|
WordMercenary posted:If you want a more useful answer, game design is the ability to perceive of and create systems that mimick life and/or produce entertaining results. While maths might be considered an important part of that, it isn't the be all and end all. Design is deciding what actions the players should have available, how they intermesh and what the desired probable outcome should be. The reason I phrase it that way is because although RPGs design usually relies heavily on maths, other types of game design don't. Video game design for example uses very different mechanisms to produce the desired effect, but the top down design process is surprisingly similar.. This is really dumb, video games use a ton of math. Do you think the people who designed Fallout just said "oh man you know we could just put a 60 damage on this pistol, who cares about how it fits with the rest of the game?" The New Vegas thread is full of Ropekid talking about the mathematical implications of weapon design. Edit: It doesn't matter if the setting designer says "This weapon is good for piercing armor" if no one is watching the math to actually make sure that the weapon is modeled in a way that makes it good at piercing armor. This is one of the huge problems with just about every edition of D&D outside basic, the setting info will say "This is great if you want to do this thing" but mathematically it'll end up the worse option by far. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 8, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
WordMercenary posted:
Actually I think this answer is very insightful and probably quite good enough to move on from. If you conceive 'game theory' as distinct from 'maths' (and it is!) I have a better idea of where you're coming from. It's the design of a system that produces entertaining results. Sure. That makes sense. The purpose of an RPG is to entertain, whatever else RPGpundit has to say about it. I think this is where my RPG preferences start to show. I like games that are fair, consistent, and dramatic. Dungeon World works really well in this way because the math layer interacts consistently with the fiction layer, but the fiction layer is interpreted almost entirely through the DM. It leaves little up to chance. D&D has a history now, starting with Proficencies and working up through Skills, of attempting to model real actions with the games's mechanics. There is a not insignificant number of grognards (particularly 3.x fans) that want the system to be the game's physics engine. That is a huge part of the problem. As you say, the more things you leave up to a d20 mechanic, the more confounding it's going to become. As a realist, I suppose I take the position that this is not going to change. People are always going to want to have Skills and concrete DCs and stuff out of D&D from this point forward. So if you're going to include that stuff you'd better know what you're doing, because it's extremely fiddly. It is my feeling that any time you include a roll [as a designer], you have to understand how that roll affects gameplay. The fewer rolls there are, the more you need to understand them but the less chance of you haphazardly making an error. A system as complex as D&D needs pretty rigorous math. I wouldn't want them dredge up some math major to write all the fiction parts of their rule book. I wouldn't want them to hire me to design their spell list, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Clearly I should, because it seems no matter what I say, you will come up with your own incorrect interpretation. You're a writer. If no one understands your point clearly, it's not everyone else's fault for reading you wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:This is really dumb, video games use a ton of math. Do you think the people who designed Fallout just said "oh man you know we could just put a 60 damage on this pistol, who cares about how it fits with the rest of the game?" I wouldn't hold New Vegas up as an example of great weapon design myself. While mathematics does come into it, heavily in some cases (there's a huge variance in how design takes place between game genres), there are also a lot of other considerations at play. Gunplay for instance will be adjusted to feel as much as it is to maths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:If you want this discussion to stop, you should probably stop digging your hole any deeper, because this is also so incredibly wrong - if anything, video game design uses significantly more math, often in smoothly well-hidden ways that, if they weren't tended to, would make the experience horribly broken. In fact, numbers are really important in Nobilis, which was written by a doctor of computer science. The powers of two progression of miracle costs, the non power of two miracle discount when you're in at home, etc., are all really important to the dynamic of the game. If anything, the lack of rolls makes numbers massively more important because you can't rely on randomness to obscure poor planning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
