The chocolate chip cookie is not a result of knowing one's audience when determining design goals.
Really? Because I think the fact that Nestles produces 11 different types of chocolate chip cookies indicates that they think there is not one cookie that will rule them all. They certainly are trying to know their consumers. That's exactly what Malcolm Gladwell discusses with respect to pasta sauce.
the (vast) market acceptance had nothing to do with the original design intent.
We're not discussing original design intent, but RPG design analysis, which might be based on original intent and/or consumer preference. You seem to have forgotten the "or".
Red-Jack, you seem to be stating market research results without citing any sources. On what are you basing those assumptions?
The MMO and video game market in general is not exactly the same as the pen and paper RPG market, but they are nominally similar, in that games do have similar design principles across the board, and MMOs specifically involve social/group play.
As such, examining sales figures, patronage, and success (while not by any means a perfectly transparent model) of those games, as well as examining what games have folded and how quickly, one can get a general look at the market after examining and eliminating biases like "X game and Y game both shipped in an objectively nonfunctional state, in that you could put the disk in and it literally would not run without a patch" subjective concerns (comparing games with similar themes, fantasy to fantasy/sci-fi to sci-fi) and tracking growth and decline in consumer base as the product itself changes while accounting for expanding into different markets. (Looking at subscription numbers over a period of time, but attempting to account for things like a later release in additional countries/continents/etc. and then looking at developmental changes made to the game, like adding or removing certain types of content, or altering content in specific ways.)
As for FATAL, I basically nothing about it, but I would say that if it sold itself as expected to its target audience. Well-designed is a different matter, but as there isn't an generally recognized authority on RPG creation standards (to my knowlegde), it would depend on its intent and its consumers' reactions...
Actually, there are technically (i.e. in name) Universal Design Principles... Now these primarilly were created as a means to ensure things like accessibility to the handicapped, but they're generally applicable well beyond that intent.
Frankly, I consider them to be a lot more universal than the author originally intended.
1. Equitable use 2. Flexibility in use 3. Simple and intuitive 4. Perceptible information 5. Tolerance for error 6. Achievable with minimal effort 7. Achievable with minimal expenditure of resources.
Any product that is usable by as many consumers as possible in as many ways as possible, as simply and intuitively as possible, with as much availability of clarity of needed information as possible, with as much tolerance for user error as possible, that achieves desired results with as little expenditure of effort and resources as possible is a successful design by any standards I can think of, other than those of a strong outside minority.
Of note, imbalance is not equitable use, and by its design is exclusionary.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
The thing is though, I believe that there are more potential questions to be asked an conclusions to be reached that are related to neither original intent nor consumer preference. The source of the communication impasse between us I suspect is due to this. Given that I said outright I wasn't comparing the original intent, then under your assumption of "correct" methodology, the only other thing to look at is consumer preference, and you therefore said that I was just looking at consumer prefences, and one consumer in particular (me). What I interpreted as you ignoring and dismissing my comments may have been more accurately called a miscategorization.
I will ask a simple question, which I hope, at this point, will have a simple answer: is game design analysis, in your opinion, limited to these two concepts?
The chocolate chip cookie is not a result of knowing one's audience when determining design goals.
Really? Because I think the fact that Nestles produces 11 different types of chocolate chip cookies indicates that they think there is not one cookie that will rule them all. They certainly are trying to know their consumers. That's exactly what Malcolm Gladwell discusses with respect to pasta sauce.
the (vast) market acceptance had nothing to do with the original design intent.
We're not discussing original design intent, but RPG design analysis, which might be based on original intent and/or consumer preference. You seem to have forgotten the "or".
No, I remember it quite well.
Wrecan, my post that you are quoting clearly cited the post that it was in response to, and how that post meant exactly what you seem to be saying my post meant.
You may have noted that the post which you are quoting is in direct response to a post in which the poster themself had citied only original design intent was ever valid. ("You NEED to know your audience when determining design goals.") Design goals are certainly determined at the time of original design, and thus examples of original design where the original design goals had nothing to do with the success and use of the design disprove this statement which was all i was trying to do.
