Topic: 3 Points of Game Design

[markc]

 Over the past few months it has been said that there are 3 main points to game design; fun, balance and realism. Now it has been put forth that those are in the correct order in which to design a game (fun>balance>realism). IMHO I much prefer games that are designed like this Fun>Balance=Realism.
 You can get into numbers and assign them to the various design traits (Like I have been doing over the last few nights of non-sleep) and estimate what you think your favorite game is like. I tend to like games that are F 40%, B 30% and R 30%.


Thoughts?
MDC 

[rdanhenry]

Over the past few months it has been said that there are 3 main points to game design; fun, balance and realism. Now it has been put forth that those are in the correct order in which to design a game (fun>balance>realism). IMHO I much prefer games that are designed like this Fun>Balance=Realism.
 You can get into numbers and assign them to the various design traits (Like I have been doing over the last few nights of non-sleep) and estimate what you think your favorite game is like. I tend to like games that are F 40%, B 30% and R 30%.


Thoughts?
MDC

A convincing sense of realism or a feeling that the game is fairly balanced can be very important to someone's fun. Get the rest right and the right audience will find it fun; the wrong audience won't care anyway. "Fun" describes the experience of playing the game, "balanced" and "realistic" describe the game itself. They are not equatable measures.

[intothatdarkness]

Toon might be fun for some people, but a crashing bore for others. I guess when looking at design issues, I tend to run it more along the lines of simple-balance-realism. Fun can also be determined by setting, modules, and other products that are not necessarily part of the "core" game itself. I always try to look at my rules within that "are they simple," "are they balanced," and "are they realistic" lens. But some of that may come from my wargaming background, too.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Whether it's any fun is entirely subjective, but in any game involving numbers, even as simply as keeping score, whether it's balanced is somewhat measurable.

"Realistic" is at least arguably measurable, but whether or not it's useful varies with the game. Half the fun of Paranoia lies in the very fact that it's so much less realistic than things like RM. Personally I prefer to refer to that quality as "believable" rather than "realistic". To me at least, the point is not whether it models RL or the players' own experiences (although that can be very helpful in lessening the disconnect between a player's thinking and the character's actions), but whether the internal logic is consistent enough to allow players to "lose themselves in the scene". I presume that "realistic" modeling of what it's like to be an astronaut would leave most of us explosively decompressed or vanishing in a ball of fire, we don't have the skills or experience to keep up with the complexity and speed of the decision loop. But if the mechanics are so invisible as to allow you to forget that there's no way you or I would ever be competent to actually do this.... well good enough, it works.

[jdale]

Part of the value of realism is that it gives the players and the GM a common basis for expectation. So, for example, logically you know that if you fall 100', you could die. Or, if someone points a crossbow at you, it could kill you. So you can make decisions based on reasonable expectations without necessarily knowing the rules that govern each situation.

By comparison, in D&D at a certain level you are basically assured survival in both cases, so you have to learn the physics of the game and use those in place of what you know about how the world works.

(Toon is a funny comparison because it flagrantly violates real-world physics, but actually it works because it still has a consistent and totally familiar physics to replace the real world.)

These are purely physical examples but it applies to everything. It's not just about getting shot with a crossbow, it's also about the number of guards that a town can support, it's about the resources that are available to a nation, etc etc.

I think realism is less important in a fantasy game than in modern or SF, because often we are trying to model works of heroic fiction at least as much as medieval history. And for most people, their familiarity with medieval history and equipment is not very extensive to begin with. In a modern day setting, if it turns out the car that really goes 120 mph only goes 90, or the gun that really shoots 3000 yards is only effective at 300, that confuses us more.

I do agree that fun is more important than balance, and balance is more important than realism. But I also think that balance contributes to fun (or at least, imbalance has potential to seriously detract from fun), and so does realism. The biggest trade-off between fun and realism, in my opinion, is not that realism is not fun, but too much focus on realism brings complexity, and the wrong level of complexity is not fun. I say "wrong level" rather than too much or too little, because the optimal level depends on the style of players and also on the importance of the particular thing you are modeling. And importance means about the role in the game -- e.g. combat is generally important because it has a big role in the game, so you can have more going on there, but there are other things that should be simple because they aren't interesting to spend a lot of time on, like whether or not you can jump over a pit. That should be quick and easy to assess.

