Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Question’s in the title. When making your own game, what do you focus on first? I would guess the second, since that’s the whole point of a game right?

I’ve got the bare bones of a game dreamt up, and the beginnings of some fluff too. But both need lots of work before I could present anything for show.

My answer: both at the same time/interleaved, influencing one another in a close loop. My biggest game design effort to date started as a tabletop/boardgame hybrid concept with heavy dependency on terrain and ended as a deckbuilding card game with fluff being the same at the core, but fleshed out more and more with every new design idea.

I found that giving strong preference to fluff tends to bring bad gameplay and focusing solely on mechanics gives one-dimensional, "sterile" experience. This is partially reason why I don't really dig boardgames anymore - after a while most of them fall into quite distinguished categories, so particular titles are nearly interchangeable/easily forgettable. So my personal preference is when fluff and mechanics are so entwined, that you cannot strip one or another without significantly altering the resulting experience.

Actually, it depends.

Sometimes, I have an idea for an interesting mechanic and I'll work on that, then come up with theme/setting/fluff later.

Others, I'll have a specific theme/setting/fluff in mind, develop some of that, then work on mechanics to help reflect that.

Everyone has a different creative process. I like having a skeleton that I "flesh out" as I go. For example, I have a very loose idea for a futuristic battle game. I have an idea for 9 or so factions, that fit into a grid of elite vs horde, fast vs durable, that sort of thing.

I also have ideas for some mechanics, to fit the factions.

I have a few ideas for characters to follow, and a plan to have good guy and bad guy characters within the same factions. That way it lets the players decide if they want to play heroic or villainous fluff.

I would start with skirmish level as the galaxy is on the verge of war. I would then have a game intended for "40k at 1500 points" level, and then an "epic" level game as the factions begin full-scale war.

As I flesh out the skeleton, I often find more bones of inspiration to flesh out later.

To me, the fluff inspires the crunch, and the needs of crunch then inspire the fluff. But maybe you have a great crunch idea that could use a bit of fluff that could then give you a crunch idea that just fits.

Fluff first.
It's the whole point of the game.

Neither. I start with the design parameters I want to accomplish.

However, after that I start by thinking about army selection and formation and the rest follows. Odd.

Both, but I think fluff is more important in creating a design restriction for any project, then again if the fluff is not published it can be altered to fit the game design.

Great responses guys. Thank you.

Me, I’m actually finding myself mostly working on the rules first. As greatbigtree said, I’m starting by making the bare bones of a system that’ll be the skeleton of the finished result. Because it’s all well and good having decent fluff but if the game doesn’t play right it won’t work. I’m thinking of the previous generations of 40k. But fluff still drives the direction of it. In truth, it’s probably best to say that I’m working on them simultaneously.

Neither.

I like to start with a game concept of what sort of game I want to play!
* what's the basic concept?
* what am I representing on the tabletop?
* how should it look?
* how should the game flow?
* what should the players to do?

All of the above leads into a little fluff and a lot of rules that support the concept.

Starting with rules mechanics is a poor idea, because there's a tendency to wrap the game around particular rules, even when they're not necessary or not ideal. Starting with fluff can be OK, if you're using fluff to define the game concept; but if it's background stories, basically useless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Starting with fluff can be OK, if you're using fluff to define the game concept; but if it's background stories, basically useless.

This is a fair point, and in my own response by "fluff" I suppose I really mean "theme" more than anything. Sure, writing a bunch of background stories might be fun and all, but probably not overly helpful for creating a game out of. A theme, such as "Dinosaurs racing to a volcano to throw themselves in" (not mine; was Cheapass Games' Bitin' off Heads), gives you some direction of what kind of rules you might desire. Writing a 300 page background on the politics between two opposing star empires probably doesn't give you very much towards a functional game.

