Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546382I was always a Dragon guy, but yes its good magazine, and I may need to get more of them.  I did enjoy the Metamorphosis Alpha article - I never played it, but I played enough Gamma World to get it, I think. I liked his comments on how to make interesting monsters particularly.

I was more of a Traveller guy than a D&D guy and while Dragon was excellent, it had a strong D&D and TSR focus while The Space Gamer had a more scrappy anything goes style that covered just about everything.  In many ways, I think Dragon has held up better over time, but like I said, there are still some real gems in those old TSGs.  Even some of the fiction is decent.  Different Worlds also had some quality articles in it.  For example, William Hamblin's "Creating Realistic Cities For Fantasy Adventures" in Different Worlds #39 is the best high-level (population, size, basic demographics) article I've seen for creating fantasy cities based on historical precedents.  And of course there is Glenn Blacow's "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" from DW #10, one of the early game style articles.  

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546382And for the Man to Man notes in #76, yes I'd agree that Steve laid out his objectives really well here.

I thought the point where he talks about "The only thing more important than realism is playability" and talks about nerfing the combat system because one-blow kills didn't seem like much fun is something useful to acknowledge.  The "Play should be quick. Character creation shouldn't" idea is fine for players but I find it problematic when GMing a game unless the GM fudges NPC creation.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546382Also in #76, the DC Heroes review following the design notes is quite good. Allen Varney also did the review in Dragon #165 that I mentioned above and commented that he actually really liked the game in his earlier review despite readers thinking he panned it --having read it now, I can see why they would think that.

The reviews in The Space Gamer could get pretty picking and critical, so that one doesn't seem particularly so.  

Seeing the Ken Rolston article on Paranoia in #76 reminds me of a convention panel where he talked about the cognitive dissonance of being a member of Amnesty International but also laughing at a torture table he was writing for Paranoia.  My group was invited over Ken Rolston's house for a Warhammer FRP playtest for the planned magic books that were never published.  I have some photocopied playtest manuscripts he gave us for the original Realms of Sorcery (quite different from what was later published -- there was a copy of it floating around online) as well as the Divine Magic book (which I don't think was ever put online).

I think Dragon probably hit its stride later (somewhere between about 150-220 or so I particularly enjoyed it), but went downhill in the 3E era until it become a monthly splatbook. I suppose I'm more interested in fantasy RPGs generally, though system-agnostic articles and reviews of other games in Dragon were some of the more interesting articles for me there.

More good points on GURPS design there - I don't think he'd considered NPC vs. PC build times much, though he does note that one of the proposed MTM supplements is "a whole pack of pregenerated characters".

Realism vs. playability in HPs is something that's I think very rarely even thought of these days - seems that playability won this decisively. It was interesting how he said he did this, too:

Quote from: Steve JacksonSo, at every little decision-point that went into making up the combat system, we chose in favor of less damage. Thus, no individual subsystem is wrong — but, added all together, they give a combat system that makes player characters a little harder to kill than "real people" are. Just because it's more fun.

This is the sort of thing its interesting to see in design notes since its something hard to see just looking at the rules. A fairly high-level bit of designing perhaps, where its changing actual play with only slight nudges of the rules.

See also this reply, which I wrote in the "Why Hex Maps?" thread.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546403Realism vs. playability in HPs is something that's I think very rarely even thought of these days - seems that playability won this decisively. It was interesting how he said he did this, too:

The 80s was a wonderful time because designers did think about such things and described them openly in designer notes or other articles.

This was partly due to the strong infuence of wargames on rpgs- nearly all wargames of the period (70s through the 80s) included Designer Notes as a matter of course, explaining the games abstractions and what they drew from to create them. The rpg designers of the era (many also designed wargames) followed the same tradition.

In the 90s, when realism and simulation was basically abandoned in rpg design across the board (although D&D had always abandoned them) the use of designer notes all but disappeared. Attention turned to settings and mechanics that were thought interesting for the sake of their own existence alone. Thus designers had little to talk about in in the way of traditional Designer Notes- and little talking did they do.

Thus I think your search is going to turn up the most interesting material from the era you're already exploring.

It's great stuff, and I must say that I'm impressed by your digging into it. A very rare thing these days.

I love a lot found in the Man-to-Man designer notes...

