Motivations to design

[soundwave]

I'm not exactly sure this is the right forum for this topic, but...

I've been looking through a lot of new RPG systems lately, and a question ocurred to me:

Why do people design their own systems?

Now, I'm not talking about house rules or other small additions to an existing system. The motivation for those is usually the obvious perception of the inadequacy of the current system. I'm chiefly concerned with the reasons that people design new RPG systems from scratch, and particularly why they publish them.

Now I can think of only two (call it one and a half) reasons:

1. Perceived inadequacy of what's available. Unsatisfied with existing systems, the designer chooses to make their own. Unfortunately, this is all too often mixed with...

2. Ignorance of what is available. Usually a designer with this motivation is aware of only a few systems, though not always. They perceive an inadequacy in what's available chiefly because they are unaware of the extent of what's available.[/list:u]

Anyone have anything else to add to this list?

[anonymouse]

I would add:

3. Just to do it.

I'm playing with Oracle under that reasoning, and have an idea for something else brewing. I have no desire to sell anything I manage to finish; it's just a bit of a hobby, a past-time. It's enjoyable.

I also think that 2 isn't a huge crime, simply because there are a lot of games out there currently, not to mention the tonnes from years past that have fallen by the wayside. In fact, a good way to learn of those other systems seems to be to start a design of your own, post it somewhere, and have someone say: "Y'know, I've seen something like this before.."

[hix]

4. Create a mood or player behaviour that you haven't seen other systems produce.

[Jason Lee]

3. Just to do it.

I seem to remember building a lot of different castles out of my Lego castle set as a kid, even though the set came with instructions for building a perfectly good castle.

Well, might as well add something while I'm here.

5.  House rules evolving until they become their own independent game system.

[lumpley]

Ooh ooh.  I have one.

6) Game systems don't exist in isolation from the game they're designed for.  If you want to make a new game, you HAVE TO make a new system.  Otherwise you're just making somebody else's old game in disguise.

Welcome to the Forge, Adrian!  Hix!

-Vincent

[Le Joueur]

Hello Adrian,

Welcome to the Forge, good to have you here.

Why do people design their own systems?

1. Perceived inadequacy of what's available. Unsatisfied with existing systems, the designer chooses to make their own. Unfortunately, this is all too often mixed with...

2. Ignorance of what is available. Usually a designer with this motivation is aware of only a few systems, though not always. They perceive an inadequacy in what's available chiefly because they are unaware of the extent of what's available.[/list:u]

3. Just to do it.[/list:u]

4. Create a mood or player behaviour that you haven't seen other systems produce.[/list:u]

5. House rules evolving until they become their own independent game system.[/list:u]

6. Game systems don't exist in isolation from the game they're designed for.  If you want to make a new game, you HAVE TO make a new system.  Otherwise you're just making somebody else's old game in disguise.[/list:u]

7. Because they could sooner stop breathing.[/list:u][/list:u]Really guys, this is one of those 'why do people create' questions.  Either you abstract it to the point where the list is meaningless or you have a list as long as there are creators.  Neither is terribly productive.

Can you turn this into a real question, Adrian?  I know some people have this knee-jerk reaction to polls like this and jump in with their own response, but how can you alter what is being asked here into something that might

help people create their own games?

For example, how does one create a set of goals in keeping with their reason for designing games?

That one I can answer.  Because I can't

not design games, I look at more than just 'neat mechanics.'  I consider the shape of the market, based on my experience as a retailer; I consider what sells and what doesn't abstracted beyond the 'genre question.'  I look at the shape of the 'non-market,' what would appeal to people who might like gaming if they tried it (but were too afraid of Dungeons & Dragons geeks)?  I look at what kinds of products sell over longer periods in time, is it 'core and splat-books,' 'ongoing meta-plot,' 'raw mechanics and genre modules,' or something else?  I consider possible non-traditional extensions, collectible card games, live-action role-playing, on-line gaming, and et cetera.  I think about different playing styles, people who like 'thinking in character,' 'making a story,' 'facing a challenge,' 'seeing the world,' or something else.

Then I try to create a game that does all that successfully.  I like a challenge, but the important point is my obsession with role-playing games.[/list:u]That's what this thread needs to elevate it above a simple poll of 'why do people write games.'  If you add something other people can use, beyond simply comparing motivations, we can have a discussion.  (That's what this forum is for, creating useful information from discussing not just chiming in.)  Can you do that Adrian?  It's your thread.

Hope that helps, 'cuz I think there's gold here.

Fang Langford

[lumpley]

Hmph.

There is gold in this thread, and it's got to do with Adrian's conception of the relationship between game and system.  Adrian's asking us why we design new game systems when surely there are enough already.  Want rules-light?  There's one already.  Want crunchy?  There's one already.  Want pervy?  There's one already.  That's what he's saying to us.  Why write a new system when you could just play Otherkind with FUDGE?

Adrian, if I'm misreading you, please say so!

I want to put forward the idea that a game isn't made up of some setting + some system.  A game's system must always be unique to that game.  There is no system but Otherkind's you could play Otherkind with, if you see what I mean.  FUDGE Otherkind would be a whole different game.

-Vincent

[Bankuei]

Yep, Vincent...

That is exactly what I meant when I was talking about "gameplay experience" in my Rant.  You can play Sorcerer, but if you tried to play Sorcerer using GURPS, you'd get the GURPS experience, not the Sorcerer experience.

Chris

[lumpley]

(Oh!  I don't think I'm the first to put forward the idea, I just think I'm the first to put it forward in this thread.  I understand it to be widely held around here.  I want to get Adrian's thoughts about it is all.)

[Jason Lee]

I feel an upcoming 'Universal (any setting) games don't exist, but Generic (setting-lite) ones do' discussion.

Fortunately, by Legos are a Generic system - so I won't need to defend them.

[M. J. Young]

Well, in the face of Fang's apparent objection, I'm going to answer the original question with another listing.

I can't say why E. R. Jones started designing Multiverser in the mid 80's; I think it was because his earliest gaming experiences were from worlds cobbled together from a lot of game books from different games, and he was always seeking and never finding a system which combined these things in a manner he found adequate.

However, when he brought the idea to me, my reaction was, "This is a fabulous idea, a really neat game concept, and a good start on the execution; how can we bring this to the point that other gamers can experience it?"

(This goes along way to explaining my exuberance in my initial announcement that it was a completely original and innovative system--neither of us had encountered anything that did what it did, and we had been looking. Some people have agreed with our assessment, others have been underwhelmed--but at least people are playing it.)

So I think one reason people create new game systems is that they get an idea that latches hold of them, and they get excited about it and want to see it turned into a working product, and perhaps have the satisfaction of others also saying, "This is cool; thanks for writing it."

--M. J. Young

[soundwave]

Well, to be honest, I had no wish to dispute or object to anyone's reasons for designing new systems, or tell them that they're wasting their time.

I'm more interested in peoples' actual motivations than anything else. Do you design new systems because you enjoy the act of creation, or the mental exercise? Do you create new systems to better simulate your chosen genre, or encourage development of your chosen theme? Do you look at what's available first, or do you operate on the principle that custom-designed tool will be the best for the job?

Personally, my philosophy is that last one: the best tool for a given job is one designed to do that job. If I'm using an exsting system, I want something with clear design goals, and which achieves those goals for the most part at least.