I am not stating that the fact that Nestle now makes a plethora of cookies is somehow obviated by the fact that there are many RPGs or that there is one RPG that everyone will love because someone accidentally knocked some chocolate chips into cookie batter one time.
My arguments do not say that design goals can never be influenced by projected market considerations, nor that projected market considerations are immaterial to design goals in the case of every single design ever made in the history of all design.
I am saying that one person's statements that design goals always must include the exact correct projected single niche market that they expect to market whatever the end design to ever be successful no matter what other outside factors may be applicable is provably false, as illustrated by the exact examples I gave.
An example is a small sample that is not representative of everything ever, it is only evidence that such an event is possible because it has happened already.
I am not misrepresenting my examples as "the only way" and in fact I have used them to contradict those who have cited their position is "the only way" but you do seem to be representing my words as something they very much aren't.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
I will ask a simple question, which I hope, at this point, will have a simple answer: is game design analysis, in your opinion, limited to these two concepts?
"Limited to"? No. Two reasons...
First, there was a third more basic definitional factor: the product has to fit the definition of a "game"
Second, while the starting point (once we've established it's a game) must be either the intent of the designer and/or the enjoyment of the audience, anlysis of game design isn't limited to those two elements. Once we establish what the goals are, or what qualities a specific audience wants, we can also analysis those goals and qualities. But that's different than trying to establish universal goals and/or qualities, or trying to analyze goals and/or qualities without first discerning from whence their relevance has been derived.
I am saying that one person's statements that design goals always must include the exact correct projected single niche market that they expect to market whatever the end design to ever be successful no matter what other outside factors may be applicable is provably false
Okay, but I don't know that anybody has said that "one person's statements that design goals always must include the exact correct projected single niche market that they expect to market whatever the end design to ever be successful no matter what other outside factors may be applicable."
you do seem to be representing my words as something they very much aren't.
That's not my intent. I think I may be confused because you appear to be addreessing a point nobody is making.
But why can't we analyze the actual, real qualities of a real example without looking at the goals?
Whether a game is intended to be balanced or not has very little to do with the idea that it is balanced at any given point in time. A game could be intended to be balanced, such as Starcraft 2, and we can determine fairly readily if unit X is strong enough in circumstances A through E such that it creates an imbalance in the game.
But the process of determining that: looking at unit X in circumstances A through E, and assessing its overall balance doesn't refer to whether maintaining balance is intended or not. I'd agree that the original intent and customer preferences are good starting points to point you down the road of looking at concrete parameters such as balance (in the case of SC2, balance is rated highly in both categories), but the actual analysis isn't dependent on that. Investigating whether a game is balanced or not is done by the exact same process regardless of original intent or preferences.
I am saying that one person's statements that design goals always must include the exact correct projected single niche market that they expect to market whatever the end design to ever be successful no matter what other outside factors may be applicable is provably false
Okay, but I don't know that anybody has said that "one person's statements that design goals always must include the exact correct projected single niche market that they expect to market whatever the end design to ever be successful no matter what other outside factors may be applicable."
you do seem to be representing my words as something they very much aren't.
That's not my intent. I think I may be confused because you appear to be addreessing a point nobody is making.
To all of this, but the bolded portion especially.
I have quoted what I was responding to not once, not twice, but threetimes now.
If you feel that the specific person who I was specifically addressing before I specifically addressed you was not making the specific point which I specifically quoted in the specific posts that specifically responded to that specific point in an attempt to specifically show that that specific point was specifically provable to be specifically incorrect by specific examples of specific design was somehow not making the specific point which I specifically quoted, specifically addressed, and specifically outlined, then please feel free to specifically state how exactly you have managed to come to this very, very, very specific sort of confusion, and equate these very, very, very specific points as such incredibly broad addresses.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
To answer the question in the title: A good RPG, in my completely personal opinion, is one where I can enjoy the game part while engaging in a role of some sort.
Yes, that's a little sarcastic, let me elaborate? And I'm going to roam a bit here, so bear with me.
