What do you consider the difference between a bad system and

>>51637390
>Great
Sets out a narrative goal (generally emulate x genre), and has mechanics that inform this narrative without being a burden to the players. Alternatively, have a mechanical goal and accomplishes it without sacrificing other aspects of the game or the narrative experience
>Good
Sets out a narrative goal and accomplishes this with mechanics that sometimes don't work as anticipated or get in the way, or accomplishes this by having light rules with minimal tailoring. Alternatively, accomplishes a mechanical goal with some burden on the rest of the game or on the narrative experience.
>Bad
Sets out any sort of goal and fails, or sets out a goal and accomplishes it with complete disregard to playability and/or the group roleplaying experience.

>>51637546
I feel these are good parameters.

>bad
Poorly written, with terrible ideas. Nothing in it worth using, either because it's unoriginal, or its originality explores only stupid ideas. Basically, worthless to everyone.

>good but not great
It at least needs some sort of selling point. It needs a hook, like a good original setting or a good translation of an existing one, or a mechanic that helps distinguish it by being actually useful. Being balanced is not enough of a selling point, nor is simply having a lot of material if the material doesn't inspire any ideas.

>>51637390
Pathfinder.

>>51638086
i disagree, largely because it puts a lot of undue attention on the designer's goals and intentions. I believe in La Mort de l'Auteur, the principle that a work and its creator are separate, and that the intention of a writing is less important than what it itself accomplishes.

While matching intention is handy for evaluating designers, it does little for evaluating the system itself. A simple system intended for tank skirmish warfare, for example, may find new life with its mechanics put to use elsewhere, such as with medieval combat with each player controlling a single character rather than a tank unit, and the only thing that's been changed is the descriptions.

Great: What I play

Good: What others play

Bad: What you play

It's all about how well the system executes its own premise.

A good system clearly states what it is intended to do and the experience it intends to support and has mechanics that enable that. It takes the burden away from the GM and lets them focus on creating a good experience, while having a solid foundation to fall back on when necessary. This involves having functional, balanced mechanics for the key things the system cares about while not being overwrought, overcomplex or overbearing.

A bad system does not properly support the experience it intends to create, leading to situations where the enjoyment of the game is stifled by the group or GM having to struggle with the system to get it to work properly. Unbalanced, non-functional or overcomplex mechanics are key to this, but it can also go down to a fundamental design level if the system was not properly thought out from base principles.

The universal objective metric for assessing a system is the systems own claims for what it is designed to do.

A good system executes its premise succesfully. A bad one doesn't. It's really thay simple.

All the other circumstantial shit is based on context and expectations.

>>51637390
All those blades are going to rust *so much*.

>>51638284
>The universal objective metric
Not only is there no such thing, you putting forth that argument is EASILY disproven.

It relies on the idea that a system cannot be used for anything beyond what it was designed for, and that's ignoring the very genesis of the hobby. Adapting a system for different uses, uses beyond the scope and intention of the original designer, is the essential start of every single system. Every last one.

To even put forth that as an "universal" metric, let alone the ridiculousness of an "objective" one, is ignoring a fundamental truth about games. They are subjective to an extreme, and you might as well be trying to present a "universal, objective metric" for what dictates if a painting, book, movie, or other work of art is good or not.

>>51638372

If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system. It's that simple.

You're talking about something new and different. And that's okay! But by adapting it, you are changing the design intent of the system as you become the designer. And from that point, the same metric applies.

>>51638151
I dislike this because the term stupid ideas is way too subjective. Ideas aren't stupid, presentation usually determines a piece of media's quality.

>>51638402
>If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system. It's that simple.

No, it's not that simple. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

There is no game, none, and I highlight that fact once again by repeating it, none, that is intended for only a single style of play. The concept is ludicrous to even suggest. Think about it for a brief moment. And, there's no designer out there that would ever even try to get anyone to commit to running a game in a singular, precise manner. In fact, almost every single designer encourages people to adapt and alter the game to suit their own preferences, under the well-understood truism that people prefer games catered to their personal preferences.

So, rather than "you are changing the design intent of the system", you are actually matching it.

I know you WANT a universal metric, but not only is there none, yours is particularly terrible.

>>51638415
Welcome to games. They're subjective.

>Ideas aren't stupid

That idea is.

>>51638241
I disagree with you, but I see the logic in that and it's a compelling argument. At the end of the day, I think the difference between a great game and a bad game are based on personal preferences and you just can't put tight rules on that. However, I do find differing game theory to be really interesting.

>>51638472

Now you're just twisting my words.

The design intent of a system need not be super specific (although it can be. The Mountain Witch, for example, tells a single specific story of betrayal amidst Ronin on a single quest). 'Heroic high fantasy' can be a systems design intention, and a huge number of different play styles can fall within that.

But it's also very clear if something you're trying to do is outside of that. And assessing a system on failing what it never set out to do is just ridiculous.

Likewise, if a system sets out to do something and fails, creating a system where it achieves an alternate goal you invented or altering the system until it achieves its original goal is an equally ridiculous argument for calling it a success.

Systems can be assessed by their design intention. If you refuse that essential premise, there's no basis to assess them at all. It all becomes so purely subjective that you can't really say anything concrete, because the subjective experience of using it can and will always be different.

As a GM, I love using 5e, but I recognize it's not ideal.

>>51638542
>The design intent of a system need not be super specific

You need to realize that it never is. Even The Mountain Witch, for example, has mods for it that expand the game, and while the base game is presented as a single specific story, it never discouraged exploring ideas beyond what the author presented.

Ultimately, of course, is that the "design intention" is a meaningless statement that often comes as an misunderstanding or even an accusation. There is absolutely no room there for "universal, objective" metrics.

>Likewise, if a system sets out to do something and fails, creating a system where it achieves an alternate goal you invented or altering the system until it achieves its original goal is an equally ridiculous argument for calling it a success.

Not at all. Imagine the hypothetical [your favorite game but everyone is My Little Pony characters]. If someone were to say "Hey, this game is great if you just ignore the MLP", the game is still largely a success even though it is flawed in the fact that it presents ponies in a bizarre fashion. In fact, many popular games originated from a similar, if not quite so exaggerated, genesis.

Original goal is meaningless. Design intention? Only useful for evaluating the designer, and only in the explicit question of whether they can build a system to match their vision, and not an overall statement of their skills as a designer.

>It all becomes so purely subjective that you can't really say anything concrete, because the subjective experience of using it can and will always be different.

If you want something more "objective," you need to actually look at more objective evaluations. Ease of learning, speed of play, replay-ability, ease of adaptation, and so on and so forth are far more "objective" than "does it match the designers intent?" But, even so, I am going to have to force you to realize even these are still ultimately subjective evaluations, as well as the subjective question of importance.

>>51638715

But none of your examples engage with my key point. They change the system to something outside of its original design goal, and then you assert that it's actually the same thing and the distinction is meaningless. You're not making an argument, you're just telling me I'm wrong and demanding I accept your alternate paradigm.

>>51638791
>They change the system to something outside of its original design goal,

Which has NO BEARING ON THE QUALITY OF THE GAME.

If you wanted to try designing a game system for submarine warfare, that while brilliant failed to emulate submarine warfare, that doesn't mean the game is bad, especially if someone were to take that game, change a few names, and say "look, this submarine game with brilliant mechanics works infinitely better as a ninja combat game."

If you believe the most important part of a game is this ephemeral "design goal", a goal that beyond all else is often EXPLICITELY stated by the designer to be open for modification, than you are trying to establish one of the most pointless parts of a game as its most important facet.

>>51638865

If someone buys a game that advertises itself as a submarine combat game and the rules do not work properly, they would call their purchase a bad game, entirely justifiably.

That someone else might come along and point out the ruleset works better if you think of it in a different way is effectively meaningless, unless you go out of your way to repackage and retheme the whole thing, at which point... It's a different game.

>>51638886
>If someone buys a game that advertises itself as a submarine combat game and the rules do not work properly, they would call their purchase a bad game, entirely justifiably.

If the game is well-designed in every major aspect but fails to emulate submarines, what kind of petty person would insist that its failure to emulate submarines makes it a bad game? They can say it was disappointing in that facet, but would they be able to deny that its other design decisions are brilliant? Does one failure destroy an entire game?