One could easily take a 300-page treatise on the buildup to the Great War, with it's interlocking alliances, the development of same, along with the socio-political-economic perspectives and so forth. That background could then be used to justify any number of games:
* a diplomacy game to create the interlocking alliances
* a cloak-and-dagger game to assassinate the Duke (a la Fury of Dracula),
* an actual grand strategy Great War game that focused on the economics and weather,
* parallel In the Trenches and Over the Wire games of defending and assault
etc. etc.

But yeah, theme and concept > background stories.

There's something to be said for background to form a context for a game so that various operations make sense to players.

In this, and pretty much all I do in gaming, I always come up with some fluff first.

So much so, that, occasionally, it stays as fluff!

I've never been great at writing crunch, but that's mostly because I have a deep-seated dislike of numbers, which is unfortunate, considering game mechanics etc !

I’ve been turning more towards the fluff myself recently. Although, when making a fantasty setting, I find it really really really hard to come up with something that hasn’t already been done before in some shape or form. But that’s not a bad thing right?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve been turning more towards the fluff myself recently. Although, when making a fantasty setting, I find it really really really hard to come up with something that hasn’t already been done before in some shape or form. But that’s not a bad thing right?

Not at all. Variety being spice of life and all that. For example, I'm working on the two lost SM legions. I'm determined to ensure they are both quite different...I've got a WIP in progress. Check my gallery.

Combination of both, I started 2 pages of story to set a theme but stuck purely to events leading up to the game then did about 10 pages of rules. However within the rules section I often referred to fluff as to how and why certain abilities and rules worked. I also split the rules text down into a basic section to get player familiar with the system a series of learning scenarios then an advanced section adding ship/fleet construction and special abilities on each hull type.

I was recently re-think this and I determined I do something very odd first. After deciding on a game concept and general design goals I actually work on a working title, search for public domain images I can use, and build a cover.

This helps motivate and excite me to actually make the game!

 ThunderCracker wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve been turning more towards the fluff myself recently. Although, when making a fantasty setting, I find it really really really hard to come up with something that hasn’t already been done before in some shape or form. But that’s not a bad thing right?

Not at all. Variety being spice of life and all that. For example, I'm working on the two lost SM legions. I'm determined to ensure they are both quite different...I've got a WIP in progress. Check my gallery.

Oh hey, is that Captain Farelle and the Steelhearts? Along with Captain Ar-Ulnan? I like these! Nice job!

Also, has anyone encountered what I’m currently encountering, and getting confused over what side to pick in the “sci-if/fantasy” divide? Because I am now finding the fluff does dictate your rules to you.

Core rules and basic functions first, fluff, then specialized rules that fit the fluff or wraping the fluff around the mechanics that exist.

This thread inspired me to start a series of blogposts bout the process of building a game. I have written and posted the first one, and the second one is written and scheduled to post, and the third one is in draft.

The first one here is about what to do first to get your game going...

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2018/09/wargame-design-getting-started-on.html

The next one will be about fleshing out your basic 4M mechanics, and the third is about choosing the right activation method.

So, thanks to this thread for getting me to think about the process of actually 'making a game' a bit more.

 Easy E wrote:
This thread inspired me to start a series of blogposts bout the process of building a game. I have written and posted the first one, and the second one is written and scheduled to post, and the third one is in draft.

The first one here is about what to do first to get your game going...

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2018/09/wargame-design-getting-started-on.html

The next one will be about fleshing out your basic 4M mechanics, and the third is about choosing the right activation method.

So, thanks to this thread for getting me to think about the process of actually 'making a game' a bit more.

Thank you for posting that link to your blog! Glad this thread has inspired you too!

I've found myself doing a bit of each - get an idea for the game, then say "ok, so why are they there, doing that?" and then once I've had a brainwave for that, it led to more ideas for factions, and then more ideas for fluff. I guess these things tend to grow organically.