First, deconstruct "Role-Playing Game" to its component parts, which is to state it is in fact a "game" in which you "play" a "role". Does the "role" have to be defined by the player in the seat for it to be good? No. You can have a perfectly good game with each role defined by people not actively playing. I've seen it done at conventions, for instance, as a short cut to demonstrating the game at the table. There is no need to get into the character creation process or to overwhelm a new person who said "hey, that game looks pretty cool, how do you play?". Here is the "game" part of the name, and it's a lot harder to qualify a "game" along a sliding scale of "good versus bad". But it is generally agreed - if you had fun, the game was good, otherwise it was bad. (And, of course, can stand to be improved.) The unspoken goal of a game is to entertain and be fun; if you are not having fun then the game has failed in a very basic way.
Second, are the rules of the game important to me having fun? Demonstrably no, as I've had a wonderful time with people while pretty much making the rules *and* spirit of the game unimportant. (Call of Cthulu, when someone started quoting. Totally made the GM lose the mood of the game and we had to scrap the game after trying for a little longer.) Sure, if I'm intent on playing the game as it is intended to (instead of satire) then the rules had darn well better not get in the way of the fun . . . then again, I can't ever conceivably play Paranoia despite people telling me how great the game is. The rules of that game really are "whatever the GM says". Is it a "badly designed game"? I hesitate to say yes, because I admittedly have a bias, but I do think it is an unfair game.
So does this have anything to do with the design stage of creating a game? Not really, because a game can be fun and entertaining despite a design being bad. Even "The Game That Shall Not Be Named" entertained me by its very existence and the review which turned out to be entertaining. If you want to attribute "good" and "bad" design, it becomes rather difficult to evaluate them . . . except by popular decision. Which changes, based on the context of the question. Do you measure how good a design is by sales figures? If so where is the measure of "good versus bad"? At what point does it become "bad"? Do you measure it by posts on a forum praising or criticizing the game? (Note: criticisms are not bad in and of themselves.)
Luckily, the original poster left a lot of words by which they judge "good versus bad".
###
Feeling of Awesomeness - Later on this was changed to mean something different, and I find it really hard to judge something based on "awesomeness" anyway. I had trouble dredging up exactly where it changed but I think it was boiled down to whether or not a character can be meaningful . . . which is not something dictated by design. Rather, the DM is the one who gets to set up scenes where a character can do something meaningful and awesome. And even if the DM does set it up, the onus is on the player to use it. Choices - I find a hard time getting to the root of this bit, but from the gist of this whole entry seems to be whether or not choices matter. Honestly, it is hard to say whether or not a choice is meaningful without putting all the parts into play. The players decide if a choice has a meaning and the DM decides if the choices have bearing on the game. The rules, always, bend to the DM's will . . . that is why they're the DM. That is why there is *always* a "Rule Zero", even if it is never brought up within the rule books.
(Question here: If "Rule Zero" always applies, does it matter what the design of the game is? "If you don't like the way the rule works here, change the result." This . . . defies any designer's attempt to create a set of rules by allowing anyone to go: "This is my game, not Skip Williams' game." "This is my home, not Gary Gygax's home." "I'm calling the shots, not The Spoony One." So, taking that as read . . . and understood . . . what is the rulebook for again? Aside from getting everyone pointing in the same direction, that is.)
Character Breadth/Depth - I'm sorry, from where I've stood for a long time, "Character Depth" is usually not used to reference mechanical choices. I'm going to take a moment to reset my perception. Furthermore, "Breadth" and "Depth" depend on where you define the axes when doing mathematical equations. I think a better term for these things might be "Variation" / "Utility". These terms are slightly easier to grasp for me, but again . . . that's from my perspective. Putting the measures here in terms of 4th Edition is not . . . hmmm, to be polite, I'll be simple. Using 4th Edition as a measurement absolves 4th Edition from being measured itself. It's a comparison/contrast exercise instead of a measurement; a gram is a gram the world around, but a handspan differs from person to person. I'll just let that be stated and get on with it rather than hammering on it more. The amount of choice in character creation is not in itself a good thing, as many choices can be entirely trivial to the outcome. Worse, the choices can appear to have consequences . . . but have those vanish rather swiftly as soon as the game begins play. For choices to have meaning, it is a requirement for the framework of the design to permit the choices to diverge in effect. Even if these choices solely affect damage output, as those are nontrivial differences in form and function. (Though one can argue the choices are no choices at all in that case, as one should always take the optimal build. But there are plenty of recorded cases of people NOT taking the optimal build. I'll just cite "Final Fantasy Solo White Mage Run" and be done with that line of talk.)