You said you want an objective, universal metric. If it does not apply to this situation, than you cannot call it an objective, universal metric.

>>51637546
This.
FPBP
Others said it well too.

>>51638241
>i disagree, largely because it puts a lot of undue attention on the designer's goals and intentions
That is a valid criticism, easily sidestepped by changing the focus of that intention.
If you use the best fantasy game as a hard science fiction roleplaying game, you might find it a bad game because it does not match your intended use.
Or, "there are no bad games, just games that are bad for the intended goal."

Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.
Which circles right back to the first post.

I have a tool that is a combination pliers, wirecutters, and flathead screwdriver.
They are good pliers, poor wirecutters, and an adequate screwdriver.
But they are a great combination pliers, wirecutters, and flathead screwdriver.
Intention matters.

>>51638990

Rules and mechanics are interpreted by their presentation and context. If a game has a theme, people are going to entirely justifiably expect the rules and mechanics presented to fulfil the promise of that theme.

The only place pure mechanics outside of theme are really relevant are abstract games which intentionally eschew theme in favour of mechanical purity. Otherwise, how well the mechanics reflect the theme will always be a factor that has a real and tangible effect on the quality of the game as an experience and a product.

If I was sold a game marketing itself as a gritty, realistic and accurate WWII simulation, and the actual game was an admittedly well executed experience involving pulp superheroes, never built or non-functional nazi superweapons and prototypes or the mystical arts of the Thule society, I would call it a bad game. I made my purchase and selection with a set of entirely reasonable expectations and the game did not live up to them.

I might comment on the fact that, looked at from a different angle, the game works quite well, but that is irrelevant. The game failed to execute its premise.

A film that advertises itself as a comedy will not do well if it never makes you laugh. It might be an incredibly well executed drama, but if people go in expecting laughs and do not receive any, they will view it as a bad experience, and are entirely right in doing so.

>>51639053
>If you use the best fantasy game as a hard science fiction roleplaying game, you might find it a bad game because it does not match your intended use.

You might, or you might not. Subjectivity comes into play. You might actually discover that the best fantasy game works even better with hard science fiction. You must remember that almost every single game has mechanics with roots in dramatically different genres.

>Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.

No, it is not a universal metric, and in fact, there are no universal metrics. It's understandable that you would like them, but we're talking about something extremely subjective, and while you might value the design goals of the designer, I find them ultimately inconsequential because the fallibility of any designer extends to their decisions on what their design goals are. You are also failing to appreciate that "the goal established by its creator" is never to produce an immalleable product.

>>51639068
>Rules and mechanics are interpreted by their presentation and context.
And thus are HIGHLY subjective.

>I would call it a bad game.
You would be free to, just as long as you didn't demand that anyone respect your opinion at the level of some universal, objective metric.

You should have enough sense to respect that I very well may see past what I would consider superficial trappings into the core of the system, recognize what fluff it may be better suited for, and would be delighted to explore the well executed experience. I would say that the flaw is simply the theme, and that the game itself is brilliant constructed and a charm to play, something I would happily recommend to anyone looking for a system to run pulp-superheroes.

>>51639236

So, if you bought a chocolate cake, and upon tasting it and finding it was actually strawberry cheesecake, you wouldn't complain? Even if it was an excellently made and tasty strawberry cheesecake, it still isn't what you ordered. And that's ignoring the possibility that maybe you don't like strawberry cheesecake, meaning the quality of what you ordered is irrelevant.

>>51639280
>you wouldn't complain?

It would be a flaw. But, if it was tasty, would I call it a bad cake?
Personally, I like both kinds of cakes, and would consider the particular flaw of a mixed up order to near the level of being inconsequential.

I'm not denying that missing tone is a flaw. What I'm telling you, practically pleading with you, is that you need to recognize that if that's what you consider to be the universal objective metric for whether a game is good or not, you are being ridiculous.

Take this final example, from someone begging you to expand your point of view for a moment.

A game is designed with the intention of presenting being trapped in the most tedious and boring Hell. It largely involves filling out thousands of spreadsheets, that the Game Master looks over for mistakes, and if you make a mistake, you have to start from the very beginning. Game times are measured in years, and if you somehow manage to fill out all of the spreadsheets, the GM tells you that there was an unavoidable contradiction on pages 5,678 and 9,878, and that you're going to have to start over.

Is this a good game? By your universal objective metric, it's a fantastic game, and you would not have any right to complain about it when someone insisted that you play it.

>>51638482
No, ideas cannot be stupid. An idea is simply a thought, and has no attributes in existence. It intrinsically can't be anything more than it is. Compare an actual real thing that has physical and measurable traits, such as your dumb face, which can be quantified and be proven to be stupid.

>>51639387

From literally the first post
>Sets out a narrative goal (generally emulate x genre), and has mechanics that inform this narrative without being a burden to the players. Alternatively, have a mechanical goal and accomplishes it without sacrificing other aspects of the game or the narrative experience

*Bzzt*. Please try again.

>>51639462
>*Bzzt*. Please try again.
Okay.

>The universal objective metric for assessing a system is the systems own claims for what it is designed to do.

>>51639476

If your only recourse is pointing out less precise wordings of the same general argument, you're admitting you don't really have a point.

>>51639169
>You might, or you might not. Subjectivity... ...genres.
You actually typed all that out to explain what the word "might" means?
Yes, "might" also means "might not."
Wow, your need to argue is extraordinary.
As such, I might just make my point and go:

>>Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.
>there are no universal metrics.
The truth of that statement is subjective.

We agree that "bad game" is subjective.
Whenever you have a quality that is inherently subjective, like "far", you can only gauge it by comparison to another value.
This value needs to be universally unique to the specific subjective comparison, like the location of speaker who said "far".
Thus, when someone says "It is far.", the implied meaning is "far as perceived from the speaker" or "a distance the speaker thinks is far from here".
A subjective term is rendered into an actual functional quantity for this specific instance.

When attempting to do this with "bad game", we could use "a game the speaker thinks is bad".
However, with a game, there is also the value set by the intent of the designer.
This value will remain a constant with each specific game and is therefore much more useful for generating universal meaning.
Thus, a "bad game" becomes "a specific game that does not achieve it's specific intention." and the subjectivity is reduced to the appraisal of how effective the game meets it's goal.
This appraisal, since it is based on specific information, is inherently less subjective than "game I don't like."
More to the point, it can be universally applied to all games meaningfully.

>the fallibility of any designer extends to their decisions on what their design goals are.
This just means that the intention, one aspect of the game, is flawed. This is inconsequential.

>"the goal established by its creator" is never to produce an immalleable product.
They might not be. Or they might.

>>51639528
If my argument is to directly quote you, and destroy that quote that you hoped would encapsulate your argument by using it as your conclusion, then that is basically achieving a perfect victory over your idea of this "universal objective metric" you wished to put forward.

Now, you are absolutely free to back pedal and retract your "The universal objective metric for assessing a system is the systems own claims for what it is designed to do" statement. In fact, I was hoping you would, because I have very little stomach for people who argue as tediously as you do, and had hoped you'd see reason a little earlier and more amiably.

>>51637390
D&D is still a bad system, OP, no matter how you dress up your troll question.

>>51639552
>This appraisal, since it is based on specific information, is inherently less subjective than "game I don't like."

Less subjective does not mean objective.

>More to the point, it can be universally applied to all games meaningfully.

No. That's already been disproven, In fact, giving the creator's intention undue importance can actually be applied in way that presents an absolutely meaningless argument in the face of considerably more important facets of a game.

>>51639573

I have no reason to retract it. Your arguments are pure semantics that you've consistently failed to prove have any real merit when considering the actual experience of games and how they're presented. But I probably should stop arguing now, if only because the other anon in the thread is engaging you on the same semantic level and doing a far better job than I am.

>>51639639
Thank you for at least giving up. I'm actually saddened that that's the best I can expect from you, but considering your arguments, it's probably more than I should have hoped.

But really, your "universal objective metric" idea is ridiculous.

