>make sure its "fun">ask random people, that's how you know!>fail faster!!
>>68315543>fail faster!!Making failures quick and introducing elements of "failing forward" are both important elements of games, though. If I spend four hours achieving exactly dick and manage to screw us out of any way forward, despite my best efforts, then it has not been an enjoyable experience.Granted, that is specifically when it's "despite my best efforts." If someone is just fucking around or pushing boundaries because they can, fuck 'em.
>>68315543>>make sure its "fun"heaven forbid you play a "fun" game
>>68315577i'm talking about the design itself, not running the game as a player. Failing forward makes sense for players, but if I hear a designer say "Just make a bunch of mistakes and then learn from them" it tells people to be lazy in their design process, and just rely on others to shape the end product.>>68315580in the design world, saying you need to make something "fun" is like saying food needs to taste good. It's so broad it's meaningless
>>68315577What even is failing forward?
>listing fail faster as a bad thing thank you for indicating that you know nothing about any sort of design cycle at all
>>68315748Turning a mistake into a stepping stone, ie rolling with the punches.
>>68315748Trash players wanting a handout when they fail. Participation medal bullshit you find everywhere now
>>68315543Don't bring your useless college degree into your games cunt.
>>68315580"Fun" is important, yes, but it's also totally meaningless. From a game design perspective, fun doesn't actually do anything, because fun is so heavily determined by the person consuming the thing you have created.There are far better ways to phrase the concept without using what amounts to a meaningless buzzword>>68315748Falling Forward is the idea that even if your players have failed terribly at some task, they can still continue to advance in the story or session.So, for example, say you have a locked door, and the players have failed to open it.Do you sit there for hours as they try and figure out how to actually open the door, or do you have their efforts attract a patrol of enemies, who force them into an additional encounter that might expend more of their resources than they were expecting, but provides them with a key that allows them to unlock the door?It's sort of like immersion as a concept. You need to keep your players on track of things happening, good or bad, rather than grinding to a halt as they meet a barrier they weren't prepared for and in the ensuing mess you remove all tension and investment in the session.
>>68315814>>68315800While this guy is being an asshole, it's worth noting that falling forward can really get out of hand if overdone or done too generously.Remember that your players have still failed at some task they can hopefully reasonably accomplish, and that failure does need to be punished.To use the example from before, you shouldn't have that fight just be another encounter, for example. Perhaps you force them into another encounter right away to make them feel the burn of the expended resources, perhaps the death of that patrol sends whatever area they're in on high alert, prompting further tasks to be more difficult or encounters to be beefed up.Players need to feel like there's consequences in their actions, or else they lose all investment.
>>68315814Here's a question for you'll: the players give up after failing to open the door, leaving the dungeon you prepared for the session unexplored. They decide to go back and do something else, what do you do? Do you open the door for them, kill them for falling or freeform the rest of the gane?
>>68315616>It's so broad it's meaninglessIt really isn't, though.A game designer or DM can get so caught up in their own design goals that they forget that player enjoyment is the number one goal that trumps them all. If a chef makes a dish, it doesn't matter how skilled or how intricate or how rare the ingredients... if it doesn't taste good, it's not a good dish. If someone makes a game, it doesn't matter if it's the most intricate and accurate and elegant representation of fucking... animal husbandry or whatever the fuck. If it's not fun, it's a shit game."Keep it fun" is shorthand for reminding you not to lose focus of the core objective of the medium.
You are just jealous of Matt's epic beard and his fine stable of Tom players.
>>68315853What?I provided an answer to you in the post you're quoting.Provide the key that opens the door by way of an enemy encounter.
>>68315783It's a retarded concept in general, it's specially retarded for designing a game.
>>68315543I don't get all these youtube dungeon masters, they're fucking horrible. Apparently they even get paid to run sessions, and every single D&D stream I try to watch that's made by them is either some banal shit boring low magic hack&slash, or some shit with literal trannies in the party.What the fuck happened to tabletop?
>>68315932Nothing did, anon.You just went from "I enjoy this" to "I need to determine if other people are enjoying this the way I like, and bitch if they don't"
>>68315865>if it doesn't taste good, it's not a good dishThis is blatantly fucking false. Have you SEEN the shit that goes into some of the dishes rich people eat?It's not about taste, it's about trying weird shit because you can. Game design is the same way.
>>68315543>sjw in op pic
>>68315941Look, when I can't find one single stream where actual rules from the books are enforced and even used, and players have read the relevant material, instead of them either using some autistic "homebrew" (see: Koibu) or some tranny ERP (see: Critical Role) or a combination of the two (see: bearded badger in the OP and his creepy butt buddy), I really fucking don't think it's me.
>>68315865>It really isn'tIt really fucking is. Look at Ace Combat, and then looks at IL-2, or even just MS Flight simulator. Both deal with airplanes, and both are fun and beloved, but they're different kinds of fun, for different people. Some people like flying around and shooting things down and feeling like badasses. Other guys like fine tuning engine settings, communicating with control towers, and carefully navigating using charts and shit. Neither guy is wrong, but if you ever go to /v/ or /vg/ you will very quickly find out that what one group thinks is "fun" is not what the other group thinks is "fun." It's also why you have so many different game systems here. Do you like rules light, or rules heavy? Do you like lots of combat, or do you like more social shit? Do you like high fantasy, do you like simulation ism? What genre do you like? There are endless variables, so being told "just make it fun breh" means jack shit.
>>68315941Even that probably didn't change. Most people have always been upset when they see others doing things the "wrong" way. Before social media you just wouldn't ever see how people do things unless you're talking to them about ttrpg or at the table with them.
>>68315853What idiot would make the one way into the dungeon nearly impassable? Tricky doors are for loot rooms.
>>68315748Ignoring bad rolls and not killing the PC. Just more SJW nu-speak.
>>68316000Pretty sure the expectation is that people have more than 2 brain cells to rub together and can determine that the "fun" is relative to the people playing in your game and aim for that. I have friends who like crunchy modifiers and minmaxing and some who are more invested in narrative than algebra. Not being a slackjawed mongoloid I'm capable of telling the difference and generating content to fit both groups that they would find...wait for it..."fun".When someone like Colville says to remember that everyone having fun should be the primary goal as much as possible, the obvious caveat is "fun" being subjective and targeted to your group. It's not even unspoken I've seen several of his videos and he always literally states that what one group enjoys another might not, but this cesspool of jaded fa/tg/uys instead wants to apply a different subtext that fits into their pity party narrative>Colville is trying to tell me what's FUN!>Fun is something normies have!>Normies and the goal of them having fun is ruining my special sekret klub!
>>68316296Nothing you wrote changes the fact that "make it fun" is meaningless advice, retard. It's like telling a man designing a utility car "make it useful". No fucking shit. Man, you're stupid.
>>68316330>Claim it's meaningless because two people may have different versions of fun>The guy explains that that's part of the advice, to pay attention to what your party finds fun, and play to that>nuh-uh it's still meaningless and you're stupid!Do you actually have any arguments?
>>68315896hmm yes today I will choose the based brainlet over the past 20 years of product design theory
>>68315543>>make sure its "fun"none of my games are fun!
>>68316382>that that's part of the advice, to pay attention to what your party finds funAnd that's obvious as shit, dumbass. You act like it's some great enlightened advice, but the single most basic thing you could possibly say. It doesn't help at all.
>>68315616Funny thing is in the food world chefs can get so far up their own ass they sacrifice tasting good for the sake of plating, presentation or making a culinary statement. Some chefs need a reminder to keep it tasting good just like some GMs need a reminder to keep it fun. It's less of a statement than a guiding mantra to help keep a GM from calculating dwarven gold exchange rates for hours on end.
