Game design has "moved on"

Hussar said:

I'd say that as time has gone on, we've become much more systematic in our approach to game design. There's a lot less "throw things at the wall and see what sticks" approach to game design.

Click to expand...

So you haven't been been following the 5E playtest then?

Hussar said:

I'm sorry, but the idea that there is no advancement in game design basically means that there can never be any improvement. That every RPG ever made is the epitome of good design.

Click to expand...

Unless there is measurement that matters more than how much fun one has playing something and the eagerness to play a given game again, then no there has been no objective advancement to game design.

Jhaelen said:

Now, I'm curious: How does AD&D promote exploration?

Click to expand...

The rules of the game promote exploration. XP is rewarded largely for treasure. One must explore the environment to locate treasure. Combat (especially at low levels) is very lethal. Thus rather than fighting too much to acquire said treasure, perhaps exploring somewhere else where there is more to gain for less risk is a more winning strategy. Thus the risk vs reward mechanism pushes players to explore to keep looking for the less costly (if not free) lunch so to speak.

Bedrockgames said:

this is where i think you'll find many people disagree. Sure there is an appetite for clarity on these individual points among some gamers, but the whole 'rulings over rules' trend you see is a response to too much of that in games. These days i know a lot of players and gms who prefer the vagueness here over having yet another rule to remember because of a minor point mentioned in a spell. Their attitude is just let the GM handle it. I dont think either approach is bad design. These ae just different approaches to design. Personally, i am fine in either camp myself. Both types of games are fun to me. But there is definitely something to be said for games that leave a lot of the details open to gm interpretation.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Nothing can be objectively better while under the subjective scrutiny of fun.

Farscape said:

What Bedrock is trying to say, I think, is that the tools of art evolve (paint brush, paints, musical instruments etc) but not the brush stroke.

Click to expand...

This is very applicable here.

Umbran said:

No, shidaku, I think you're missing his point. If I'm getting him correctly, let me try it this way:

Bach. Brahms. Beethoven. Technically unskilled?

However much you get better sound reproduction, the old design of the music is still amazing.

This is because, however much technology improves, good design and engineering have a human element to them. No amount of new technology saves you from a design that fails on the human portion of the equation. And you can do a lot with an old, outmoded design that just gets the human side of things *right*.

Click to expand...

I am saying that, and that gets at the point better than I did, but I am also saying that the technology surrounding music is more the instruments and recording devices. But music itself is about ideas and structures. That aspect of music is not analogous to tech but to trends or form in other artistic mediums and these are analogous to rpg mechanics. The tech surrounding RPGs are the books, PDFs and digital files. But rpg mechanics are closer to things like literary devices, musical scales, etc. I can take scales used by Bach and still use them today. No one would say 'music has moved on so stop playing Bach'. Being old doesn't make these things outmoded. So this is why I answered Morrus ' question by saying rpg design is more art or craft than science to me.

Bedrockgames said:

That aspect of music is not analogous to tech but to trends or form in other artistic mediums and these are analogous to rpg mechanics.

Click to expand...

Ah. Well, I disagree with you somewhat on that point, but that's okay.

Mechanics are processes. They are technology. That's why you cannot copyright a mechanic, but you may be able to *patent* it, if it really is unique.

Let us take fashion - fabric is fabric. The pattern printed on it may be art, but the fabric itself usually contains little artistry to speak of. The artistry comes in how you cut, fold, arrange, and stitch various fabrics together. And when lots of folks choose fabrics and cut, fold, and stitch to yield similar results, you have a trend or fashion in clothing. In music, you have individual notes. How they are arranged in the piece is where the art comes in. When lots of folks use the same chord progressions, you get Blues.

So, the mechanics are not artistic. How you stitch them together to mean things to a game, however, includes that artistry - and there can be trends in how we use the mechanics. Each mechanic is a musical note - the design and fashion comes in how you arrange them.

Umbran said:

Ah. Well, I disagree with you somewhat on that point, but that's okay.

Mechanics are processes. They are technology. That's why you cannot copyright a mechanic, but you may be able to *patent* it, if it really is unique.

