Design from the other end of the games industry

[greyorm]

Wordman (BTW, what's your name? I'd rather talk to an adult than to a handle),

I feel you've ignored the point I was making in order to quip wittily.

I'm saying that theme is only a constraint: not a necessary constraint.

But not an unnecessary one either, which is what your argument seems to be: against designing according to theme, or designing a game according to a given or desired type of constraint(s), because you personally don't want something with that particular constraint. But you may as well be arguing that you don't think people should make tools that serve particular purposes because finding a rock that works is more fun.

The thing is, we're all quite aware that players are going to do whatever they're going to do with a game, regardless of the designer's intent. This isn't news to anyone. However, it is also a trusim that in this industry, designing games that "do anything" has resulted in a lot of problematic play, paradoxical or mistaken ideas about play, and general confusion. Clear, focused design that is clear about what the game is for and what you do with it--that is, what the rules actually do--solves many, many problems and makes the uses of the pieces outside of their context far clearer.

Even Will Wright's "toys" come with constraints, they're all "about" stuff, though not in a blatantly up-front way. The Sims, not matter how many different things you can do with it, is still about little people and their feelings and what happens to them in their world. It isn't an FPS, space-combat story, or exploration of evolutionary theory, and really can't be. It has constraints.

Good games provide guidance on what you CAN do with them, regardless of what a player actually does with them. If someone finds another use for it, another thing they can do with it that it works for, awesome. But no one goes around saying, "Don't design a tool that's a pounding tool! People want to find out what they can do with a tool, not be told what to do with it!"

Ultimately, though, there is no rule that "games must have theme!" and your  arbitrarily reactionary (seemingly) position towards the production of designs with that one type of constraint--rather than towards any other type of constraint--seems to imply you feel there is some rule of such sort, and that you believe roleplayers as a whole reject and dislike the idea (though these forums and the success of so-called "themed" games implies that gamers do in fact like that type of game as much as so-called "toolboxy" games). Because it is also true that some good percentage of gamers also don't necessarily find using a doll as a hammer all that fun.

[Daniel B]

I hope I'm not interrupting here, Wordman. This is an issue I have a vested interest in. (I'll shut up upon request)

I'm saying that theme is only a constraint: not a necessary constraint.

But not an unnecessary one either, which is what your argument seems to be: against designing according to theme, or designing a game according to a given or desired type of constraint(s), because you personally don't want something with that particular constraint. But you may as well be arguing that you don't think people should make tools that serve particular purposes because finding a rock that works is more fun.

What makes themeless equivalent to purposeless? A rock was built themeless, but you can apply your own purpose. So too with a randomly-filled toybox. A deck of cards is not themed (or at least it's so loose, you could replace the royalty with anything), and yet the deck was built expressly for the purpose of playing games. I can even say this about a hammer; a hammer doesn't have a "theme", it has a purpose.

The thing is, we're all quite aware that players are going to do whatever they're going to do with a game, regardless of the designer's intent. This isn't news to anyone. However, it is also a trusim that in this industry, designing games that "do anything" has resulted in a lot of problematic play, paradoxical or mistaken ideas about play, and general confusion.

Truisms aren't truths. Just strongly-held beliefs based on what's happened so far. Wright Brothers.. need I say more?

Clear, focused design that is clear about what the game is for and what you do with it--that is, what the rules actually do--solves many, many problems and makes the uses of the pieces outside of their context far clearer.

<swap>

Good games provide guidance on what you CAN do with them, regardless of what a player actually does with them. If someone finds another use for it, another thing they can do with it that it works for, awesome. But no one goes around saying, "Don't design a tool that's a pounding tool! People want to find out what they can do with a tool, not be told what to do with it!"

You're saying: designing games one way works some of the time. So what?

I can still build a deck of cards for the purpose of being able to use it for a variety of different varieties of games. I can build a swiss-army knife to be useful in lots of odd jobs, with only a vague idea ahead of time on what those jobs will be. Both of these tools have constraints, but their applications are still virtually limitless.

Building such a tool is a lot harder than a single-purpose tool, and the inherently fuzzy nature of the question "what is a game?" makes things harder in the domain of tabletop RPG building. Does this mean it's impossible?

