Language of Game Design

Language of Game Design

I must admit, some of the responses I got from some of my recent columns on game design surprised me. A great many of them were simply, "you should play game X," or "sounds like game Y." It surprised me (and maybe bugged me just a little) for two reasons. First, because the vast majority of the time these were well-known games that people were mentioning and the presumption that someone who does this for a living, full-time, for a lot of years was unfamiliar with them was, well, weird. But second because I didn't understand what the point was. I felt that it didn't contribute to the conversation. 

But then I thought about it some more and realized I was being really, really dumb. 

The problem here is that there is no common language to talk about tabletop game design. I might use a term like "rules light" and it means something entirely different to me than it does to you. Or you might try to describe the difference between a system that allows players to shape the world with one that doesn't, but you call it, for lack of a better term, "player authority," when "player authority" could easily mean that players have more control of the game on a tactical level.

In fact, even my use of the term "tactical level" there likely meant different things to different readers.

We can also get in trouble quickly if we use comparative terms when talking about an rpg, such as "this aspect is like a boardgame," "this is or "this is like an MMO." When you compare something to something that it is not, people sometimes take it as pejorative, even if that wasn't your original intention. Or, you say it to someone who realizes your intention but doesn't like the thing you're comparing it to and still sees it as an insult. Try comparing some literary book lover's favorite classic book to a television show, and you'll see what I mean.

So sometimes, talking in terms of other rpgs is the only way we have of conveying meaning. When someone talks about a mechanic idea, the easiest thing to do is talk about it in terms of games with similar mechanics. Talk about player authority, and someone says "FATE system." That might not be the kind of player authority you meant, but at least it's a common ground from which to discuss it. The problem, of course, comes in if one of the two people in the conversation can only think in terms of what already exists, when you're trying to discuss something new. If one person talks about a death spiral mechanic and the other says, "like Call of Cthulhu," (referring to the Sanity mechanic) that's a fine response, but both need to realize that there are other ways to do a death spiral mechanic.

The idea of referencing existing games to talk about new games isn't likely one I will personally adopt, however. When I'm talking about something new that I'm working on, I'm not going to talk about it in terms of other games. In fact, I don't think most creators like to do that. You're not likely to hear someone say, "I'm writing a new game with character generation like FATE, a combat system like 4E D&D, and investigation resolution like Gumshoe." That may sound ridiculous, but I have heard people sum up 3E D&D that way: "they took the skill system from Rolemaster, the character creation from GURPS, and the rest from Runequest." It may seem sometimes that that's how game designers work, but I can assure you that I don't know of anyone that actually designs that way. Game designers are influenced by games they like, but I can't imagine someone creating a Frankenstein's monster of a game like that. Most game designers want to do something new. If they want to create a game with player empowerment, it's not to make a game like other games that offer that kind of gameplay, but exactly the opposite--they want to make a game that does it differently.

(If I do use examples when I am talking about game design generalities, I will often default to D&D references, simply because it's the most popular game historically and so it's likely to be the one that most readers are familiar with. And let's be honest, that's probably particularly true of people who read my stuff. I suppose, in a way, it's a common language, but because there are so many other ways to play an rpg than D&D, it's ultimately not a great one.)

I do wish there was more of a true and broader common language for those of us who think (and perhaps overthink) about this stuff. I know that Ron Edwards and those on the Forge forums attempted to create one years ago, sort of, but in many people's eyes it was rooted in game design theory that they didn't like, or it felt very judgmental, so it seemed that for everyone that adopted it, far more rejected it. (And of course, many more never heard of it.)

In many ways, the tabletop rpg hobby is still young compared to other pursuits that geeks like us like to go on (and on) about at length. Film buffs and film makers, for example, are not terribly unlike game buffs and game designers in the way in which they have to talk about creative things in a very technical and sometimes precise way. And they, in fact, do have a sort of common language in which they can do just that (although they, too, rely a lot on film comparison). Film is a lot older (and obviously more popular). I wonder how long it took to develop.