tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I came across this perceptive comment on wargame design that seems to anticipate MGT:
The fraternal twin to stodgy design is "change far the sake of change." Here, the designer discards everything (he thinks), and refuses to be bound by "old fashioned" ideas. However, he has nothing better to offer - just a different (and usually more complicated) variety of stodginess.
--Steve Jackson and Nick Scheussler. Game Design Volume 1: Theory and Practice, p. 5, (1981)
On combat:
"Basically, the combat system should be a quick, simple tactical game in which the combat abilities of the pieces are drawn from the characteristics of the characters. Simplicity is the prime virtue of such a system. D&D, with a combat system so rudimentary as to be laughable, has proven immensely popular. Chivalry and Sorcery boasts a highly realistic combat system, which plays so slowly as to be seen only rarely in tournament play. The moral ought to be clear. Realism and detail are nice. Speed and comprehensibility are much more important." p. 37 (Emphasis mine).
Here are some comments on playtesting:
Playtesting is the process of playing a new game design, over and over, in order to spot flaws and improve playability. The importance of playtesting in the production of a finished game design cannot be overstated. Ninety percent of all game defects could have been corrected by satisfactory playtesting. There is no excuse far failure to playtest a design thoroughly before putting it on the market; it indicates either gross ignorance, total egotism, or an absolute lack of interest in giving the gamer his money's worth. ...A company or designer that is unwilling to playtest games should be in another line of work - it's that simple. (Emphasis mine)
...
When you feel that you have the rules the way you want them, and that the game works, you're ready for the second stage of playtest: blindtesting. The essence of blindtesting is that new playtesters are exposed to the game without the benefit of advice from the designer or other experienced players. (Emphasis mine) (p. 33)
We're now theoretically "blindtesting"...see the problem?
The fraternal twin to stodgy design is "change far the sake of change." Here, the designer discards everything (he thinks), and refuses to be bound by "old fashioned" ideas. However, he has nothing better to offer - just a different (and usually more complicated) variety of stodginess.
--Steve Jackson and Nick Scheussler. Game Design Volume 1: Theory and Practice, p. 5, (1981)
On combat:
"Basically, the combat system should be a quick, simple tactical game in which the combat abilities of the pieces are drawn from the characteristics of the characters. Simplicity is the prime virtue of such a system. D&D, with a combat system so rudimentary as to be laughable, has proven immensely popular. Chivalry and Sorcery boasts a highly realistic combat system, which plays so slowly as to be seen only rarely in tournament play. The moral ought to be clear. Realism and detail are nice. Speed and comprehensibility are much more important." p. 37 (Emphasis mine).
Here are some comments on playtesting:
Playtesting is the process of playing a new game design, over and over, in order to spot flaws and improve playability. The importance of playtesting in the production of a finished game design cannot be overstated. Ninety percent of all game defects could have been corrected by satisfactory playtesting. There is no excuse far failure to playtest a design thoroughly before putting it on the market; it indicates either gross ignorance, total egotism, or an absolute lack of interest in giving the gamer his money's worth. ...A company or designer that is unwilling to playtest games should be in another line of work - it's that simple. (Emphasis mine)
...
When you feel that you have the rules the way you want them, and that the game works, you're ready for the second stage of playtest: blindtesting. The essence of blindtesting is that new playtesters are exposed to the game without the benefit of advice from the designer or other experienced players. (Emphasis mine) (p. 33)
We're now theoretically "blindtesting"...see the problem?