Let us take fashion - fabric is fabric. The pattern printed on it may be art, but the fabric itself usually contains little artistry to speak of. The artistry comes in how you cut, fold, arrange, and stitch various fabrics together. And when lots of folks choose fabrics and cut, fold, and stitch to yield similar results, you have a trend or fashion in clothing. In music, you have individual notes. How they are arranged in the piece is where the art comes in. When lots of folks use the same chord progressions, you get Blues.

So, the mechanics are not artistic. How you stitch them together to mean things to a game, however, includes that artistry - and there can be trends in how we use the mechanics. Each mechanic is a musical note - the design and fashion comes in how you arrange them.

Click to expand...

I do see your point but I still find comparing game mechanics to auto technology does not work for me. I can still see someone using the 2E NWP system or something like it for example. Some might find the 3E skill system a imprivement, but I still prefer the 2E system in many respects (both because I like how the math tends to work more and I like that the NWPs are more open to interpretation than the 3E skills....I also prefer treating ettiquette as a knowledge over a social skill like diplomacy). I do realize I am in a minority on that opinion,but in time I think it is possible opinion could change. People might want a less deeply defined skill system that has less potential conflict with in character dialogue).

I think pointing to notes as tech is interesting because those tend not to fall out of fashion. Middle C is still in use. But there is also a 24 tone system, instead of our 12 tone system. Neither one is seen as more advanced or better. They are just different. Arguably you have more options using 24 tones, but if yon haven't developed an ear for it, the notes can sound slightly out of key.

Bedrockgames said:

I do see your point but I still find comparing game mechanics to auto technology does not work for me. I can still see someone using the 2E NWP system or something like it for example. Some might find the 3E skill system a imprivement, but I still prefer the 2E system in many respects (both because I like how the math tends to work more and I like that the NWPs are more open to interpretation than the 3E skills....I also prefer treating ettiquette as a knowledge over a social skill like diplomacy). I do realize I am in a minority on that opinion,but in time I think it is possible opinion could change. People might want a less deeply defined skill system that has less potential conflict with in character dialogue).

I think pointing to notes as tech is interesting because those tend not to fall out of fashion. Middle C is still in use. But there is also a 24 tone system, instead of our 12 tone system. Neither one is seen as more advanced or better. They are just different. Arguably you have more options using 24 tones, but if yon haven't developed an ear for it, the notes can sound slightly out of key.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, and you may be surprised but the BIGGEST RPG audience may also agree with you, they just don't speak English.

Whilst the West (well, primarily US, UK, Aus, and parts of Europe like Germany, but not all of Europe) seem to prefer the new RPGs post turn of the millennium that are based upon D20 (3.5, 4e, PF) in some portions of Europe, Eastern Eurasia, a lot of Asia itself (inclusive of Korea and Japan) seem to prefer RPG mechanics that STILL date to the 70s and basically don't buy these "advancements" because they do not consider them as such.

Their "advancements" have gone a different path with more inspirations from the percentile statistics of the late 70s and early 80s and the RPGs rooting from them rather than anything dealing with such things as number that arrive from nowhere and strange D20 dice and such.

It's their preference for a different style, aka...a different form of the art as you would.

There may be evolutions of style, but it is not necessarily advancments that are similar to tech advancements.

Another take would be art. IS modern art that much more evolved and advanced than older art. A majority of the art still produced is actually the OLDER style art from over a century ago. The MODERN art and those who think all art should be in that style...kind of scoff at the uneducated crowds that prefer this old style art (so all of us who like the PF or other art in RPGs...we are all ignorant savages in that light). Are we REALLY that far behind?

Or is it basically the same thing as RPGs in that, it doesn't matter if some art major things we are ignorant for not preferring this



Or is it that, just like the discussions in the art crowd (of which this conversation CLOSELY mirrors) are basically the same as what we are having and it truly is a measure of art and not technology.

In otherwords, depending on who you ascribe to, if you are a art major who favors the advancement of art...then just like you'd prefer something above as far more advanced and technical than the older art forms...you'd probably also see RPG's art form as also being technically related in advancments.

However, if you are one that prefers the current art in PF, or most other RPGs that deal with art forms dating back over a century (and sometimes over 2 or 3 centuries ago), than you'll probably be of the opinion that art is NOT a technological type of advancement, and neither are RPGs...but more affixed to trends and current enjoyment than what we specifically state would be the same as a scientific or technological advancement.

