once a player buys the core rules, expansions allow them to cover new battles or scenarios without additional effort.
That's the model that interests me and one I experimented with in the military. In that case, we had lots of different things to cover, and limited time to do it. So why not use the same set of rules? Not only did this help the players, but the design staff could turn product in as little as 24 hours, which is highly useful in a time-sensitive situation.
That's where I'm at right now. I need to explore building out the core rules and also finding vendors who can make the all-important unique physical media necessary to play the game. Artwork will be done in-house by my, daughters both of whom did artwork for my history books.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: So is every long-term player just an addict, devoid of taste, sensitivity or any kind of intelligence? What a dark view of the gaming market.
With modern MTG going more and more into shovelware territory with every new release? Yeah, I'd say the majority of people who stick with that dumpster fire of a game are either in a place where MTG is the only game anyone plays or gambling addicts.
Who are you talking about, and how it is relevant to this discussion?
I'm talking about the standard business model for making profit in the industry: games are disposable short-term products where maximizing addictive behavior from whales via loot boxes, FOMO, and the new content treadmill is the goal. It's relevant because the question of profit-focused design came up and if you want profit that's what you do.
And yes, I know a lot of companies don't use that model. That's why a single shovelware mobile game will make more money in the three months it exists than you will make in your entire career as a game designer making high quality wargames.
No, it's long-term sustainable profit. You know, like 40k or MTG.
40k and MTG are outliers, the incomprehensible exceptions to the rule where GW/WOTC can do every destructive profit-focused gimmick in the book and somehow still have a game. As someone other than GW/WOTC you can't count on that and a series of short-term cash grabs will make more money than a long-term sustainable game.
No, I'm not. That wasn't the game under discussion. We were arguing about a rock/paper/scissors game of naval combat and there was heated debate about whether that was historically accurate. Then you said it didn't matter, and sell figures in packs designed to make collecting difficult to maximize short-term profit.
Now you've introduced soft core porn into the equation and I'm not sure where the hell that came from.
It came from the fact that profit-focused design came up. The reality is that we can have two possible conversations:
We can talk about quality game design where the goal of the designer is to make the best possible game. This involves things like the triangle model for what players want to get out of a game, the merits of rock/paper/scissors balancing and whether it's compatible with historical accuracy, etc.
Or we can talk about profit-focused design where the goal of the designer is to make money. In that case none of that stuff matters. You make a battleship-themed porn game with loot boxes, heavy FOMO, and a relentless new content treadmill. And then once you've milked that cash cow to death you re-use the miniatures to make world conquest themed porn game that uses the battleship miniatures as tokens, with all of the same marketing gimmicks. And once you've built the IP you make an airplane-themed porn game in the setting, getting a new round of addictive behavior from the whales. Etc.
If you want to have the first conversation that's fine, and a far more interesting conversation IMO. But once you start bringing in profit motives all of that design discussion ends and the only thing that matters is marketing. The game is nothing more than a means to an end: convincing whales to spend themselves into homelessness buying your product.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: With modern MTG going more and more into shovelware territory with every new release? Yeah, I'd say the majority of people who stick with that dumpster fire of a game are either in a place where MTG is the only game anyone plays or gambling addicts.
I should clarify that I'm talking about all long-term system, not just MTG, which I should note, I never did get around to playing.
I'm talking about the standard business model for making profit in the industry: games are disposable short-term products where maximizing addictive behavior from whales via loot boxes, FOMO, and the new content treadmill is the goal. It's relevant because the question of profit-focused design came up and if you want profit that's what you do.
And yes, I know a lot of companies don't use that model. That's why a single shovelware mobile game will make more money in the three months it exists than you will make in your entire career as a game designer making high quality wargames.
Right, but mobile apps aren't under discussion. I get that you feel strongly about the current environment, but it difficult to follow you at times.
40k and MTG are outliers, the incomprehensible exceptions to the rule where GW/WOTC can do every destructive profit-focused gimmick in the book and somehow still have a game. As someone other than GW/WOTC you can't count on that and a series of short-term cash grabs will make more money than a long-term sustainable game.
So should we use them as examples or focus on Steve Jackson or the Battle Tech franchise?