>>68316382How exactly should "fun" be informing the design process? Bear in mind that when designing a game you don't personally know the people who will play it or what their preferences are. What would you do when not considering "fun" but you would avoid doing when considering "fun" and vice versa?
>>68316296>try to make realistic simulator game>suit-boss-guy tells me to make it more fun>fun-experts are added to the team>according to market research, random stuff and over the top heroic shit is fun>also add snark to any dialogue in cut scenes, because joss whedon-style marvel shit is popular>sim fags end up hating the game>franchise never recovers>many such cases!I fucking hate "fun"
>>68316450It might be basic as fuck but that doesnt keep people from forgetting if they're not reminded. If you've never played a game that lost the forest for the trees then I envy you.
>>68316330You have reading comprehension problems as well as an inability to pick up on obvious subtext and apply things within the context of your circumstances?Just walk through life taking everything literally.>Watch out!>Watch out for what pleb you gave a non specific general exclamation so it's useless to me>Most excellent I've triumphed again by being a pedantic moron>*Gets hit by a car because you were crossing the street and didn't look both ways*Like I said the videos this guy makes frequently if not always point out that what one person finds "fun" another might not. OP didn't note that in their shit post because they were too busy gobbling cocks and good boy points for once again taking it to a semi-popular RPG advice YouTuber on a Croatian tractor maintenance forum. Want to continue being denser than a neutron star like OP or want to accept that a clipped statement out of context is whats meaningless here not the actual advice which in the original medium includes follow-up detail? We live in a world of subtext, connotation, and context you can choose to be a smooth brain glue sniffer and ignore it that's certainly the most autistic path available or you can join the rest of society in understanding that there is more to language than literal interpretation and little value in getting panties in a bunch over maliciously cherrypicked soundbites.
>>68315748have you ever played dark souls?
>>68316495>telling a man crossing the street to watch out is in any way shape or form comparable to reminding a man that to fulfill his goal, he must fulfill his goal That alone is so completely retarded I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your shitpost.
>>68316479>Designs a product without considering the market demandI'm beginning to see why people can get a degree in business if it really isn't common sense to consider your market. >Why isn't anyone buying my new game Niche Jargon: Personal Nostalgia Filter!>I find it fun why doesn't the whole world think what I think is fun is fun!
>>68316536>the anon that he was accusing of taking things too literally can't handle a metaphorIt writes itself, this is embarrassing.
>>68315810But I want to make a game about rocks and minerals and the players making the best mine there ever was :(
>>68316450>And that's obvious as shit, dumbass.Then how come >>68316479 doesn't seem to get it? You should be communicating with your players to see what they enjoy, while paying attention to what they respond well to in the game. If that's obvious for you, then good, but it doesn't make the advice to remember the fundamentals of making a game enjoyable useless.
>>68315953fancy dinners are also delicious or are at worst acquired tastes, you know nothing
>>68316551>no answerGuess I win again, thx gay boi.
>>68316536good lord you are fucking stupid
>>68316495False equivalence, Shouting "watch out" next to a road might be vague, but you're correct that in context it's easily understood, and it clearly advises a particular action, that being to look left and right before crossing. Saying to design a system to be "fun" is similarly vague in its meaning but differs from your analogy in that there is no clear action being recommended. Can you even provide an example of what would or should be done with this advice?
>>68316684You're premise is retarded because you CAN make basic assumptions about who will be playing a type of game or consuming a type of product based on the type of product it is. People who generally enjoy tabletop RPGs will have general likes about their gaming experience tgat will differ on average from people who enjoy playong sports. There will be some overlap sure, but focusing on what certain groups tend to like is why in the official rules you don't resolve skill checks in 5e by going outside and throwing footballs through tires. Then they encourage people to house rule things so they don't needlessly alienate people who want to throw balls through hoops to resolve skill checks in 5e. I need to explain this because you're being needlessly obtuse and you'll ignore that groups of people tend to enjoy select things more on average because you're being needlessly obtuse.
>>68315748You know how when players fail to pick a lock the game doesn't immediately end since the PCs have no choice but retire from adventuring? Yeah like that.
>>68315543>use a voice filter, dye your hair and beard, because you're that egotistical and insecure
>>68316450>You act like it's some great enlightened advice, He is not. Why are you assuming that he does? The entire point is that it is basic advice that some people forget to follow in favor of some other nebulous, high-concept goal.>It doesn't help at all.It's the Keep It Simple, Stupid principle, as applied to entertainment. How can it not be helpful?
>>68315616>food analogy>fun is a buzzwordBack to 2012
>>68316753The clear action is to consider if what you are making will be enjoyed by the people you intend to use it. To use retarded anons example >>68316330>Hey team we're going to be designing a utility vehicle>Let's consider our design choices with the focus that they be usefulNow you can join the brainlet brigade and insist this is pointless advice, but anyone who loves and functions in society and has worked on a project knows that losing sight of the primary objective chasing the rabbit is extremely fucking common. Tons of products have glaring design flaws that directly oppose the initial goal. Lots of games get lost in the weeds tunnel vision developing systems to best replicate the desired real world event and end up with a convoluted mess nobody wants to deal with because despite being the best set of modifiers and stat blocks to represent the bite force of a juvenile wyvern it's confusing and more akin to math class or balancing a checkbook than to having a good time in an imaginary world with your friends.Noted for some people that kind of turbo crunch is desirable, but I think that's likely a minority of the RPG buying populace. So advice to designers to be sure not to lose focus of the goal of "fun" (gasp the dreaded meme word) is actually useful. You just have to not have an extra chromosome and you can accept that it is actually good advice and not the same as someone watching you use a screwdriver and then telling you "the goal is to get the screw in".
>>68316563You haven't used a metaphor, you've used a simalie. Simalies are when you compare things e.g "his nostril hair looked like tiny mice living in his nose" a metaphor is when you say something IS something else like "his courage was a steadfast bastion against the enemy"
>>68316495>We live in a world of subtext, connotation, and contextSubtext and connotation are for faggots. Say what you mean exactly, or don't speak at all.Fuck this is why it's better to work in IT than work in retail. Servers tell you exactly what they mean, every time. People don't, so fuck talking to people.
>>68316563>>68316998I spelt simile wrong oops
>>68316999Unlucky your brain can't handle basic human interaction lol
>>68316998That wasn't even me who used the street example anon, I spoke of the person you were replying to in such a way so that you wouldn't confuse that. See how I said "he" in the greentext. So I actually didn't use a metaphor or a simile, and I wouldn't point this out if it wouldn't bother someone anal enough to take an extra post to correct their spelling on a word that couldn't be reasonably mistaken for anything else in the context of your post.
>>68315865As a design goal it's low definition, so low it's near pointless as it provides zero guidance. As other anons have said, it's important to keep your eye on the main goal, while fun is a goal it's normally a certain kind of fun and not some vague and nebulous concept of fun. It's like a chef deciding if the goal is tasty food he can just order pizzas for the guests, objective achieved but the guests wanted high quality tasty not fast food tasty. In order to achieve a kind of fun, it needs clarity in definition such that you can structure the game around achieving it with rules and setting that support it. If you were going for a slowburn horror game and your players spent the session telling dick jokes in character, yes they had fun but you didn't get what you were going for and it's not going to work for the next few sessions, "make sure it's fun" isn't going to help you there.
>>68317772"Make it fun" provides guidance in the context of the type of player you are appealing to.>"make sure it's fun" isnt going to help you if your game is already funIt would help if your slowburn horror game burned so slowly that you forced your players to mull endlessly on a long letter that provides context for the sessions to come. Having a player reread the same thing multiple times and forcing them to read it yet again until you are satisfied with their understanding really lays the foundation for a long-term gane where the document is important but your players would probably have checked out because you made them read your shitty imaginary letter for hours. I exaggerated to illustrate but in cases like that, "make sure it's fun" would be very helpful.To throw a food analogy back at you, chefs will insist on using nothing but parts of a certain animal in a meal, or on only usong certain cooking methods, all in the name of "respecting the ingredient," when the people he is serving the meal to might just want a more traditional offering. "Keep it tasty" would help him here to better appeal to the ones actually eating the food.The rule is only as vague as your understanding of your players. And the vast majority of the time in this hobby, you will know your players well.