Both approaches have their merits. I would argue that it depends purely upon your priority. Most peoples priority when concepting for a commercial game would be to create something that will sell well. Seeing as purchase decisions are emotional, I would say this is the main culprit for most game funding in PC (like the vast majority) going into the art department- (well that and the fact writers never get paid nearly enough). Any successful tabletop seems to have closely followed this theory. Take Warhammer for example, the main selling point early on was the beauty of the miniatures and expression in being able to paint the model your own way while also customizing your army.
:This puts the enthesis on story telling, visually- which sets it apart from any other war simulator from it's time based on how well customized things could be to suit the narrative one wishes to create themselves.

When these things combined for the first time with a hefty price point, things had more meaning to them. Things had an emotional value when they spent hours of pay buying them- then hours building, cleaning and painting them. Instead of buying 5 soldiers. I purchased and trained 5 of the finest killers in the galaxy, armed to the teeth with alien technology only found in the galaxy of Moarrbslein.

People could have played a war simulator, and many still prefer a war simulator, but the vast majority of people do not play games to train or sharpen their mind, but to rather entertain their imagination.
This is why documentaries will always be less popular than action movies for instance.

Luckily Warhammer ended up being a blend of documentary meets action- I like to compare it to something like "band of brothers" - if band of brothers was more about the women they fethed when they were on leave in-between missions.
A simulation of war that focuses entirely on something like which soldier could drink the most. I believe this is where it get's its charm from.
This is what I love about fantasy novels and good RPG games that bring people together. We no longer have to exercise our imagination alone, we can actually enjoy it with others.
Unfortunately artificial intelligence will kill off this need to enjoy it with others, ultimately resulting in pure fluff.
Why will rules die you might ask?

Rules become meaningless when there is no penalty for disobeying them. There was a time where games were so gak that if you decided to cheat playing rogue trader or chess, your only other alternative without a real human player to vs was to playing a game and having fun- was a really crappy gaming system on an ancient computer. Some people preferred this, but as time progressed- replicating real things on a computer became easier than finding or experiencing those things in the real world. They have also become almost as real. When people weigh up the experience vs the effort it takes to achieve it, most would prefer to buy meat from a local butcher that has been forced into a small confined space and fed hormones and cheap feed rather than going out there and killing their own animal, bleeding it, skinning it, gutting it, cleaning it, filleting it, than cooking it fresh.

Even though the experience of killing it yourself would be much more enjoyable, memorable and healthy for your brain- Most people prefer to just take the easy option.

So where am I going with this answer? Ultimately I'm trying to say if you want to make games you should stray as far away from rules as you possibly can. Instead what you should be thinking about is boundaries. Even if you decided to make a table top game (god speed to you if you do) you can see by what makes it through Kickstarter that it is always the one with a main focus on art and story "fluff". This doesn't dictate the way it plays, but dictates how much emotion it will provoke.
So "fluff" is the superior one of the two when it comes to common ground both table top and PC games share, but when it comes to what you should focus on- I would personally advise on the boundaries. Once the boundaries are established the idea manifests itself in greater clarity, this inspiration will dictate the setting, the size of the world, the depth of the experience, the depth of the options and customization or choices one can make. Once all that is established you have to ask yourself how you are going to achieve that? The original inspiration is never enough- You need to create something that both inspires yourself but also people you will need to make it. If it cannot inspire enough people to make it happen, then the boundaries need to shrink down to match the level of support you can acquire. Getting this balance right is the challenge of any game designer. This is why so many games never get finished, never make enough sales - die out in reviews and never get a proper sequel. Today's best approach to combat this would be to create a fractal of a game and then use it as a selling tool. What ever support that creates for the project- would dictate the next iteration of the game documentation. If it doesn't get anything above a certain "viable" threshold then the project either gets killed, or gets released as a free to play out of passion for the story/original inspiration. Sometimes stuff needs to be expressed by people- and there is no amount of money in the world that could make them spend their time doing anything else. Other time money makes them spend time trying to get more money and they get carried away and forget what inspired them to begin with.