Quote from: Steve JacksonI wanted a game that would satisfy three basic needs. First, it would be detailed and realistic; I don't like games where the referee is forced to "fake it" constantly. Second, it would be logical and well-organized, Third, it would be adaptable to any setting and any level of play.

And

Quote from: Steve JacksonExperience proves that garners don't mind complicated rules, In fact, many of us thrive on them! What everybody hates is badly-organized rules

And many others could be slotted into my own Age of Heroes designer notes without missing a beat. Of course both are 80s games, so such similar thoughts shouldn't be unexpected.

If you can't get that other Fuzion Jazz link to work, you can try this link which is the same URL via Wayback Machine.

Quote from: gleichman;546419I love a lot found in the Man-to-Man designer notes...

I assumed you'd approve of those Designer's Notes.  They were very well done which is why I recommended them the most highly.  Sadly, his designers notes for The Fantasy Trip in TSG #29 are more a timeline of development and about business decisions than any sort of discussion of the design because I would have like to have seen a discussion of that game's design.  You might also find the wargaming design links in this reply in the Why Hexes? interesting.

Quote from: John Morrow;546426I assumed you'd approve of those Designer's Notes.  They were very well donem which is why I recommended them the most highly.

It was an excellent recommmendation and I thank you for bring them up. It allows me to reflect upon good times. I have a faint memory of much of what was in that article (likely from other sources) but I hadn't visited them in decades.

The only better designer notes I've seen were in wargames.

What was so striking to me is that Jackson development process wasn't that dissimilar than my own, down to the fact that I was also considering using Action Points very early in the Age of Heroes designed and abandoned them for the exact same reason.

In the end, he ended up with a very different game than mine, but it's easy to see from those notes how he got there.

Quote from: John Morrow;546426Sadly, his designers notes for The Fantasy Trip in TSG #29 are more a timeline of development and about business decisions than any sort of discussion of the design because I would have like to have seen a discussion of that game's design.

As would I, and I would have love to see something about why all three games (M-t-M, TFT and GURPS) were so Stat focused (I've always considered that the prime failure in GURPS).

Quote from: gleichman;546409The 80s was a wonderful time because designers did think about such things and described them openly in designer notes or other articles.

This was partly due to the strong infuence of wargames on rpgs- nearly all wargames of the period (70s through the 80s) included Designer Notes as a matter of course, explaining the games abstractions and what they drew from to create them. The rpg designers of the era (many also designed wargames) followed the same tradition.

In the 90s, when realism and simulation was basically abandoned in rpg design across the board (although D&D had always abandoned them) the use of designer notes all but disappeared. Attention turned to settings and mechanics that were thought interesting for the sake of their own existence alone. Thus designers had little to talk about in in the way of traditional Designer Notes- and little talking did they do.

Thus I think your search is going to turn up the most interesting material from the era you're already exploring.

It's great stuff, and I must say that I'm impressed by your digging into it. A very rare thing these days.

Thanks - yes trying to get an appreciation of the older systems since alot of interesting ideas from back then have been forgotten, and am getting more of an appreciation for the principles involved. 80s systems are one of the areas in my knowledge where there are alot of gaps (I started gaming in '91) so much obliged for the assistance here, both of you.
John - thanks also for the hex notes  - I'll probably have to get the design book referenced therein, too - had no idea it existed.

Also - if either of you missed it the first time it was here but are interested, I did have another thread going (The Design And Development Archive) where I've been noting interesting mechanics and so on that I've found and discussing theory in general, any input/opinions there particularly on older systems would also be very welcome - if not that's also fine since I think its reached about 14 pages already, and I must admit it suffers from exceptionally bad organization.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479

Quote from: gleichman;546428As would I, and I would have love to see something about why all three games (M-t-M, TFT and GURPS) were so Stat focused (I've always considered that the prime failure in GURPS).

I think having a look at SJGames forums to answer that, but nothing from Steve Jackson himself regarding this. I did find there is a sub-group of GURPS-ites there sometimes referred to as the "Cult of Stat Normalization" who would say that its not so much a matter of the game being stat-focussed, as it is that very high attributes should be quite rare - searches around that finds various discussion on Gaussian distributions and so forth.
I also wonder if Tunnels and Trolls played any part in influencing TFT's design in this respect, given that I can see possible influences in other places - ST-required, magical fatigue and armour for instance.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546431Also - if either of you missed it the first time it was here but are interested, I did have another thread going (The Design And Development Archive) where I've been noting interesting mechanics and so on that I've found and discussing theory in general, any input/opinions there particularly on older systems would also be very welcome - if not that's also fine since I think its reached about 14 pages already, and I must admit it suffers from exceptionally bad organization.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479

It's a cool thread, and I'd advise collecting it on a blog or website of your own so it can be organized.