Character Area - See, now you're just getting silly with geometric terms shoehorned in to describe design terms. Let's redefine it to mean "Character Potential", but again we do have an issue here. The potential to be effective depends much on what the circumstances are. The DM controls the contents of the board, so it is entirely possible that a character designed to make use of magic would be made trivial and powerless in certain circumstances . . . or one whose contribution is combat-oriented be made trivial when the game hinges on social interaction. (See also: "Eddard Stark", "Benjamin Linus", "Belkar Bitterleaf".)
Overload / Choice Transparency - I rolled these two points together, and I hope you don't mind, because they run hand-in-hand. I agree there is a point where choices become problematic and impenetrable to newcomers, or when two choices look like choices but are in fact the same result. I disagree that it is "impossible to remove" choices which are inconsequential, since all it takes is reading and comprehension to determine that . . . for some. Again, we get back to a point two sections ago: choices where the consequences aren't immediately apparent in the long term are a bigger problem than whether or not to use red or blue as your flag's color.Again, this is going to be personal opinion. The structure of choices should be laid out, but not every game does so in a way which is readily apparent. Only through experience can one truly evaluate what a particular choice can do for them in the long run . . . and more often than not, choices with a penalty very painstakingly mapped out and made transparent can be experienced to be trivial and not worth considering. (See: The "Fable" series.)
Balance - Again, you use 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons as a measure when it should be also be included in the analysis as its own entry. If you try to evaluate games which are not based on similar structure, you run into issues . . . and if you design every game to emulate the structure you used as a measure, then you don't have variations which are nontrivial. I really think this is a big error, but since you set the bar . . . how do you go ahead defining balance within the structure you chose?
Overpowered vs Underpowered - And here we run into a very . . . subjective entry. It's very clear where your stance is, but you can't exactly nail down why this entry exists other than to point out that you need to be aware of it. You link it back to "Character Area", but we also noted above that it is related to circumstance rather than something the rules as written can dictate . . . this is not a part of balance as much as it is a function of balance and the result of design choices. The analysis which determines "Over" versus "Under" is a very variable unit of measurement, depending on the rules . . . yes, it is important to keep in mind, as is it necessary to build with the thought of "this is going to definitely be overpowered". I keep trying to determine just what you were getting at with this entry and cannot seem to determine just what part this takes in initial design . . . when it is a playtesting-level concern. (Note also: It is entirely possible for something to become "overpowered" post-release due to interactions with later-released material. It is equally possible for something to be made underpowered by later releases. See: "Power Creep".)
Inter-character balance - You do not need to discuss this in the framework of 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons. You only need to discuss this in the case of designing a new system from the ground up. Inter-character balance (Character vs Character) is important, but the many ways of doing this usually boils down to permitting one choice of character to be useful in some situations . . . while making some useful in others. The risk comes in when your game design makes it simply easier to bypass the intended situation with something a character is good at . . . for instance, turning a social-related challenge into a combat-related challenge by pulling a weapon and using superior combat skills as opposed to superior social skills. If you can find a way of balancing this in game, please let the rest of the world in on the secret as this is a VERY PERTINENT REAL WORLD ISSUE. (See: "Military Coup", "Hostile Corporate Takeover", "Table Flip".)
Intra-character balance - You're going backwards to "choices" here and trying to evaluate the choices . . . I confess, I'm not familiar with what you listed here and why the choices are "obviously superior". Let's just take it as read they are, however . . . how do you avoid such troubles? Again, I am curious because there is a very real problem listed if these choices are not balanced properly. How do you make certain one skill/spell/feat/race/class/player is going to be balanced within the framework of alternate builds? Again, you do come back to making a choice to be good at one thing as opposed to something different - but with inter-character balance being necessary, how does that exactly balance out in the game rules?
