A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[TJS]

Well I think if they are undistracted yeah. But if there is more challenge to be it like a time constraint or weapons fire then adding the element of failure seems reasonable.

This becomes increasingly contrived though.

How often do you roll to complete skills under fire? And why do we need to add extra stress to a skill (tightrope) walking which, due to risk of injury should already be stressful? How much stress do we need before we have to roll?

I always find that these kind of stipulations are a lot more clear cut in theory than in practice.

 

[migo]

Well I think if they are undistracted yeah. But if there is more challenge to be it like a time constraint or weapons fire then adding the element of failure seems reasonable.

Systems usually have situational modifiers for stuff exactly like that. The moment the system has situational modifiers it means the base roll is not for such a situation.

 

[TJS]

If I was designing a system to use the only roll under stress approach I wouldn't do it like existing systems.

I would have two levels of skill: Proficiency and Mastery.

Someone who is proficient in the skill automatically succeeds under normal circumstances. Under stress he needs to make some kind of a Cool role - which is not a skill roll - probably just role against a Cool stat.

Someone with Mastery gets a whopping big bonus to the cool role with that skill because they are so well trained their training holds up under pressure.

Proficient: can drive a car without an accident (may come for free in a modern game)
Master: You're a race car driver, or getaway driver, or experienced in police pursuits.

 

[Sharrow]

In the context of modern game design, that's anachronistic at best. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sure in high school it worked.

Essentially what you were doing is extended Classic Traveller character generation. And while people think it's funny, nobody thinks it's actually good.

I disagree. If you hold that the 'story' is what the characters would tell, or what the player do tell, after the adventuring is done and the characters have retired, some dying along the way is fine - it turns out it wasn't really their story after all. We find out who are the protagonists, and who are the sidekicks after the fact, and some people like that.

I agree on the quick character design. It can work in a system you are familiar with as well. I've been in a number AD&D 1E games like this (and it's easy enough to make a character in that system especially if you have played it or 2E for a long time). But if you are designing a game towards this style fast character creation is pretty important.

Or you can mass-produce characters in batches. Everyone makes 3-4 characters during initial chargen and chooses one to play. If it dies, pull out another. Between sessions, make up some more if your stable is looking empty. If nobody minds, just put all the surplus characters into one big pool for players to draw from, and people who like making up characters can add to the pool when they feel like it or it's running low.

This works fine for GURPS Dungeon Fantasy (or DFRPG) with its templates and limited customisation, and it worked pretty well for a Rolemaster game back in the day (to be fair, not Standard System).

 

[robertsconley]

You answered your own question. In GURPS 3e the default was 100 points. In Dungeon Fantasy the default is 250 points. You can choose to run with less, but the first, unmarked experience is going to be with more competent characters. So with D&D the game should tell you to start with 3rd level characters (like Dark Sun) or even something higher, instead of requiring you to find out for yourself that's the way to go after some shitty sessions.

My question was why didn't YOU think of starting out the campaign at a higher level or with experienced characters.

 

[Telok]

I honestly don't mind 50%-70% fail rates and slaughters of beginning characters. I'd just like the games to be honest with GMs and players.

If the game mechanically makes starting characters perform like the Three Stooges handed a lit stick of dynamite then it shouldn't bill those starting characters as heroic trained veteran soldiers. If the game relies in the GM to adjust things or perfom a specifc way in order to work as advertised then it needs to tell the GM exactly that and to say it in big bold letters, underlined, italics, arrows pointing at it, on the cover/first sentence of the "how to gm this game" book/chapter.

 

[ffilz]

I honestly don't mind 50%-70% fail rates and slaughters of beginning characters. I'd just like the games to be honest with GMs and players.

If the game mechanically makes starting characters perform like the Three Stooges handed a lit stick of dynamite then it shouldn't bill those starting characters as heroic trained veteran soldiers. If the game relies in the GM to adjust things or perfom a specifc way in order to work as advertised then it needs to tell the GM exactly that and to say it in big bold letters, underlined, italics, arrows pointing at it, on the cover/first sentence of the "how to gm this game" book/chapter.