[intothatdarkness]

I do agree that fun is more important than balance, and balance is more important than realism. But I also think that balance contributes to fun (or at least, imbalance has potential to seriously detract from fun), and so does realism. The biggest trade-off between fun and realism, in my opinion, is not that realism is not fun, but too much focus on realism brings complexity, and the wrong level of complexity is not fun. I say "wrong level" rather than too much or too little, because the optimal level depends on the style of players and also on the importance of the particular thing you are modeling. And importance means about the role in the game -- e.g. combat is generally important because it has a big role in the game, so you can have more going on there, but there are other things that should be simple because they aren't interesting to spend a lot of time on, like whether or not you can jump over a pit. That should be quick and easy to assess.

That's why my design equation takes out fun and replaces it with simplicity. I keep a focus on realism because most of my gaming takes place in modern settings (espionage, the Old West, Twilight 2k, and so on). Fun is a very subjective thing, and can be influenced by many things not organic to the original rules (setting, game tone, GM, and so on). Simplicity, balance, and realism are all things you can address during initial design.

[RandalThor]

Actually, I think the equation is more like this:

A + B = Fun

"A" and "B" are what you, the individual player/GM like and what will equal fun for you. For me, balance is on the very edge of the board. In an activity that is inherently unbalanced (Can you really beat the GM's NPCs/Monsters if s/he doesn't want you too?), the artificial construct called "balance" is quite moot. Of course, there could be more than 2 elements, or each element can comprise of numerous smaller elements.

But, no matter what, fun is supposed to be the end result of play - and the reason we do so in the first place.

[yammahoper]

Simplicity is relative, and i question the dedication to it.

In another topic dp are discusses.  The simplistic approach, especially in a system with temp and potential stats, is fixed dp.  No referencing or recalulating, they are set and stay that way.  Yet many prefer calculated dp.  Simplicity is not their primary focus.

RM tends to over complicate everything.  The attack tables for example are an over complicated mechanic to resolve a symple target number system.  The tables could be completely eliminated, No Armor is hit at 80, Sl at 90, Rl at 100, Ch at 110 and Pl at 120.  Weapons will mod the target number, and spells, et al.  Yet the vast majority of RM players have no desire to symplify the mechanics, being content with the attack tables as is.

Maybe simplisity translate into better sales or more popular; I think it probably doesn't hurt.  But RM, traditionally, doesn't focus on simple.  Once upin a time when it had MERP as an intro AND a system that could also be played in the Middle Earth setting with no problems, it sold very well (MERP for a while was the second best selling rpg of all time...I don't know if thats still true).  MERP was simple AND had what may be the most famous setting in fantasy to go with it, so that may have more to do with its success than its simplicity.

Yet, RM at its core mechanics IS a very simple design.  Target numbers that grow larger the more difficult the mnv or defence of foe.  Skill+d100 = TN equals success.  That indeed is simple.  So I can;t say the arguement is without merit.

[Nortti]

Somehow that F40% B30% R30% made me think about football. You know, should the team play 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 5-3-2 or even 4-2-4

But yeah, I agree that fun/realism/balance are not comparable measures but instead one thing leads to another.

You need to have a level of realism that is suitable to the nature of the game. In fiction and fantasy "realism" can be the inherent logic that game-world or ruleset has. It doesnt have to be realistic as we know it. Jdale described it well as: "common basis for expectation".

Different games have so much different approaches to what is fun. In Paranoia the way that PCs die is the fun part, in RM its not. Some find complexity fun and for others it is the opposite. For me the fun comes from the involving story, believable level of realism (internal logic of the game-world) and interactivity of the players.

Balance is the most vague of these. Balance of what? PC power in the game world, balance between PCs, difficulty of adventures? These are all things that can be difficult to get right and can actually make the game fail. Thats why some GMs make the rolls behind combat screens and have some sort of fate-point system. I see these as tools that help adjust the balance. I make 99% of rolls in the open (+1% of passive skill checks for PCs) but have now adopted a fate-point system to control PC mortality rate.

