When you sit down to run a game, you don’t need to give a whole lot of thought to how that game was designed. Doing so has no practical payoff for that game session, at least not in the same way that an extra ten minutes statting NPCs or reviewing your notes has a practical payoff.
So why think about game design at all, if you’re not designing an RPG?
Because thinking about game design can make you a better GM.
First, a quick digression: I played Texas Hold ‘Em poker last night for the second time ever, and before the game our host laid out every type of hand in the game on the table and gave us a quick tutorial.
The first time I played (a month or so ago), I couldn’t really see how my hand related to the other hands that could potentially be out there. Once I saw them all laid out in front of me, though, the light bulb went on and my understanding of the game went way up. I started seeing the interconnectivity between the different elements of play — my hand, the other players’ hands, the flop, bluffing, etc. — and that made a big difference. (Of course, I also lost all my money, but that’s not the point!)
The situation isn’t exactly the same in terms of gaming, of course, but I find that thinking about game design has a similar effect on my understanding of, appreciation for, and ability to tinker with and improve the games I play — and that’s a good thing. (This is also the reason that TT has linked to several game design blogs from the get-go: there’s gold in them thar hills.)
There’s also a bit of convergence at work here: on top of the poker game, I just found out about (and started reading) a free e-book called Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games (direct link to .zip file) by way of a post on The 20′ by 20′ Room.
This e-book posits that game designers can learn a lot about their craft by applying design patterns — approaches to common elements that have been proven to work — used in successful games to their own efforts. By understanding how successful games have tackled these common issues, you can clarify and improve your own ideas about how they should be handled.
That’s obviously a very truncated summary (this draft version of the book is 261 pages long), but it’s enough to tie it into the topic of improving your GMing by thinking about game design. I firmly believe that even if these two things are true for you:
- The rules for the game you’re currently playing function well, and don’t need tweaking.
- You have no interest in designing an RPG.
…you can still benefit by thinking about the way the games you play are put together, as well as how they relate the way other games are designed. (If either A or B is not true for you — if you’re playing with a dysfunctional set of rules, like AD&D 2nd Edition, or if you are designing a game — of course, then thinking about game design has other obvious benefits as well!)
Here’s an example: in D&D, the PCs only get experience for killing (or otherwise eliminating the threat from) monsters and hostile NPCs. Not for exceptional roleplaying, not for achieving story goals, not for taking the game in surprising new directions (some of which are handled as optional rules) — just killing monsters.
That’s one of the core design elements in D&D, and by looking at it on its own you can see how it forms the basis for many of the game’s other rules — in fact, it’s the driving element behind the way the game is most commonly played. There are certainly other ways to play it (for a good related post on that topic, check out What game was that? on The Mighty Atom), but if you don’t change D&D’s rules at all, the game centers around killing things — the core idea expressed by the advancement system — and taking their stuff (the rules for which are derived from the first central idea).
After looking at that aspect of D&D’s design, you might make any number of decisions about gameplay: you might opt to include the optional rules for awarding XP for activities other than killing monsters, for example — or you might decide that you don’t really want to run a game about killing monsters at all, and play something else. That’s an oversimplification on several levels, but I think it’s a pretty good example nonetheless.
Most RPGs don’t lift the hood for you, design-wise — they don’t explain that they’re supposed to do, and how they do it, in other words. But by thinking about the way games are designed (good ones, bad ones, games you don’t play, etc. — it’s all fair game) you can learn a lot about what you like and dislike about them, and about how to bring out the things that are fun for your group and discard the stuff that bugs you.
Do you already do this with the games you play, or are parts of this idea new to you? If you’ve got stories about how thinking about game design changed the way you GM, I’d love to hear them!
(This post is part of the Blogging for GMs project — you can check out the others in the Blogging for GMs Project category.)
I wish our hobby didn’t force people to have to think about design- it’s a sign of the general bad state of design as a hobby.
You don’t have to think about the design of a boardgame, a card game, or a videogame. Why? Because the designs are solid, I mean, sure there’s bad games out there, but there’s enough good ones that the solution is just to get one of the good ones, not fix up the crap game you got.