And what, exactly, do you think is used to adjust that 'feel'?quote:In fact, numbers are really important in Nobilis, which was written by a doctor of computer science. The powers of two progression of miracle costs, the non power of two miracle discount when you're in at home, etc., are all really important to the dynamic of the game. If anything, the lack of rolls makes numbers massively more important because you can't rely on randomness to obscure poor planning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:If you conceive 'game theory' as distinct from 'maths' (and it is!) I have a better idea of where you're coming from. It's the design of a system that produces entertaining results. And what you're missing here WordMercenary is that it's not necessarily the specifics that are important. You're right, no one gives a poo poo whether Asmodeus can identify things except as a funny talking point. But those examples show that some of the more common occurrences in the game are completely broken, like trying to negotiate with things. If we see that Asmodeus can be talked down that easily by someone completely untrained, then there are probably a lot more monsters that can be similarly influenced, especially when you specialize in it. Yeah, maybe the game isn't as elegant as it should be. I don't think you'll get much argument there from most of the people in this thread. But that's the legacy that we're working with, and it's not likely to change. So what's there needs to actually work and give believable results most of the time for the fiction in play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:You're a writer. If no one understands your point clearly, it's not everyone else's fault for reading you wrong. Yeah, I figured that one's been coming for a while. In my defence I was lying in bed half asleep when I posted the first one, and everything has been a snowball from there. Anyone who writes on the net has to sometimes hold up their hands and admit that people sometimes just will not follow you, despite your best intentions. I've actually gone back to the first post and tried to figure out exactly what went so wrong. I mean people have acted like I'm a Next apologist despite saying " I don't want to excuse Next's failings at all" and think I believe that writers should just guestimate all their numbers despite saying "Getting the maths right is totally important to an RPG". What's a guy to do? I guess once I said "So I guess I'm one of the few people on here who doesn't really care about maths then?" it was all over. I meant that I didn't want to have to think about it when playing of course (as people were discussing if RPG players in general were into maths) but everyone seems to have shut down at that point and assumed it means I don't think it's important to gaming at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Oh hey, material components are (sometimes) back! Another half-hearted attempt to hobble caster supremacy for everyone to ignore!  Edit: And the maths for monster to-hit rolls still bears no resemblance to that of PCs. (The Commoner with 10 in all stats again gets +3 to hit, while a PC gets +0.) So why even bother giving them ability scores? Small Strange Bird fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:I mean people have acted like I'm a Next apologist despite saying " I don't want to excuse Next's failings at all" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:And what, exactly, do you think is used to adjust that 'feel'? Okay now we're getting tedious, "everything involves numbers!" is one of those things that, while technically correct, is not particularly useful to the discussion at hand. "I tweaked the sound design, it's a little louder now." "Aha, sound is measured in decibels! This is maths!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:I wouldn't hold New Vegas up as an example of great weapon design myself. Huh, so what you are saying is maybe someone with a better grasp of math should have helped design the weapons? whoah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Zereth posted:I'm not racist, but all elves are gay. And then afterwards proceeded to not excuse Next's failings at all, and in fact I've been pretty negative about Next this entire bloody thread. But hey, you point out that you don't actually have to know how good the Lord of Hell is at identifying himself and suddenly you're a Next fanboy. Mormon Star Wars posted:Huh, so what you are saying is maybe someone with a better grasp of math should have helped design the weapons? whoah. No actually, not at all. I think someone with a better grasp of sound design and visuals and all those other things that are incredibly important in gun design should have designed the weapons. Guns are not stat sticks. It does not matter how well you balance the damage numbers if all you do is point them at someone until they fall over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Okay now we're getting tedious, "everything involves numbers!" is one of those things that, while technically correct, is not particularly useful to the discussion at hand. Category error. You tweak sound by changing wavelengths using a button. You tweak RPG feel by changing underlying maths. Same principle, different methods, and no "math" is not distinct from "feel" because those are the tools the designer has. Math is one portion of the instrument the game designer is playing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Math is one portion of the instrument the game designer is playing. That sounds a whole lot like what I just said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:That sounds a whole lot like what I just said. No, it doesn't. You said it's not useful to the discussion of how to tweak feel and design. Everyone else is telling you that it plays a much bigger role than you're claiming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Ugh, that's not really what I meant. I'm just kinda sick of nerd's solution to everything being "Put a STEM graduate on it instead of those useless liberal arts types." Which probably isn't what anyone meant either, it's just that even the implication tends to raise my hackles. EDIT: Speaking of this I kind of was contemplating writing up a thread to talk about technical writing practices in RPGs. