• Rory
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2006-01-27
  • Posts: 21

Topic: Philosophy of Game design

{Warning: Author is about to go off on a rant. This could get boring}

I think that people have forgotten the point of games.

A lot of games seem to be written around the idea that a good game is a simulation. I'm especially looking at computer games. So much effort goes into the design of physics engines, graphics, on and on, so that anything resembling fun is banished in this wierd search for realism.

And what kind of realism is it? Car thiefs killing cops, zombie gorefests. Computer games in particular seem to have turned into particularly gruesome fantasy fullfillment.

I don't think wargames are especially immune from this disease, either. You only need to look at, oh, Star Fleet Battles or any of the Ad Astra stuff, and there's a crazy obsession with simulation as a replacement for gaming.

Okay, there's my rant. Now I want to talk about game design philosophy.

I think games should be fun. And one of the things I think is fun is a good simulation (I used to dm a game based on Swords Path Glory, about 10 pounds worth of tables and lookups - it took all of us to manage a two man combat - I loved it).

When you play a sim, you sort of have in your mind that it's a model of reality. Truth is, it's not a model of reality. It's a model of one person's idea of reality. We've all got different ideas of what's real, what's important. And any sim is just an agreed upon set of rules about what we all think is real.

You see it in game design. On one end, you've got games like Piquet, which is focused purely on managing chaos. Starmada seems to be a game of system design. I notice on the boards here, all conversation about Starmada is about the balancing and management of system design.

At another extreme end, there's chess, which is a very abstract representation of reality. The idea that no piece is more important than another (even the king, although he is the goal of the game, cannot function without support).

So what's my point? I don't think I really have one. I'm just thinking out loud. I'm working through designing a couple of games myself, and I'm trying to decide what are the aspects of reality I think are good for gaming.

These are some things I think might be fun:

I like games where there's a lot of bits on the board. Lots of things to manage.

I like games where the bits need to work together in a sort synergistic effect.

I don't like games that are too rigidly defined. I find chess to be a horrible bore.

I like games that depend on me to make things happen. Too much luck is a bad thing.

What do you think?

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Philosophy of Game design

I think I'm more to the other end in some respects. smile  Fun for me is something that tends to be rules light (within reason) quick to set up and play, the more crap on the table you have to fiddle with in a turn, the slower (and less fun) the game...though I do have a looooooong history of D&D DMing as well, the best games then were when the characters really got to set and achieve goals...not just enter room see monster X, kill said monster, loot (and screw other members of the party at times)...repeat.

Computer games...I do enjoy simulators...but more along the lines of X-Wing or Descent...or Morrowind.  This garbage they're passing off as entertainment (aforementioned cop killing dipwits) is one of those society destroying icons...mainly due to lack of intelligence on many of the players part with their 'hero worship' issues.  (my rant...:P)

Anyway...that's my half-cents worth on the subject anyway. wink

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Philosophy of Game design

Realism is ok, if it doesn't bog down things.

One of the things that I'm looking for in a game is how *FUN* it is - not how accurately it depicts tha effects of a Walther PPK with FMJ ammo hitting a Russian assasin's nose at a 125 degree angle from a distance of 180 feet in a 10 mph crosswind.

I was cool with D&D versions back in the early 80's - when I was playing with a D&D group from some of the fellow bubbleheads in Pearl Harbor. We added in select bits from the Arduin Grimoires, and it was a blast to play! Then I discovered Rolemaster - LOT of fiddly bits - but oh man, you needed a chart to think about walking in armor. Then came Runequest, which was ok, but the armor and hit location things slowed down fights (though less than Rolemaster), and didn't  do modern stuff at all well (look over the Ringworld RPG, and you'll see what I mean). Then there was Twilight 2000, with the 'armor multiplier', accurate but slower than Runequest. Living Steel is likely best left as a treatise on how NOT to do a RPG...it took at least three read-throughs to understand the da**ed penetration mechanic. The sidebar write-ups were amusing, though....and I hated the premise for the setting.

If I were going to do a RPG (and I've made a slight foray into starting one over on the ARES variants list, just a few posts back) - the mechanics would resemble the d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 mechanics like what's in Iron Stars.

