Bad Game Design

[benlehman]

(mostly for my own benefit.)

So when people come to the Forge and read the GNS essays and get all excited they often design a bad game. Also, when people play a story game and get all excited they often design a bad game, not understanding that you can't just throw design tools together.

Anyway, about four years ago, a guy named Roger drew a fantastic picture of just this sort of bad "narrativist" design and bad "gamist" design (respectively) on Vincent blog. Four years ago, and we're still fighting this stuff today.

Comments

[tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, most of us come to our senses before we show it to anyone. *wince*

Then again, I went through that phase back before the whole "anybody can and should publish, and that's how you gain cred" thing really took hold.

I've been a happier geek since realizing that "designing" for my own use is about as much as I care to do.

Hnnnnnn.......

[graypawn.livejournal.com]

I just read that whole thing. I don't think i got any of it. But i did get a headache, from trying to figure it out... (http://www.freewebs.com/calvin-hobbes-org/dadandcalvinsrecordplayer.jpg)

[gillan.livejournal.com]

"I want to make a game about rebellion. So first, we'll give all the characters a Rebelliousness stat!"

[l-the-fangirl.livejournal.com]

Come to that, I think this is PRECISELY why Bishoujo Shinigami never worked; the arrows were a leeetle too close to pointing directly at the premise.

I need to revise that now.

(Jono here)

[(Anonymous)]

So... (Trying my best to understand here)... bad Story Now design = arrows pointing straight toward the premise = giving characters a "rebelliousness" stat. OK.

Bad gamist design = arrows pointing straight away from the premise, or rather whatever lives inside the vortex in a Step On Up game, which I suppose would be "the opportunity for player tactics to matter"... what does it mean for the arrows to point outward from that? Are there any examples?

Re: (Jono here)

[tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com]

I Am Not A Ben, but: the rules work as a tactical engine independent of the fictional content. You start with a fictional situation, but it doesn't really matter once the mechanics are engaged and the game becomes a formal game between players. Sure, you've got competition happening, but it's not happening through exploration and manipulation of the fiction.

What lives in the Void for Step On Up play is tricky. It's not "competition" or "tactics" as such. A lot of the stuff Vincent's been whacking at with his "fiction-first" posts is sniffing at it. The charge is not "win" - at least not for RPGs-as-understood-by-BigModelish-theory. It's "win by manipulation of fictional positioning".

Re: (Jono here)

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

What Mark said, basically.

This is also a trait of bad Narrativist design (called Parlor Narration) but I think it's only forgivable in bad Gamist design. In bad Narrativist design it's like "geez, what were you thinking."

It's possible that the picture is intended to be of something else.

yrs--
--Ben