[intothatdarkness]

I view balance as a rules-type thing. The various components of the game (skills, magic if it's a fantasy setting, weapons, and so on) should all balance out. In other words, there shouldn't be an automatic advantage to picking one class, race, or type of spell.

And I think you're missing the overall point of simple. Simple includes things like dice rolls, but it also includes rules that can be quickly and easily understood, mechanics that make sense, and so on. Core RM2 is simple in some areas, less so in others. And it quickly spirals once you add in companions. I never found RMSS to be in any way simple. Simple centers on mechanics, but also rules organization.

I think that once you expand the discussion away from game/rules design some of the points above may make sense, but if you stay focused on the actual rules you need to narrow your focus. Designing the attack tables may not be simple, but they are reasonably simple to use (as a player and GM). They are realistic (within the game context, although they do break down seriously when you move away from a fantasy setting), and they are reasonably balanced within the combat system (most high-damage weapons are slow or difficult to use in certain circumstances).

Sure, there's a balance. I like more complex and differentiated characters, so I dislike fixed DPs. Calculated DPs aren't really that complex, and I prefer the variation they create. It sure beats the hell out of the mess of skills you find in things like Spycraft.

All these measures are complementary. You can't adjust one without impacting the others. And it's the final product that matters. To go back to the attack tables: they may not be simple to design but they should be simple to use; they should be balanced in terms of the system (high damage is offset by slow weapon speed); and they should be realistic in terms of the setting (how they do damage against various ATs). If those things work out as they should, you end up with something that's fun to use.

I guess my ideal "formula" would be S+R+B=F. The percentages in S, R, and B obviously vary by setting, but they should equal 100% if they game's going to be fun.

[Nortti]

When people talk about game being unbalanced I think the reason for it is most often in the GM and players. Ultimately it is in the GM as he is responsible for the game.

Rules dont cover everything in the game and if rules are the bones then game-world and adventures are the flesh and muscles. I think issues in world and adventures usually cause the unbalance. GM has to make sure that all players have a meaningful role in the game and offer them chances to do something that really matters in the game. Thats how the game will have a feeling of "balance". If this is not right players might start to blame the system. Usually people blame the system first, and GM later.

Simplicity is not of huge value for me. I would rather talk about clarity, maybe thats the same thing for you. Rules have to make sense. GM has to be crystal clear about the rules and he has to be able to make fast decisions on the spot. If you are confused and just cannot be sure then ask the players opinion but make up your own mind. So, IMO rules dont have to be simple, they have to be clear and logical.

Simplicity has probably become an issue because of RMSS. Too much complexity without good reason and unclear organization of rules is nothing anyone misses.

[Arioch]

RPG are games, and games are meant to be fun, so you could say that fun is what game design should lead to.
Unfortunately, fun is relative: I might consider something fun, while for another person the same activity could be extremely dull and boring. For this reason, you basically cannot design a funny game, just a game which produces certain activities (usually, activities that you consider to be fun).

"Balance" is a terribly vague word, that can be related to fun in various ways. For example, someone may say that Rolemaster is horribly unbalanced, because the player impersonating the GM has an absolute advantage over every other player, but that specific lack of "balance" is part of what makes RM fun.
Or, in Fiasco there's no GM, and every player has exactly the same chances of influencing the outcome of the story. It's a really fun game, but it gives you a completely different experience from RM.
Or, d&d 4e is considered to be extremely balanced because a party of PCs has good chances of winning an encounter of their same level, using a predictable amount of resources. This may be fun if you like this kind of tactical resources management, or boring if you don't.
So I think that "balance" is important only in relation to the activities your game was meant to produce. In other words, it's not really important how a game is balanced, but why it's balanced in that way.

Finally, realism: I wouldn't put it as a generic point of game design. I mean, if I'm playing Gamma World, or Toon, or Primetimes Adventures, the least thing I want is realism.
I'd exchange realism with "coherence", in the sense of "producing the activities the game was meant to". Like, if I'm playing Toon, I want to tell silly stories about cartoon-like characters. If the game gives me that, then everything is good.