Beyond the obvious of considering all RPGs/art equal in the latter instance, is also recognizing that as the art evolves...that new forms and ideas are unlocked which create NEW (and perhaps equal) forms of enjoyment...which may or may not appeal to the current elites, non-elites, or others.

PS: I should add, even the art posted above is ALSO almost a century old at this point...but the artforms used in most RPGs are even OLDER than that.

For a more recent look at something (well, still 40 years old at this point) the below link is available.

http://collection.corcoran.org/collection/work/yellow-red-triangle

GreyLord said:

Whilst the West (well, primarily US, UK, Aus, and parts of Europe like Germany, but not all of Europe) seem to prefer the new RPGs post turn of the millennium that are based upon D20 (3.5, 4e, PF) in some portions of Europe, Eastern Eurasia, a lot of Asia itself (inclusive of Korea and Japan) seem to prefer RPG mechanics that STILL date to the 70s and basically don't buy these "advancements" because they do not consider them as such.

Their "advancements" have gone a different path with more inspirations from the percentile statistics of the late 70s and early 80s and the RPGs rooting from them rather than anything dealing with such things as number that arrive from nowhere and strange D20 dice and such.

Click to expand...

I am not familliar enough with gaming scenes in other places to know if this is true or not, but it is interesting to think about. Maybe some posters from these countries could weigh in. We have a lot of customes from Germany and Belgium. I occassoinally hear from them by email and they sometimes do online reviews of our games. In a few cases they've told me a bit about gaming in their area, and expectations did seem different than in the US. I didn't get enough of an impression to characterize them clearly, but did have a sense that there was a difference. I also communicated with a game store owner in Bangkok a while back because we wer thinking of doing a quickstarter in Thai for one of our games (we ran into some issues though trying to do the translation). I had asked what games were big there, to see if anything we did would have appeal, and while it wasn't 70s games, a lot of late 80s to 90s games were mentioned and not many recent games came up. So I believe old world of darkness was the top one.

EDIT: Actnally i tracked down my notes on the top games in Thailand, memory was a little iff. So ignore my above statement. Wasn't an official top seller list or anything though. Jhst his impression if what was being played most. These are what he said was most popular:


White Wolf: World of Darkness
Paizo: Pathfinder
Cthulhu: both Chaoism and Pelgrane versions
White Wolf: Psion
AEG: L5R

Farscape said:

What Bedrock is trying to say, I think, is that the tools of art evolve (paint brush, paints, musical instruments etc) but not the brush stroke.

Click to expand...

Sort of. Dont know much about painting. I am not denying that new techniques emerge. Finger tapping is a newer guitar technique (doesn't work so well without amplification). But just because finger tapping exists, it doesn't mean other methods for achieving that fast sound are obsolete, and some guitarists avoid it entirely. Plectrums are a pn advancement over say fingerpicking. Finger picking is a bit more rare in certain styles of music but no one would say music has moved on so you shouldn't finger pick. In fact, there are some very good reasons to choose finger style over a pick. So increasing options or brush stroke techniques will occur. What brush strokes are favored may change with fashion and trends. I am not denying advances in understanding in the arts, but I am saying it isnt like car tech, where old tech becomes obsolete. Even though it is an old form , people still listen to and enjoy madrigals, and you will hear them today in certain styles of compositionn (movie soundtracks for example). And like Umran said, Bach, Mozart, Brahms,were all writing when there was less musical tech available, but their works not only remain relevant but tower over us today. People are not dismissive of these men, they respect them greatly (even composers and musicians who write for more modern genres appreciate them).

ExploderWizard said:

Exactly. Nothing can be objectively better while under the subjective scrutiny of fun.

Click to expand...