I’d like to see the day when roleplayers can just grab a game, have it give them clear explaination of what it’s about (in a general sense, not a technical/Forgey/Theory whatever sense), and do what it does well. As it stands, most games don’t support the stuff they say they do, and that’s why everyone has to tinker and learn way more about the systems than they ought to for play.
I completely diagree with the last poster.
I think that the reason you don’t tinker with video games is obvious: you can’t! Even if you think up ways to change how the game should be played (and I do that all the time), there is nothing you can do about it. As for board games or card games, they are somewhat in the middle. You can change some rules, and it is fun to do so, but only the ones that are not related to the physical aspect of the game. In other words, you can easily change how pieces move on the board, but it is much more difficult to decide that you will have 3 more types of units and a new map because most people can’t create the props. As for RPGs, everybody tinkers with them, not because they are flawed, but because it is the nature of these games. RPGs are games that take place in your head. You can change everything you want, and you should if you enjoy doing so. It is the perfect medium to express your game design creativity. And I would say also that there is a culture of rules-customization in RPG, pushing people to change things even if they don’t need to. D&D is a really good game out of the book, for example. You don’t need house rules in D&D, and you should definitly not tinker with it if you don’t like tinkering with games.
There is no way that RPGs are generally worst design-wise than any other types of games. There are tons and tons of bad video games and board games, it is just that people are not encouraged/can’t change them for the reasons I have stated.
Another reason we tinker with RPGs: While board games and card games don’t invite inventing rules, RPGs do. RPGs have always admitted that they don’t have rules for every occaision, and suggest the GM is responsible for coming up with rulings. Also, the GM is creating rules when he writes a scenario. So once the GM has been invited to tinker, of course the tinkering starts to expand beyond the areas where the rules are missing, and into changing the actual rules text.
I wonder though, how many of the serious rules tinkers even tinkered with board game rules? I created my own board for Avalon Hill’s Tactics II, way back when I was 10 or some tender age like that (I forget when I actually received the game). Later, I made up my own Revelutionary War board game after reading a book on the march on Lexington and Concord. The board was litterally drawn on a wooden plank… When I started to get into WW II miniatures (I forget if I ever tinkered with Little Wars – my first miniatures wargame), I remember fiddling with Don Featherstone’s rules (I think they didn’t account for sloped armor).
Of course another aspect that encouraged rules tinkering with RPGs was the incredibly unclear rules of the early games.
And of course, once set, the culture continues.
Frank
I disagree with the basic foundation of this theory, so not surprisingly, I don’t agree with the body of the post, either.
Understanding game design doesn’t make you a better GM.
It can make you understand games better, understand what you enjoy running (and playing), but design concepts don’t magically translate to a better experience at the table. For all the talk of design and theory — GNS or otherwise — that happens during the course of a week, it is those 4-6 hours that the group is together, playing, that is the metric for an enjoyable experience. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. It doesn’t matter how much you understand the CR system or the mathematics behind the linear distribution: it’s the experience. (This presumes all things being equal, in particular, that all player’s gaming desires are in alignment and that they want to play the game.)
In short, the concepts and skills that make a “great” game as opposed to an “average” game don’t lie in design theory, mechanics, or any number of rules tweaks. It’s the desire to run a great game, being focused on the here-and-now, and knowing what you want your outcome to be: everyone having a great time.
Tweaking rules doesn’t make someone a better GM, all it means is they’d rather be designing a game than running one.
“D&D is a really good game out of the book, for example. You don’t need house rules in D&D, and you should definitly not tinker with it if you don’t like tinkering with games.”
At first I was going to make a joke here (I did get a good laugh!) but the more I think about this, the more I find myself in agreement. Too many people out there too eager to tweak and adjust games. For years designers have been stating in their design notes, forewords, and in online forums that “if you don’t like a rule, change it!” One of the great things about playing poker (to continue Martin’s example) is that when I sit down for poker, I know what I’m playing. Poker — depending on the specific game you’re playing — doesn’t change.
RPGs, however, are a mess of alterations, edits, and house rules. I contend that no two D&D games are alike. It’s impossible. And as a player, that’s frustrating. At some point, if you’re going to alter a game and tweak it to suit your needs, I have to ask, why are you playing that game to begin with?