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually one of the fundamental problems I have with RPGs is that yes they should actually be employing some degree of technical writing that is comparable if not the same as what scientists use. Namely because the same things that irritate me about a lot of RPGs is actually the same thing that is involved in bad science and engineering communication. The worst part is D&D Next is actually going backwards in this. 4E made a lot of effort to standardize keywords and explain things clearly, whereas Next has to reinvent the minor action (sometimes with different wording!) every time it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:No, it doesn't. You said it's not useful to the discussion of how to tweak feel and design. Everyone else is telling you that it plays a much bigger role than you're claiming. No I didn't, but thanks for helping me identify exactly what the fundamental miscommunication is that's gotten everyone so riled up. MadScientistWorking posted:Its actually one of the fundamental problems I have with RPGs is that yes they should actually be employing some degree of technical writing that is comparable if not the same as what scientists use. Namely because the same things that irritate me about a lot of RPGs is actually the same thing that is involved in bad science and engineering communication. Not to drag up a subject it was a terrible idea for me to bring up in the first place, but don't you find it at all contradictory that your response to bad writing is not 'hire writers', but 'hire scientists'? WordMercenary fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
I had no idea there were so many people actually opposed to good mathematical game design  Seriously what the hell.'Just hand wave it away' is totally valid for a narrative rpg, it is very much not ok for a game like DnD where so much of the system is based on the interplay of numbers. And it's not the strawman of 'well in <these random absurd situations, the math breaks>', that's going to happen no matter what. A simulation of wizard hats and elves is necessarily incomplete, and the degree of (attempted) accuracy of that sim varies from game to game. But if it is a core part of the system (and it is, in DnD), it's not ok if the designers are cocking up the groundwork from the getgo. It means that class balance will be weird, attack and defense progression, skill checks, monster designs, hitpoints, spell effects... it touches all aspects of the game. A poor foundation is going to create more of those situations that look weird and goofy - any sane group is going to work around the rough edges, the idea is (or at least, should be!) to smooth as many of those edges away as possible in the first place, to facilitate fast, fun gameplay. It also has the nice side effect of making (mechanical) expansion easier, as motivated players can create new content that will follow established guidelines and slot right in with minimal fuss - this is also useful for official expansion material, splatbooks and the like. How many addon books have you read or used that were had hilariously, obviously mechanically broken additions? A clean, understandable, extensible framework won't eliminate those entirely, but it sure helps! (Also I made a snarky remark a page or two ago about the lame argument on that chanpage about the supposed ~realistic~ impossibility of climbing a greased rope in magic dragon elfland and that same loving argument shows up in this thread? Come on  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:No actually, not at all. I think someone with a better grasp of sound design and visuals and all those other things that are incredibly important in gun design should have designed the weapons. Stat sticks are important to what the gun is, though because they determine how the gun actually works in gameplay. "How much damage does this gun do?" is absolutely important for how the player uses it and interacts with the game world, if you gently caress that up it doesn't matter if it is the prettiest and best sounding gun. "The average monster at the level where the player gets this gun will have this much health and this much armor, and we want the weapon to be useful in these situations, so it needs to bypass this much armor and do this much damage. This other weapon is another weapon the player can use, we want it to player differently" - the playing differently isn't just "it looks nice and they used celery when they made the sound for it," it's got to play differently and that involves math. That is why you need someone strong at math helping design things - because good math stays out of the player and GMs way, it's when people put bad math in the game that it gets in the way in the first place! When the math is done well, you don't notice it. You need to know the math for the game because your players are NOT mathemeticians. You are a new L5R DM. One of your players has 5k3 dice and the other has 6k2. What TN do you use to challenge them? I don't know about you, but the gently caress if I know because I am not a statistician. In this case I have to download a TN probability chart to even know how to challenge my players because the bad math is getting in the way. Is toughness a good feat? the gently caress if I know as a new 3e player, because the math is bad and there is no easy way for a new player to grasp what is good HP at a certain level or what is bad HP at a certain level because it's all over the place. As a counter-example, because the math is good in 4e, I as a non-mathemetician can easily figure out what will challenge my group without killing them all because even though there is math, it is laid out and consistent. The assumptions are right there! No one is saying "Yo creatives out," most of us here have only taken a few math classes in college, but we are saying that if a writer says "This weapon is good for armor-piercing" then the mechanics should reflect that, and if the person designing the weapon is bad at math there is a great chance they will probably reflect the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Payndz posted:(The Commoner with 10 in all stats again gets +3 to hit, while a PC gets +0.) The commoner +3 bonus is probably based off of the old weapon bonus from the fighter class. Because what class is closest to being commoner rabble?  