I think there is still room for judgment and evaluation, but like you say, the end use is what matters. So I take no issue with people arguing that a particular mechanic isn't good for a given goal or audience. What i take issue with is people saying things like "X is just bad design". That gives no real context or points of comparison. There may be a few cases where this is true across the board (a game system built around a core mechanic that requires players to pass gas is a bad idea in my opinion and i think few would disagree with that). I am simply saying context and audience matter. If people enjoy using the mechanic that is what matters. Now your audience might be designers or experienced RPG critics, so your measures are going to include things like how the gamed builds on existing mechanical knowledge, how streamlined the game is, how well it rests with current gaming trends. But that isnt because these things are objectively good desing, its because the audience you decided to write for will likely value those sorts of things. But if i sit down to make an OSR game, a beer and pretzels game, or a cinematic game, my measures for good design will change according to my audience.

Bedrockgames said:

I can still see someone using the 2E NWP system or something like it for example. Some might find the 3E skill system a imprivement, but I still prefer the 2E system in many respects (both because I like how the math tends to work more and I like that the NWPs are more open to interpretation than the 3E skills....I also prefer treating ettiquette as a knowledge over a social skill like diplomacy). I do realize I am in a minority on that opinion,but in time I think it is possible opinion could change. People might want a less deeply defined skill system that has less potential conflict with in character dialogue).

Click to expand...

And perhaps some of us haven't managed to get this single point across - more advanced technology does not necessarily translate into a better consumer product.

As a more basic example - splitting wood for a fireplace. The best tool for the job is a good old fashioned ax, the design of which hasn't changed much in centuries. Oh, they make hydraulic-advantage and powered wood splitters, but these gizmos only serve those who have become too infirm to work an ax, or who need to split wood on a massive scale. The typical homeowner still uses an ax, despite advances in technology.

Or, to be perhaps a bit more clear - more advanced technology does not necessarily translate into what *you* would find to be a better consumer product.

I'll use myself as an example here, with cell phones. Modern smartphones are undeniably technologically superior to feature phones. But, my own use of phones was shaped by years of not having one. I, personally, just don't find a need for a smartphone, so I still have a feature phone. But, the rest of the world has largely moved on, and decent feature phones are getting harder and harder to come by. In another decade, it'll be nigh impossible for me to get a feature phone, and I'll have to get a smartphone whether I like it or not.

This latter is not just "fashion". The market is unlikely to move backwards towards feature phones, because whatever my own needs or wants may be, for the vast majority of people, the technology provides more of what they want. *I* am the one stuck in fashion, not the rest of the world.

Umbran said:

And perhaps some of us haven't managed to get this single point across - more advanced technology does not necessarily translate into a better consumer product.

As a more basic example - splitting wood for a fireplace. The best tool for the job is a good old fashioned ax, the design of which hasn't changed much in centuries. Oh, they make hydraulic-advantage and powered wood splitters, but these gizmos only serve those who have become too infirm to work an ax, or who need to split wood on a massive scale. The typical homeowner still uses an ax, despite advances in technology.

Click to expand...

Yes. I think the analogy itself has distracted from the more fundamental point, which is the "moving on" aspect of the OP. Whether we call them tech, techniques or art, these earlier components can still have use. They don't necessarily dissappear because they're old, and even things that fade for a while can come back when people have use for them. I think there is a danger in dismissing gaming concepts just because we are in a different place now. And while it isn't for everybody, i think the OSR does show earlier forms of player are not only viable but contain things we may have forgotten or lost. On reason to go back and read the white box or 1E is to answer the question, did we throw the baby out with the bath water. I see a lot of people discovering things about gaming they hadn't experienced before when they do this. I am not an old school purist by any stretch. I play a lot of modern games. I don't think we should be affraid to go back to the basics every once in a while. And the interesting thing is, a lot of tg. Revisiting of older games is inspiring new and modern ones, not just retroclones. It seems like just when you were starting to hear a lot of folks say design had moved on, there was a renewed interest in earlier mechanics and approaches to play. So I see the advancement of game design more like how music advances. New styles often emerge, that are really fusion of prior styles. Heavy Metal was a new style of music in the 70s and 80s, but if you really examined it, it was largely a combination of other things like rock, blues and baroque, among other things. Some of that new stuff was made because musicians went back to bach and Mozart for ideas. Or they checked out old blues records for inspiration. So you might have a game that takes some of the sensibilities of Savage Worlds, but combines it with aspects of chainmail and the white boxed set. At the same time, people exposed to it might check out chainmail and find there are forgotten mechanics they really like.