Ultimately, though, there is no rule that "games must have theme!" and your  arbitrarily reactionary (seemingly) position towards the production of designs with that one type of constraint--rather than towards any other type of constraint--seems to imply you feel there is some rule of such sort, and that you believe roleplayers as a whole reject and dislike the idea (though these forums and the success of so-called "themed" games implies that gamers do in fact like that type of game as much as so-called "toolboxy" games). Because it is also true that some good percentage of gamers also don't necessarily find using a doll as a hammer all that fun.

Since I started doing research on the Forge, I've seen this particular reaction a lot. "You want the ideal, but I've seen many people try for it and fail. So the desire to reach for it must itself be the problem .. an arbitrary knee-jerk reaction made by people who don't know any better."

Think about this, and then look at the popularity of such games like "The Sims" or "World of Warcraft". Each was design with a main way to play, but there is a strong toybox element to these types of games. Is it a flawed knee-jerk reaction that people who participate in these games (i.e. the players themselves) use them in so many ways besides that main way to play? You're going to tell everyone they're having fun the wrong way, because they're banging nails with dolls instead of hammers though still having a great time?

Now, if you agree that there's nothing wrong with participating in toybox play, is it really such a huge leap to believe some people may want to set out from the beginning and intentionally build such a thing? (In fact, I'd go further and say that I believe the games mentioned were built with this in mind, so the toybox play side-effect is not a coincidence. Gamesa gotta compete deese days.)

Daniel

[David C]

Will Wright created a computer generated doll house. Simple really, it's kind of surprising somebody didn't think of it sooner. I have an (adult) sister who obsessively plays the Sims. She uses it to play god over her life.  She always makes herself, than she'll make everyone in her life, or some fantasy world (like Twilight) and control all of them.  

I think the real lesson to be learned here is (in general) men are interested in experiencing a fantasy as an individual and women are interested in experiencing a fantasy as a community.  

I would disagree with Will Wright about computer games overcoming an "obstacle."  I don't think GMs ever have a problem running the game, but only don't enjoy all the work that goes into planning a game. Instead, they just shifted the work load from the GM to the game developers. The only obstacle that computer games have overcome is finding a group of friends to play with...

Despite his successful career, I'm not sure Will has a very good idea of what makes a successful game. The Sims online showed that he had no idea how/why the Sims was successful.  (With the interactive doll house version of the game, many players just cheat to get money so they can design a perfect life. They also refer to play as a "community.")  In the Sims online, money was hard to come by, so you couldn't just build a dollhouse and play a perfect life. You had to work for it, just like real life, what's the appeal in that?  Also, you only controlled one character, not a whole community.

Spore showed me that he had no idea how rewards affect player behavior (or more specifically, the desire to keep playing.)  All your creature design decisions were wiped out as soon as you advanced ages. If you worked harder at a particular age, it didn't matter as soon as you advanced to the next age. If you designed your creatures or buildings, you couldn't view them as soon as you advanced an age or two.  The penultimate space age had about 0% to do with the first 4/5ths of the game.  You could lovingly raise your creatures or design your worlds, but at the end of the day you weren't *rewarded* squat.

I think the important lesson that Will can teach us from the other end of the games industry is that you must watch how your players play the game, and design it to maximize fun in that style of play.

[greyorm]

Heya Daniel, line-by-lines aren't usually productive. Either you get what I'm saying, and you can respond to that, or you don't, and can't. I can't respond piecemeal, because my point isn't piecemeal. I'm presenting ideas and facts, and going "Oh, you used the wrong word so now your point is totally invalid! Hah!" is a failure to engage in productive communication. Seriously, I'm supposed to dicker over the use of the correct usage of the word "truism" or "purpose/theme/constraint" in order to defend the point? I don't even know if you GOT the point I was trying to make.

Given that, the only part of your post I can actually respond to as a point in the discussion is:

I can still build a deck of cards for the purpose of being able to use it for a variety of different varieties of games. I can build a swiss-army knife to be useful in lots of odd jobs, with only a vague idea ahead of time on what those jobs will be. Both of these tools have constraints, but their applications are still virtually limitless.

Yep. You can. Just said this.

Is it a flawed knee-jerk reaction that people who participate in these games (i.e. the players themselves) use them in so many ways besides that main way to play? You're going to tell everyone they're having fun the wrong way, because they're banging nails with dolls instead of hammers though still having a great time?

Nope, never said this.

You haven't actually said anything I disagree with or argued against.