>>51639617
I don't even like D&D. I just was curious to see people's answers since I'm designing a system myself. I'm not super experienced though so I figured I'd set my goals for 'good enough' and started wondering. Everybody is always saying systems are shit, but I was curious if so many systems are really shit or if they are just not great. Passable, but not ideal.

>>51639675

Rather than pretending to be civil while you gloat, would you engage with the person who, as I said, is doing a far better job dismantling your weak excuse for a point and who you have yet to properly refute? You've not earned the right to be so smug just yet.

>>51639700
Already engaged. I believe my refutations are proper as well.

And, I'm not lying when I'm telling you that you make me sad, genuinely sad, because I feel like I can sense the undercurrents as to why you are so adamant on establishing some "universal objective metric," even though you plan to do so on something that is not only ultimately subjective, but also subjectively consequential.

I was hoping that you're just being obstinate for obstinate's sake, and I was thanking you with sincerity that you had at least enough sense to give up when you did.

>>51639749

Pretending you can see some imaginary personal reason just makes your lack of argument seem even more pathetic. The 'agenda' is establishing a common frame of reference to allow actually useful discussion and analysis of games and systems, a universal standard that can be applied usefully to all game systems and actually creates a basis for discussing and comparing them. The 'alternative' you offer essentially renders all potential discussion of systems completely meaningless.

>>51639804
This.

"All things are subjective."
"There are no universal metrics."
"Words are arbitrary and therefore without meaning."
Regardless of their truth, these statements are meaningless.

>>51639804
You simply demanding that I accept your personal standard as universal isn't going to work, especially when your personal standard is terribly subjective and largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of evaluation.

I'm sorry, but you can't just establish a "universal objective metric" by saying it's universal and objective, when it's neither. Just take comfort in that it's not necessary to have system discussions that a PERSONALLY meaningful, just like a painting can have PERSONAL meaning to you.

We can both discuss the merits of Neoclassical paintings over Postmodern paintings (or vice versa), however, we cannot by any measure ever claim some universal objective metric for what determines a painting as good or bad.

You need to come to terms with that.

>>51639850
They are not meaningless, especially when they're used in an argument against someone hoping to establish their personal views as objective and universal.

In fact, it's at those times that the truth of those statements is not only meaningful, but vital and irrefutable.

>>51639879
>They are not meaningless

>"All things are subjective."
If true, so is the idea that all things are subjective.

>"There are no universal metrics."
If true, there is no universal metric of truth to prove that it is true that there are no universal metrics.

>"Words are arbitrary and therefore without meaning."
If true, then the words in that sentence are without meaning, meaningless, and avocado.

>>51639927
>If true, so is the idea that all things are subjective.

Are you hoping to create a contradiction through semantics?

The important point is that what is subjective remains subjective, regardless of the desire to turn it into an objective metric. I did not claim all things are subjective, but the unfortunate truth is that in the extreme, it is true. Hoping for an objective, universal metric and presenting one that is so easily refuted does not even warrant calling all things subjective, since it's easy enough to show how his metric is subjective alone and has already been done.

>>51638865
>>They change the system to something outside of its original design goal,
>Which has NO BEARING ON THE QUALITY OF THE GAME.
You muddied things up a bit, but here is where you failed to refute anon's point:

>If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system.

You assert to the heavens that no game designer intends only one style of play.
That "almost every single designer encourages people to adapt and alter the game to suit their own preferences"
I question that assertion is universally true, but fine. Let's accept that.

If there there intention was stated that the players be able to adapt it to their own needs, then the adaptability of the game becomes a metric by which the game succeeds at it's intention.
If the adaptation is dependent on the the player adapting it, then the player is designing the adaptation, becoming a new designer of a new system for their intentions.

Anon was right, you are not.

>>51640063
>there there
*their*
Typed it twice, misspelled it both times. heh

This arguement is pointless and stupid. Can we talk about games instead?

>>51637390
>Good
Has a lot of elements that people enjoy, generally considered good.
>Great
I like it.

>>51640030
>I did not claim all things are subjective
No, you said "There are no universal metrics."
Which if true, means there is no universal metric of truth to prove that it is true that there are no universal metrics, making you wrong.

>but the unfortunate truth is that in the extreme, it is true
If it is true, that truth is subjective, and therefore not objectively true.

>>51640099
dub dub speaks objective truth.

>>51640063
>then the adaptability of the game becomes a metric by which the game succeeds at it's intention.

You've failed to establish that as an objective metric by which the game succeeds at it's intentions. How adaptable the game is is not the final word on whether a game succeeds at all of its intentions, and that's without even looking at the subjectivity involved in establishing the question of what defines how adaptable a game is.

Sorry, but it still fails as a universal objective metric. You're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible.

>>51640121
>No, you said "There are no universal metrics."

In regards to establishing the quality of a game? Yes, so I would ask you kindly not to chop up my statements. You will not be able to provide a universally agreed upon metric that will determine one game as good and another as bad. No matter what you do, some people will enjoy the "bad" game and provide substantial reasoning as to why, while the people will hate the "good" game and overload you with criticisms. Welcome to art.

I have directly explained why what he insists are universal and objective metrics are merely personal and subjective.

>>51640188

'Bad' and 'Good' do not mean 'Not fun' and 'Fun'.

At no point has anyone said it's not possible to enjoy a bad game. The opposite is obviously true. But you can still point to traits of a system that add or detract from the quality of an experience and classify them as good or bad based on that.

>>51640229
> But you can still point to traits of a system that add or detract from the quality of an experience and classify them as good or bad based on that.

Yes, but not objectively or universally, and the proposed idea that the creator's intention is significant is particularly personal and subjective, especially since you'll find games with multiple creators, and games with intentions that are not clearly stated.
To attempt to evaluate a game on your subjective opinion of what the game's intention is and to claim it is a universal and objective metric is beyond ludicrous, especially as the intention of the person using the system tends to trump the creators.

At best, you can argue things like "This game doesn't have a lot of typos and the grammar is good, and the pages are in order," and you might be able to get away with calling those pretty damn near universally and objectively good traits. But, you're straying pretty far from universal and objective if you want to claim something as grossly subjective and of grossly subjective importance as establishing author's intent and then hoping to evaluate whether a game matched that intent as the most significant determination of the success of a game.

Hell, sales records are more objective than that, and for the love of all that is sane let's not try to pretend sales numbers are what determine if a game was successful.

>>51640136
>How adaptable the game is is not the final word on whether a game succeeds at all of its intentions
Yes one metric is not the Pass/Fail of game success because there are multiple metrics and it's an analog scale of quality.
This refutes nothing and is more than a little silly of you to suggest.
If your next attempt at a reply contains something similar, I will not continue this.

>and that's without even looking at the subjectivity involved in establishing the question of what defines how adaptable a game is.
I am not defining the scale and determining factors of what is and is not "adaptable".
If we did, there would be some smaller point you could argue was subjective, then we would argue that, until we finally narrowed it down to something objective or arbitrary.
And it's pointless.

If, as you've asserted, the designer's intention was for it to be adaptable:
Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.

Sorry, you're still wrong. You're going to find yourself being wrong a lot if you insist in the pursuit of wrong beliefs.

>>51640188
>I would ask you kindly not to chop up my statements.

>>51639169
>No, it is not a universal metric, and in fact, there are no universal metrics.
You're welcome.

>>51640375
>This refutes nothing and is more than a little silly of you to suggest.

It actually refutes the idea of matching the creators intent as a universal and objective metric, because it renders it subjective and ultimately of subjective importance.

>If your next attempt at a reply contains something similar, I will not continue this.

Please. Explaining how subjective things are not objective is pretty tedious.

>Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.

Any metric is not the same thing as an objective metric, or a universal objective metric. A subjective metric is simply a personal metric.

Once again, you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible.

>>51640398
No universal metrics in regards to the topic at hand, Mr. Semantics.

Consider the point clarified.

>>51637390
Like, it depends on how fun the game is to run and play in the end.

>>51640445
>It actually refutes the idea of matching the creators intent as a universal and objective metric, because it renders it subjective and ultimately of subjective importance.
No, it doesn't.

>Explaining how subjective things are not objective is pretty tedious.
You could have stopped your nonsense at any point.