(Abulia) At some point, if you’re going to alter a game and tweak it to suit your needs, I have to ask, why are you playing that game to begin with?
That was what I decided back in college after working up rather extensive modifications to AD&D. I decided after that to limit myself to Rune Quest and Cold Iron (a friend’s homebrew) that I could run with relatively few modifications (most of my Cold Iron modifications were to extend it’s limited skill system). Now that I’m playing D20/Arcana Evolved, I run with very few house rules (really mostly campaign related stuff, and a few places where Monte Cook introduced unnecessary new rules [PC races with natural weapons, that don’t work like monster races with natural weapons]).
Of course there can be other motivators. You may decide that a somewhat radically changed D20 might be easier to get players for than some indie game (or possibly worse, a homebrew). You might not want to go to the effort of writing a complete homebrew system.
Of course it’s worthy noting that even chess does get played in alternate forms. I never quite understood a version of doubles chess I saw where one black and one white player formed a team, and somehow the white player could use white pieces his black teammate had captured. And then another friend played in a league of 4-way chess. In college I saw some people playing some bizarre chess variants (one was called mirror chess – don’t remember all of it, but it seemed like rooks could turn corners somehow). Oh, there’s also variants as to how timed chess works, and how much lenience in taking back a move a player has.
Monopoly has been mentioned as a game that often (almost always?) is played with house rules.
One could claim that poker is really just a set of formalized house rules (especially when you get into adding wild cards to almost any poker game).
The way we played pinochle in college doesn’t match any of the variants mentioned in Hoyle’s.
Contract bridge is pretty formal, but even bridge has some variation in play and how to bid properly.
So really, RPGs are not unique in this aspect. What they are is way over on the far end of the scale. Part of this can also be attributed to complexity (some of the variations in other games I’ve mentioned above arise from complexity issues, others arise from a lack of formal rules). Another factor, which is very strong with RPGs is rules being passed down by example rather than every new player reading the formal rules set (that is one of the reasons why Monopoly often is not played by the formal rules – people have missed bits of them, and then passed on their way of play by example).
Of course in RPGs, many players deliberately set out to change rules, and not just to try a slightly different game today (which is probably what is behind some of those bizarre chess variants I’ve seen).
Given that people do have urges to change rules, understanding some design theory is important. Also, understanding design theory can improve one’s understanding of why a game is set up the way it is, and why some games are good and some are bad. Monopoly, by luck or design, is set up so that certain spaces are at particular distances from other spaces such that they interract with the curve of 2d6 (roll doubles again) in interesting ways. Understanding a bit about probability and how that works with game design can help you understand why this makes Monopoly work well as compared to some slapdash similar game which might suck, because the designer didn’t understand how probabilities meshed with his game (for example, it may be desireable from a design standpoint to put a particularly good space 7 spaces away from a particularly bad space, it would probably be a mistake to put two particularly good spaces 7 spaces apart).
Frank
I didn’t think this post would provoke such lively comments — and it’s interesting to see the different ways that everyone approaches this topic.
Maybe I’m just obsessive*, but even when a game works well I find it interesting to try and tease out its underpinnings — and that goes for pretty much any kind of game, not just RPGs. I often get more enjoyment out of a game when I can appreciate it not just as a fun thing to do, but also for the bits of brilliance that go into its mechanics.
* Okay, it’s probably pretty obvious that I’m obsessive. 😉
Hey, I’m available to come in and drop a hand grenade to spur conversation anytime you’d like. 😉
I dont know if I have too much to add beyond the great points both Frank and Abulia have.
However, I will say one of the ‘darker’ reasons to think about how the game was designed is to look out for holes or exploits. I happen to play with someone who is a master of the “Grey Area” when it comes to rules. Oddly enough, he’s also one of the best role-players in the whole group, so its a tale of 2 players: On one hand youve got the dreaded “Rules Lawyer” and on the other, the “True Role Player”. Not saying its impossible or anything, but the fusion of ‘Ultimate Meta-gaming’ and great role playing seems pretty rare to me. Yin and Yang, perhaps? Anyhow, the point is, you might see a possible exploit that was not intended by design.