I don't think the early editions of D&D ever billed starting characters as heroic trained veteran soldiers. I mean yea, 1st level fighters were called Veterans. But they matched up with a basic soldier in Chainmail. A Hero is a 4th level fighter. RuneQuest 1st and 2nd editions made it pretty clear that a starting character was a fresh off the farm 16 year old. A previous experience system is provided to generate a more seasoned 21 year old.

Now I grant there may be newer games that don't set the expectations for starting characters very well.

The number of folks happily playing these early games, and the intensity of the retro-clone (OSR) movement, suggests that these are NOT bad designs that folks are making excuses for, but rather games that are genuinely fun to play.

And I will note that for myself, essentially ALL of my long running campaigns use early "old school" systems. Sure, ONE campaign started as Fantasy Hero, but ultimately we moved it to AD&D. Yea, the "new" design didn't hold up to AD&D... Oh, and it was about 6 months of Fantasy Hero and then about a year of AD&D. So, thinking about my campaigns that have lasted a year or more, the systems involved are: Classic Traveller, Classic Traveller with mutations, AD&D, OD&D, RuneQuest 1st edition, Cold Iron. Not one system I was introduced to later than 1982.

The campaigns with newer systems and what happened to them:

Fantasy Hero - 6 months then a brief trial of Cold Iron followed by about a year of AD&D
Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved (D&D 3.5) - several campaigns about 6-9 months each, in part they died as high level became unsustainable (as compared to my high school AD&D campaign that DID survive some high level play, I'm not totally clear on what level the PCs attained, but I'm pretty sure it was double digit).
GURPS - a few false starts
Champions - a few sessions played here and there
Burning Wheel - a couple campaigns that lasted less than a year each - this is maybe the closest contender to survival
Dogs in the Vinyard - I think we got to a 2nd town? Maybe a 3rd?

And sure, starting off from absolute beginning characters when we play 2 hours every other week, or play by post, is a drag. On the other hand, I got my elf from 1st level to FM 4/MU 7 over almost 10 years of plodding play by post play, and enjoyed it very much. So I start my RQ characters using the previous experience system and Cold Iron characters at 4th though back in college, I was starting them at 2nd MU/CL or 3rd Fighter in my 2nd campaign (I don't remember what I did for my first campaign), so I'm not stretching it too far. The reason I start above 1st for Cold Iron is to differentiate fighters from casters because everyone is multi-classed and is at least 1st level fighter. It's pretty raw to play a 1st level fighter vs. a 1st level fighter/1st level caster. Note that in college, I rigged it so casters were 2nd level and pure fighters were 3rd. This (and some other tweaks) made it worth playing a straight fighter.

And Cold Iron is rock solid. It is the game I ran with the fewest house rules back in the day (I drop a few spells, change how combat skills are granted, add non-combat skills to a game that didn't have them, and don't start characters at 1st level). I run RQ1 with very few house rules also (grab some bits from RQ2, use average of CON/SIZ for HP instead of CON, change crits). More recently, I ran OD&D play by post with almost no house rules also. Oh, and Classic Traveller I ran recently with almost no house rules also (other than how I incorporated the Supplement 4 characters).

These games have stood the test of time. And attract new players. Including players that were born after 1980 (though MOST of my players were at least born in the 70s if not the 60s and even a player or two born in the 50s).

Now if you don't like these games, don't play them. And stop calling them poor designs. Just because they are designed for a different aesthetic doesn't make them bad designs. It makes them different.

 

[TJS]

What happened is people starting to think of rpgs as a type of game where you emulate things from narrative media.

As opposed to a game, which includes fun elements from narrative media.

People went from playing Batman themed monopoly to wondering why Batman themed monopoly doesn't seem to emulate Batman very well.

 

[AsenRG]

That's not an agenda. Nobody who wants to play RPGs after hearing about them for the first time wants to play someone who sucks. It's only something people pretend is desirable out of an inexplicable need to justify unjustifiably bad mechanics.

I'm happy to report that you're wrong. I've had a couple of players over the years who reported that the system gives them too many points and they had no idea what the hell to do with those!

