In another thread, Erik said this:

Quote from: Erik BoielleSandy Petersen has said that Call of Cthulhu was the work of a talented amature. If he did it these days it would be different, more focused, more polished and people probably wouldn't love it as much.

I hadn't heard this before, but its brilliant and no doubt true.

It led me to consider that in reality, one of the primary errors in game design is trying to focus, as first priority, on creating a game that will be "well designed", "focused" etc. rather than making priority one having a game that will appeal to players.

Often game designers get so overzealous about creating a game that they can't see their head for their asses as far as whether what they design will be truly appealing and broadly functional or not.  The "perfect system" is not necessarily the best system for actual play.

This is, of course, aggravated by design philosophies that hold narrowcast highly-specialized highly-focused microgames are the best possible way to get to the "Perfect Game".

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIn another thread, Erik said this:



I hadn't heard this before, but its brilliant and no doubt true.

It led me to consider that in reality, one of the primary errors in game design is trying to focus, as first priority, on creating a game that will be "well designed", "focused" etc. rather than making priority one having a game that will appeal to players.

Often game designers get so overzealous about creating a game that they can't see their head for their asses as far as whether what they design will be truly appealing and broadly functional or not.  The "perfect system" is not necessarily the best system for actual play.

This is, of course, aggravated by design philosophies that hold narrowcast highly-specialized highly-focused microgames are the best possible way to get to the "Perfect Game".

RPGpundit

Agreed. D&D, as written, is a wide-open game in terms of what the world and action will be. This is true of, and I say this without hyperbole, literally every single big-selling game ever made except for some of White Wolf's stuff, and WW fans are infamous for disregarding the mandated mode of play anyway.

The hobby has spoken when it comes to the amount of "focus" they want in their games. It's spoken by insuring that nothing else has sold enough to buy its designers a hot lunch at any restaurant that doesn't boast a $0.99 value menu.

I think there is some truth to this but it is also somewhat misleading. A focused game is not necessarily bad.  For instance, I would say humor games do well as focused games. It lets the joke get through. The trick is to have a general framework that allows you to carry new jokes to the game or allow the GM to tell jokes that are funny to the players.

The truth of this seems to be not the wrong priorities but taking those to extremes. It can be very easy to get wrapped up in the latest mechanic you are working on but play testers will often set you straight. Personally, that is the litmus for me, what do play testers think. Games that get little or no play before they are published tend to show (alternatively, if play testers are ignored).

With that understanding, I always design with adventure hooks, player concepts and interesting venues in mind. System is there to serve those functions and enable play. If your system does not do this then you need to look at your fundamental design.

Just my take on it is all,
Bill

Quote from: YamoAgreed. D&D, as written, is a wide-open game in terms of what the world and action will be. This is true of, and I say this without hyperbole, literally every single big-selling game ever made except for some of White Wolf's stuff, and WW fans are infamous for disregarding the mandated mode of play anyway.

To be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

I think this returns to the game-toolkit vs. finished game discussion.  Many people like the toolkit, because they can use it to build the perfect game for their group.  Others like the finished game because they have to invest less effort before enjoying playing the game.

Quote from: StuartI think this returns to the game-toolkit vs. finished game discussion.  Many people like the toolkit, because they can use it to build the perfect game for their group.  Others like the finished game because they have to invest less effort before enjoying playing the game.

In my experience most players like a finished game, so they can create characters and know what they are capable of doing.  Many GMs want games where they can tinker with the system.  Thus most successful games have rock solid chargen and functional combat/skill resolution/conflict resolution but fuzzier bits elsewhere that the GM can fine tune.

I always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

Well, but everything in a paper-and-pen RPG is optional.  There are plenty of games with different options for chargen, different settings, and so forth.  On the other hand, there are published modules which do provide detail.  

I could equally point out that the only successful RPGs are ones which have provided detail in the form of detailed settings, modules, and so forth.  (Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

But that's the point. It does this WITHOUT having a system that does anything whatsoever to encourage "investigation".  