>>68317984>Chefs will insist on using nothing but parts of a certain animal in a meal, or on only usong certain cooking methods, all in the name of "respecting the ingredient," when the people he is serving the meal to might just want a more traditional offering. "Keep it tasty" would help him here to better appeal to the ones actually eating the food.So the chef is creating what he deems to be tasty? Objective achieved for the chef.>It would help if your slowburn horror game burned so slowly that you forced your players to mull endlessly on a long letter that provides context for the sessions to come. Having a player reread the same thing multiple times and forcing them to read it yet again until you are satisfied with their understanding really lays the foundation for a long-term gane where the document is important but your players would probably have checked out because you made them read your shitty imaginary letter for hours. I exaggerated to illustrate but in cases like that, "make sure it's fun" would be very helpful.If the GM found that fun, has he not achieved his goal?Your phrasing emphasises the fun of the guests over the host and demonstrates my point, that making just any old fun for some isn't the desired fun for all. Fun is not a universal, the advice implies it to be so, you can only justify it if you modify it.The better advice in each of the cases above and overall would be "Define what kind of fun you and the group actually want, then make sure it's that." It puts the onus is not on the GM but the group and requires communication, a far better beginning than the original.
>>68317984Fun is no excuse for lazy game design. Mass-market crap like the vast majority of popular game systems are "fun" in spite of themselves. The "fun" usually comes from either exploiting weak spots in the rules to do improbable things or adding homebrew shit to cover things the designer didn't. If your game has to be subjected to Rule 0 just to make it "fun", then it's shit. Rule 0 is basically a developer laziness clause: "We couldn't be bothered to balance or expand the system, so make your own fun!"
>>68318128>guest over hostNo, collaborative. Find fun for everyone, because if you sit people down to read a letter for 4 hours, soon there will not be a game. And that definition is the logical conclusion to the simple statement of "make it fun," everyone should be making it fun, players and GM. If you're being intentionally thickskulled about it then you can take it a step further and explain things, but it loses the charm and simplicity at that point for no good reason. If someone is selfish enough to think only of themselves when they think of fun in a group activity, then no outwardly imposed rule will stop them anywho. It's more useful as a reminder in good faith than an actual rule.>>68318165Lazy game design is "we couldnt be bothered making this aspect of the game enjoyable for you, just deal with it instead." That's being too lazy to make the game fun for its intended audience. Or being scummy enough to intentionally make aspects of the game unfun then sell you the solution for money. These days laziness and greed isn't giving you fun, it's holding it fir ransom.
Fun is subjective, therefore hard to quantify. When you're designing a game, asking if it's fun really isn't that useful. You're better off focusing on making sure the rules work as intended and ate written clearly enough to be understandable. Fun is something people make for themselves and work together to make for each other. The game isn't the fun, it's just the vehicle that allows it's players to make fun.
>>68315543>fail faster!My absolute favorite, especially when it gets quoted all the time by people who don't get it.I think I've yet to have be part of a project that does not go like this:>concept is created>work starts>work progresses>work is completely abandoned, because you must FAIL FAST!>repeat x3>release some shit that kinda works, but really, it's a complete mess>people patting themselves on the back how good the shit is
>>68315616>saying you need to make something "fun" is like saying food needs to taste good. It's so broad it's meaninglessYou'd be surprised at how many people don't get even basic stuff like this. To take your useless analogy further, so many chefs and customers only care what the food looks like and what brand ingredients you used.
>>68318215I think I've won, but you're keen to die on this hill.So sure, lets assume everyone thinks the way you do when they read that advice and automatically make those assumptions, humans all work the same after all. It still begs the question; Why do you need to tell a bunch of guys playing a game to "make it fun"? Do a people logical enough to make your conclusions need to be told a game needs to be fun? It's either incomplete or unnecessary either way you cut it.
What is Roleplaying, /tg/?
>>68315966>Poo in this anon's pants
>>68316263>everything is about the SJW boogeyman
>>68315577>If I spend four hours achieving exactly dick and manage to screw us out of any way forward, despite my best efforts, then it has not been an enjoyable experienceThat means that you have emotional issues, not that the game is badly designed.
>>68315853>freeform the rest of the gane?this is in fact the only correct answer.
ITT: A bunch of literal who armchair design philosopher's critique a popular individual who has played the game for decades, and has had a successful career in writing for literal games longer than most assholes on this site have known what a d20 even is.
Let me quote based dilbert man>HAVE SYSTEMS>NOT GOALSFun = Goal (This is useless)
>>68318469It keeps things in perspective anon, and keeps people from sitting their players down for absolute slots so that "objective achieved." This is a hobby that can trap you in its minutia If you let it. The shandification of even a small village could take up your day if you let yourself get sucked in. I'll let you think about that in relation to the actual game sessions that you do all of this prepping for and how it relates to the topic at hand.In short: If you take a long time to needlessly pick apart a concept whose usefulness is in its brevity, you've missed the point from the start. There's no teaching you if that's how you will approach it. Have a good day, anon.
>>68315977Have you tried not watching streams of D&D? Literally. Non-D&D TTRPG streams can be great.
>>68315800>>68315896Exactly. Fucking entitled nu-male sjw zoomer baby bitch spoiled brat shitplayers. At my table, if you fail even a single roll, I will describe in excruciating detail how your character completely embarasses themselves and then not only will you achieve the opposite of what you wanted (so making a door impossible to open for example, or stabbing your friend instead of the enemy), but I will also impose a permanent debuff on you.Fuck shitty spoiled players. How dare they want to keep the game moving forward and have "fun" (yikes, cringy buzzword alert).
>>68318572What's the debuff, dad?
>>68318589laxative in their out-of-game soda
>>68318596That's pretty rough, can I at least Twitch stream my dice rolls from my iPad while I'm in the bathroom? I'd rather you not come in and check my rolls while I'm on the pooper.
>>68315896You're fucking stupid. Failing forward is not participation medal shit, it's avoiding the pitfall of the adventure coming to a full stop because a single thing was missed or messed up. The players should absolutely be punished for failure, maybe even get their characters killed, but when a GM has an adventure with a dozen bottlenecks that have no alternative-but-more-dangerous routes to fall back on if a check fails, you've designed a shit adventure.When the party fails, keep things moving; fail forward. Punish them, take some loot, throw an encounter, drop a trap on them, whatever, but let the adventure continue unless the failure was enough to kill them.
>>68315977Gallery Pass has his players read his houserules and they know them because they're just as autistic as he isAnd since when is Critrole ERP or has trannies on the roster? Are you going by nonsense you read on /tg/?
>>68318624>it's avoiding the pitfall of the adventure coming to a full stop because a single thing was missed or messed upthis wouldn`t even come up if your adventure is anything but a linear roller coaster.If you fail, you fail, with all consequences that includes.>alternative-but-more-dangerous routes to fall back on literally why would you need that?are you so emotionally stunted you can`t deal with failure?You didn`t get the incriminating evidence against the lord, who is secretely a cultist, now you better sneak out of the city before he has you arrested.The princess has been sacrificed, instead of a rescue mission you now have to get rid of the demon lord that was summoned.The village has been burned, I guess you can still take revenge on the marauding orks though.Goals of a campaign can change, indeed they must in an organic story, but fail forward implies an autistic obsession with leaving the starting parameters of your adventure unchanged, which is exactly why it is so cancerous to actual creative roleplaying.
