Quote from: GRIM1. Because it's fun.
2. To find new, better or more interesting ways of doing things.
3. To fulfil that creative urge to the best extent.

Because it's fun.. sure. But I just question how much fun it really is.
I mean, the actual gaming part, I get. That's totally fun. But game design? Is sort of a lonely fun. I guess it used to be more fun back when you could declare yourself an amateur psychologist and all. I hear that's turning out a lot less fun this year.

For point 2, my assertion is that the finding stuff, and making new ways for things to work..  is just work. Isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong about that. I wrote a whole system for racing chariots one time for a game. The fun part was when we actually used it.

And for the third part, I would concede it to a point. Amateur game design is a way (amongst many ways) to be creative. This ties back to your first point. If there's any fun in game design at all, it has to be in this.

But really, I want to put forth my hypothesis that the real creativity is not in the structures and systems, it's in the content. Thats the guys who sit down and make maps, or create a cast of characters or design scenarios or whatever. What used to be called "Setting design" (and is now pretty much just tossed aside, because "system matters soooo much") is where the real artists (freelancers, graphic artists and all those guys) pretty much live. It's very much out of vogue.

I see system and setting as part and parcel of the same intersupporting thing.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

I don't see the point in replying to threads in a Game Design and Theory Forum trying to convince people they shouldn't be designing games or discussing game theory. Wouldn't that time be better spent doing something else? :confused:

If nobody is designing games, then no new games get created - fine for you, but what happens when the current crop of designers dies? THINK OF THE CHILDREN, MAN! :O

-clash

Quote from: StuartI don't see the point in replying to threads in a Game Design and Theory Forum trying to convince people they shouldn't be designing games or discussing game theory. Wouldn't that time be better spent doing something else? :confused:

I'll break it out for you: My disagreement has to do with the origins of the poster:

In music, the entry level for creativity is having your own band. That's the point of the original poster. Also, although it remains unstated, that poster does not imply any kind of public consumption. When d. boon from the minutemen talked about there being a garage band on every corner, he didn't imply that they'd be out trying to sell records. This was about expression first.

But in roleplaying games, this doesn't follow. Designing a game is emphatically not the entry level of creativity. Also, I question whether designing a game is truly a creative path at all, rather than just the intermediary step onto becoming a salesman.

The entry level is consumer.
Part of the point of punk was the DIY ethos, and I think that's always been somewhat present in RPGs.

Some people make games and give them away for free.  

(I'm not saying game design is like punk.  That's someone else's argument. )

GRIM, Stuart:  Ignore the nay-sayer.  Design a game.  He can't stop you, or even slow you down, unless you let him.

If we're going with just the 3, why not a game of court intrigue, where the players are courtiers attempting to levy influence/push an agenda?  Each player prioritizes 3 attributes:  Wit (used to deliver a cutting remark or see through a nefarious plan), Station (used for political punch and to control what or whom is fashionable at the time), and Physique (how good you are at the equestrian arts, duelling, and the like).
 
So a courtier of great wit, middle station, but poor physique would have a d20 in Wit, a d10 in Station, and a d6 in Physique.  A courtier of average wit, great phsyique, but poor station (a landless knight or petty rural noble), would have a d10 in Wit, a d6 in Station, and a d20 in Physique.
 
Whenever there's a conflict, either the players (if contested)  or the GM (representing the other faction, though I suppose you could just as easily not have a GM) roll off, highest roll winning.  However, every time a player calls on an attribute during a session, it Taxes it, meaning a -1 to their next roll (for a minimum of 1).  (The body wearies, the station becomes undignified/weakened with too many favors asked/called in, and given too long without rest, the tongue stumbles).  Taxing should reset each session.
 
And that's it for that.

Zachary:  Rockin'!  I like the Amber-esque way in which any two people will likely each have a specialty in which they outshine the other ... so that some of the challenge (when you're just trying to win, as opposed to husbanding your resources for later victory) will be trying to frame a conflict in ways that play to your strengths rather than those of your opponent.

Quote from: TonyLBGRIM, Stuart:  Ignore the nay-sayer.  Design a game.  He can't stop you, or even slow you down, unless you let him.

Well, duh. I can't stop anyone. I'm just questioning the point of it.

I like when Tony starts to panic.

Zachary, this sounds like a damn cool idea. Just rewatched the TV mini series Elizabeth...so courtly intrigue is definitely one of the things my players want to do some time soon...although they want it set, either in Burma (Siam) or India...

Regards,
David R

Well, hey, I'm glad a couple of you like it.  Courtly intrigue is always fun...I always thought something around the time of Henry VIII be a blast.

QuoteWhy do people have to be constantly designing new games? I don't see the point. All that time designing these little pointless games is time you could be spending actually being part of the hobby.

designer as outsider and non game player??  OH, you might be thinking about that other site.

Next up:  heading to the Blogs to ask people why they bother posting stuff...

QuoteNext up: heading to the Blogs to ask people why they bother posting stuff...

Well, the more accurate way of putting it, would be to show up at places where people are happily blogging and try to convince them that instead of blogging, they should be creating new types of blog software.

Wait, is that not getting through? That's my fucking point, right there.