Of course, they knocked the huge bonus from first level down for each class, possibly because of feedback, possibly because they are working on multiclass now. So, the commoner just is more accurate than any level 1 class because they never update monster stats. Edit: Actually from a scrum perspective it would be reasonable to not touch monster math if it were low priority. But they haven't done anything with it in a year, and it makes combat completely pointless. Since most of the things that they have designed thus far are combat oriented this means their prioritization is completely out of wack. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Hey everyone! I feel really bad about pissing you all off. Clearly I didn't explain myself very well, and no amount of further explaining is helping. Plus I don't think this discussion is helping or entertaining anyone, so how about we just pretend the last two pages never happened and I just said this instead?ProfessorCirno posted:So, 4chan apparently went through and crunched all the skill math in 5e. Why does Asmodeus need to identify demons? Why does a commoner even have stats? I really wish D&D would take a step back from the simulationist, 'rules as physics' angle, because it only exacerbates the maths problems. I really wish they'd just go for a simple abstract system that could be used universally, like Apocalypse World, or roll under attribute. WordMercenary fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
victrix posted:I had no idea there were so many people actually opposed to good mathematical game design There really aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Not to drag up a subject it was a terrible idea for me to bring up in the first place, but don't you find it at all contradictory that your response to bad writing is not 'hire writers', but 'hire scientists'?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:There really aren't. Clearly you haven't been reading other forums or grognards.txt. There are a number of people who are totally opposed to designers looking at the math in any way. That's why everyone jumped on you - you accidentally fell into making a similar statement as they did, even though you meant something different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? The only reason why I brought up scientists is because a competent scientist by default is a better writer and communicator than most RPG designers by necessity. I don't, but I find it interesting that you're not asking for the skill you want, but a skill to which that skill is tangentially related. I heard an interesting theory the other day, the suggestion that you should get someone who didn't develop the game and is not (initially) familiar with the rules to write the rulebook. The theory is that any possible confusion and miscommunication will be hammered out between the designer and the writer before being committed to paper. It's a clever theory, but I don't know if I'd risk the potential Chinese whispers it would generate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:He didn't say that at all. Technical writing is just very distinct from creative writing. And he's right. Creative writers are not who you want writing the actual rules of your game. That's how we get ambiguous wordings that cause arguments at the table. It's pretty rare for a 'creative writer' to be mutually exclusive from a 'writer.' It's pretty hard to get to the point where you're pumping out pulse-pounding fiction but you can't communicate rules in a clear and efficient way. Clarity of communication is a core pillar of any sort of writing. I posit that any competent creative writer can communicate technical items - so long as he or she understands the items in the first place. What we often see in RPG design is a failure of organization, editing, and skill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? The only reason why I brought up scientists is because a competent scientist by default is a better writer and communicator than most RPG designers by necessity. I don't, but I find it interesting that you're not asking for the skill you want, but a skill to which that skill is tangentially related. I heard an interesting theory the other day, the suggestion that you should get someone who didn't develop the game and is not (initially) familiar with the rules to write the rulebook. The theory is that any possible confusion and miscommunication will be hammered out between the designer and the writer before being committed to paper. It's a clever theory, but I don't know if I'd risk the potential Chinese whispers it would generate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Piell posted:Clearly you haven't been reading other forums or grognards.txt. There are a number of people who are totally opposed to designers looking at the math in any way. That's why everyone jumped on you - you accidentally fell into making a similar statement as they did, even though you meant something different. I meant in this thread. I used to read grognards all the time, but that 40k rape diorama did it for me. I just can't face the thread again after that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:It's pretty rare for a 'creative writer' to be mutually exclusive from a 'writer.' It's pretty hard to get to the point where you're pumping out pulse-pounding fiction but you can't communicate rules in a clear and efficient way. Clarity of communication is a core pillar of any sort of writing. I posit that any competent creative writer can communicate technical items - so long as he or she understands the items in the first place. I mean, I'm not saying you should replace all the creative writers in the industry or anything. But especially in a game as crunchy as D&D, maybe at the very least have someone with a decent head for technical communication give your game a once-over to check for inconsistencies and ambiguities, put stat/spell/power blocks in easily readable formats, find good candidates for keywords, and