[pastaav]

My personal opinion is that RMSS do indeed simplify many mechanics compared to RM2. For instance the system to calculate concussion hits is  easily understood in RMSS, while the RM2 counterpart is IMHO very messy with caps and other ugly aspects. Likewise the spell acquiring rules in RM2 is IMHO very player unfriendly and total nightmare for a newbie that is not good at statistics, the RMSS spell acquiring is dead simple. Likewise the idea with stat bonuses that that add to each other is very simple and easy to understand while the averaging of stat bonuses that sometimes can be negative is a pure headache.

The problem happened when the game designers of RMSS thought that all simplifications they made to game engine meant they did not need to care about the presentation of the game. That there was no cost at all if they expanded the skill list to infinitum when they had solved the similar skills problems. RMSS both managed to simplify the game core lots and make the presentation of the rules harder than ever to understand. Simplicity means nothing if you can't get the reader to think it simple at his first read of the rules. Like first impressions stay.

On the flipside I think "coherence" is vital. For instance we have the stupid "Multiple Doses" spell in Treasure Companion. The level 30 Alchmist can use 11.5 weeks to produce 10 level 1 potions by investing 45 pp each day. Might not be the best way to compete with the apprentice that at same time has spent 3 pp each day and has produced 15 level 1 potions in the same time frame. The rules are neither coherent or very balanced and the play experience suffer.

[markc]

My personal opinion is that RMSS do indeed simplify many mechanics compared to RM2. For instance the system to calculate concussion hits is  easily understood in RMSS, while the RM2 counterpart is IMHO very messy with caps and other ugly aspects. Likewise the spell acquiring rules in RM2 is IMHO very player unfriendly and total nightmare for a newbie that is not good at statistics, the RMSS spell acquiring is dead simple. Likewise the idea with stat bonuses that that add to each other is very simple and easy to understand while the averaging of stat bonuses that sometimes can be negative is a pure headache.

The problem happened when the game designers of RMSS thought that all simplifications they made to game engine meant they did not need to care about the presentation of the game. That there was no cost at all if they expanded the skill list to infinitum when they had solved the similar skills problems. RMSS both managed to simplify the game core lots and make the presentation of the rules harder than ever to understand. Simplicity means nothing if you can't get the reader to think it simple at his first read of the rules. Like first impressions stay.

+1
MDC

[RandalThor]

I guess the one point of game design not really mentioned  (until Pastaav) is presentation. It is much more important that many think.

[intothatdarkness]

I tend to factor presentation in with simple. Simple rules badly presented become complex. Complex rules presented well become (reasonably) simple.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't try for simple, I'm content if I can get elegant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegance#In_mathematics

[RandalThor]

Well, I wasn't talking about the rules, per se, but the entire package.

[GrumpyOldFart]

So was I. 

[naphta23]

In my experience, presentation really goes a long way. In my Rolemaster-group, we use homemade character sheets, consisting about 10 pages (or rather 5 pages, both sides used) for non-spell users.

When one player complained that the character sheets of other RPGs would look better, I added a Rolemaster-logo at the top and an ornament at the bottom of each sheet. Nothing else was changed, everything else remained the same, just two stoopid funny wittwe pictuwes [sic]. And oh boy, was the player happy. I almost felt ashamed.

My point is, that I agree that presentation actually does matter. I really do not care much, since I want the rules that provide me the plausible possibilities for a great story, a believable adventure and dramatic combat that actually makes the players uneasy. And Rolemaster does exactly that. But I assume that there could by many possible buyers that do care and would love to see high-quality, hi-def pictures in glossy colors. Eyecandy to please the reader, so to speak.

Think of the first time you opened the Player's Book of the 3^rd edition. Before that I only knew roleplaying books with a relatively dry and sometimes boring outlay. Seeing that artwork, and I do not mean the pictures, but the whole concept, was almost a revelation. So perhaps that should also be taken into consideration, me thinkz.