Granted, not a popular preference, but totally a possible one...

Oh and one more thing. Out of deference to playing short sessions every other week, I use the previous experience system in RQ1 and start Cold Iron characters at 4th level.

What's the previous experience system like, BTW?

There's a difference between a good concept and a good implementation. D&D is a terrible implementation of a fantastic concept. A lot of RPGs are like that. With imagination you can stretch the concept really far, and it can be great fun. But that doesn't mean the implementation couldn't, and more importantly shouldn't, be done better.

I actually agree, except with the "should" part. Some people just don't see the need for improvement past a certain point, and that's fine in my book.

In the context of modern game design, that's anachronistic at best. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sure in high school it worked.

Essentially what you were doing is extended Classic Traveller character generation. And while people think it's funny, nobody thinks it's actually good.

I do think Classic Traveller chargen is good. I don't think it's the best, other Traveller variants would snag that title, if nothing else...but it is good.

 

[migo]

I disagree. If you hold that the 'story' is what the characters would tell, or what the player do tell, after the adventuring is done and the characters have retired, some dying along the way is fine - it turns out it wasn't really their story after all. We find out who are the protagonists, and who are the sidekicks after the fact, and some people like that.

Even then. People barely have enough time to get together to play one session face to face. They literally don't have the time to waste on a funnel. Most RPG books are read, rather than used in play, and of course there game design doesn't actually matter. You only imagine playing rather than actually playing. But if you want to make a modern game that actually gets played by the an average modern person, it has to be tailored to the needs of the player.

My question was why didn't YOU think of starting out the campaign at a higher level or with experienced characters.

I did, after seeing how much the default sucks. And if I need to figure that out through experience rather than the game laying it out for me from the start, the game was badly designed.

 

[Alai]

I did, after seeing how much the default sucks. And if I need to figure that out through experience rather than the game laying it out for me from the start, the game was badly designed.

There's a fine -- but potentially important -- shade of meaning between "for you, it was badly designed", and "it was badly designed for you".

Obviously no game is going to do everything for everyone. But ideally yes, the game should way it's trying to do for whom, talk people through how to do it, and actually do that clearly and successfully.

In practice, I think a lot of this happens by accident and osmosis, and people conflate bad outcomes with bad design. And likewise for good outcomes.

 

[Alai]

I'm happy to report that you're wrong. I've had a couple of players over the years who reported that the system gives them too many points and they had no idea what the hell to do with those!

I've had people report this occasionally too. Even in "nar" type games, where you an spend you "points" on things that in normcore society would quality you as "total noob" or "bigtime loser", etc. Curious.

 

[Alai]

What happened is people starting to think of rpgs as a type of game where you emulate things from narrative media.

It's sorta implicit in the name. It's both of those things. (And a "simulation", if we want to nod to the other Big Theory Trope, which the name less conveniently fails to suggest.)

We're fundamentally just haggling about the amount. Pace GBS.

 

[AsenRG]

I've had people report this occasionally too. Even in "nar" type games, where you an spend you "points" on things that in normcore society would quality you as "total noob" or "bigtime loser", etc. Curious.

Admittedly, it never happened in a narrative game. I think one of those was in ORE, and I can't remember what the other one was.
But in retrospect, I should have just allowed them to bank some points to spend later.

 

[Alai]

I would have two levels of skill: Proficiency and Mastery.

Interesting. Is this literally just a two-point scale? Or is it two "tiers", each with a rating of some sort?

 

[Alai]

Admittedly, it never happened in a narrative game. I think one of those was in ORE, and I can't remember what the other one was.

I suspect it's very rare in N-type games, and basically only in the combo of the humble, low-concept player-character applications and people for whom the story idiom hasn't quite clicked yet. (The former very rare, the latter fairly common!)

But in retrospect, I should have just allowed them to bank some points to spend later.

Big fan of this approach. (The "quick-start" method, to steal more Lawsisms.) Both as a player ("oh no, resource-allocation problem! decision anxiety!!") and as a GM (tool to get rolling buy-in to what's happening in-game).