>>68318678Anon, all of your examples are examples of failing forward. The alternative to failing forward is retrying until success is achieved or reloading from a prior save state.
>>68318678I've seen to many "adventures" that entirely hinged on going through a single door, opening a single chest or finding a single clue with a minuscule chance to actually do it. Some GMs are just shit and need crutches
>>68315810>Be a construction engineer>Have as practical-oriented STEM as they go>Make a killing on designing and supervising construction of bridges and causeways>Help people around thanks to improved infrastructureSo since it's clearly not useless, can I make the game about building levees and pond-locks?
>>68316296I think what you are saying has a lot a value, but you are looking at it from the perspective of a DM, not a game designer. It is indeed the DM's job(along with the players) to make playing the game fun, otherwise, what's the point? However, for the game designer, they are not making a campaign or a session catering to the interests of people they know and play with. Their goal is to create a set of tools that can be used to create fun. In other words, if you are looking at a sculpture, the sculptor would be the DM, the game designer is the person who invented the chisel. The chisel needs to be a fine piece of work, but it is not art. A game can and should be made to promote 'fun' but even that is subject to what the creator finds fun. A game needs to be good at making fun, not necessarily fun in itself, and fun is subjective. With that being said though, that in no way makes it reasonable to forget about the actual playability of your game. The systems should be able to invoke something of those playing it and it should give the person running it the tools to make a 'fun' game.
>>68318678All of your examples fall squarely within what I'm talking about, and I have encountered plenty of GMS that are apparently incapable of it. The party proves unable to overcome an obstacle and the GM just starts flipping through his notes furiously and has no idea how to proceed because he never considered fallible PCs. I once sat through a long as fuck session where we basically just stood around in a room the whole time.>Group walks into some buried dwarven ruins>Cave-in seals us in>Locked door ahead of us>Our sneak fails to pick the lock>GM begins shuffling papers like crazy>"So uh, is there anything else in the room?">"No, it's empty.">"Okay, can we bash it down?">"No, it's magic.">"Umm, I guess we start digging our way out?">"There's too much. I had it written down as impassible.">"So we're dead?">"Uhh..." shuffling notes again "No, uhh, Tom, try opening it?">Tom can't possibly roll as high as the first guy, but rolls the dice. "After mods... 2.">"Perfect, the door swings open."Long awkward silences were spread throughout and trying fruitless shit that he always just outright said wouldn't work for hours.
>>68316774Whoever you're arguing with is just an angry person who is frustrated with design. A lot of designers take their route of assuming they can't identify and know what their audience finds fun ahead of time, which is wrong and an easy way to design a product no one finds fun.tl;dr they just want to argue and get a rise out of someone.
>>68315810The best campaign I ever had was with 3 post-grads of geology and 2 students of biology (the general one, not even specialised). Granted, it was an exploration-conquistador type of game, but them bringing their degrees to the table AND containing themselves from meta-gaming was the best thing ever.Second best was joinging a group in the garrison's library in my town, which consisted of career officers and NCOs, all with their proper degrees, job experience, bit of intervention experience and all of that fully on the table. But since this was a Twilight 2000 game, there literally couldn't be a better set-up.And the best GM I ever had a doctorate in (Catholic) Theology, possibly the most useless doctorate you can have as a layperson, but it was making the games really fresh and funky in terms of religious side of things and plots.
>>68318881>And the best GM I ever had a doctorate in (Catholic) Theology, possibly the most useless doctorate you can have as a layperson, but it was making the games really fresh and funky in terms of religious side of things and plots.Any examples?
>>68315748>What even is failing forward?All choices drive the story forwards, whether they succeed or fail. If the rogue is trying to unlock a door and fails to get in, he doesn't get 50 tries until he succeeds, he only gets the one. Then the lock gets jammed and guards start coming and the party has to retreat and either think of a new way to get past the door, or decide to try a different approach entirely.It doesn't mean "players always succeed". The story moving forwards may be a bad thing for the characters, like moving from a trial to an execution,
>>68316330"Make it useful" is already giving more description than "make it fun". It's more like saying "make it go"
>>68315616>Failing forward makes sense for players, but if I hear a designer say "Just make a bunch of mistakes and then learn from them" it tells people to be lazy in their design processyou're fucking retarded.It's a term that originates from agile development, which is a design method which consists of rapid iteration cycles. It means you implement and test a feature as soon as possible to determine if it's worth polishing at all so you don't waste time and money on it down the line.It's shit you do in the alpha stage of production, which is something players never even get to see.
>>68318803Based anon who contributes to society.Thank you
>>68315953 You're talking straight out of your ass.
>>68315814>>68315616Anons, you do know when he talks about "fun" he means "the groups brand of fun". To use the food analogy you aren't going to go to an Indian or Thai place if your group doesn't like spice and you're not going to go for Italian if you're Keto. Essentially you need to make the game play to what your specific players find fun.Your players like gritty games and media? Run WFRPG or SotDL.Your players love exploration sci-fi? Run Rogue Trader or the ExpanseYour players really love low level crime stories? Play Blades in the Dark.
>>68316536>Assuming a hefty number of GMs don't actually run games for their own enjoyment over the party'sIt's like you've never read the untold number of horror stories about when crunch GM/Players meet narrative focused Players/GM. The advice is for those people.
>>68318501The inversion of the high and low is fundamental SJWism.
>>68315543 For Worldbuilding nerds and people interested in being a GM advice like this shit is fucking stupid.>LOL just make it fun remember!? At best it is stating the obvious. At worst it's obtuse and broad brush painting a huge topic with a very general answer. Better advice:>Make sure you can identify the TYPE OF FUN your players want from you.>Ask the people at your table questions before officially starting the campaign. When you know what kind of adventure is the kind that best suits your table you will build better and more engaging moments in that world. Setting and rulesets don't matter. This shit comes before both of those choices need to be made. You are the DM. You are the director of the shitshow. Learn what your players like. Learn what they don't like. Learn what they expect. Knowing these things and actively using the information in your storycraft is a big deal.
>>68315543That's not necessarily bad advice, other than the first one. Asking random people is a way(although probably not the BEST way) of getting different perspectives on your work, although obviously you should take anything you get from that with a grain of salt.Failing and then learning from your failures is much better than not learning at all, or learning too late.
>>68319161Gargling man ass is fundamental to your posts.
>>68316000>s, and both are fun and beloved,Stopped readingYou're using things that you yourself claim are fun to try to disprove the notion that games should be fun
>>68315616The thing about making sure something is fun is it has less to do with defining what's fun and more to do with recognizing what's not fun, whether because it's needlessly frustrating or because it's boring.I love making lists. I love tracking stuff like weight and ammo. Nobody I play with does, so when I DM I don't force people to track stuff. That's my "Make sure it's fun" takeaway. Make sure your ideas are actually fun for other people, by which I mean make sure they're not unfun.
>>68319178also>if you had fun i had funwhat an absolute retard, gms can have fun even if their players didnt, if your players dont enjoy rp too much you can still love it as a gm when players who hate it take part in it. i love when my players do shopping sessions but i know that my younger brother hates it because he plays the game more like diablo or skyrim and the little roleplaying he does is usually boasting in combats or trying to get free beers in taverns by saying that he killed a monster even if he does nothing rp-wise with the beer he gets which annoys me and even tho i know that he has fun when he gets to do that without really interracting with the world i let him know afterwards that what he does isnt fun for me to gm and that not interracting with other players and the world goes against the spirit of d&d but when i do i just get fucking fat matt quotes about as long as the players have fun i should have fun
>>68316521that is not failing forward in dark souls you have to keep confronting the challenge head on until you succeed while failing forward is failing and then being handed the solution or a way to ignore the obstacle because you dont manage to understand how to succeed
>>68318803it could deffinately be used in game to punish players who walk across a bridge that according to physics shouldnt hold more weight than 2 goblins in regular clothes and also to describe in detail how different the stonemasonry of races who are great builders differs from some huts made from sticks and fur around some broken down stone houses of tribes of people who know nothing about physics
>>68319429> failing and then being handed the solution or a way to ignore the obstacleNo. Failing forward is losing a battle and being captured instead of murdered - bringing you closer to the general you were tasked with killing; now you have to TRY and get out of the jail. Failing forward is falling off a rope bridge into a crevasse and dying on those rocks - but only for your body to be swept ashore nearby a settlement downstream, and the party HAS A CHANCE of finding a guide who knows an alternate root.It's not about being handed a solution. It's about there being a new opportunity for the story to continue and develop in every failure.