>>Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.
>Any metric is not the same thing as an objective metric, or a universal objective metric. A subjective metric is simply a personal metric.
The metric in what you are replying to is one of several metrics that comprise the individual expression of the overall simpler, universal metric of "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do."

Once again, you're going to find yourself wrong a lot if you insist in the pursuit of wrong beliefs.

>>51640855
>The metric in what you are replying to is one of several metrics

Subjective metrics.

>that comprise the individual expression of the overall simpler, universal metric

Universal? Not universal and objective metric?

Looks like you're finished and realized you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible. Glad you gave up.

>>51640883
>Universal? Not universal and objective metric?
>Looks like you're finished and realized you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible. Glad you gave up.
I actually hadn't stated the term "objective" once in my argument in any of my posts, but that's just one more wrong belief of yours.
As such, I didn't think to include it my last post.

I take it you are conceding your original objection to the existence of any universal metrics?
Good of you to relax your tenacious hold on your wrong beliefs.

Anyway, "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do" is an objective metric.
Striving to prove that the actual assessing of specific examples done by subjective human beings will be subjective assessments is a fruitless exercise that does not change the objectivity of the simple metric.

>>51641033
For a brief, beautiful moment, i was hoping you were just being an idiot and arguing a non-issue.

>Anyway, "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do" is an objective metric.

You stupid idiot.
You pure and simple, absolutely retarded, every other insult I can gather, idiot.

You've given up in the other way. You've committed yourself to something so stupid, purely for the sake of salavaging some sense of pride, that you've forced me to dismiss you as a pure and simple idiot for trying to argue something not only blatantly false, but something that was disproven in the very first post addressing the issue.

No part of that extremely subjective statement, built from other subjective parts, has even a foundation of objectivity. You've blindly shot yourself in the foot, and did so with eagerness.

Good night. I rose to your bait enough, and am saddened to discover you were just a very stupid troll all along.

>>51641119
Nope.

>>51641119
>>51641174
>Nope.
To expand on this, you have reduced your argument to declaring victory with an unsupported assertion and repetitive insults while trying to sound superior.
Nope.

>>51637390
>What do you consider the difference between a bad system and a good but not great system? Hard mode: you can't mention great systems at all.
alright. the difference is in the workload I have to put up with as a GM in house-ruling to make the campaign run as I want it to.

>>51637546
This is my criteria as well.

Seeing the "THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVES!" faggot flail around is fun. Especially since his method of argument reminds me of a troll I'll not name.

I am probably wrong in your honest opinion, but
A good system is defined by enough strictness of rules to shut down immediatly any argument between players/GM, while keeping flexibility to adapt rules to your own playstyle.

A great system is as above, but it's also balanced, easy to learn, while also being deep for veteran players, with optional/alterntive rules being a possible option.

A bad system is a system that fails to set a guideline for both players and GMs, leading to arguments (which are the biggest fun-killers, imho), misinterpretations of rules and such.

For examples we'll take on chargen:
A good system allows you to do every class/race you could possibly immagine, while giving you appropriate hinderances that most players will agree on being fair, while also allowing you to make new combinations that won't be differently balanced.
A great system will also have chargen easy enough that a newcomer won't be lost in the charsheet while also allowing for veteran players to make advanced decisions that give added depth to a character mechanic.

A bad game will have contradictory rules, trap options, or a strictness of choices

>>51642246
>A good system allows you to do every class/race you could possibly imagine
Can I role up an Elder Dragon Kender Kitsune?
heh

>>51642246
Not to be a dick, but this criteria feels like you base most of your experience around d20/other 'gamey' systems.

Which is not a problem, but makes your criteria very narrowly applicable (and it's also somewhat easy to game).

>>51642545
What you say might be true, but mind expanding on that?

>>51637390
For me the distinction between "good but not great" and "bad" lies in how much the in-game mechanics and the system's purpose co-align. Being a WoDfag, here's my examples:

>Vampire: the Requiem
It strives to play more on the monstrous aspect of vampirism being a huge crutch for them by adding loads of frenzy stipulations. But it also added Predator's Taint, which needs to be interpreted in very certain ways in order to not screw up the entire game into a manic display of every vampire going mad every time they meet another. Also, certain disciplines end up extremely overpowered since you don't need to spend anything activating them, which can be either houseruled or played on by an experienced ST. All in all, VtR is a good system, but since it needs an experienced GM so that it can't end up a gory Benny Hill sketch, it's not great.

>Blood & Smoke
It's VtR 2e! And it doesn't know what it wants to do! It doesn't focus on vampires fighting an uphill battle to keep that last shred of humanity they've got, it doesn't focus on the murderdeathkill madness that could happen in VtM despite making vampires killing machines again, it introduces giant owl spirits that signal the apocalypse as an unsubtle wink, nudge and assgrab to remind you of Gehenna and it also has an XP system that can be very exploited to make your character a walking doomsday device. There is no focus and the mechanics feel like they belong in a Call of Cthulhu knockoff. Bad.

>>51637390
The only thing I've seen that consistently hinders a system is learning curve. If it's a shit curve, usually not gonna have a good time.

>>51642681
The learning curve should be consistent with the difficulty curve of the game itself

>>51642634
Eh, just your examples sound really d20 centered; many games don't even have races or classes.

I also associate "Strictness of rules", and especially using those rules to settle arguments with 3.x culture, which is probably my own personal bias at play.

>>51642734
Well, the Class/Race example was just an example, maybe should have used something like weapon choice or skills as examples...
I played both classless and raceless games, so that isn't the issue there (not yet found a game lacking both, sadly, because my group is fantasy-focused and they feel that classes and races are a must)

My god. When I went to bed last night I didn't expect the flailing sperg to last as long as he did. What magnificent fun.

>>51644153
I'm first poster, and went to sleep after posting. I can't say I expected
>a game is good if it does well what it says it does well
to be such a controversial topic.

>>51644201

It's a pretty non-controversial statement from my perspective, yeah.

But this sort of thing isn't exactly uncommon. This board has a lot of odd people who get super obsessed with single, specific things, often to a ludicrous degree. You just have to laugh because otherwise it'd get kinda sad.

>>51644201
It's really not.

I'm about 90% sure it's the guy who made >51637716

Considering that's one of the game's biggest criticisms of course he'd be triggered (or pretend to be, w/e)...

>>51637390
years ago when i used to be on /b/, i saw a less charming version of this pic (from mexico). *sigh.

>what has been seen etc.

>>51644201
It's more of trying to say that's an universal objective metric that's controversial.

It's such a subjective idea, and hoping claim a game objectively meets that goal or that it's of even relative importance leaves much to be desired.

It's not a bad thing to keep in mind, since designers meeting their design goals being good is fairly straightforward, but at the same it's very dangerous to put this as an absolute distinction of quality, since not only does it ultimately limit what can be achieved, it ultimately is a separate question from how good the final product is.

Take the Post-It for example. The designer's goal was to make a very strong glue, but wound up making a very weak one instead. To call that glue bad is trying to dismiss that the goal was shifted and adapted, and ultimately produced a very successful product.

>>51644232
The controversial part is hoping to establish it as objective or universal, since it's not objective and doesn't apply to all situations. Call it personal criteria and selective criteria, and very few people will fault you as long as you are able to recognize exceptions and other people's opinions.

>>51644296
>Take the Post-It for example. The designer's goal was to make a very strong glue, but wound up making a very weak one instead. To call that glue bad is trying to dismiss that the goal was shifted and adapted, and ultimately produced a very successful product.

The problem with this analogy is that the original product failed the original goal, THEN it was repurposed to create a NEW product, which then didn't fail.

The original "strong glue" was a failure. It lead to creating a different, good product.

This happens a lot in iterative design. You could say that the original cadre of d20 systems were pretty bad for being D&D, but repurposed for a superhero game (M&M) they are actually pretty good.

>>51644338
The issue is that we're not talking "strong glue" as the final definition of what we're discussing, but "good glue" or "bad glue."

Tell me that the glue is bad because it didn't meet its design goal.

>>51644366

The glue was bad because it didn't meet its design goal.