Either way the game of life can interfere with making games as this is the game we play while we are playing other games within. Some people can't see it like that, but it's true. You either win or you lose, and you don't know what the outcome is until it comes to an end. Some people care more about winning, others care more about how much fun they had before it ended. What I love about people on these forums (and people I meet at my local GWS) is that most are there to get their kicks before the gak house goes up in flames. What ever the life goals or mental struggles of the individual, while they are there to play the game they are there to fullfil a desire to please and be pleased in return. Most people are really simple. Allow them to please and be pleased and you've created a great game regardless of the rules, or art or time it takes to play.
I could argue that games have much in common with having sex- that is if i really wanted to debate this philosphically.

Apologies if this wasn't as short a reply as you were expecting, but it's usually the simple questions that require a complicated answer.

Thank you for the detailed response moneybeatssouleverytime. Much appreciated.

I've been starting to realize that fluff should probably come first, because it does affect how your final system is going to look. Even this far in, I still don't know if I should lean towards fantasy or sci fi in tone. Also, I hate admitting it, but the basic outline of my game is an awful lot like Destiny, down to the factions too. Not...terribly original...if I'm honest.

It's actually made me wonder if I should just make a table top version of Destiny but...that would be a little redundant, wouldn't it?

Originality is over-rated.

I would argue that a strong central and neutral set of core mechanics would make you capable of playing whatever you want.


For instance, d20 uses the dc core mechanic for basically everything. Its not a particularly interesting mechanic imo but it functions and you COULD use it for any setting and any game if you want to do the work of designing all the classes.

Alternatively white wolfs storyteller system when taken as mortals (none of the vampire/werewolf/mage trappings) is also setting neutral. The work comes in creating all the extras that make those things what they are.

Gurps and the unisystem go a step further. Their core mechanics are pure neutrality with rules for making races and monster packages of features at a cost that allows you to build any setting.


Basically, make a core game that works to the specs you want. THEN tack on the fluff elements. Youll get more milage from your work.

Personally, I'd say fluff as most of my game ideas come from ideas that I think might be fun to play/run. Sometimes though, I get inspired by another's work (movies, books, video games, etc) and think about how I'd translate it to table top, though. Usually from there I will start thinking about what my game play goals are for the former; or how I can use that other person's work to inspire something more than a ripoff of the source, for the latter.

I'd say at the same time, but your *basic* rules should work without any story or fluff.

By coming up with good basic rules you are not burdened by fluff or tradition and can throw away rules that don't work or create news ones. You can also build on the basic rules too by giving individual armies/factions/characters their own rules without over complicating the basics.

Say you're writing a wargame,... a good basic set of rules may work just as well for fantasy, WW2 setting or Sci-Fi. You then add in flavour afterwards based on the fluff and create stories. Be careful not to get too dedicated to fluff though as you can invest a lot of time and go down lots of rabbit holes and tangents... and by the end of it you may end up too attached to fluff that you can't let go of it. This can lead to writing yourself into corners (both in terms of rules and story) that are hard to remove or fix.

Like others id say get the core rules and scale down, then a setting then refine the gak out of it.

TarkinLarson wrote:
I'd say at the same time, but your *basic* rules should work without any story or fluff.

Say you're writing a wargame,... a good basic set of rules may work just as well for fantasy, WW2 setting or Sci-Fi.

Just like WFB -> 40k -> Bolt Action?

I'm not sure that the core game engine from WFB 3E really works for 40k right now, and the unrealistic things that happen in Bolt Action suggest that it doesn't work for WW2, either.

A rule system, such as KOG light, works with a particular game scale (i.e. 1:1 skirmish), model scale (i.e. 1/144), technology level (i.e. moderns) and target duration (i.e. 90 minutes). KOG light could be adapted for something like Necromunda or Car Wars where you might have similar model counts and model:ground scale ratios with a similar time budget. I wouldn't expect it to also work for aerospace combat, or Asian ancients, or strategic wargaming, for example, because the focus of those games would be very different.