I think it's interesting that the original (and successful) GW model was diversity of games rather than planned obsolescence and loot boxes. I think that model only became viable once they got too big to fail (but still almost failed anyway).
It came from the fact that profit-focused design came up. The reality is that we can have two possible conversations:
We can talk about quality game design where the goal of the designer is to make the best possible game. This involves things like the triangle model for what players want to get out of a game, the merits of rock/paper/scissors balancing and whether it's compatible with historical accuracy, etc.
Or we can talk about profit-focused design where the goal of the designer is to make money. In that case none of that stuff matters. You make a battleship-themed porn game with loot boxes, heavy FOMO, and a relentless new content treadmill. And then once you've milked that cash cow to death you re-use the miniatures to make world conquest themed porn game that uses the battleship miniatures as tokens, with all of the same marketing gimmicks. And once you've built the IP you make an airplane-themed porn game in the setting, getting a new round of addictive behavior from the whales. Etc.
If you want to have the first conversation that's fine, and a far more interesting conversation IMO. But once you start bringing in profit motives all of that design discussion ends and the only thing that matters is marketing. The game is nothing more than a means to an end: convincing whales to spend themselves into homelessness buying your product.
Yeah, I don't seen the conflict. You can design a game with future expansions in mind without making it crass or trashy. Again, Munchkin expansions are alternate settings. We started on the Fantasy set, and then did Lovecraft because it was also funny.
Similarly, the GURPS expansions seem like natural outgrowths of a truly "universal" system that can be used in any setting. I think the big weakness of GURPS was that it was so expansive that there didn't seem (to me at least) to be dedicated support for the various settings. By that I mean the players, not the designers, supplied the background.
D&D expanded in part because of player demand for more stuff. Indeed, the expansion was ultimately self-defeating and wrecked TSR, but there was a creative (that is to say, not purely profit) motive involved.
So as we talk about quality game design, we can also talk about making them financially viable.
A branch of that discussion (or a separate thread) might include how not to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I should clarify that I'm talking about all long-term system, not just MTG, which I should note, I never did get around to playing.
It's good! Recent Wizards of the Coast actions have been kinda crappy, but the game itself is fun.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I should clarify that I'm talking about all long-term system, not just MTG, which I should note, I never did get around to playing.
Not all long-term systems are profit-focused systems. You can be a fan of a historical game that has been around for 30 years without being a whale or lacking in taste but it's highly unlikely that the game has made all that much money and its design priority is almost certainly not profit.
Right, but mobile apps aren't under discussion.
They should be, because mobile apps have demonstrated the best way to make money with a game. If you goal is to make money you absolutely should be studying how mobile shovelware has mastered the art of using the existence of a game as a structure to drive gambling addicts to hand over their wallets.
I think it's interesting that the original (and successful) GW model was diversity of games rather than planned obsolescence and loot boxes. I think that model only became viable once they got too big to fail (but still almost failed anyway).
I think GW's early success had more to do with first to market advantages and questionably legal business practices than diversity of quality games. GW established themselves as the only non-historical wargame and then leveraged it to create a walled garden where only GW products existed. They'd use sales data from third-party stores to identify markets, open a GW store nearby, and then the third-party store would mysteriously start having stock issues that drove customers to the GW store. It's not exactly the same whale-focused business model (which hadn't been discovered yet) but it's very much about marketing
And TBHGW games have never been very good games. They've always been wildly unbalanced, full of broken and ambiguous rules, and lacking in depth relative to their complexity. What they've had though is the critical mass effect of being the only option for many players and an extremely strong lore and aesthetic component that drives sales even when the rules are inexcusable .
Yeah, I don't seen the conflict.
The conflict is that the things that maximize profit are inherently destructive to a game. The more you use loot boxes, FOMO, and the new content treadmill the faster you burn through your available design space and frustrate your customers. Essentially you trade customer base for massive sales to your whale minority, making a ton of money until you run out of normal customers to sacrifice and even the whales stop buying. So you have a choice: if your goal is to make money you do all these things and game design is secondary at best compared to marketing, if your goal is to make a good game you reject the profit motive and all of its destructive effects.
You can design a game with future expansions in mind without making it crass or trashy.