That adaptation beyond that occurred is irrelevant. The examples were stated earlier in the thread- If something fails its design goal but is then adapted to a new design goal, it is effectively a new product that can then be assessed by that design goal.

It's also worth noting that 'bad', in terms of 'fails to meet its design goals' does not mean 'completely without merit'. But if it's not fit to task, any other merits it has are generally unimportant.

>>51644366
If the original glue was sold as a strong glue, and I'd take it home, and glue things with it, and it wasn't strong enough, I'd say it's a bad fucking glue.

I'd not think of alternative uses, just like I don't think my broken remote is actually a good plastic object, because it works as a door stopper.

>>51644382
>That adaptation beyond that occurred is irrelevant.

No, it's vital and essential, far more than the question of whether or not a strong glue was produced.

There is only a single glue. It is not a new product simply because its ultimate use has changed from its initial design, no more than a system is a brand new system because someone uses it in a manner different than the designer does. If that were to be the definition of what makes it a brand new system, than all of us do nothing but play brand new systems.

>It's also worth noting that 'bad', in terms of 'fails to meet its design goals' does not mean 'completely without merit'.

If "failing to meet its design goals" is what makes it bad, then what do we call its overwhelming success? A non-issue, irrelevant only because it overturns your personal definition?

By your definitions, many people will prefer "bad games" over "good games," making your personal designation hardly universal.

>>51637390
I'm not too hung up on the narrative itself. That's the job of the GM to set the mood and help provide the sense that you are no longer "Joe the plumber" but are now "Crognak the Barbarian Warlord". Also note, I said help, not do it for you. If you don't want to play pretend the GM can't make you play pretend.

My big issue is mechanics. The nuts and bolts.
>Great
Scalable, by which I mean you can run as rules lite or heavy as you want. So if your group doesn't want to bother with a table dictating how the current of a river affects your swimming, you don't have to. But if you want some ultra-realistic role-play, or to make a ton of die rolls, you can include those rules.

Simple. The rules make basic sense and don't require a ton of dice. Don't get me wrong, sometimes rolling a big ass pool of dice is fun, but I'd rather only roll one to three dice on a regular basis. This is my main issue with D20, it requires several different types of dice based on what you are doing and what you are using. I'd rather have one type of die and then roll 1-3 of them.

Balanced. What it sounds like. It's hard to completely break the game and players aren't punished for things like someone making a mage and another making a martial.

>Good
Any system that does two of the above well, while failing at the third. IE, a game that is simple and scalable, but it isn't balanced for shit. That would be good, but not great, as I would have to put in more work for everyone to have fun.

>Bad
Doesn't do any well or only does one well. IE, a game with exceptional balance but it's complicated as fuck and you can only run it rules heavy. This would be pretty bad as it would not have the adaptability for different groups and would just bog everything down as you are forced into roll-play over role-play.

>>51644436
>There is only a single glue. It is not a new product simply because its ultimate use has changed from its initial design,

The original strong glue was to be sold in a bottle.

The weak glue is sold attached to the postit papers.

They are different fucking products, and I'm not sure why you keep pretending they aren't.

>If "failing to meet its design goals" is what makes it bad, then what do we call its overwhelming success? A non-issue, irrelevant only because it overturns your personal definition?

Oh. It's because it"s you. Nevermind then.

>>51644436

I guess it's the fundamental disconnect. Arguing that it remains the same thing when it's adapted for a completely different purpose strikes me as ridiculous and basically eliminates huge swathes of potential discussion, because it's impossible to call anything bad since you can argue that it's great if you just do something different with it.

Design does not exist in a vacuum, and without considering its current context- The goals and claims of its designer- you effectively render all discussion moot. Between that and an (arguably) flawed objective metric, I'll pick the latter every time as it at least provides the basis for discussion, while your argument provides nothing at all.

>>51644405
The glue itself is unchanged. It's a very useful glue. More importantly, you seem to think that "what it's sold as" is the only information about the game available.

Take the GMO seed issue. A company sold its patented genetically modified soybeans as animal feed, and a farmer simply purchased them and planted them and began growing the plants himself. While the company only intended the seeds to be used as animal feed, its use by the farmer enabled him to turn over a dramatic profit before the company sued him for bypassing the patent laws that they used so that farmer's wishing to grow their plants would have to buy their identical but more expensive and separately marketed planting seeds.

>>51644405
>>51644436
>>51644382

False equivalance. Glue is not an adequate comparison to games. Try something like a laptop and you'd be closer. Because a laptop can fail to meet specifications, both yours and the claimed ones, but that doesn't necessarily make it useless or obsolete. Whether or not said laptop is useful for your purposes is another matter entirely.

>>51644545

But if I buy a laptop and it's not up to the advertised specifications, I'll take it back, ask for a refund and call it a bad laptop. Because if a product fails to meet the expectations it has established for itself, it is a bad product.

>>51644491
>The original strong glue was to be sold in a bottle.

But wasn't.
The glue itself is unchanged. If you told me that the designer's goal was to make glue that could make people fly, I would consider it an interesting factoid, but not at all important in whether evaluating the glue's ultimate form.

You are also moving further and further away from the core of the analogy.

>>51644565
You can do that with books too, you know. Shocking, but true.

>>51644571
>But wasn't.

Yes.

Because it was bad at being a strong glue. So it had to be repurposed.

>>51644502

>Design does not exist in a vacuum, and without considering its current context- The goals and claims of its designer- you effectively render all discussion moot. Between that and an (arguably) flawed objective metric, I'll pick the latter every time as it at least provides the basis for discussion, while your argument provides nothing at all

>>51644545
A laptop has plenty of objective measurements for its design goals.
Games have very few objective measurements, and even fewer that can be satisfactorily used to establish anything that might resemble an "objective" design goal. Add to further complication that what the design goal is still ends up being subjective, and we've got something that is left at the personal level at best, especially since it ultimately remains a separate issue.

For example, using games this time, I make a simple fishing game system, using fake fish names. While I say the goal of the game is to simulate ocean fishing, imagine my death and that I never tell anyone about this goal. The game is picked up, and someone claims that it is great for simulating pond fishing. For him, it works as a pond fishing game, but others recognize that the system may be better for ocean fishing. Now, the system remains absolutely the same, but at some point it switches from being a good system to a bad system, due to the perspective and interpretations of the people using it? If that's the case, it's hardly possible to call it a universal metric for quality.

>>51644681

>magine my death and that I never tell anyone about this goal.

Irrelevant.

What was the game called? How was it marketed? What was the blurb on the box?

If it has none of those things, then nobody will ever play it because it has no exposure and nobody has any reason to pick it up. If it has those things, it has a stated design goal and your example falls apart.

>>51644718
>What was the game called? How was it marketed? What was the blurb on the box?

To go further, a game that doesn't communicate its goal clearly is probably not a good game. It shows that either the designers didn't think about that goal and how to achieve it in depth, or that they don't consider informing the player of it for some reason; neither bodes well for a product.

>>51644595
>you effectively render all discussion moot.

The exact opposite. By trying to fit everything into a flawed metric that you pretend is both universal and objective, you are hoping to effectively end discussions, when the final question is nowhere near so cut and dry.

Take a painting of a man with a guitar for example. If you want to establish some sort of objective metric for whether the painting is good on something like how well it imitates reality, all that does is establish a rather narrow appreciation of painting, that ironically ultimately still involves subjective appreciation. It simply restricts the discussion to questions that may ultimately have no real importance, since whether or not the guitar's got six strings or five is less important than the immediate emotional impact of the overall composition of the painting.

What makes a painting good is rather subjective, and whether it is because it imitates reality well, or because the composition is evocative, or because the painting has some mystery to it that people find fascinating, all of that is left open to discussion.

And, keep in mind that the equivalent comparison here is not determining the quality of a painting by its realism or emotional evocation, but by trying to say that the artist's goal is more important than the final product.

You can think it is important, and you can argue that point. However, you cannot try to claim it is either the most important or demand that anyone else considers it important unless you substantiate your claim, rather than trying to establish that your personal criteria is universal and objective.

>>51644718
Imagine the game was marketed by the second guy. Is it a bad game because the marketer subjectively misread the designer's intentions? Even though the players in the end immediately seeing that the game is better for ocean fishing?