>>68319483*route, not root ofc
>>68315853never plan for where important plot elements or locations are unless you have allready said the exact location they are at then your players can stumble onto things and you create the illusion that everything is a sandbox it is kinda cheap but then you dont have to waste the time you spent preparing if they fuck up too bad make them realize that they actually ended up at a gameover and ask if they wanna keep playing and make up some new plot that can be inserted anywhere or end the campaign and start a new one
>>68318675forced in romance plots, recently a litteral ma-rey-sue character from a guest, talespin
>>68318501sjws lose their shit when their ma-rey-sue character dies so yes it is about them because they make their ingame character's death about them being opressed by the gm in real life instead of realizing that actions have consequences
>fail fasterWhy?Success is not the point of the game.
>>68315783>not realizing 'fail faster' is the actual opposite of designoof>>68315810wait are you sharing bad advice or replying to me? or just complaining about things designers do without phrasing it as bad advice?>>68315814ffs I didn't say "FAIL FORWARD" I said "FAIL FASTER" which is where you don't even bother making something good, throw it in front of a stranger or coworker, have them suggest new shit, and just repeat that a dozen times until you end up with LUL RANDUMB cancer because there's no underlying design philosophy (and yes I know that's not how it's supposed to work, but it's shitty advice anyway because that's how retards always interpret it)>>68316000checked, and yes you get it>>68317772this anons gets it>>68315887who says i'm not Matt?>>68315896thank you for understanding that FAIL FASTER =/= Fail Forward. The true retards are the ones who can't even read and attacked you anyway>>68316296based retard who thinks this has anything to do with matt colville just because his picture is in OP>>68316382>The guy explains that that's part of the advice, to pay attention to what your party finds fun, and play to thatwow adding a whole different paragraph of clarification and caveats sure did prove that the original meaningless statement was not actually meaningless at all once you add a paragraph!>>68316469so if you want to make a game and somebody says to make it fun, you'll know exactly how to approach it, nice!>>68316492correct, "fun" in the generic sense always just means asking random people to weigh in and ruin a potentially unique or interesting angle of design. It all degenerates into common denominator mobile phone tier shit>>68316536the seething this caused is very nice>>68316894you're imagining the only scenario in which the advice becomes good in a very specific context, as opposed to the actual reality of 99% of the time when people throw around the word "fun" in design discussions as if it inherent meaning
>>68318406yeah the absolute worst advice ever is in that chipmunk voice cartoon youtube channel where their "game designer friend" tells them that you shouldn't even have a goal, just start randomly and fail so fast that you have strangers steering the project in different directions 12 times a day>>68318518nigger its just as fucking picture of some guy it has nothing to do with the topic, be more assblasted and clueless tho please>>68318532that's actually a really interesting take I havent heard applied to game design yet... thanks anon
>>68318611>Digital diceNo way, cupcake
>>68319543>romance plots>erotic roleplayThese two are not the same
>>68316479>How exactly should "fun" be informing the design process? Bear in mind that when designing a game you don't personally know the people who will play it or what their preferences are.1: find out what a group of people you know of find fun in RPGs2: select a group of those people (eg people who like narrative mech combat)3: make a game that appeals to what those folk enjoy4: market game to those peopleThat's it! You have made a game that should be fun, for your target audience!
>>68319558>I don't know what I am talking about but I posted anyway because I like to whine about "SJW" like a dumbass
>>68318675>And since when is Critrole ERP or has trannies on the roster? Are you going by nonsense you read on /tg/?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperboleIt's the same group of people though, I'm very surprised that they themselves don't have trannies since all CR-adjacent streams do.
>>68319812"i look at the tieflings dick when he leaves the bath" "wow its the biggest dick i have seen" and all the other similar erp scenes in shitrole
https://youtu.be/emlI43ZE9-c?t=1878LOOK AT US WE ARE NERDS
>>68319884t. faggot who found himself
>>68315543>make sure its "fun"You are hyperfixating on a words rather than what it mean in this context. When peoples talk about fun games, they mean enjoyable games that at the end you are satisfied. >>ask random people, that's how you know!Unless you already know who you will play with, having various peoples of differents opinions could help you make the game better.>>fail faster!!Have you ever played a TCG, and the guy in front of you can win, but he feel the need to expand his turn to really drive home how much screwed you are, so you end up wasting 10 minutes seeing him play every cards in his hand and activating every effects? It's not enjoyable, you know the conclusion is coming, but it keep being delayed. As a DM, you're best avoid that kind of situation. If there is no hope of the player succeeding, don't make them roll and waster precious time. Have them fail accordingly and move to the next thing.
>>68316400Fail faster is a legit concept, but it is never understood by the people that keep hyping it up. It has become an anti-pattern, an annoying and pernicious time-and-effort-wasting meme.
>>68320023>fail fasterThat's not what fail faster means.Fail faster is a design technique: think up of a part of a design, prototype it and see if it works, if it works, keep it, if it doesn't ditch it entirely. Repeat until you have sufficient parts to make a whole.It means you iterate quickly through ideas until you find the ones that stick, rather than sticking with ideas that don't work but keep try polishing. There are pros and cons of fail faster, namely it does mean you are less married to any one concept if it doesn't work, and it does allow you to brainstorm faster, but also may leave your project feeling put together shoddily and the individual ideas not gelling together.
>>68319558You're describing autist.
>>68318572>How dare they want to keep the game moving forward and have "fun"Holy shit, you actually trolled me good up until this line.7/10 NGL, got me good.
>>68315543>don't try to be original
>>68318502actually no anon, that means the game is badly designed.In the most fundamental way, games NEED to be enjoyable, or at least entertaining. If your game can grind to a sudden halt due to a failed roll, it is badly designed.
>>68320223To read that post and arrive at your conclusion requires negative IQ
To this day, nobody has managed to properly articulate while plainly fucking up a taskis actually bad. Let's take the most basic of examples:>The party encounters a door that separates them from their goal>The rogue tries to pick it and doesn't manage to do itThe whole failing forward philosophy says, that the GM is now supposed let something happen that still drives the plot forward. Maybe he does pick the lock, but his tools break. Or he raises an alarm. Or a patrol shows up. Or he doesn't pick the lock, but a patrol shows up that may be carrying a key.But why is this necessary? This is a role playing game. The players aren't nailed to this one interaction, it's not like a video game where you click on the door and it gives you exactly one point of interaction. Why not let this play out naturally? Depending on the kind of door and the player capabilities, the players could still try to bust down the foor, they could fuck around with the frame, they could go look for a key, they could leave the place entirely, prepare for that door and come back.Or they fail and the story just adapts to their failure. If they need to get that thing behind the locked door to keep the dracolich from resurrecting and they can't get it, well then they either have to look for a different way to prevent him from resurrecting or they just plain fucked it up and the dracolich shows up, which turns the campaign on its head and changes its goals entirely.There's nothing precluding the GM from ever just letting guards show up whenever he feels like, of course. But this entire fail forward thing seems like a pointless exercise that robs players of agency at worst since it doesn't fucking matter what they do anyway: Events will fall into place to keep them roughly on the rails.