help edit for clarity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Clarity of communication is a core pillar of any sort of writing. I posit that any competent creative writer can communicate technical items - so long as he or she understands the items in the first place. Completely disagree with this, and I've been working with writers for 10+ years. Creative writers are not technical writers unless they have trained and developed those skills. It's not just technical terms, it's a style and method of writing that is relentlessly rigorous so that when something is clearly explained and referenced repeatedly throughout a document, it is always clear and consistent. So that terms aren't reused accidentally in an ambiguous manner. So that the organization of the material is clean and clear. It's maintaining a consistent voice so that you can instantly identify that hey, this section is teaching me something useful and it looks like every other section in the book that is teaching me in the same way. And a bunch of other stuff - how many times have you read an rpg or board game manual and been irritated trying to piece it all together (and then finding a three page fan made summary online that is somehow far more clear  )Another thing - for any writer, writing up a big pile of words is relatively easy, but paring it down, reorganizing it, rewriting it and clarifying it all takes time, sometimes a lot of time. Add even more when you're talking about a project with multiple writers handling overlapping areas. You can often tell when a written product has been rushed or poorly managed in the same way you can feel it with buggy software. Some of that is the job of a good editor, some of that is the job of the team on a project, but plenty of it rests on the shoulders of the individual writers to be clean and clear in the first place. Technical writing is basically creating manuals and documentation for <stuff and things>, and technical writers are people who don't necessarily even need expertise in a particular field to write clear readable documentation for that field - though it certainly helps, and any tech writer that has been working in a given field tends to either already be interested in the field or naturally picks it up in the process of learning it themselves so they can teach it to others. quote:The problem is that what we often see in RPG design is a failure of organization, editing, and skill. Completely agree with this Much like any creative endeavor, you want that perfect cocktail of disciplines to produce the best product possible. In the case of an rpg this means creative and technical people - you want a cool setting, interesting hooks, clever writing, a solid mechanical base... oh and good editing. For fucks sake good editing. We need a :fantasyflightgames: We're talking good writers (talented in both creative and technical writing), good designers (mechanical and mathematical), good artists, and so on. Obviously, plenty of smaller rpg devs are going to be, well, two dudes who like elfgames writing some poo poo. They may or may not have any specific developed skills other than being fans of the material. But that's perfect world poo poo, I'm pretty happy with any given system if it has enough strength in any of several pillars to prop up the others - and if the theme really appeals to me, I can even overlook obviously bad design because hey, 40k orks  I also have a much lower bar for smaller projects, indie companies, etcetc. I'm less forgiving of DnD specifically because it's WoTC, it's not like they can't afford the right group of people. Though of course I don't follow or care about the culture there, for all I know a bunch of their good designers bailed out after 4e for some reason, or were reassigned because of politics or whatever. I'm just watching the output on this end
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Speaking of this I kind of was contemplating writing up a thread to talk about technical writing practices in RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
You need someone with technical writing skills to write the rules, or at least to instruct the person who's writing the rules. Dungeon World's format of "When you <do thing>, roll +<stat>, on a..." is an excellent example of what I mean by technical writing skills. The moves are all formatted the same, they're all written the same, and they all work on the same principles which are consistent from rule to rule. It is both well-designed and well-written. Compare AD&D, where the DM's setting, the referee's campaign, and the Dungeon Master's Milieu are all the same thing (not going to mention everything because it would involve reprinting half the book). Next isn't actually too bad about this stuff, but it would benefit enormously from having shorthand ways to say things like "when you reach a higher caster level, damage increases based on the level you reach - at 5th level, you...."* and "when you are at or below half of your hit point total"** (so keywords, basically) and shorthand ways to say "your level plus these things" or "your level times 1d6". *Tiers **Bloodied