 

[migo]

There's a fine -- but potentially important -- shade of meaning between "for you, it was badly designed", and "it was badly designed for you".

Obviously no game is going to do everything for everyone. But ideally yes, the game should way it's trying to do for whom, talk people through how to do it, and actually do that clearly and successfully.

In practice, I think a lot of this happens by accident and osmosis, and people conflate bad outcomes with bad design. And likewise for good outcomes.

Yes. DCC is not for me, but it was well designed for me because it communicated the expectations up front.

I ran a Narrative Cage Match game at a con. The game title caught the attention of a con-goer, he asked me about it. I explained it to him. He said that's interesting, but it doesn't sound like it's for him. Everyone was happy. He didn't spend time playing a game he wouldn't enjoy. I didn't have a player in the game who wasn't enjoying himself.

That's what it should be like. Not just "what is an RPG?" at the beginning of a book, but "what is this RPG?"

And if it's clearly communicated, there's no moving goal posts to defend bad game design. Either the game succeeded at its goals, or it didn't.

 

[TJS]

I think expectations is fine, but it's often more complicated than that.

This makes me think of the issues with 5e D&D rests.

The game is designed for about 3 to 6 combats a day with 2 short rests in between.

And to a certain point is works when that is kept to. But almost no one does which is why there's an issue.

You could argue that the design is fine and it's mismatched expectations that are the issue.

But there's probably a point where you could argue that a certain level of inflexibilty - so that expectations can only be met within a fairly narrow range - is in itself bad design (especially for a big mass market game like D&D - perhaps not so much for a small indie game).

There's also instances where there are issues of design that are perhaps not mechanical game design, but just design in it's more basic form. For example if you have a character sheet that says "Lockpicking 45%" then you appear to be saying pretty clearly "You have a 45% chance of picking a lock". If you write somewhere in the thick rulebook "Actually that only applies under X conditions, in all other conditions add +40%" then well, you failed at design that communicates your mechanics effectively.

 

[Alai]

And if it's clearly communicated, there's no moving goal posts to defend bad game design. Either the game succeeded at its goals, or it didn't.

'K, but as I said earlier, unless you're using "design" extremely broadly -- as in, at this point even R*n Edw*rds is raising his hands in a defensive gesture and saying "whoooooa there, steady on a bit!" -- this may be just sub-optimal explanation. "Excuse me, Professor, is that really an 'obviously' step?" much pacing, deep though, long pause* "Yes. Yes, it is."

Or indeed, maybe the designer/developer/writer/editor internalised their own assumptions too much, and didn't even realize what they were.

 

[EmperorNorton]

While I do think that there are games that miss the mark on what the designer intended, I think that often accusations of bad design are on the reader missing the mark on what the designer intended.

 

[Alai]

While I do think that there are games that miss the mark on what the designer intended, I think that often accusations of bad design are on the reader missing the mark on what the designer intended.

And it's very hard to tell which is which. Designers -- and worse games companies -- can be very defensive about their work.

Partly for human reasons "You insulted my baby! She's not ugly at all!! You beast!!!"

Partly for commercial ones. "A howling error on p3, you say? No-no-no, it's supposed to be like that. Works exactly as intended. Maybe we'll tweak the wording a little in the next printing to make it even better, and even clearer, but basically it's your fault because you're a bit thick, and you Don't Get It. And no, I'm not going to now explain what It even is. It's fine, trust me." *eyes 4,997 copies of first print run nervously*

 

[migo]

While I do think that there are games that miss the mark on what the designer intended, I think that often accusations of bad design are on the reader missing the mark on what the designer intended.

Game design includes writing as well as coming up with mechanics.

Robin Laws is a great example of communicating through writing very clearly what the intent was behind the mechanics choices. It would be nice if he weren't an exception, and rather just one of many.

 

[Sharrow]

I don't think the early editions of D&D ever billed starting characters as heroic trained veteran soldiers. I mean yea, 1st level fighters were called Veterans. But they matched up with a basic soldier in Chainmail. A Hero is a 4th level fighter. RuneQuest 1st and 2nd editions made it pretty clear that a starting character was a fresh off the farm 16 year old. A previous experience system is provided to generate a more seasoned 21 year old.

