How does one go about "reactive" game design?

[Daniel Solis]

As opposed to "proactive" game design, wherein the designer gets an idea and develops it into a game, I'm considering "reactive" game design to be the act of trying to "fix" the flaws seen in an existing game. Reactive game design occurs whenever a game gets a new edition with revisions, new rules and so forth.

However, I'm more interested in learning how one can go about taking an existing game and correcting any percieved flaws. This is more than making a few house rules or adding a new mechanic from another RPG, I mean actually making a whole new game as a reaction to the perceived flaws of another game (though this may not be acknowledged in the new game itself).

Is the process of reactive game design essentially the same as that of its proactive counterpart? What considerations must one take that are unique to the reactive process?

Just to kick things off, I'll throw out a little idea...

It seems like most reactive efforts are caused by a conflict between what the game says to expect and what the system actually does. With that being the case, reactive game design can take one of two main paths:

Fix the System
The setting is great. Love it. But the rules don't reinforce the concepts, player behaviors and nuances described in the rest of the game. The solution is then to rip out the engine and put in a new one more suited to the chassis.

Example: A setting where ancient vampires live in modern day, secretly scheming against each other in extravagant plots and counter-plots. However, the system focuses more on vampiric powers, raising trait rankings and engaging in open violence.

Fix the Setting
In this case, the system is just dandy, but for a different setting. This is more of a personally creative process and probably more influenced by personal taste.

Example: The gamist system from the previous example is just fine. The setting isn't working. Instead of sexy vamps secretly skulking about the shadows, the setting is a mid-apocalyptic world teeming with supernatural factions engaging in full blown urban warfare.

Is this a fair assessment of most attempts at reactive game design?

[anonymouse]

I imagine that heartbreakers would be the usual result of this, especially Fix the System.

[John Kim]

I imagine that heartbreakers would be the usual result of this, especially Fix the System.

Possibly.  It sounds like Hero Wars / HeroQuest also fits this bill, though, since it was self-admittedly an attempt to do the setting of Glorantha "right" (in Greg Stafford's view).  There are some other fairly total redesigns:  like Traveller's incarnations (classic/mega/TNE/T4/T20), or AD&D -> D&D3.  

I am a little skeptical of statements that one is merely "fixing flaws" via a whole new game.  I prefer to say that it is a variant or a different take on the subject.  While games definitely do have flaws, designing a whole new game usually involves different priorities than the original -- as opposed to fixing mistakes in implementation.  You will frequently find there are people who prefer the "un-fixed" game to the fixed one, for example.

[Andrew Martin]

Hi, Daniel.
At the moment, I see two meanings of "Reactive" in your post.

#1 Reactive game design: fixes flaws and problems with an existing game, and coming out with a second version. An example would be from AD&D to D&D3.0, Games Workshops various versions of their Warhammer rules, and so on. For me, this would be my extensive collection of house rules for playing a wargame, Dirtside II, or some of my enhancements to Chaosium's King Arthur Pendragon.

#2 Reative game design: inspired by either the setting or system, the designer creates either a complementary system or a setting. For example, on RPG.net BaileyWolf posted a conversion of Wushu to fit the WW Exalted setting (changing system to suit setting). On the HeroQuest forum, there's threads about using the HeroQuest system for various game settings. IIRC, Space: 1889 was just one of them.


At the moment, I consider that:

... "proactive" game design, wherein the designer gets an idea and develops it into a game,...

is just a step or two "behind" the above two situations. The difference is that the designer getting the idea starts from that idea, and has to expand it out to a setting (or system), then create or develope a appropriate system (or setting) to help bring the designer's vision into focus and into reality.