For example, Evard’s Black Tentacles is an incredibly broken spell in 3.5. The target(s) realisitically have no chance of escape (a raging barbarian would still need an extreamly high roll, no save to resist, and if you did get lucky enough to break the grapple, you still have to get out of the area (at reduced speed) or you get grappled again. Stack something like “web” (reduces speed further) or acid fog on it, and a 8th level wizard/sorceror has the ability to take down a huge number of combatants at his own level. This was probably not the intended design, but the 3.0 version made combat twice as long (each tentacle was a seperate entity), but more balanced. So, in an attempt to make the spell “faster” they removed the parts where the victims could fight back, the dispersion of the individual tentacles, removed the saves, etc. This was very short sighted (no saves for a 4th level spell??) and creates an imbalance. As a DM you choice is to either fix the problem or get rid of it altogether.
I will admit that in this case, I took the easy path and simply removed the spell from the game. I was just citing at least one example. I wont even mention the “Spiked Chain + Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes + Five Foot Step every round = I am God” exploit. 🙂
Judas,
Good point on “broken” rules. If you understand the design points of the game, it’s easier to pick out a broken or otherwise bad rule (not all bad rules are broken, for example, Arcana Evolved rules for PC races which can get bite attacks, which if they use cause ALL attacks to be at -2 is a bad rule, the Monster Manual already has a perfectly good rule for this, the bite attack is at -5 and doesn’t affect the weapon use, and there’s feats to reduce the penalties). With such understanding, it’s easy to say the rule just doesn’t fit the rest of the design, and therefore you’re eliminating it (spell which is too “broken” to be worth trying to fix), or using a different rule that fits the system better (my treating a PC race bite just like a monster who can bite and swing a sword).
Oh, and that looking at the secondary natural weapons bit pointed out another place where D20 has some nice rules consistency. The penalty for secondary natural weapons is -5, the same delta that’s applied to iterative attacks (though the natural weapon penalty can be reduced to -2 with a Monster Manual feat, and further to no penalty with a Savage Species feat – but that’s fine, feats are for adding rules exceptions).
Frank
Very good point about broken rules, Judas — and another good reason why, unless the game is already perfect, it can be useful to think about game design as a GM.
I agree with Judas’ point — and I think he’s correct — I just don’t feel it’s germane to the discussion. Realizing that Evard’s Black Tentacles is broken does not inherently make you a better GM (which was the thrust of the article). Meaning, even a GM with no interest in game design could just as easily note, and remove from play, such a hole by noting the effect on their game.
To put it another way, GMs are empowered to fix rules on the fly that get in the way of good play, either by stifling creativity, the plot, or causing meachnical problems. They need not have any inherent skill in design to recognize, and correct, these faults. Being skilled in design makes it easier to correct these faults, I will grant you, but it doesn’t make said person a “better GM.”
(Don) Being skilled in design makes it easier to correct these faults, I will grant you, but it doesn’t make said person a “better GM.â€
I think this point boils down to being (or very nearly being) an issue of semantics:
– I believe that thinking about game design makes you a better GM for a number of reasons, including the fact that it gives you the insight to make changes (like removing Evard’s) with more confidence and a fuller understanding of the rules.
– You believe that thinking about game design doesn’t make you a better GM for a number of reasons, including the fact that any GM — whether she thinks about design or not — is capable of removing Evard’s from the game based on seeing it in play.
I’m not saying I don’t value your opinion (I do!), just that I don’t think there’s any profit in continuing this aspect of the discussion.
I’m not saying I don’t value your opinion (I do!), just that I don’t think there’s any profit in continuing this aspect of the discussion.
“Behold, it cometh, and shall be done.”
Game Design is one of the most interesting aspects of the hobby for me. It’s like Creatures 3, in that you can enjoy the game by itself or tinker with it to make it a more enjoyable experience. I think having a good idea of game balance is important, but it’s more important to have innovative, interesting ideas that work mechanically. When I look at something simplistic like ”Fighting Fantasy” I always regret that the ‘fluff’ wasn’t better converted into ‘crunch’ (even though that would be impractical for a number of reasons).
What’s Creatures 3, Bill?
One of the beauties of this industry is the ability to modify and adjust. Yes, you can use it as is…or tinker with it. My experience has been that you can only learn more by pulling it apart and exploring the dynamics of each piece.