Actually, they kind of did, and in BD&D and AD&D a 1st level fighter had more hit points than a level-0 man-at-arms, etc. However, in those systems unless the GM said they were these 1st level character weren't incompetents. They were skilled at whatever the GM agreed they were, and better at fighting than <1 HD monsters (and thus most of humanity) and in AD&D the fighter had more hit points (on average) too. What made players decide that these guys were incompetent was 1) GM rulings that made them such (such as Thief skills being the only way you could climb, hide, etc., and pass/fail on the given percentages), and 2) the assumption players started to make that losing to 1HD monsters constituted 'being wimpy', rather than 'losing by being out-numbered or out-fought by your peers'. This last was players deciding that 1st level meant 'bad' and rating everything off that measure.

The number of folks happily playing these early games, and the intensity of the retro-clone (OSR) movement, suggests that these are NOT bad designs that folks are making excuses for, but rather games that are genuinely fun to play.

And I will note that for myself, essentially ALL of my long running campaigns use early "old school" systems. Sure, ONE campaign started as Fantasy Hero, but ultimately we moved it to AD&D. Yea, the "new" design didn't hold up to AD&D... Oh, and it was about 6 months of Fantasy Hero and then about a year of AD&D. So, thinking about my campaigns that have lasted a year or more, the systems involved are: Classic Traveller, Classic Traveller with mutations, AD&D, OD&D, RuneQuest 1st edition, Cold Iron. Not one system I was introduced to later than 1982.

My long running games (as in say, over a year of reasonably regular sessions) this century would be D&D3 (ran one, played in one), and GURPS (ran one and then ran it, restarted again), and you might count C&S3 as I played in one that started in the late 90s and ran for a couple of years into the 2000s.

In the 1990s it was: RM2, RQ3, RMSS, GURPS (converted to Hero), AD&D2, and C&S3 - run by me. Played in: GURPS, AD&D2, Elric, Twilight/Merc: 2000.

Back then there were also any number of short campaigns with other systems that were fun, but didn't last, and even more where they crashed and burned and we never went back to that system.

For me and mine it seems that games firmly rooted in the 80s generation of rpgs work best. That said, I have hopes for the Worlds Without Number game I'm currently running, and the PF2 game I'm in may yet surprise me.

 

[Sharrow]

There's a fine -- but potentially important -- shade of meaning between "for you, it was badly designed", and "it was badly designed for you".

Obviously no game is going to do everything for everyone. But ideally yes, the game should way it's trying to do for whom, talk people through how to do it, and actually do that clearly and successfully.

In practice, I think a lot of this happens by accident and osmosis, and people conflate bad outcomes with bad design. And likewise for good outcomes.

Honestly, if you can't see from the rules that the odds of being killed by a couple of goblins when you're first level in B/XD&D or AD&D1 (OD&D I'll give people a pass on because it wasn't so clear, and the GM might not be using the combat rules you through they were, etc.) are pretty good, and thus that a 1st level PC wasn't a super-hero, but was a competent normal human (if a fighter or other front-line combatant they could go toe-to-toe with a trained man-at-arms or orc warrior with even or better than even odds), I'm not sure what to say. It was blindingly obvious, and not something you'd only find out in play or as an emergent feature.

It's modern high-detail and high-complexity games that have to tell you that stuff because it's no longer so easy to pick out from simple reading and a bit of basic logic and/or maths.

One of the problems with the D&D-family (in my opinion) is that over time they made characters 'cooler' by adding bells and whistles, especially to non-casters, but they didn't add a lot to hit points (except for D&D4, and to a lesser extent PF2), so they've become glass-cannons, and monsters have become huge sacks of hit points (and yet most version persist in writing monsters up in a way that's at least close to how a PC is written up, despite them really following different rules) to balance out the PC's 'cannons'.

 

[Dyrnwyn]

Or, and stay with me here, you spend a few sessions throwing 1st level character after 1st level character until you're all level 3+ and ready to rumble: the party will consist of Thief Four, Fighter Two, Wizard Six and Original Cleric. You all get your tattoos in Swampstain, and then a delving you will go!