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:Anti-intellectual? Not remotely, and I'm insulted by the implication. WordMercenary posted:Just to be absolutely clear, when I said "I don't care about the maths" it was in response to various people talking about how nerds are really into dissecting the numbers. I was counter-pointing that it should be as simple as loving possible on the gamers end, because there are lots of people who really don't want to think about maths when they're playing. WordMercenary posted:Not to drag up a subject it was a terrible idea for me to bring up in the first place, but don't you find it at all contradictory that your response to bad writing is not 'hire writers', but 'hire scientists'? victrix posted:Much like any creative endeavor, you want that perfect cocktail of disciplines to produce the best product possible. In the case of an rpg this means creative and technical people - you want a cool setting, interesting hooks, clever writing, a solid mechanical base... oh and good editing. For fucks sake good editing. We need a :fantasyflightgames: Do we know if they picked an official setting or what settings they plan to port ? Because I liked 2E not because of its mechanics but because Planescape ! Spelljammer ! Dark Sun ! I liked 3E because Eberron ! Even Points of Light idea of 4E was cool in a way. What's going to be the main setting in Next ? I'd guess something from Previous editions like FR but I just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:If you want a more useful answer, game design is the ability to perceive of and create systems that mimick life and/or produce entertaining results. While maths might be considered an important part of that, it isn't the be all and end all. . Sorry, even as a wanna-be storygame designer I have to admit Math IS the end all be all. If your system ever, at any point, uses numbers to determine how successful any action is, you need to focus greatly on how those numbers line up, because the second you gently caress those numbers up you have killed your game. If the most basic system of interaction the player has with this game does not work, your game is broken and no amount of cool gimmicks and interesting writing can save it from not being playable. First Commandment of Game Design: DO GOOD MATH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
^This. It is possible to do a storytelling game without math (such as by a Declaration/Veto system with no randomizers at all). If you at all include a randomizer, do the math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:^This. Even then the process of getting such a system right is still mathematical in nature. Game theory is math. Math isn't just numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
WordMercenary posted:A lot of It is important that the game contain many neat fun ideas! This is the job of the Creative Guy. It is important that the neat fun ideas are accurately expressed to the players! This is the job of the Technical Writer Guy. It is important that the neat fun ideas are actually fun in practice! This is the job of the Game Theory Guy. (Video Game) It is important that the implementation of the neat fun ideas in-game feel like the neat fun ideas! This is the job of the Sounds and Graphics Guy. It is important that all of these aspects of the neat and fun ideas are actually represented accurately within the mechanical framework of the game! This is the job of the Mathematics Guy. (Ideally each of these guys would contain a bit of each other guy too) If you have no Creative Guy nobody comes up with the idea of The Big loving Handcannon. If you have no Technical Writer Guy then nobody will have any idea what The Big loving Handcannon actually does. If you have no Game Theory Guy then you'll end up with stupid things like The Big loving Handcannon bullets each weighing a pound or some other cool idea which renders it useless as an actual item. (Video Game) If you have no Sounds and Graphics Guy then the Big loving Handcannon will have the same pew pew animation as every other gun, and nobody will realise it's doing Massive Damage. And finally, if you have no Mathematics Guy you end up with this kickass giant gun that looks cool and sounds cool and has this great backstory and has a really neat niche in the game BUT since it's a slow fire nova weapon it doesn't scale properly with end-game armour ratings, making it useless after level 10/ridiculously overpowered after level 10/whatever. Or damage enhancers don't scale correctly, so it's not getting enough extra damage/it's getting too much extra damage from late-game damage/accuracy increasers. Or guns as a whole just don't stand up to swords for pure DPS. Additionally, in a TTRPG there are no sounds or images to clue you into your weapon being a slow, heavy hitter. It's entirely down to the flavour text and numbers. And numbers are math. The only "Feel" you have for how your weapon deals damage is what numbers and effects come out of your attack roll. The balancing of which are all math. (again, each guy has at least a bit of every other guy. Especially the Creative Guy, so he has an actual idea of what the capabilities of the game are so he isn't just throwing out nonsense 90% of the time) The reason you're getting jumped on is because you said that the mathematics part does not matter! You may not have intended to say this, but it's what you typed. Over and over. Occasionally saying "I'm not saying the math doesn't matter, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter!" Nobody is saying that it's not important that there be a Creative Guy to come up with the good ideas, or the Sound and Graphics guys to make the big handcannons sound and look big and handcannony. But it's important that there be a guy who makes sure the slow-shooting, big-damage weapon actually does big damage, and actually does enough big damage that someone who picks it isn't actually rendering themselves useless compared to the guy who picked the rapid-fire small damage weapon. In some ways the simpler the system the better the underlying math has to be. In a system where each gun is balanced individually the designers have a lot of leeway to tweak individual guns to account for base math errors. In a system like Dungeon World where a Fighter builds his signature weapon at character creation it requires even more math to make sure you won't casually break the game open because you decided to be an Elf Fighter with a Huge Sharp Axe. It's perfectly fine to say you don't care about the math as a player, but you're only granted the luxury to not care about the math when the designer has spent a lot of time making sure the math does what you want it to. Splicer fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:54
|
|