For my part I wish I had held onto more of my rule books from back in the day, but I didn't. So that leaves me with only 30 year old memories to talk about most games.

I do however have bunch of Shadowrun, Deadlands the Weird West, and of course just about anything from HERO. So if you have questions about those I'm quite willing to answer them. Just PM me.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546465I think having a look at SJGames forums to answer that, but nothing from Steve Jackson himself regarding this.

Likely, but it's information direct from Steve Jackson that I'm looking for. And information from that actual period as modern RPG 'culture' may have cause him to change his answer (at least in public).

Modern gamers for example hate (and I do mean hate) many of the design concepts from the 80s including such things as 'realism', comprehensive rules, avoiding on-the fly GM rulings and other things that were (as the designer notes you're now reading clearly show) foremost in the minds of designers of that era.

That's because each decade was a rebellion and reaction to the one previous. The designs of the late 70s and 80s were driven by the those unhappy with D&D, those of the 90s by those unhappy with everything that came before, those of 00s by those uphappy... and so on.

We are now showing hints of the cycle returning to itself in the OSR movement. I'm wonder if this will hold during the 10's or fade. And if the next wave will be a return to 80s style design again.

I doubt things will be that nice, typically the past once lost is lost, and in truth the OSR movement holds little in common with the D&D as it was actually played and viewed across the hobby from the 70s.

Thanks, fair enough. I'd be equally doubtful of any resurgence in 80s design. Today's marketplace where anyone can publish perhaps means a few such games may appear, but doubtful they can earn any major share of gamerdom.
 
Another trend looking at the design notes is that systems directly modelled off reality, have given way to systems modelled off other systems.....abstractions of abstractions.
 
Looking at e.g. the T2000 design notes in #75 not a great deal on why specific dice were chosen or so on, but the extensive notes on ballistics by Chadwick convince me he knows his stuff, and give some indication of the thought processes he's gone through (armour values based on millimetres of steel!). Very different to how things are normally approached these days where a design typically starts with an existing design and then tweaks it. Have to go dig up my own copy of this to get more context.
 
(On the subject of edition change by default adding more distance between the rules and reality, it might be interesteding to compare the 2nd Ed. of the Twilight 2000 rules to comment on whether it lost anything in the rebuild here, but requires more knowledge of the subject than I have).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;546675Another trend looking at the design notes is that systems directly modelled off reality, have given way to systems modelled off other systems.....abstractions of abstractions.

An excellent way of describing it.

I don't imagine any modern RPG designer would make a trip to the JFK Special Warfare Center to do research on their game (as the author of T2000 did).

Quote from: John Morrow;546364Now, if I could only get all of the issues of Different Worlds in PDF and the first 100-150 issues of White Dwarf in PDF on a CD-ROM like the the Dragon Magazine archive, I'd be happy.

I've found there's a website here which sells pdfs of the Different Worlds magazine here, incidentally ($12 each however).
http://www.diffworlds.com/dw_01-12.htm
 
 
 
Also, I've been through the wargame design booklet referenced in the hexmap thread. It was interesting to see the definition of a wargame hammered out (Force/Time/Space considerations, with Time+Space equalling movement). Other than that:
 
*The notes on movement vs. board size were interesting in the light of say 3E/4E design - these have way more movement than the author recommends, with squares being there I suppose more to resolve 'zone of control' issues, I suppose.
 
*Downloaded Dragonquest's character sheet (only found the 2nd ed, however) - something which was highlighted as an example of complexity but I couldn't see anything noteworthy there.
 
*odd that I'd never thought of Chess as being a wargame with non-defined distances, in retrospect (duh).
 
*interesting to see that so many of the original RPG companies were wargame companies - I hadn't realized that GDW was, for instance (and I had forgotten about SPIs existence completely, until I got to the ads in the back).
 
The guidelines on playtesting in there struck me as particularly outstanding.