It's a different playstyle, sure. But we always had fun with it.

DM: "Okay, so what's the difference between Paladin Two and Paladin Three?"
Me: "Uuuuuhhh, Paladin Three is a she!"

Yeah, but that's a lot of 15-page character backstories to write and long-term plot arcs to set up...

 

[Alai]

Game design includes writing as well as coming up with mechanics.

Look at the credits for any RPG that's not a completely tinpot "fantasy heartbreaker"-level effort. Aside from the many different job titles, there's a whole mob-handed effort involved. They're separate or at least separable tasks, and hence skills.

Robin Laws is a great example of communicating through writing very clearly what the intent was behind the mechanics choices. It would be nice if he weren't an exception, and rather just one of many.

He is indeed. Probably even better as a writer than as a designer, in the scheme of things. But just because he's a multitasking-enabled one-man band doesn't mean that we should lose all run of ourselves slagging off workmanlike chamber ensembles. Some of his games might have worked better with less people joining in on the counter-melody on their own instruments.

If it's a fun and workable product by (and during) the time it hits the table in the room, then really we're just haggling about the value-for-money rating you're giving it, and the division of labour it took to get it there.

 

[Fenris-77]

Game design includes writing as well as coming up with mechanics.

Sure, but not every game is designed to be played by rank amateurs who need their hand's held through every step of introducing the game and mechanics. That's nothing on the quality of game design one way or another, just about the intended audience. What we're left with here is more like your personal preferences than anything objective about game design. It's not entirely that, but you seem to be thoroughly conflating the two.

 

[ffilz]

Even then. People barely have enough time to get together to play one session face to face. They literally don't have the time to waste on a funnel. Most RPG books are read, rather than used in play, and of course there game design doesn't actually matter. You only imagine playing rather than actually playing. But if you want to make a modern game that actually gets played by the an average modern person, it has to be tailored to the needs of the player.



I did, after seeing how much the default sucks. And if I need to figure that out through experience rather than the game laying it out for me from the start, the game was badly designed.

You keep talking as if your preferences are universal. They aren’t. Game’s designed fir other preferences are not poorly designed no matter how much you dislike them.

You also seem to be implying that D&D is a poor design because it takes more time to play that people today have. But back when D&D was written, war gamers regularly met for a Saturday of gaming every week. Some even met multiple times a week. There was maybe 10-12 channels of TV, no streaming, and no Blockbuster.

There are games today that are designed to be fun as one shots or 5-10 sessions. But there are also folks who still play once a week for several hours. And I bet there’s still folks who game all day Saturday. Also, with VTT there are folks who play several times a week in different campaigns or even multiple times in one day (I had a player who ran RQG in the time slot before my RQ1 game).

Please accept that these games you dislike are enjoyed by others and your dislike of them doesn’t make them bad designs.

 

[ffilz]

Actually, they kind of did, and in BD&D and AD&D a 1st level fighter had more hit points than a level-0 man-at-arms, etc. However, in those systems unless the GM said they were these 1st level character weren't incompetents. They were skilled at whatever the GM agreed they were, and better at fighting than <1 HD monsters (and thus most of humanity) and in AD&D the fighter had more hit points (on average) too. What made players decide that these guys were incompetent was 1) GM rulings that made them such (such as Thief skills being the only way you could climb, hide, etc., and pass/fail on the given percentages), and 2) the assumption players started to make that losing to 1HD monsters constituted 'being wimpy', rather than 'losing by being out-numbered or out-fought by your peers'. This last was players deciding that 1st level meant 'bad' and rating everything off that measure.

Good points. I think that is part of the problem. Actually what may be worse is GMs using “cool” monsters and nog considering they are a greater challenge for the PCs.

 

[ffilz]

What's the previous experience system like, BTW?

It’s not that different than RQ2 but I’ll try and share some details when I have a chance. Keep bugging me…

 

[DeadBob]

I also assume that the 1st level Fighter ( and everyone else) being somewhat experienced came from the sheer amount of cash they begin with.