"Sex sells" is a rule for a reason. If you want to make money with a game getting your share of the desperate losers who spend their entire paycheck on onlyfans subscriptions is going to make you way more money than obsessing over the details of historical accuracy vs. game balance in torpedo boat mechanics.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Not all long-term systems are profit-focused systems. You can be a fan of a historical game that has been around for 30 years without being a whale or lacking in taste but it's highly unlikely that the game has made all that much money and its design priority is almost certainly not profit.
Cumulatively, it might. Obviously if a company remains in business for 30 years, it is probably doing something right.
They should be, because mobile apps have demonstrated the best way to make money with a game. If you goal is to make money you absolutely should be studying how mobile shovelware has mastered the art of using the existence of a game as a structure to drive gambling addicts to hand over their wallets.
Then start a thread on it!
I think GW's early success had more to do with first to market advantages and questionably legal business practices than diversity of quality games.
Early GW is nothing like it is today. White Dwarf was a general hobby magazine and GW was TSR's UK licensee. It's interesting that they are still, even now, strip-mining stuff they came up with 30 years ago because there is so little talent left on staff.
But that also is a tribute to how much creativity they had going back then. Miniatures were a mainstay of the business, but they also supported RPGs and board games, and of course partnerships with the likes of Milton Bradley. Very different environment that today, which makes them a poor model for startup enterprises.
The conflict is that the things that maximize profit are inherently destructive to a game. The more you use loot boxes, FOMO, and the new content treadmill the faster you burn through your available design space and frustrate your customers. Essentially you trade customer base for massive sales to your whale minority, making a ton of money until you run out of normal customers to sacrifice and even the whales stop buying. So you have a choice: if your goal is to make money you do all these things and game design is secondary at best compared to marketing, if your goal is to make a good game you reject the profit motive and all of its destructive effects.
Again, I think this is a false choice. You can do expansions without letting them get out of hand. Obviously, this is the great temptation and before it lost the license, it was clear Decipher had cluttered up the Star Wars CCG to the point where it was no longer a unified design. This wasn't unsolvable - there were signs that they understood that the game might have to be broken into themes so that decks could interact with one another. In the event, the roof fell in and that was that.
"Sex sells" is a rule for a reason. If you want to make money with a game getting your share of the desperate losers who spend their entire paycheck on onlyfans subscriptions is going to make you way more money than obsessing over the details of historical accuracy vs. game balance in torpedo boat mechanics.
LOL, it may sell, but it's getting cheaper all the time. If that's you're model, success is far from certain. I actually know people who went that route for the exact reasons you've outlined and they failed utterly. How awful to have "failed pornographer" in ones CV?
Anyhow, I think the discussion can move forward on the following assumptions:
Dakka designers are motivated more by quality and profit. Topic, for example, is a huge source of motivation.
Profit is however a consideration, if for no other reason than to keep the enterprise viable.
Easy E wrote: Regarding learning to Code and making Mobile games....
I have always contended that if I wanted to make money as an Indie game designer, I would be better off recycling cans from the side of the road.
There are a few career paths that are pretty much guaranteed high income, but they often have steep entry costs, both in education and effort. Or you could just be born into the right family. Life's funny that way.
The real issue is what brings one joy. I know people who have given up higher-paying jobs because they want work that doesn't feel like work. Can't argue with that.
Another model is having a day job that pays for hobbies and eventually making the hobbies pay for themselves in some way.
Authorship and game design are close cousins, and the tradeoffs mentioned about grinding out a design that is poor but produces income is similar to people who grind out a book in an endless series every two or three months to pay the rent.
Both can be competently done, but are unlikely to achieve any lasting reputation.
Where game design differs from writing books is that the designer may be building something for personal use as well. Thus, Conqueror, which has made some money, but mostly it scratches my personal fantasy/historical gaming itch.
With better marketing, improved graphics, it may do better, and when I get the time, I'll pursue both.
Finally, I want to say that creation is in many ways a leap of faith. You can't have a runaway surprise success unless you put something out there, and if you are going to bother, why not put out your best?
The edition I play is closer to "beer and pretzels," which is why I still play and enjoy it.
.