I'm all for better design of so-called "toolboxy" games, rather than designs that folks believe are completely toolboxy, but suffer significantly because they aren't, or aren't as much as the designers think they are (AD&D 2nd Edition comes to mind, as does GURPs: they're both toolboxy, trying to be/provide everything to everyone, but their actual constraints, constraints that really do significantly affect play and what can effectively be done with the tools in the box, are completely glossed over and ignored as though they don't exist or matter).

But whether or not toolboxy games should or shouldn't be created, or even how they should be designed, wasn't the point of my argument.

[Daniel B]

Heya Daniel, line-by-lines aren't usually productive. Either you get what I'm saying, and you can respond to that, or you don't, and can't. I can't respond piecemeal, because my point isn't piecemeal. I'm presenting ideas and facts, and going "Oh, you used the wrong word so now your point is totally invalid! Hah!" is a failure to engage in productive communication. Seriously, I'm supposed to dicker over the use of the correct usage of the word "truism" or "purpose/theme/constraint" in order to defend the point? I don't even know if you GOT the point I was trying to make.

If posts contained single thoughts I might agree. Arguments are built from several points, and maybe I agree with some of your points but not others. It would be silly to argue against the points I agree with. For example, I believe I completely understand what you're saying here, and simply disagree, where I thinking we've miscommunicated for the rest so I'm not certain I see what you're saying.

As for my pointing out your use of the word truism; it's not like a typo or grammatical error. I can leap from those mistakes to what the person "actually meant" without skipping a beat. However, that's not the case here and it's not a quibble. You said exactly what you meant. You again used a blanket statement (i.e. "truism in the industry") to make a case for everyone without stopping to consider that maybe what is your truth is really only what you've seen from your individual bubble.

(Don't take this to mean I'm claiming my bubble is any larger .. but it is certainly different!)

Another blanket statement you used, "line-by-lines aren't usually productive", is dangerous for the same. Why are they dangerous? How do you know this? I'm not interested in seeing evidence (because debates requiring such are utterly futile on the net), but it would be nice if I could at least trust that your statements aren't confusing "what Raven thinks" with "what is true for everyone, everywhere". I'm usually willing to give speakers the benefit of the doubt but my willingness to do so drops when lots of blankets are being thrown about.

Given that, the only part of your post I can actually respond to as a point in the discussion is:

I can still build a deck of cards for the purpose of being able to use it for a variety of different varieties of games. I can build a swiss-army knife to be useful in lots of odd jobs, with only a vague idea ahead of time on what those jobs will be. Both of these tools have constraints, but their applications are still virtually limitless.

Yep. You can. Just said this.

Hmm, if so, maybe I have missed something, in which case I apologize. Indeed you do claim that "no toy can be all toys", and even that theme is not a necessary constraint ...  but then you follow it up saying theme is not unnecessary either. Since it can't be both necessary and unnecessary

< .. >
I'm all for better design of so-called "toolboxy" games, rather than designs that folks believe are completely toolboxy, but suffer significantly because they aren't, or aren't as much as the designers think they are (AD&D 2nd Edition comes to mind, as does GURPs: they're both toolboxy, trying to be/provide everything to everyone, but their actual constraints, constraints that really do significantly affect play and what can effectively be done with the tools in the box, are completely glossed over and ignored as though they don't exist or matter).

So, you're against sucky designs (i.e. those aimed towards a purpose but which miss almost entirely) .. because they suck?

Can't argue with you on that X-D

But whether or not toolboxy games should or shouldn't be created, or even how they should be designed, wasn't the point of my argument.

:S   I've reread your posts a few times now, I still seem to interpret the same thought from what you're saying; i.e. that games must tell you what they're for and how to use them. Furthermore, that building a game that doesn't tell you these things is not something to strive for.

If that's not the point .. what'd I miss? If it is .. maybe I should restate my position for clarity, to see if you also understand my rebuttal to this?



****************

On a related note .. David, by the same arguments I was making against Raven, the "lessons we can learn here" also make me nervous. I totally respect Will Wright's claims on the difference between male and female gamers, because he's seen it. He's built the game and had lots of people use it and had the genuine statistics generated. We can all draw conclusions from that (so I'm not actually disagreeing with you here), just as long as any conclusion is taken with a grain of salt.