I mean jeez, 3d6 x 10 GPs? Tha is equivalent to years of a peasant's earnings!

That right there is a successful mercenary cashing out their bonus pay or share from the ransom of enemy nobles.

Look at that dude's gear! He's got a horse and serious armor, as well as multiple weapons.

Joe Town Levy Dude over that way has a spear and a metal cap. Maybe a shield if it's a rich town.

 

[Fenris-77]

The notion of 'competent' is one that relies far more on context and referents than it does on a stable single definition.

 

[Alai]

You keep talking as if your preferences are universal. They aren’t. Game’s designed fir other preferences are not poorly designed no matter how much you dislike them.

I think they're saying something closer to, if there's not a big sticker on the front saying "NOT TO MIGO'S TASTES AND REQUIREMENTS" or equivalent, then it's bad design. If it does, that's fine.

I guess graphic design is, being an endocentric compound, a type of design too, to be fair...

 

[migo]

Sure, but not every game is designed to be played by rank amateurs who need their hand's held through every step of introducing the game and mechanics. That's nothing on the quality of game design one way or another, just about the intended audience. What we're left with here is more like your personal preferences than anything objective about game design. It's not entirely that, but you seem to be thoroughly conflating the two.

It's even more important withe experienced players to communicate the intentions clearly, because they'll be coming in with assumptions from games they played before. Your game will only appear well designed if your assumptions about their background are correct.

You keep talking as if your preferences are universal. They aren’t. Game’s designed fir other preferences are not poorly designed no matter how much you dislike them.

If the intent isn't clearly communicated, it's bad design even if the design suits your tastes.

You also seem to be implying that D&D is a poor design because it takes more time to play that people today have. But back when D&D was written, war gamers regularly met for a Saturday of gaming every week. Some even met multiple times a week. There was maybe 10-12 channels of TV, no streaming, and no Blockbuster.

It is poor design today. This thread is about modern game design.

Please accept that these games you dislike are enjoyed by others and your dislike of them doesn’t make them bad designs.

Please accept that you can like badly designed games.

 

[Alai]

The notion of 'competent' is one that relies far more on context and referents than it does on a stable single definition.

It's a bit like when mathematicians call things "elementary" and "trivial", and you were lost three slides -- or lectures, chapters, years -- ago...

 

[migo]

I think they're saying something closer to, if there's not a big sticker on the front saying "NOT TO MIGO'S TASTES AND REQUIREMENTS" or equivalent, then it's bad design. If it does, that's fine.

I guess graphic design is, being an endocentric compound, a type of design too, to be fair...

Why read when you can think? I already made it clear what I wanted. DCC communicates it clearly. They're not saying it's not to my tastes, they're saying it's not to the tastes of a lot of people, and they only want people who will enjoy it to start playing it. That likely contributes to the overwhelmingly positive feedback about it.

 

[Alai]

It is poor design today. This thread is about modern game design.

This thread's all over the shop. Half of it seems to be Unauthorised D&D Repairman stuff.

 

[Alai]

I already made it clear what I wanted.

Why argue when you can assert.

 

[migo]

This thread's all over the shop. Half of it seems to be Unauthorised D&D Repairman stuff.

Because D&D is still a hegemony and has a significant influence on modern game design.

Why argue when you can assert.

I did both. You're really not good at this reading thing, are you?

 

[robertsconley]

It’s not that different than RQ2 but I’ll try and share some details when I have a chance. Keep bugging me…

I have a copy of Runequest 1e from here

RuneQuest 1st Edition - Chaosium | RuneQuest Classic | DriveThruRPG.com

RuneQuest 1st Edition - In July of 1978, the Origins Game Fair was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Over 3500 people attended what was the largest g

www.drivethrurpg.com

Page 106



There several choices Mercenary, Barbarians, Nobles, and Crafts. The Craft option has three choices Thieving, Crafting, and Sage. And Crafting breaks down into Armoring, Forestry, and Maritime. Sage breaks down into Alchemy and Sage Craft.

For example Mercernary


The rest of each entry is rolling up some details and determining what skill increases you get.