If anything, all that would be is enough to say that the marketing was bad, not the system. Hardly enough to demand it to be considered objective and universal criteria for determining the quality of the game.

>>51644753
How clearly a game states its goal is of rather variable importance. I'm glad you at least recognize that, considering you said "probably" not a good game.

You may very well be right. It may very well probably not be a good game. But, the potential for it to be a good game is enough to say that while its fine as a personal metric for a broad array of systems, it needs to be recognized it is neither objective nor universal.

>>51644829
Paintings are Art and Art's primary purpose is evoking emotions. As long as it makes you feel something, you can consider it Art (a wide definition, but lets go with it). But Art is usually not a game system. Art can exist without purpose or function, because it is up to the one enjoying it to find purpose and function for it.

A game system's primary purpose is to be played. It was created to be played in a certain manner (either thematical or mechanical). It has purpose and it has function. You can appreciate a game as an Art piece as well, since it will evoke emotions. This does not mean you have to evaluate games as art, you should evaluate them as games. This thread is about discussing how to evaluate games as games.

>>51644893
>Imagine the game was marketed by the second guy
Then it's a bad (or more likely, mediocre) system about pond fishing that can very easily be adapted into a good game about ocean fishing, much like the glue on post-its is a bad strong glue that has been used as a good weak glue.

>>51644829

We aren't discussing art in its most abstract form, though.

Games are a product, so it's more apt to discuss art as a product. If an artist is commissioned to produce a work and the final piece is not up to the specifications of the person who paid for it, they will be called a bad artist. The work might have other value and might find another buyer who will appreciate it, but in terms of its original goal it is a failure.

>>51644893
I see all this focun on the "goal" of a game, but what is exactly this goal?
The absolute goal is to "have fun", so by this theory good games are games where you have fun (duh), but that is completely subjective.
Some stated that the "goal" is "the setting/mechanic it wants to recreate" such as a ninja game or a submarine game, but I think that going by this definition you willingly narrow your field of view.
So we start questioning if a game marketed as "the best ninja simulator ever" would be considered good if it fails at being a ninja RP experience but its mechanics are really good if applied to a fishing game.
I belive this approach is wrong, or misleading at the very least.
A game to be considered good should have solid mechanics, no matter the setting applied to it.

>>51644915
> It was created to be played in a certain manner

That manner is hardly ever specific or restrictive, and potentially never truly specific and it's impossible for any game to be absolutely restrictive. What will you say about the games that are created to be adaptable, including many variants with the designers actively encouraging people to play in a wide, wide variety of manners with explicit aid and instructions to confirm that whatever the designer may have originally conceived, their ultimate hope is that the players recognize that the purpose and function of the game is, perhaps, evoking emotions?

>this does not mean you have to evaluate games as art, you should evaluate them as games

That means appreciating their nuances. It's not a terrible thing to say "this game didn't meet its design goal or failed to match a specifically marketed theme, and I found that disappointing." What's terrible is to say "this game is objectively bad because despite being perfect in every other regard, Maggy from marketing tried to sell the game as western-themed when its more appropriate to say it has film-noir themetics with superficial western aesthetics, which while I admit works surprisingly well, is initially misleading."

>>51644985
>If an artist is commissioned to produce a work and the final piece is not up to the specifications of the person who paid for it, they will be called a bad artist.

Was Van Gogh a bad artist? An objectively bad artist?

>>51645047
>The absolute goal is to "have fun", so by this theory good games are games where you have fun (duh), but that is completely subjective.
Exactly.

But it's sub goals (be a ninja game be simple/complex/narrative/gamist etc.) are not. So we can evaluate it based on those.

>A game to be considered good should have solid mechanics, no matter the setting applied to it.

If you want to make a game that has solid mechanics for every setting, you pigeonhole yourself into only making generalist, mechanics focused games. Which is okay, but the palette is so much larger. It's also really hard to do above a certain level of complexity.

>>51645095
We are not discussing art. We are discussing products.

If Van Gogh's products didn't fit the criteria they were made for sale, they were objectively bad at being the product they were made as.

Please try to stay on subject.

>>51645110
>...you pigeonhole yourself into only making generalist...

While you are only comparing games with a narrative focus

If we both have it wrong, and we know it, the only way out of this hellhole is to switch our perspective and to find the true method to judge a game that, as of yet, I don't think we have found.

>>51645187
>While you are only comparing games with a narrative focus

What? No.

A game can have a mechanical goal. I.e. Risus has the goal of mechanical simplicity. Strike! has the goal of tactically engaging combat. PbtA games have the goal of actions mechanically spiraling out of control.

There are lots of goals to be had, they don't have to be narrative only, it's just that most of the popular games are pretty heavily invested in selling a certain sort of feel over mechanics (although you could even argue that you are focused on the mechanics evoking that feel, making it a mechanical design decision again).

>>51645110
>But it's sub goals (be a ninja game be simple/complex/narrative/gamist etc.) are not.
Yet, most of them certainly are. Whether a game succeeds at being a ninja game or not remains subjective, with plenty of room for argument and alternate perspectives.

>So we can evaluate it based on those.
Subjectively.
It's very hard to claim something like "Ninjas should be terrible at direct fighting because that's historical and realistic" without also facing arguments of "Ninjas should be excellent at direct fighting because that's historical and realistic." Even from a gamist or narrative perspective there is no clear answer, and in fact can be altered and adjusted to depend on the tastes of the players.

>>51645268
>It's very hard to claim something like "Ninjas should be terrible at direct fighting because that's historical and realistic" without also facing arguments of "Ninjas should be excellent at direct fighting because that's historical and realistic."

Is being historically realistic part of the goal of the game? Because it is definitely something you can (and should) decide and design for.

This entire argument is semantic. Whether or not "meeting the goals of the designer" can be considered a universal objective metric of the quality of the game hinges on the definitions of "universal" and "objective". It seems to me like there is some misunderstanding about the strictness of these terms by one party of the discussion.

Objective anon, you might find it helpful to spell out explicitly the definitions of "universal" and "objective" in this context, and discuss some of the ramifications of these definitions.

>>51645145
We are discussing art, and we are discussing products. Trying to call games or paintings only one and not the other is pointless.

>If Van Gogh's products didn't fit the criteria they were made for sale, they were objectively bad at being the product they were made as.

If "they were bad as products they were made as," then "they are bad at being the product they were made as". That's a recursive definition. But they are great products nonetheless, and more importantly, they WERE good products as they were made, it was simply that they went unappreciated until much later.

The design goal of the games creator(s) provides the frame of reference for assessing and discussing the game.

Even the anon railing against it still keeps fall back on it to give context to their statements- Arguing that something can succeed with a change in design goal after initial failure still relies on the context of the original design goal to make sense.

Any and all statements about the quality of the game thereby link back towards the stated design goals of the system.

>>51637390
You can have fun with a bad game despite the mechanics, but a good game's mechanical aspects encourage and assist the fun. A great system is one that can be enjoyed for its mechanical aspects alone even when most every human controlled variable of the game is unappealing.

>>51645282
It's hard to claim realism when the most well known shinobi clans, the Hattori and the Yagyu, were both mainline samurai clans attached to the biggest lords of their respective times.

>>51645238
>Strike! has the goal of tactically engaging combat.

But it's a bad game, because aside from its combat, its mechanics for non-combat are self-defeating narrativism based in part on the Fate System's style of collaborative creation, undermining the impact and importance of the combat.

More importantly, your definition of what goals those games have are all up to debate. It can be argued that Strike! tried to be more than just tactical combat, but it simply failed and settled for having an awkward and conflicting narrativist structure because it was the only option the designers felt comfortable with due to their inexperience with more rigid systems.

>>51645349
>The design goal of the games creator(s) provides the frame of reference for assessing and discussing the game.

A frame of reference, but not a particularly good one, especially since most of the best games are those that dramatically exploded beyond the creators design goals.

It's an old argument. The question of just how important is the author's intent, or the painter's vision, which ultimately only ends up reflecting the quality of the creator, and not the quality of the creation. A designer trying to create a painfully tedious system may very well succeed at his intention, but that is very far removed from saying that the game is a good one.