Also, can we really claim to be of any higher authority on whether Will has any idea of what makes a successful game? This sounds to me like the old debate of good theatre versus good theatre; e.g. "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy" which simply drew large crowds, versus some highly artsy-fartsy indie projects with small audience draw but lots of features that supposedly qualify it as "high art".

Personally I wouldn't want to get into that debate at all..    X-(


Daniel

[greyorm]

Damnit, Daniel. I'm not talking out of my ass here. Really. I'll PM you shortly with a more in depth answer on the subject because that whole part of this discussion is off-topic for this thread. Just please review site policies and etiquette and in the stickied topics Etiquette at the Forge and Charitable Reading.

On the actual thread topic, I am seeing from the later part of your response that there was clearly some miscommunication and that my point and the purpose of various statements I made in service to that point were NOT as clear as I'd thought. For example: I did not say theme was both necessary and unnecessary, I said it was neither necessary nor unnecessary. That theme was not something you HAD TO have in your game, but also that it was not something you SHOULD NOT have.

Does that make sense now?

Re: sucky designs. That wasn't what those examples were meant to indicate. Yes, clearly, avoid sucky designs. But what is a sucky design? I'm not talking about something so vague as all that. Here's what I meant for you to consider regarding the two example games I mentioned:

AD&D 2nd Edition is incoherent as heck because it is trying to be all things to all people: it literally doesn't know if it is a game about dungeon-crawling (ie: traps, monsters, treasure) or a game about a medieval fantasy narrative (ie: simulating the people of a pseudo-medieval society) or creating a tale of adventure (ie: heroic sword & sorcery stories about mighty warriors and wizards). It has pieces of all of those, but nothing coherent, and many of the pieces that serve one "about" don't serve (and often detract from) the other "abouts", making play a frustrating mess and leading to endless houseruling to "fix" the rules so they do "what they're 'supposed' to".

GURPs is a solid, coherent design, it isn't trying to be a half-dozen different things. But it is also confused. It says it is a generic RPG--that you can do anything with it--without recognizing and passing on that various parts of its design make it unsuitable for doing SOME things with, that without changing or ignoring certain rules, certain genres and styles and "feels" of game can't be emulated well, without extreme difficulty, or at all. There are certain superhero or pulpy-style games that just don't work well with a GURPs ruleset because of the inherent constraints of the basic rules, an idea which isn't even on people's radar who and really believe that it can do anything and that any rule can serve any purpose: that rules don't influence how play is perceived, felt, experienced, contributed to, and what develops from it.

Knowing that about the examples now, is the point I was making--about games that want to try to be toolboxy needing to be clearer about what they can and can't do, and how the idea of "do anything" games has resulted in a lot of problematic play, paradoxical or mistaken ideas about play, and general confusion in the hobby--more clear? And how that relates to the big question about being "toolboxy" or "themed"?

Finally, I want to call you out on a double-standard you just used: the arguments you contest above, where you say are just "Raven says", have been based on observation: because it has been studied and observed (that's why it is a truism: it is a statement of fact whose supporting arguments are not being repeated for purposes of brevity). You can't say, "Oh, that's just how it is seen from your bubble," then turn around and tell David, "I trust Will Wright's argument because he's seen and observed these things!" because you are arbitrarily deciding that one person's observations are fact and another's--actually, a whole group of skilled, intelligent people who have spent the better part of a decade studying these issues in the hobby climate--are just opinion.

If we are going to argue "I trust Will Wright. Will Wright knows what he's talking about. We should listen to him!" then we have to have a standard to judge by which we can make the claim that he "knows what he's talking about": does his understanding of design produce games that support what his understanding states? David has provided some indication that Will's opinions, that is his understanding of how to build games enjoyed by a diverse player base or why one of his games was enjoyed so highly and was so popular, has not created reproducible results with his other games. On that basis, we could call into question the idea that was put forth of toyboxy design being the reason for his game's popularity, or that it is a better way of creating games (rather than merely one among many).

[AzaLiN]

what a cool post!

[HeTeleports]

what a cool post!

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing.

Now, someone needs to throw in an analogue of "Just as the language we use changes the way we think, designers of 'toolbox games' can communicate with players more subtley via game dynamics."

However, I do think we're straying from observations of how similar role-playing game design is to Wright's designs: they both give players the rules for how a world works, then they expect players (GM included) to assemble play from it.

I'm going to reread some of these posts again. The mental acrobatics require some practice.