PDA

View Full Version : [Game design philosophy] I want to be a game designer, but...



Kalmageddon
2014-09-11, 08:57 AM
This was a bad idea, lock and possibly delete this.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-09-11, 09:22 AM
If you think "I don't particularly care for them" is the worst that gets tossed around, look again. :smallwink: There's at least a few vocal voices (and one very vocal forum) that I can think of who have a lot of vicious things to say about these games.

I'd also advocate that if these games are the entry gate to the hobby, you might want to consider why that is. Like, honestly consider that. Case in point, there's only so much freedom that a game like Dungeon World gives the players--in fact, it's pretty structured in some places. Is it easy to learn? Oh, totally. But that's a positive. Complaining about that is like being a Linux grognard complaining about the ease of use that Apple's products have. You should learn from that.

(As a side note, Fate isn't particularly lightweight, either. The reason that Fate Accelerated exists is because Fate Core was actually pretty crunchy.)

Here's my question, though. If all of these "almost freeform improvised" systems are really so similar, why do people keep getting interested in them? Is collective humanity really that unintelligent? Are gamers really that unintelligent? I find that if my premise requires a massive group of people to be ignorant and unintelligent, it's probably a faulty premise.

As a quick sum-up: there's a reason why the OSR and its simplified take on gaming have become popular, and why these differently-focused games are popping up. It's a diversity in the hobby, not a death of one of its parts. Sure, the market share of more complex games might be going down relatively, but that doesn't mean they're dying.

That'd be like saying that because people are starting to play things like Apples to Apples or Settlers of Catan, heavier board games like Eclipse are dying.

There's room for everyone. Don't fret.

(Also, I hate to say it, but this post comes off as mostly Sour Grapes.)

Kalmageddon
2014-09-11, 09:27 AM
(Also, I hate to say it, but this post comes off as mostly Sour Grapes.)

I was very transparent with my inability to make a point to most of you. I'm fairly sure my post will be dismissed in worse ways going foward into this thread.

Grinner
2014-09-11, 09:27 AM
You're making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. :smallconfused: In fact, I'm not sure if most of what you just wrote is really all that true, in a broader sense of the term at least. If you'll note, we still have a very active 3.5 subforum, and last time I checked, Steve Jackson Games hadn't gone out of business yet.

The problem with what you're yearning for, insofar as I can tell, is that these sort of games are frequently done very poorly. They rely on describing every trivial condition and circumstance as a rule, and people get overwhelmed after a while. Will Wright has described a game as being a series of interesting choices, but a +2 circumstance bonus to remaining on your horse doesn't strike me as being particularly interesting.

You're right about one thing, though. To sell something, you need to do something better than everyone else. To that end, create something that does tactical complexity without all the cruft. Take Galloglaich's Codex Martialis, for instance. His d20 combat system achieves tactical complexity with just one moderately complex mechanic. That's more interesting than all of the +2 bonuses in the Player's Handbook.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-11, 09:33 AM
Look, none of you will give me any sympathy, it's outside of the interest of most people. Being dismissed is just aggravating an already difficult and painful situation for me. Apologies for bothering you. Please lock this thread.

Grinner
2014-09-11, 09:45 AM
This forum is not representative of the average. D&D is also protected by the Grandfather's Clause.
I also know my way around game desing, don't worry. If there's someone that despises D&D's cluttered mechanics, it's me. I'm not advocating in favour of them.

Average people don't play RPGs, and the only thing keeping D&D alive is its brand power.

Like CarpeGuitarrem said, diversification is not a bad thing. There's a niche out there for you. You just don't have anything to sell yet.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-11, 09:45 AM
Average people don't play RPGs, and the only thing keeping D&D alive is its brand power.

Like CarpeGuitarrem said, diversification is not a bad thing. There's a niche out there for you. You just don't have anything to sell.
I do, actually. But thank you for kicking me while I'm down.
Does it makes you feel good? To inflict further pain on someone that is already going through a crisis? That already feels doubts?

Grinner
2014-09-11, 09:47 AM
I do, actually. But thank you for kicking me while I'm down.

Then start marketing it. At least put it in your signature or something.

Kalmageddon
2014-09-11, 09:49 AM
Then start marketing it. At least put it in your signature or something.
You may want to consider that you might not be privy to all the details before harshly accusing me or expressing judgement.

Grinner
2014-09-11, 09:54 AM
You may want to consider that you might not be privy to all the details before harshly accusing me or expressing judgement.

Listen. I might be coming off as an ass, but I'm really trying to help you out here. The problem is that no one can give help if you're not willing to accept it.

Roland St. Jude
2014-09-11, 09:59 AM
Sheriff: This thread seems to be malfunctioning. Locked.