>>68321202It's because these "DMs" are running linear campaigns for the sole purpose of them being shown on the internet, they're not real tabletop campaigns.
>>68321202>since it doesn't fucking matter what they do anyway: Events will fall into place to keep them roughly on the rails.This is the worst feeling as a player. Knowing choices and consequences don't exist. Knowing that half of GMs will go easy on me even if I do something stupid or have a run of bad luck and won't do the thing that really SHOULD happen.You know what's more important than the story in your head? The story we make as a group, together, at the table.
>>68321202>There's nothing precluding the GM from ever just letting guards show up whenever he feels like, of course. But this entire fail forward thing seems like a pointless exercise that robs players of agency at worst since it doesn't fucking matter what they do anyway: Events will fall into place to keep them roughly on the rails.That's not remotely how it works. Things can go dramatically off the rails with failing forward. Failing foward is 'the story doesn't stall if people fail'. If you've got plans for what happens if the bad guys win in a given place beyond 'I end the campaign'? That's failing forward. If the Nazis get the notebook and you go on a trip to Berlin to steal it back? That's failing forward. It's antithesis is 'there is one way through this door and until you manage that one specific thing the game is not going anywhere'.
>>68318502>Failing to solve the same puzzle for 4 hours is funYou might bebdumb, sure but it is normal to find attempting the same task for 4 hours with no breakthrough entertaining.
>>68321202I don't know how people fuck up understanding simple things.Failure should not bring the game to a halt. There should be an alternative to what the pcs have failed to achieve in the majority of situations, but not all.
>>68321202>To this day, nobody has managed to properly articulate while plainly fucking up a taskis actually bad"Fail forward" is not about avoiding failure. It's about designing failure in a way that does not stall the game.Let's say there is a door with a guard. If the only thing to do is go through the door, but the only way to do it is to fast-talk the guard, a failure stops the entire game.However, if failure merely forces you to have to fight the guard, sneak past the guard, or ignore the fucking door and climb the wall, that's better, right?And if you fail at absolutely everything, the guard puts you in prison so you can do things in prison, because you sucked at everything else (instead of letting you just do nothing at all).The problem is that just like other "obvious" concepts, most people completely misunderstand it.
>>68321202>The whole failing forward philosophy says, that the GM is now supposed let something happen that still drives the plot forwardThat doesn't mean the players SUCCEED. And it doesn't mean the plot goes where it was headed earlier.>But why is this necessary? This is a role playing game. The players aren't nailed to this one interaction, it's not like a video game where you click on the door and it gives you exactly one point of interaction. Why not let this play out naturally? Depending on the kind of door and the player capabilities, the players could still try to bust down the foor, they could fuck around with the frame, they could go look for a key, they could leave the place entirely, prepare for that door and come back.>Or they fail and the story just adapts to their failure. If they need to get that thing behind the locked door to keep the dracolich from resurrecting and they can't get it, well then they either have to look for a different way to prevent him from resurrecting or they just plain fucked it up and the dracolich shows up, which turns the campaign on its head and changes its goals entirely.This is literally failing forwards. When you don't fail forwards, nothing happens, so the player just tries the same thing again until he succeeds. If the players go look for a key, that's failing forwards. If the dracolich resurrects because they can't get past a door, that's failing forwards. Fail forwards just means "don't let the players sit there rolling until they succeed", because if you do that you might as well have said "ok eventually the rogue picks the lock given enough time" and can having skipped the rolling.
>>68321589>>68321848>>68321860Then this entire concept does not exist at all, because in RPGs it's impossible to NOT "Fail Forward". Because it's a TTRPG. Players can always do something. The entire discussion and obsession with this concept is pointless. Not adapting the story or rolling with the ideas the players have is just a hallmark of a terrible GM.
>>68321908>This is literally failing forwards. When you don't fail forwards, nothing happens, so the player just tries the same thing again until he succeeds. If the players go look for a key, that's failing forwards. If the dracolich resurrects because they can't get past a door, that's failing forwards.>Fail forwards just means "don't let the players sit there rolling until they succeed", because if you do that you might as well have said "ok eventually the rogue picks the lock given enough time" and can having skipped the rolling.Do you have to be a special brand of autistic to actually run a game like this? Because never in fifteen years I've seen this happen. Not even when I started GMing as a fourteen year old with a group of people that had no fucking clue how to play games. This is basic common sense, you don't need to make a huge deal out of it and draw a line in the sand of "Failing Forward vs Non Failing Forward" games where "Failing Forward" is some kind of huge feature of the former.
>>68321918>Players can always do somethingUnless the GM shoots it down because they intended the situation to have one solution.
>>68321958>This is basic common sense,and this book is for sjw incel leftist commie retards or whatever the political and/or subculture group you hate and think is dumb is for.Of course you need to explain very basic concepts to them very slowly with small words so they understand how to play.
>>68321988I don't understand the point in sub-115IQ people playing RPGs in the first place. Who wants them at the table and why? Not to mention DMing.
>>68321918>>68321958Have neither of you ever had a GM say "you need to solve this riddle to progress"?If so, good! You haven't played with a terrible GM! It may be obvious to your 15 years of GMing, but there are some GMs out there that will stop the game and not allow the players to progress without solving a problem or scenario except with the particular method the GM is thinking.This could be >rolling a 25 to unlock a door when the rogue has +5 on disable device>answering a specific riddle >a murder investigation that only has one particular piece of evidence >a "puzzle boss" that can only be killed one wayIt's really not that uncommon for GMs to be that terrible, and sometimes for stupid new GMs without your experience you need to tell them "no trying to do things this way is bad GMing".
>>68322030Normies are a big market and devs targeting them can sell lots if they can make it simple enough to understand.
>>68322127Why though? What's the point of it? Why not sell fidget spinners instead?
>>68321202>or they just plain fucked it up and the dracolich shows up, which turns the campaign on its head and changes its goals entirely.This is failing forward though
>>68322070It's not about experience. Even as a 14 year old retard with no clue about TTRPGs running my first game of Shadowrun for a bunch of equally clueless teenagers a situation like that never cropped up. I distinctly remember a point where they had to break into a vault for a run to steal something or other. Their sole plan of getting in there was to have the hacker hack it open. He fucked up, they couldn't get in otherwise because they didn't have the tools, so they had to pack up, make their escape and look like a bunch of fools in front of their client.Then they started to buy gear for situations like that.
>>68322200>it seemed obvious to me so it must be obvious to the 7 billion other people on the planet and therefore if anyone writes down what I already know its a direct insult to me personallyLiteral autism
>>68322030A high IQ isn't even beneficial to playing RPGs. I played with some seriously dumb people that made great players. Creativity and willingness to engage with the game isn't bound to IQ, it's more about not being set in your ways.
>>68322154Looks like you've got a sub-115 IQ yourself when it comes to the free market, bub.Fidget spinners are already being manufactured and sold. The development costs, start up costs, supply chains and markets are already spent and done by people who aren't you. If you try selling fidget spinners now, you won't get a share of the market.If you want to have a product that makes money, you want to tap a market that either doesn't know it exists yet or have a product that is better than an existing product."RPGs for normies" is a market that hasn't been fully tapped, so making a game that appeals to normies and sells well will make money. Trying to make fidget spinners from scratch... won't make money.
>>68322200>>68322030>>68321958Basically every videogame in the world is structured with hard locks/tests and the majority of customers today will have played videogames before RPGs. It makes sense to have a paragraph saying "this isn't a videogame" in tips for new DMs.