I don't like lots of fiddly bits, unless they contribute to the whole - as I age (and gracefully, I might add) I find I have less patience with crappy design and poor writing.....though, being the art lackey that I am, I like lots of shiny. Who doesn't? :-)

  • Rory
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2006-01-27
  • Posts: 21

Re: Philosophy of Game design

thedugan wrote:

If I were going to do a RPG (and I've made a slight foray into starting one over on the ARES variants list, just a few posts back) - the mechanics would resemble the d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 mechanics like what's in Iron Stars.

The d4/d6/d99/detc stuff sort of annoys me. Too much looking up to figure out which dice I need. I tend to favor bucket o' d6, because it's easy. I realize, however, that's not always a popular choice.

I don't like the fiddly bits either, but I like having multiple "decision points". I call them point's of inflection, places where you the player get a chance to change the outcome based on decisions. I get tired of it when each inflection point has to be a die roll.

Some people are going to pooh-pooh this, but one of the things that was fun about "Magic - the stupid collectable card game" was the multiple inflection point - I mean, building a deck. You went to all this trouble to build a deck, then you get to put it out there and see how it played. Hmm, a little mana poor, whoops, too much land. Not much in the way of random except how the cards pulled out of the deck.

I do get a little bored rolling dice and counting pips, sometimes.

.r.

  • Registered: 2006-08-07
  • Posts: 161

Re: Philosophy of Game design

I prefer the bucket o' D6 because I can crib them froma all of the old board games I have hanging around. I'm sure I've used my HeroQuest dice for that at some point or another. Anyhow, AdAstra's stuff is basically the embodiment of why I wince whenever someone mentions adding realism to tabletop gaming. Unlike computer simulations, where you have a great deal of assistance in handling all of that stuff, there's a point where it becomes just too much for the average person to bear.

As for game design, I'm not big into that myself, but one credo I tend to go by is as follows: If it's so good for its cost that everyone takes it or has to take it to be competitive, there must be something wrong.

  • Registered: 2006-09-06
  • Posts: 99

Re: Philosophy of Game design

Rory wrote:
thedugan wrote:

If I were going to do a RPG (and I've made a slight foray into starting one over on the ARES variants list, just a few posts back) - the mechanics would resemble the d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 mechanics like what's in Iron Stars.

The d4/d6/d99/detc stuff sort of annoys me. Too much looking up to figure out which dice I need. I tend to favor bucket o' d6, because it's easy. I realize, however, that's not always a popular choice.

I don't like the fiddly bits either, but I like having multiple "decision points". I call them point's of inflection, places where you the player get a chance to change the outcome based on decisions. I get tired of it when each inflection point has to be a die roll.

Some people are going to pooh-pooh this, but one of the things that was fun about "Magic - the stupid collectable card game" was the multiple inflection point - I mean, building a deck. You went to all this trouble to build a deck, then you get to put it out there and see how it played. Hmm, a little mana poor, whoops, too much land. Not much in the way of random except how the cards pulled out of the deck.

I do get a little bored rolling dice and counting pips, sometimes.

.r.

Yes. Your theory of points of inflections is true. In most games the possibilities to change the pace of a game is represented by the option to move and by die rolls. In Starmada there is a special point of inflection - the designing of ships and putting them into an arena/scenario against each other.

  • Registered: 2006-10-18
  • Posts: 3

Re: Philosophy of Game design

Rory wrote:

I don't like the fiddly bits either, but I like having multiple "decision points". I call them point's of inflection, places where you the player get a chance to change the outcome based on decisions. I get tired of it when each inflection point has to be a die roll.

That is the essence of game design.  Games are about decision-making.  Historical games, for example,  need to put you in the shoes of an historical figure and present you with their choices.  The game then presents outcomes based on those choices until you reach the next decision point and on and on.

Too often, game designers get caught up in the mechanics of details instead of the mechanics of decision making.  If you've got good mechanics to handle the decision making, the details all but take care of themselves.

An example?  Columbia Games East Front 2.  I got an opportunity to play this a couple of weeks ago.  While a player has many decisions to make - including the usual in a wargame (where do I attack and with what), the core of the game is managing your HQs effectively.  The player who does the most with the least effort by his HQs will almost certainly win.  And the most efficient way to use HQs is not always readily apparent.  I was halfway through the game before I realized this, at which point I was saddled with the results of earlier decisions and couldn't reverse the mess I was in.  I really wish I'd had time to play another game, as I was just blown away by the elegance they've achieved.  Deciding how best to utilize those very limited assets will make or break the game for you more than any single attack.

-Charlie