If Peterson had wanted to, he could have created a system that was much more narrow-focused. You could easily make a Forge-style game that would only have mechanics dealing with "investigation", that wouldn't have all of the supposedly "incoherent" play that CoC has.
And like most Forge games, it would suck ass and no one outside of the Swine would play it.

My point is that the very things that Forgeites say make for bad games are actually part of what makes games appealing to people, because "Focused game design", which seems to be their holy grail, is in fact the OPPOSITE of what normal roleplayers want.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceI always figure my job is to set the framework and provide inspiration, while the GM and/or playgroup sets the details. If I go into detail with anything beyond chargen, I always make it optional.

-clash

And this, sir, is why you absolutely ROCK as an RPG designer.

Because you know where your job ends and where the GM's begins. You make sure you do your job excellently, and let the GM do his.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim(Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

That "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat "small set" is certainly much less small than, say, "Forge games which have been as successful".  That one would be a set of ZERO.

So I will take our experience over your theories which have never proven any success, any day.

And I will take both experience and theories, since they go well together.  More on this on a new thread:

The Error of Tradition-Based Game Design

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, though, Call of Cthulhu isn't as wide open as many other games. The assumed mode of play is the investigative model, and by far the majority of published adventures (and homebrewed games that I've seen) follow that model. Call of Cthulhu succeeds in consistently promoting focused play that even old-school grognards enjoy without having an even slightly focused system.

Well, what he wanted was a horror movie experience in which every adventure left one third of the characters dead and another third insane. Set in the modern day.

Which isn't really what people love about Call of Cthulhu. The big epic campaigns, the tommy guns, the tomes of arcane law, the funky insanities, the 1920's feel, the apparent depth of research etc. (and thats what I like - others loves may vary)

I'm not entirely sure what the moral is, except that CoC really is a classic and that when it comes down to it you just need to throw ideas at people and see which ones stick. Or something.

Quote from: jhkimWell, but everything in a paper-and-pen RPG is optional.  There are plenty of games with different options for chargen, different settings, and so forth. On the other hand, there are published modules which do provide detail.  

Indeed, but there are different levels of "optional." Some people - a surprisingly large number - are afraid to "break canon," as if the RPG Police would come knocking in the middle of the night. I try to label things as "Optional" which can be easily ignored, if desired, without any house-ruling or system hacking. As far as supplements go, I consider all supplements by definition optional. If it was necessary, it would/should be in the main book. I have several times folded supplements into a revision of the main book because I realized they were necessary, and not optional. This was to my financial loss, but it made the game better.

Quote from: jhkimI could equally point out that the only successful RPGs are ones which have provided detail in the form of detailed settings, modules, and so forth.  (Though I think that arguing from successful RPGs of the past is extrapolating from a vanishingly small set, and it's an error in itself.)

As I said, the detail is optional, and is available in the optional supplements. If you want to know how everything works on a StarCluster Starship, you can pick up the "Starship Construction and Engineer's Guide," which can tell you how waste is handled by the ship's plumbing. You don't need that level of detail to play the game, though. It plays just fine without it. Similarly, you get a stat block description of the Shore system and the world Far Shore in the main book, which can give you the basics on the bodies in that system. You can also get the "Far Shore Planetary Supplement," which gives you the whole setting in 64 pages, with maps, history, people, and native tech. Your choice.  

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd this, sir, is why you absolutely ROCK as an RPG designer.

Because you know where your job ends and where the GM's begins. You make sure you do your job excellently, and let the GM do his.

RPGPundit

Thanks, Pundit! I don't want to tell the GM how to run a game any more than I'd appreciate being railroaded as a GM by some game designer. I like getting my PCs into sticky social and political situations, but that's not all I want to do in the game, and someone else might not like it at all. I was a GM long before I was a designer.

-clash