Quote from: amacris;690139Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.

Yes and no.  

The campaign I'm currently playing in that meets weekly (mostly) is due for our 33rd session, and we'll be hitting the 1 year anniversary on Halloween.  That's a lot of play, but it's only one campaign, and it's only one group of players.  

A good designer should play the game.  I don't disagree with that at all.  But a game designer should also consider 'white room' situations and confirm if the rules work as expected.  

You'd expect, for instance, that any campaign would be likely to experience the healing rules and for the designer to know if they work no matter what.  But it's totally possible to play a campaign where poison never comes up.  If something doesn't happen in game, it can be worth imagining a 'likely scenario' to see if it works as intended, even running a simulated encounter.  

While the conclusions drawn from that form of play won't necessarily be applicable to all campaigns - because they're based on a certain set of assumptions such as what a 'standard' character might look like - it's definitely better than not looking at it at all.  

Likewise, if you start at low level, you may never succeed in reaching 'high level play'.  Unless your play testers start at that point, you're not likely to get much feedback (unless you have an unusually long development cycle).  Once again, assumptions will have to be made about what a 'reasonable' high level character looks like - but there's no excuse for not testing the damn system to make sure it at least LOOKS like it works as expected.  

Of course working as expected can mean different things.  Some games seek to achieve a certain 'feel' - so one can evaluate whether the rules do that.  Other games seek to achieve a degree of realism - if your results don't match reality well, you might need to revise them.  

Testing can take all different forms.  Thought experiments are often some of the most useful.  But don't take my word for it.  You can take it from Einstein.

Quote from: amacris;690139I think the point Black Vulmea raised in his initial post is a really good one.

I've done design and community consulting on about 12 different MMOs. In the MMORPG industry, there is a huge disparity of in-game expertise between the designers and the players. Hardcore MMO players generally play 40+ hours per week. Truly hardcore raiding guild players may rack up even more time. Since most video game designers work 60 - 70 hours per week, they physically cannot play their own game that much. A lot of problems arise because many designers simply don't understand how their MMO works in practice as well as their own players do. The good designers acknowledge this and find workarounds; the bad designers pretend it's not a problem.

Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.

If I ran a game design company, even if I only used freelancers for 90% of the content I would insist on one afternoon a week being a gaming afternoon where everyone plays probably drawing a scenario from a hypothetical situation, 10th level party versus a Litch or whatever, as well as running a campaign for anyone that wanted to play as an optionalsocial thing.
Shit I would do it here at work if only this evil corporation would see the benefits

Quote from: deadDMwalking;690141Yes and no.  

The campaign I'm currently playing in that meets weekly (mostly) is due for our 33rd session, and we'll be hitting the 1 year anniversary on Halloween.  That's a lot of play, but it's only one campaign, and it's only one group of players.  

A good designer should play the game.  I don't disagree with that at all.  But a game designer should also consider 'white room' situations and confirm if the rules work as expected.  

You'd expect, for instance, that any campaign would be likely to experience the healing rules and for the designer to know if they work no matter what.  But it's totally possible to play a campaign where poison never comes up.  If something doesn't happen in game, it can be worth imagining a 'likely scenario' to see if it works as intended, even running a simulated encounter.  

While the conclusions drawn from that form of play won't necessarily be applicable to all campaigns - because they're based on a certain set of assumptions such as what a 'standard' character might look like - it's definitely better than not looking at it at all.  

Likewise, if you start at low level, you may never succeed in reaching 'high level play'.  Unless your play testers start at that point, you're not likely to get much feedback (unless you have an unusually long development cycle).  Once again, assumptions will have to be made about what a 'reasonable' high level character looks like - but there's no excuse for not testing the damn system to make sure it at least LOOKS like it works as expected.  

Of course working as expected can mean different things.  Some games seek to achieve a certain 'feel' - so one can evaluate whether the rules do that.  Other games seek to achieve a degree of realism - if your results don't match reality well, you might need to revise them.  

Testing can take all different forms.  Thought experiments are often some of the most useful.  But don't take my word for it.  You can take it from Einstein.

I don't think we disagree at all. I do lots of "thought experiments" of my own games. I also will "chunk off" particular aspects and do what-if tests. All are good things to do, and doable.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690129Stupid Dice Tricks are only stupid if they don't accomplish what they intended to accomplish. And there are two ways to model what they accomplish: Math and Play. Both are important.

Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;689879Wow.  This post is full of irony.  Complaining about people being dismissive of others in the same sentence as dismissing them yourself with comments like "neckbeard."  Good job on that.

