What makes games great?

[EggKookoo]

This talk of changes to the OGL and some hypotheses about the rise of new, non-OGL games has gotten me thinking of this question. What is it that makes a game good or great?

For example, would you lean toward a game with a compelling setting, mood, and theme even if its mechanics were mediocre? Or do you favor mechanics and gameplay over the setting? I realize ideally mostly we all want both, but what if it had to come down to a choice?

No, I'm not fishing for responses in order to produce my own game. I'm not in a position to do that and I have no such intentions. I've just been trying to conceptualize what it would take for a game that's not D&D to ever reach the same levels of awareness and loyalty.

For me, honestly I have trouble deciding. Which is perhaps why I'm asking the question. On one hand, I think I'd want a game with a cool setting and where the mechanics mostly got out of the way. But then I also know that bad mechanics can be like sand in the gears, and I do like customizing settings or completely whipping up my own.

[animorte]

For me, I think it's more about having a good foundation for the mechanics. Just as you mentioned, a lot of what my group runs is homebrew adventures, campaigns, settings, however you want to put it.

However, I also enjoy setting books. They're often worth reading anyway, and a good source of inspiration whether or not we intend to play them. I've had many ideas spawn from reading... just about anything really.

As far as what actually makes games great, communication (and a bit of an open mind) among the members at the table. Don't forget to have fun (generally not at the expense of others).

[ToranIronfinder]

This talk of changes to the OGL and some hypotheses about the rise of new, non-OGL games has gotten me thinking of this question. What is it that makes a game good or great?

For example, would you lean toward a game with a compelling setting, mood, and theme even if its mechanics were mediocre? Or do you favor mechanics and gameplay over the setting? I realize ideally mostly we all want both, but what if it had to come down to a choice?

No, I'm not fishing for responses in order to produce my own game. I'm not in a position to do that and I have no such intentions. I've just been trying to conceptualize what it would take for a game that's not D&D to ever reach the same levels of awareness and loyalty.

For me, honestly I have trouble deciding. Which is perhaps why I'm asking the question. On one hand, I think I'd want a game with a cool setting and where the mechanics mostly got out of the way. But then I also know that bad mechanics can be like sand in the gears, and I do like customizing settings or completely whipping up my own.

I think what makes a game great will differ from group to group, but the biggest points will all be setting related. OSR gamers want a sandbox for player agency, story gamers want a gm to provide them with good plots, and pure give me a dungeon with very little plot types still want a dungeon to challenge them.

What makes a great system is a mechanic that carries forward the setting.

[EggKookoo]

What makes a great system is a mechanic that carries forward the setting.

There's something there, I think. A good game will have (among other things) a core mechanic that supports the setting and gameplay, and isn't just orthogonal to it. An example that jumps to my mind is (was) Mayfair Games DC Heroes.

[animorte]

What makes a great system is a mechanic that carries forward the setting.
Nicely put.

A good game will have (among other things) a core mechanic that supports the setting and gameplay, and isn't just orthogonal to it.
Also well said.

The mechanics feel like a baseline understanding of how to function. Beyond that, the setting and all that goes with it is what people tend to get invested in.

I realize we're also defining "game" a little bit different. Is it the game system itself or the playing of the game, not to mention all manner of games out there.

So what I was referring to with my previous post was from the perspective of looking at new material. What gets you playing a game? What do you look for in "the next campaign" basically? Mechanics can differ between systems while many overlap. Settings require a lot more depth to really set that particular addition (to your pre-existing game) or stand out among all the competition (from all those other new games).

And tying this all back into the homebrew subforum... Is it more important to create a setting or just buy new content to achieve that? When you do create your setting, what are all the factors needed in order to keep it engaging?

[EggKookoo]

I realize we're also defining "game" a little bit different. Is it the game system itself or the playing of the game, not to mention all manner of games out there.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant TTRPG game system. Essentially a product.

[MrStabby]

I don't really see the setting as part of the game. If I play D&D I don't need the Forgotten Realms or Eberron or wherever. Whilst the question is applicable to games broadly, I will have rpgs in mind whilst I think.

To me the game is that level lower down. How do fights underwater work? How many turns does it take to cast a spell? Jow does falling damage or skills work?

With this, it's the right balance between a DM call and explicit rules. Something that strikes the right balance between a DM being able to drive forward their game and players having the agency to develop a character that does what they want it to and represents what they want.

Actions should be supported that are diverse and non-obvious. I consider the heart if playing games to be making informed choices. It may not be with perfect information and it may not always be from a full range of options, but making choices that matter matters. In an open situation like a conversation, being able to chose what to disclose to the Kings advisor and have it matter is a good part of the game. A game that is tok high-level that abstracts a this away behind dice rolls takes away that decision - "you try and persuade the corrupt advisor that the black dragon is really a threat, roll a d20" can take away too much of the choice about how.

Likewise in combat, a good game promotes meaningful choice. If the best characters either have one ability in practice: "hit it with a sword" then there isn't much choice. If positioning doesn't matter then where a character moves to isn't a meaningful choice and so on. That which is foregone must be good enough that the opportunity cost bites so there is no always clear course of action but at the same times outcomes should be different. Its a hard balance.

If by 'game' we mean an instance of a system being used - a series of meetings of a group, a campaign or adventure, then I think setting is a component. A clear aesthetic or thematic vision that can be transferred to the players makes everything so much more atmospheric and the shared vision helps pull people together.

Within an instance I would also flag balance. Everyone should be able to contribute and, so far as possible, the DM should have the tools to provide the circumstances for anyone to shine.