Quote from: Ian JohnsonI like game design more than I like actually playing games. Most of what I write these days is cute math tricks or interesting modular subsystems or investigating game mechanics. (Hack & Slash blog)

*sigh*

Well, I wouldn't give a proportion of games that suck versus those that don't - there IS a lot of cool stuff out there, after all - but I imagine this is indeed one of the major reasons why some game products out there really do suck: because their "authors" are into wanking about stuff in theory, and not really that interested in playing games.

Ditto the wanna-be novelist using RPGs as a substitute venue for fiction writing and composition.

Maybe stop buying games that haven't been playtested then, champ.

Quote from: Benoist;689779Well, I wouldn't give a proportion of games that suck versus those that don't - there IS a lot of cool stuff out there, after all - but I imagine this is indeed one of the major reasons why some game products out there really do suck: because their "authors" are into wanking about stuff in theory, and not really that interested in playing games.

Ditto the failed/wishful novelist using RPGs as a substitute venue for writing, as well.

For every 100 cool ideas and design theories I have, only about 5 make it past a few sessions of game play into the actual design.

One of my biggest faults is that I start coming up with rules for a million different scenarios, and the reality is that unless you're obsessive compulsive or something similar, no one enjoys the slowdown that accompanies that stuff.

Such is life.

Playtesting with as large a variety of gamers as possible is King.



Listening to the playtesters feedback is useful too.



"La La La my game mechanics are perfect" is not good.

Quote from: The Traveller;689780Maybe stop buying games that haven't been playtested then, champ.

"Playtested" is meaningless. If the designer plays it with his/her regular group then the game has been "playtested."

Good external playtesting is another matter. The ease of self publishing these days is the reason we get so much untested material. Publishing a pdf is cheap,and what can be obtained on the cheap isn't as carefully thought out as something requiring a major investment to get in print.

After all, if it costs next to nothing to publish, who cares how many people buy it?

Quote from: Bill;689783Playtesting with as large a variety of gamers as possible is King.

Listening to the playtesters feedback is useful too.

"La La La my game mechanics are perfect" is not good.

Yes, but none of this replaces a personal love of games, a personal practice in playing games, and a particular aim at creating things which are meant to be played by others, first. If you don't like or don't care for gaming, the activity, the actual act of playing games, you can theorize all you want, playtest all you want, your end result is still going to suck, because the buck ultimately stops with you.

It sounds like a truism, but you'd be amazed how many game designers don't play games.

Shrug.  If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can.  The only thing I don't grant them the right to do is bitch that nobody buys their game.

Quote from: Benoist;689788Yes, but none of this replaces a personal love of games, a personal practice in playing games, and a particular aim at creating things which are meant to be played by others, first. If you don't like or don't care for gaming, the activity, the actual act of playing games, you can theorize all you want, playtest all you want, your end result is still going to suck, because the buck ultimately stops with you.

It sounds like a truism, but you'd be amazed how many game designers don't play games.

I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

I don't think playtesting guarantees a good game. Certainly, the fact that Game A has been playtested more than Game B is no guarantee that Game A doesn't suck, for many reasons; but the reason that matters in particular, in the context of this thread, is: you can test a bunch of mechanics and guarantee that they work fine and perhaps even efficiently at the table, but that doesn't mean the kinds of things that happen in the game are enjoyable.

A playtest group -- internal or external -- may enjoy the fact that they're part of a playtest, enjoy each other's company while playtesting, enjoy the challenge the game presents, enjoy the clever way the mechanics produce results, and enjoy the general concept of a game. But they might not report the fact that most of the non-mechanical substance of the game just isn't that interesting. There might not be enough entertaining ideas in the game to make it worth playing if you aren't a playtester. Or the ideas might not have a broad appeal.

Quote from: Bill;689797I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

Based on the number of theorywankers who post online and argue about rules who don't actually play, it shouldn't be surprising.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;689802Based on the number of theorywankers who post online and argue about rules who don't actually play, it shouldn't be surprising.

Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

Quote from: Bill;689804Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

Easy:

-They will regard the rules as the game.

-All examples will assume that if something CAN be done via the rules then it will always be done to the absurd extreme.

- will express a love for playing rpgs but hate the very idea of a GM running the game instead of a ruleset

- numerous white room ruleswanking theories involving shit that wouldn't come up or be tolerated by other people in an actual social setting.

Quote from: Bill;689797I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

I don't think he said he wasn't a gamer, just that he preferred to design games. Which, when you think about it, is probably the kind of person that should be designing games. If they're also good at it, the games will succeed. Car designers probably spend more time designing cars than driving them, movie makers probably spend more time making movies than watching them.

Quote from: talysman;689799I don't think playtesting guarantees a good game.

Which is away from the question of what a good game actually is. This classic Black Vulmea troll thread doesn't lay out any definitions either, only wanting to stir things up. Because as usual the closer you look at it, the less sense it makes.

A good game for you might be a bad game for me, and vice versa.

Quote from: Bill;689804Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

It generally seems to come down to whether or not you agree with them, or possibly just don't like them. I think someone did up a 'standard RPGsite thread' thread, a feat of metaposting which mentioned the regularity with which the accusation surfaces. With that said I can think of one example where the poster was definetely a non gamer, that was Mr GC. He'd obviously read the books but everything else was lifted directly from MMORPGs like WoW. I mean it was scary when you realise what was going on, I've no idea what he thought he was doing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;689790If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can.

Sure, but that makes him a jerk-off, not a game designer.

I think stupid dice tricks become an end in themselves, 'a solution in search of a problem.' That said, there is an undeniable market of gamers who love stupid dice tricks.