>>68322223>I played with some seriously dumb people that made great players.What was their IQ? How many of them were at the table?>>68322243>hurr durr let's mcdonaldize everything and then ask ourselves why we're brazil now also let's spread that shit to the entire world so no one can bail us out anymore
>>68315748Failures produce new challenges instead of having no result.>"you fail to climb the wall">"I try again">repeat 10xVersus>"you fall and loudly smash the crates below. you hear approaching footsteps">"you get a bad grip for a moment and almost fall, but manage to recover and make it to the top. in your tunnel vision you failed to notice the nearby guard taking a piss off the opposite side of the wall, who's now staring blankly at you, halfway through hauling yourself over the parapet"
>>68322200You're a lucky person if you've never seen bad GMing like that, then.
>>68322332>if my pretend game about dragons has tips for new DMs then the entire world will turn into a globohomo favella where we eat cockroach burgerscould you settle down and stay on topic?
>>68322332>hurr durrI'm not here to make moral judgements or say whether it's right or wrong, anon. I'm just telling you why people are doing it.
>>68322365>retard too dumb to understand rhetorical questionsHow about dat Critical Role senpai desu lmfao
>>68321958>This is basic common senseLook at this board. The concept of "asking others to stop when they are annoying" fly over the head of many peoples here, yet it's also supposed to be common sense. This board is the textbook example of why just cause you think something is obvious you still need to spell it out.>you don't need to make a huge deal out of it and draw a line in the sand of "Failing Forward vs Non Failing Forward" games where "Failing Forward" is some kind of huge feature of the former.I don't think anybody made a huge deal of it, I first heard of it in this thread, and neither IRL nor on any forum I go I've heard peoples talk about the concept. Its more likely similar to peoples who got butt-mad at "worldbuilding": someone decided to be a contrarian, used a skewed up definition of the word, acted like there was a swarm of peoples using it under this definition and started complaining about it.
>>68322332>What was their IQ? How many of them were at the table?Sub 90-100 I guess?One of them has also been GMing for years and he's one of the best GMs around.Granted, those tests were done in High School, but those two guys are just plain shit at most of the traditional things that IQ tests ask but really good at creative things and thinking outside the box. Both of them are way better at those abstract find-the-next-in-line tasks than me, I can't do those for shit and I clocked in moderately high when I did one years ago. Not high enough to brag about and get special benifits outside of skipping a year, sadly.
>>68322221more like paranoia.
>>68322392>I don't think anybody made a huge deal of itIt's been a pretty big deal in newer releases of the last couple of years. Many of them have "On a fail, they succeed and This Happens" mechanics baked in.
>>68322398>Both of them are way better at those abstract find-the-next-in-line tasks than meSo they have a high IQ, thanks for confirming you utter dipshit.
>>68322436Their score was in the middling 90s you ape.
>>68322417Okay, but why is it a problem? The only difference in that older games it was implicit, so it don't change much.And if it is inside the game, why wouldn't they explain how it work? Pretty much every human being understand the concept of a DnD class, but every edition they make a small addendum to explain what it is.
>>68322471Then yours is in the 50s retard, how are they way better at IQ tests than you if they have a sub-100 IQ? Those "le squiggyl thingiliggies" are Raven's progressive matrices.
>>68315953spoken like you know fuck all about cooking
>>68319483This. Failing forward is contextualizing failure in a fun and interesting way as apposed to an annoying brick wall way. However, t's ok for failure to just mean, "haha, your character fucking goofed it this time. What a retard!" But only if that character was trying to do the thing they are worst at. If they are failing the thing that they are good at, it should be represented by an unexpected change in circumstance. For example, if a Cimerian failed a climbing check on a tree, it should be because they came face to face with a vicious wolf monkey in the canopy. If it were a character who is terrible at climbing, you could just say that they stood at the trunk ponderously for a few seconds before shrugging their shoulders, or that maybe they clumsily broke the first branch they grabbed and plummeted awkwardly to the ground. The exact details of failure should reflect the competencies of the character's failing.That being said, evolving external circumstances are almost always the best way to contextualize failure. Remember, the forces which stand to oppose your characters may be as arbitrary as you like. The forces which stand to aid your character must be shown to exist at least one scene before they solve the characters' problems.
>>68322070>Have neither of you ever had a GM say "you need to solve this riddle to progress"?No, I don't play with literal fucking retards
>>68322417>Many of them have "On a fail, they succeed and This Happens" mechanics baked in.I'm pretty sure that's not quite what it is.It's "on a success, you do the thing""on a partial success, you do the thing but something bad happens""on a fail, you don't do the thing AND something bad happens". There's no "on a fail, nothing happens at all" because that's boring.Admittedly, that's very narrativist mindset and isn't meant for tactical games.
>>68322620>Remember, the forces which stand to oppose your characters may be as arbitrary as you like. The forces which stand to aid your character must be shown to exist at least one scene before they solve the characters' problemsThat reminds me of one of Pixar's storytelling rules. "Coincidences to get your characters onto trouble are fine, coincidences to get them out of it are cheating."
>>68321918>Because it's a TTRPG. Players can always do somethingYou'd be surprised to how many people that is not at all obvious. Since the 80s there have been stories of "but my players failed to do the thing outlined in the module/my genius design what do I do?" and they grace this board at least once per week.
>>68322842It's pretty fine for a tactical game. You can even apply it to a wargame wholecloth. You just need to have consequences for degrees of success and failure.>you drive the enemy, but suffer losses>you are forced to retreat, but draw them out of their fortificationsthings like that
>>68322200I think you may misunderstand. The dichotomy is not:Not Failing Forward: They try to get the vault open, but fail, so they have to make an escape.Failing Forward: They try to get the vault open, but fail, so they find an industrial drill to open it. The dichotomy IS:Not Failing Forward: They try to get the vault open, but fail, therefore the hacker has to just keep trying to get the vault open.Failing Forward: They try to get the vault open, but fail, they hear a helicopter gunship/security guard/a hundred dragons approaching and have to get the hell out of dodge and figure something else out.It seems like there is some misunderstanding out there about what failing forward means, it is certainly not: fail, oh but then you just succeed anyway.
>>68315543>Just get it right the first time round
>>68315543Fail faster is just encouraging DM’s to iterate on ideas that aren’t working as well as they would like rather then stick with an idea or system that’s clunky or dull.
>>68323117And, just as important, "fail faster" is not the same as "failing forward".Failing faster is a concept applied to the production process - it means that you should not be afraid to do several iterations of your work and throw away what doesn't work. The faster you can identify your weak-points by failing them, the faster you can improve.And just like "failing forward" it is a concept misunderstood by most of its proponents.
>>68322030People that think they're smarter than those around them generally come off as some of the dumbest people on the planet.
>>68324060Sure, and humans look dumb to chimps, what's your point?
>>68322558I think you have an unhealthy obsession over a test that doesn't even accurately determine an individual's usefulness, capabilities, or ability to learn.
>>68324141I think you have an unhealthy obsession with big black dicks, can we get back to the discussion though?
>>68324177>Niggers living rent free in your headI did read cuckolding was the pseudo-intellectual fetish of choice, so I'm literally surprised.
>>68323525A great way to end up with an incoherent mess of random ideas
>>68324353Oh, absolutely. I have a terrible experience with people obsessed with it. It's like lean management or agile production - works if everybody knows what is going on and there are no jobbers, which is to say it never works.
>>68315748Contrary to popular meme, it's not "you win no matter what". It's basically not letting failure kill momentum. Failure should change the state of play in some fashion, open up new avenues of play. Not necessarily positive ones, mind you. It's more having that failed lockpicking roll alert some guards or that failed social roll make the person in question angry enough to start some shit with you, rather than stonewalling progress until someone can successfully roll whatever. It's pretty common sense advice
A good example of fail forward that is relevant to another classic shitpost hereNot Fail Forward: When the players ignored the lich to create a gay marriage democracy, the game ended abruptly because the lich woke up and killed everyone.Fail Forward: When the players ignored the lich to make gay marriage democracy, the lich woke up and the campaign became about defending a newborn democracy from the legions of the undead.