Par for the course. He's like our resident rpg-themed 'almost-politically-correct redneck'.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

I'd hate to think that my comment about spending more time designing than playing is an indictment of my abilities to make a game. The fact is, it's a lot easier for me to set up probability worksheets and write design theories on my laptop at home every day than it is for me to get my friends over to test things every time I have an idea. Don't think that this means I don't believe in play testing - I actually think play testing is a huge part of designing any game. I also feel that running it for my home group certainly isn't enough - I've had open play tests on G+, and I've run it for some of my friend's RPG groups as well. Heck, my hope is that I'll get feedback from backers of the Kickstarter once I mail out the play test episode, because the further divorced from the play test I am, the better the feedback I'll get.

Do I like mechanics? Heck yeah. The mechanisms and framework of a rule system can, in my experience, drastically change the way a game plays out. Just something as significant as change from GP=XP to XP for defeating monsters has really changed the way people play Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. There is obviously a lot more to games than the numbers and math behind them, but I think I've got a talent for that particular aspect of game design, and it's a fun hobby for me.

If you just don't like Stab City! because it's not the kind of game you play, hey man, that's totally fine. I like ketchup on my eggs, but I'm not going to get mad when someone orders breakfast different. There are all sorts of genres of games, and if I'm assuming correctly that you like old school trad games, then hey, we've got that in common. I just feel like life is too short to get stuck playing the same thing over and over. I've got Mentzer basic on my shelf right next to the box set for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3e, which itself is sitting next to my collection of old Wraith: The Oblivion books. I just happened to write this particular book this particular way, and hopefully people who like this sort of game will like it.

Anyway, I'm sorry for destroying the hobby or jerking off to numbers (is there a name for that fetish?) Maybe once Stab City! comes out, why don't you take a look at it and send me a review? I always enjoy hearing differing opinions on game design, and I love arguing about the correct way to play elfgames.

Welcome to the forums. Not everyone here is an ass. Well, at least not 100% of the time.

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690152And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

The ghost of Gary Gygax as translated through online posters' Ouija Boards.

Quote from: TristramEvans;690155The ghost of Gary Gygax as translated through online posters' Ouija Boards.

Good to know.

There's only one reason why so many games suck, and that's a poorly-written system.

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690152And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

*I* am. DUH.

OK, seriously: the general market. If your design includes many weird criteria that you actually fulfill, you've accomplished your goal. But if no one wants what you have to sell, that's a hollow achievement.

Stupid dice tricks and other such gimmicks often fall into this category. This doesn't get caught in the playtest stage, because it's my feeling that the kind of people who sign up for playtests are often too interested in clever solutions instead of lowest-common-denominator levels of playability. ESPECIALLY if the pitch for the playtest mentions the gimmick. They, too, are frequently math dweebs.

So, instead of a focus group, you get an echo chamber. They confirm that your design works, but not that it's fun for the general public.

In all honesty, if I'm designing a game, its not going to be for the general public. I just don't care that much about the general public.

Its RPGs, its not exactly a market where anyone much is raking in the cash, so I would rather write something that I like and that fans like me would like.

That is the problem with most of the schisming in the RPG fandom. The idea that every game has to be written and enjoyed by everyone, or even a MAJORITY of fans is just not really true.

With D&D? Maybe. Mostly because of their position in the hierarchy of the industry, its important for them specifically to appeal to the general public, but for almost any other game? Not really.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;690159There's only one reason why so many games suck, and that's a poorly-written system.

I'd qualify that by saying that there are several pretty decent systems hindered by presentation. Bad indexes, bad organization, bad or no examples, even bad art can hinder a game. I also am not a fan of games written to be read as novels rather than reference manuals.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690122"A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."

Well....Pundit (and many others here) want rpgnet to return to its previous state before the mods and passive-aggressive posters destroyed it.

That's like saying hiring a plumber is reactionary because he's going to return your bathroom to the state of shit being in the toilet and not all over the floor.

Quote from: TristramEvans;690164I'd qualify that by saying that there are several pretty decent systems hindered by presentation. Bad indexes, bad organization, bad or no examples, even bad art can hinder a game. I also am not a fan of games written to be read as novels rather than reference manuals.

Bad organization drives me insane, as do bad indexes. I don't tend to look up rules during game, preferring just to make shit up and figure out how the actual rules work later (and maybe change them if I like what I did better) rather than slow down play, but if I DO feel like looking up a rule, it shouldn't take me longer than a trip to the index to find the page.