Fluff - How can you evaluate "Fluff", or "writing" as good or bad? Fluff is an important part of a game, but it can also be left completely out and still leave a fun and entertaining game. (See: "Excuse Plot".) Fluff should be developed independent of mechanics, and fluff should not override mechanics. Of course, fluff is exactly the part of a game which gets the most savaging when a review is made of a game. It also runs the risk of making the game designer look like an idiot when they have to answer questions gamers ask, consistently. ("Why is the ruler of the nation so weak in combat my fighter can kill him in one round?", "Why isn't Elminster running around fixing things if he's more powerful than most characters?", "Why are there no statistics for taking on God?", "Why are the skeletons consistently as strong as I rise in level, when they are fundamentally just bone made to move?") No matter how far you go to explain it, it will always boil down to: "Because I say so." . . . is the writing good or bad because of that? I will hazard a replacement here and say the fluff is good or bad depending on whether it is internally consistent, and does not get in the way of the mechanics.
(Opinionated Note: You describe the avenger versus the barbarian as not appearing terribly different since their effects are similar . . . I would hazard further and push to say clerics and wizards aren't terribly different since they both use magic and similarly not too useful in melee range. But this goes to the "inter-character balance" bit earlier, as being intended. Fluff should not be required to explain design choices away when they are clear and transparent. Bullets are not designed to be used outside of a gun, and there should not need to be fluff to explain "bullets are fired from a gun". Similarly it should be transparently obvious that someone using primarily ranged attacks is not meant to pick up a knife and start trying to stab people. Fluff should not have to lay that out for the players, and it is not the onus of the game designer to spell out that the round peg goes into the round hole.)
###
Leaving that all behind, let's get to specifics.
If you want to design a good RPG, then you should definitely read this thread, all the pages, before picking up your pencil. Why? Because you need to realize that EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD is very potentially going to be playing your game, and you need to understand people and how they behave before you start working on the math. Not just these people, but everyone on 4Chan, and SomethingAwful, and the people who make "Lolcats" . . . all of these people are potential players in your game. (You may now weep.) Your game has to be able to keep all these people entertained and talking about it for decades.
I need to stress this, right now. As a role-playing game, your game HAS to be equal to Dungeons and Dragons if it has any chance of being even remotely considered as being "good" by people who primarily play Dungeons and Dragons. If you are targeting anyone else, your game will never be "good", it will never garner respect, and it will always be frowned upon when its name is brought up. There will be pages on pages, on boxes of pages, on libraries devoted to why your game stinks on ice, if you so much as don't exactly reproduce what Dungeons and Dragons is. The Internet says so, it must be true.
If you haven't shut me off by now, then you might be able to design a good RPG. This is another aspect of game design - being able to keep working despite absolutely everyone around you telling you how much of a moron you are. (See: "Chell v. GlaDOS")
Mechanics, fluff, balance, choice . . . if you want to get started on a good game design, even leaving out the "role-playing" bit, you need to start outside of math. Start in psychology, and understanding why people make the decisions they make. Start with comprehension of how the choice is viewed, not analysis on what the results of the choice are. Why is this important?
I'll cite an example. If you play chess against someone, your understanding of the rules versus that of your opponent is not the only criteria on whether you win or lose. An unskilled opponent who knows nothing of what they are doing can, and have, beaten people who studied the game for a lifetime. There is a component to the game which is not represented in the rules, or the regulations . . . and it is the purely psychological aspect. This is similarly why poker as a game has so many books on the subject, and yet none of those books can prepare you for actually sitting at the table and losing your paycheck to the person who read none of them. Any tabletop roleplaying game has the same framework attached to it, because it is inevitably the personal interactions which shape how things move.
If you're talking a computer game, where the arbiter is completely immune to disagreements, you're in the wrong forums here. (But, bizarrely enough, everything preceding this sentence also applies.)