It becomes nothing more than an inconsequential story of the games genesis, which may be important in other regards, but not in the question of evaluating the game.

>Arguing that something can succeed with a change in design goal after initial failure still relies on the context of the original design goal to make sense.

The design "goal" is not what changes. The system's end result is what changes. It is very important to recognize this distinction, alongside the important fact that the game is not static after the designer is done with it. After design, it goes through marketing, selection, and play, and each of those steps help shape the end result of the game.

>>51645392
That's still arguable, especially since the whole ninja business ends up being shrouded in mythology, and that most ninjas were not particularly big men and were peasants.

>>51645538

>A frame of reference, but not a particularly good one

This statement is especially amusing, since you've yet to provide any alternative and actually keep referring back to the design goals as a basis for making your points.

>>51645873
You seem to be confused. You seem to be asking me to provide some sort of objective, universal metric for measuring the quality of games.

It thought it was clear and obvious that such a thing is ridiculous to even suggest. We must contend ourselves with appreciating the subjectivity involved in game discussion and evaluation, and the understanding that attempting to be too strict or to try and establish objective criteria is often no more than an attempt to restrict the definition of what a good game or bad game is to someone's personal definition.

> actually keep referring back to the design goals as a basis for making your points.

I'm discussing the weaknesses involved in putting too much emphasis on the creator's intent. I don't see why I shouldn't refer to it, especially since what I'm doing is demonstrating it to be ultimately inconsequential.

>>51646080

>If I keep placing value on it I'll prove its inconsequential!

Okay

>>51646175
What value did I put on it?

>>51637390
Bad system: Gets in my way when trying to run the games it claims it can run. Unclear mechanics with wonky results. Constant conflict of fluff and mechanics, like a sneaky assassin character being at their least dangerous in a dark alleyway, or a system meant to model unrealistic action movies where a big fighty guy is actually the most fragile because the game favors dodging without actually fucking informing the player at any point.

Good, but not great system: Doesn't do that, but has issues that detract from the overall experience while not fucking the core game into oblivion. For example, I don't have a problem with any of Legend's core mechanics, but needing to generate every single monster by hand with no tools to help makes it a pain to run.

>>51644238
You should be 100% sure. That's Richard Petty.

>>51647008
Oh fuck, this troll again, trying to push his "there's only three people on this board" bullshit again.

>>51645422
>But it's a bad game, because aside from its combat, its mechanics for non-combat are self-defeating narrativism based in part on the Fate System's style of collaborative creation, undermining the impact and importance of the combat.

Confirmed for not having read/played/understood Fate, or possibly Strike!.

Not that I fault you for the latter, but it's very obviously more based on PbtA games partial success mechanics.

>More importantly, your definition of what goals those games have are all up to debate.

Strike! literally has the tagline "game of tactical combat and heedless adventure". Risus, if I recall correctly is called the "naything RPG" and is described on the site as "complete (very compact)". The design intent is clear, especially since the books (or, well, more like booklet for Risus) takes a personal tone explaining what the goal of the mechanics are.

> It can be argued that Strike! tried to be more than just tactical combat, but it simply failed and settled for having an awkward and conflicting narrativist structure

Yeah, that's the heedless adventure part.

>because it was the only option the designers felt comfortable with due to their inexperience with more rigid systems.

First off, are making a value judgement based on the goals of the game here? Because being a "heedless adventure" was one of the goals. You are making a value judgement based on the designer's intent (so, reading forward, that'd answer >>51646194).

Second, and only tangentially related, there's only one designer AFAIK, and he based it off of 4e, and was familiar with the D&D line; he has experience with those systems and intentionally changed the skill system to be not like that.

a bad system has rules that you have to actively work against in order to have fun

a good system might lack some rules but leaves it open enough that you can make it work as you go

>>51647073
Yeah, it's stupid.

We all know that /tg/ is an angry drunk Finn, talking to himself

>>51647008
Either him or someone equally retarded.

>>51647073
If you are not him, why not put on a trip? So we'd always know you are not him, of course.

>>51646080
I"m not even sure why I'm doing this.

>We must contend ourselves with appreciating the subjectivity involved in game discussion and evaluation, and the understanding that attempting to be too strict or to try and establish objective criteria is often no more than an attempt to restrict the definition of what a good game or bad game is to someone's personal definition.

Using it as the only criteria would be foolish, but using it as an important criteria is sensible. Maybe it's not entirely precise or objective, but it's a lot better measurement than your tummy feels, just by virtue of being something instead of nothing.

If you want, you can pretend the question is "what is the least bad method to evaluate games, in your personal opinion", if having to step out of your comfort zone won't trigger you too much.

>>51647134
>You are making a value judgement based on the designer's intent (so, reading forward, that'd answer

Isn't it the exact opposite though? Strike!'s way of undermining how much people care about combat works against the goal of making it engaging, and saying its meeting its design goals of using the "careless" definition of heedless doesn't make it a good game. If anything, it's a good exhibit of how a designer can take two parts that don't work together well intentionally and not realize that the product they are producing has two contradicting components that work against each other. The designers meeting his design goal doesn't matter, because his design goal was flawed from its inception.

And, knowing about systems isn't the same as knowing how to improve them. Strike! in particular went the route of taking 4e and doing a particularly poor job by trying to inexpertly mix very different design philosophies, resulting in a game that never quite feels right, with combat being far from exciting thanks to the stakes being diminished by narrativism, leading it to be an excessively constructed distraction that can't really carry itself as the core of the game.

>>51647307
>but using it as an important criteria is sensible.

Death of the Author would disagree. The core of that principle takes some people a fair amount of consideration to truly appreciate, especially because the instinct of most people is that the author and their work can never be separated.

>If you want, you can pretend the question is "what is the least bad method to evaluate games, in your personal opinion", if having to step out of your comfort zone won't trigger you too much.

The "least bad" method then is to evaluate not what a game set out to do, but what it ultimately provides. This is a very sensible thing to say, especially when discussing game systems that transformed over time or were the collaborative work of many authors over many years. For large systems, designer intention becomes just about irrelevant, with some systems only really developing their identity late in their lives.

>Great
GURPS, Traveller, B/X, Amber, Apocalypse World, FUDGE
>Good
D&D 5e, Heroquest 2e/Glorantha, Reign/Wild Talents, Runequest 2e, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars D6
>Middling
Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Savage Worlds, Deadlands, WHFRP 2e, 40k RPG systems, Risus, FFG Star Wars
>Bad
Rifts (despite being lovable), Fate Core, Phoenix Command, Pathfinder, 'vanilla' BRP, Eclipse Phase, Exalted

Not trying to piss anyone off, these are just my personal opinions.

>>51647398
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your assertion. The tactical combat even by itself is a fun game. In other words, it's a game that makes you care about combat for combat's sake, and the narrative part of the game can not really undermine that, no matter how abysmal they are.

I'd also posit that although it is not great, it is sufficiently entwined with combat so that the two impact each other in a way that makes it possible for them to enhance both; the stakes of combat are raised because of the way strikes function, it is mostly out of combat mechanics that are employed to make decidedly by design unfair fights more fair, as well is give flavor to characters, which again can have an impact on combat.

It is using "heedless" in the sense of not being held back by anything. In other words, streamlined. Which it undoubtedly is.

>>51647543
>Death of the Author would disagree

Death of the Author is about art. Games are at most, half art (and even that's stretching it), the other half is a mechanical manual.

Having to repeat this ad infinitum because you keep bringing it out is tiresome.

If a mechanic wrote a manual for your car, that doesn't work for your car, but instead works for someone else's, would you call him a good author?

>The "least bad" method then is to evaluate not what a game set out to do, but what it ultimately provides.

This feels like a self referencing circle. Instead of comparing the game to what it is supposed to do you are evaluating the game comparing it to... itself as it is. There's basically no way this evaluation will result in any sort of value. It's X=X.

>>51647709
Phoenix Command doesn't really belong with games that don't work as intended, honestly. It's more of its own thing, and while that thing is totally fucking retarded and needs to GTFO the hobby, it's not mechanically incompetent.

>>51647752
>In other words, it's a game that makes you care about combat for combat's sake, and the narrative part of the game can not really undermine that, no matter how abysmal they are.

Agree to disagree then. I found it unengaging, and it failed to get me to care about combat for combat's sake, which is funny because I ordinarily care about combat for combat's sake.

>>51647821
Poster you quoted here, I agree with that assessment of Phoenix Command.

>>51647752
>Death of the Author is about art. Games are at most, half art (and even that's stretching it), the other half is a mechanical manual.

You keep trying to assert that, but it isn't true. You can't say "this painting is only half art because the other half is assembling and arranging materials and applying them with technical skill."

Game design is an art, because the goal isn't some practical function, but evoking emotions. You are not building low-income housing here, you are creating sculptures. While it takes technical skill, it is ultimately an extremely subjective endeavor.

>Instead of comparing the game to what it is supposed to do you are evaluating the game comparing it to... itself as it is.

It's not about comparing the game, but evaluating the game. Comparing the game to what it set out to do is only evaluating what is ultimately a largely insignificant part.

If you want to discuss how to evaluate a game, there's a lot of great criteria to examine. Ranging from how balanced to options are, whether the game has deep characters or provides tools to further refine them, and so on and so forth. All of these things are of considerable more importance than discussing "did it match the designer's intent"?

>>51647991

Games are a product. They might be art, but they're also a product. A product must be fit for purpose, and in this case the purpose is defined by the group making the game. If the product is not fit for purpose, it is a bad product. If you cannot understand it in these incredibly simple terms then there is no helping you.

>>51647991
>You can't say "this painting is only half art because the other half is assembling and arranging materials and applying them with technical skill."

No I don't, because paintings usually don't have a secondary function aside from being art.

Games do.

I seriously don't get what's so hard to understand about this.

>>51648023
Paintings are a product. They might be art, but they're also a product.

>In this case the purpose is defined by the group making the game.

Behold this painting of the Battle of Gettysburg. It shows the battle in rich, historical detail, but with the original purpose of glorifying the war rather than condemning it.
However, it's important to note that the artist failed somewhat in this regard, as his combination of historical accuracy and realism lent itself to showing the horrors of the battlefield, and it is now respected as a powerful anti-war painting.

>>51648054
>Games do.
No more than paintings.

>>51648449

A game system is not a painting and if that distinction is not immediately clear to you then you're utterly hopeless.

>>51648449
>No more than paintings.

Really? Well then, let's sit down and play some Mona Lisa. You bring the char sheets and I bring the dice.

Oh wait, we can't, because Mona Lisa is a painting. It has no functional use aside from what paintings usually have.

Why oh why do I let myself be trolled like this?

>>51648620
>what is an analogy

>>51648681
What "purpose" or "functional use" does a game have? I'd to hear what you've got that doesn't boil down to "entertainment."

At best, you might have a game that wants to send some kind of message or provide some insight, but these are both things paintings can do.

>>51648781
Games are... games? You can maybe... play them? (playing a game is when you can participate in activities governed by the rules of the game)

What do you do with your books? Do you just stare at them wistfully?

Consistency between subsystems makes or break a system. If there is a ton of cross referencing and haphazardly slapped together subsystems with no logical rhyme or reason within the existing boundaries the entire system can fall apart.

>>51648879
Playing games is still just entertainment though.

>>51648983
So's going for a joyride.

Are you going to argue that cars being good or bad is subjective because joyrides are just entertainment, and all entertainment is subjective?

Systems are the same. You get to take them for a ride to entertain yourself and your friends.

>>51649075
That's a particularly awful argument. Cars aren't primarily for entertainment. Games and paintings are.

>>51648983

Interactive, collaborative entertainment, whether the systems involved are made use of by the participants.

Again, if you can't see the difference between that sort of interactive media and a static painting, you're hopeless.

>>51649096
And paintings are fundamentally different from games, because their enjoyment and entertainment is non-interactive.

Are you really saying you'd rather compare a campaign to collectively watching a painting than a road trip?

>>51649131
>>51649385
Are you trolling me? Do you really not understand how analogies work?

Interactive art? Still art. Is that fair to say?

>>51649529
> Do you really not understand how analogies work?

I don't know, do you? What, with all the >Cars aren't primarily for entertainment

>Interactive art? Still art. Is that fair to say?

Usually? Yes. I'm not disputing that games aren't art.
When used in an argument in the way you are? No.

Games are different enough from paintings, movies, novels, music, etc. that shit like "Death of the Author" can not be used as an argument in favor of supporting your "quality of games are universally subjective" theory.

Games have mechanics. And mechanics, and the interplay between them can be objectively better or worse than other mechanics.

>>51649719
>Games have mechanics. And mechanics, and the interplay between them can be objectively better or worse than other mechanics.

Not really. Different people prefer different mechanics for different things, and feel that different mechanics work better for different things. That's why there's so many systems, most of them just trying to do the same things, often just with different flavors.

I know you really want them to be objective, truly objective, but while something's are more objective than others, most mechanics fall well into the realm of subjectivity to the point where people will willingly argue for decades about both minor and major mechanics of different systems.

Overall, the key thing to take home with you is that you shouldn't try to say your opinions are objective. Because, that's exactly what an opinion isn't.

>Games are different enough from paintings, movies, novels, music, etc.
What about video games? Gameplay mechanics are a part of the game, but there's a reason why people never provide scores solely just for gameplay, and the idea that you could even isolate something like that from a game actually gets more ridiculous the more you try to do so. More importantly, people argue about gameplay incessantly, rendering it a very subjective subject.

>>51650159
>but there's a reason why people never provide scores solely just for gameplay,
The fuck I don't.

>>51650159
>What about video games?

They are a great way to compare mechanics! Videogames have a lot more explored design than RPGs, owning to the fact that they are a lot more popular, and you can cite parallels and examples all over the place!

For example, there's a HUGE amount of games where you can just point to another game and say "this one is mechanically superior", owning to the fact that there's a really high amount of trash games out there (I mean, the same is true for RPGs, but whatever). Just compare ST to Street Fighter: The Movie: The game.

ST is also a great example of iterative design, where each subsequent iteration improves a game in some way making it overall superior to the previous one.

Hell, balance patching alone means that the developers of games agree that there are superior mechanics, since if there weren't games wouldn't get patched.

We'd have never gotten SC:BW to where it ended up without the hundred patches before it.

You can also use DS 1/2/3 as examples of what mechanics work and don't work in the context of reinforcing your game's theme, as well as providing interesting challenges to the players.

Or the plethora of electronic cardgames as examples of taking advantage of your medium.

Or modern and classic XCOM games as how changing and streamlining can read to radically different experiences (and to Long War as an example of how you can attempt to fuse the two).

Videogames are a great learning tool in any game designer's repertoire, be it sports games, board games, card games RPGS, other vidya or whatever.

>>51638865
the quality of the game is irrelevant to its use to create a specific experience.

if i say let's get together and play poker, you expect a variation of poker. then i pull out the uno cards, and we play uno while betting on each round, well we are not playing poker. uno is a good, fun card game, but that has nothing to do with the poker experience.

>>51639387
you are missing the point, if the baker makes a chocolate cake, and that cake is a fantastic strawberry cheesecake, no matter how good it is, it isn't a chocolate cake. whether you like both, don't care about which one you get when you order one in particular, the base fact is that strawberry cheesecake isn't chocolate cake.

how would you judge the qualities of a chocolate cake, that is made with strawberries, cream cheese, and no chocolate? i submit that you would be forced to judge it a bad chocolate cake.

>>51647991
>Game design is an art, because the goal isn't some practical function,

are you actually retarded? the practical function is to create a game. a system of rules designed to emulate, simulate, or create a story/experience. they are in effect a set of rules to be used by someone else(the players) to create their own art(story). they are in a true sense a singularly practical function. the game shouldn't actually evoke an emotional response for its own sake.

>>51652597

I'd say a game doesn't need to evoke an emotional response in an of itself. Some can and do, but that isn't the primary reason for their existence.

>>51652703
then we agree,

the point of which is that is the express purpose of art.

>>51637390
>great
"I played this system for year or so"

>good but not great
"I played a campaign"

>bad
"I played it... once."