>>68319429>a way to ignore the obstacleIt's not a way to ignore the obstacle. Failing forward is allowing the obstacle to do something to the story. Instead of failure transforming an obstacle into a brick wall, it allows the obstacle to drive the story forward. Like, when you're rolling the dice, the reason isn't because you need to be sure that what your character is doing is logical. The reason you roll the dice *discover which obstacles are going to become part of the story.* Because stories are largely about characters with a plan that goes wrong.
>>68315865>shitty analogy and word salad that just restates what OP saidNo one is saying don't make sure to keep it fun, just that it's useless advice and is blatantly obvious. Fun is broad and subjective and completely worthless as a metric of game quality. For example, Racial Holy War is fun.... if you're a bunch of skinheads. But it's a terrible RPG and most of /tg/ would agree on that. Jacking off is fun, too, but it's not an RPG.
>>68315941>player takes a fat shit on the table>"I'm just enjoying the game MY way"
>>68316296>Pretty sure the expectation is that people have more than 2 brain cells to rub together and can determine that the "fun" is relative to the people playing in your game and aim for that.So it's completely subjective and basically the same thing as your design goals in the first place. "Make it fun" is basically equivalent to saying "make a good game." It's like someone asked advice on how to pick up girls and you tell them "make sure to pick up girls." It's a tautology. You are fucking retarded apes and this is why no one takes you seriously when you use "fun" to describe an RPG.
>>68326376Sometimes failure SHOULD be a brick wall, though.
>>68315849>While this guy is being an assholeHe's also 100% correct. No one cares if he is an "asshole," that word is literally fucking sòy-tier at this point. >punishedThere's another one. What the fuck do you mean, "punish"? It isn't a fucking punishment you stupid fucking retard. It's how the dice go. Why are you turning it into some bizarre S&M thing? Honestly, "punish" needs to be added to the list of sòycuck gamer words at this point. "Bro if u dont take this feat you're just punishing urself" holy shit fuck off. No, you aren't being punished. Your just world fallacy is so deeply ingrained in your mind you cannot conceive of someone encountering a fate they didn't deserve. I guess that's what happened when you are raised by women and "justice for all" type little faggot protagonist movies like Harry Potter that teach you to suckle a teat until you're too much of a fucking pussy to even handle Dungeons and goddamn Dragons. Jesus Christ.
>>68318165Based and redpilled. A game that is "fun" is not fun because of the rules, it's fun because roleplaying is fun, and the system is just shit smaered all over it. Most systems are not fun. The roleplaying is fun, sometimes in spite of the system. Another example of why "fun" is meaningless.
>>68318518>and has had a successful career in writing for literal games longer than most assholes on this site have known what a d20 even is.So did Monte Cook and he created D&D 3.5.So did Sean K Reynolds and he created Pathfinder.Oh and they had help... from a bunch of other stupid grognards who shit up the game and turned combat into rocket tag and the rest into "cast X spell to win." KIll yourself.
>>68318624>it's avoiding the pitfall of the adventure coming to a full stop because a single thing was missed or messed upIf the adventure is coming to a full stop because the players messed up, then they are fucking stupid. It's their job to fail forward, not for the DM to dump more shit in front of them. Sure you CAN do it that way once in a while but it just ends up with lazy players who know that well at least things will keep moving if they just sit around. This happened with my PF party after I took these redditors' dumb advice, they just sat in town waiting for the BBEG to do his next bad thing and refused to pursue any leads, so they ended up with a huge-ass army they couldn't handle coming to attack them.
>>68326527And this is the kind of brain-damage you get from playing only bad systems.If you hate the systems you use that much, change them for ones you enjoy. If you are inherently incapable of enjoying games and are only there for the conversation, just freeform it.
>>68321202You are right, and this is part of the reason why "failing forward" is a guiding philosophy not something you do every single time so it becomes predictable. Unfortunately morons try to place it as such. Failing forward worked best in Apocalypse World where things were supposed to get worse and worse to build tension, it was an actual narrative game.
>>68326501>What the fuck do you mean, "punish"? Imagine not knowing basic game lingo but posting on /tgYou should lurk more
>>68315543I have been a player for decades but only a while back started to run games. I find I enjoy running games more than I do playing them and I love playing. Matt Colville is responsible for me getting the idea that I might want to run a game rather than just play. Since I have started running, I have carefully listen to his advice, tried it, and discarded a lot of it. I still watch his new videos for thoughts and inspiration but I am not a member of the Matt Colville Church of Perfect DMing.As much heat as CR gets, I would think that someone trying to run a more intelligent game and encouraging others to have games with more substance would garner a more objective view. Sure, I bought his book and mostly find it valueless to my game. I have other critiques for his material as well.As far as his "fail forward" concept, he refers to DMing well as something that come from doing it and making mistakes. Provided you know what the mistake is and you are willing to learn from it. I see this as bare metal truth.The other piece of advice that makes sense that he gives more than once is that a single failure should not roadblock your campaign. Different options should be available to your players to progress to the objective. I agree with him on this.The thing that bugs me the most about him is that he creates situations to play the table against each other. I have never seen that go well. It always ends in a shit show where people are mad at each other.
>>68326484I too enjoy it when the game stalls, neither moving in a specific direction, nor ending.
>>68315543Just because there is no context-free algorithm for fun doesn't mean it cannot be done. See what works, be dynamic and flexible.
>>68315543Wow reading this thread shows I need to catch up with my /tg/ lingo, I always thought failing forward was adding complications for failing so you can't just retry rolling forever.
>Session Zero>Failing Forward>LKFJSL:DKFJSDL, whatever Pretty much if you haven't heard the term used by anyone before that moment and its hard to grasp what they're alluding to, then it's Nu-Leftist/SJW nigger speak for non existent problems. Games don't stall. Anyone that's ever played a game knows this for a fact. You don't need a session Zero because the system already spells out what you can and can't make and your DM will have told you ahead of time what kind of game he's running.
>gameplay can now be leftist propagandathis is your brain on /pol/
>>68326686It's possible that it's not you who are wrong, but the swarm of newfags in the thread.Like >>68326710 being scared of things he has not heard of, even if they are literally older than him.
>>68326574You literally did not read my post you stupid faggot fuck. I have not played ONLY bad systems. I said MOST systems are not fun. Most RPGs out there are mediocre. I have played good systems, too, where in my post did I say or imply that I hadn't? No you just wanted an excuse to post your "have u tried not playing D&D"-tier crap even though that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the statement I made. Fuck off.
>>68326596Imagine thinking dislike of a term is comparable to ignorance of it. I am fully aware of what it means to "punish" but the term imples some sort of responsibility on the GM or some punitive factor. Unless you mean something like "punishing cold" or a "punishing storm." Even so it's stupid. Failure is failure. It's results are its results. Acting like you are "punishing" players for rolling badly or making some dumb mistake makes it sound ike you are a tyrant DM rather than an impartial one who simply has things happen as they would.
>>68326484And then what happens? Bear in mind "a brick wall" in this case means "there are no ways to proceed, and there is nothing else one can do".In what scenario would that be good for a game? Bear in mind if you or the party do something that allows them to escape this state, that's removing the brick wall of changing the game state.
>>68327016>I'm not ignorant, let me demonstrate my ignorance
>>68326989Your flailing is hilarious.
>>68318803>tries to boast about his job>I'm le engineer like all of 4chan :^)It's so obvious when you retards are lying.
>>68326452It's not useless advice to designers whose design goals might not produce a fun game. For example, if your design goal is "to realisticly simulate space combat" you'll accidentally produce a game where space combat, the point of the thing, is very rare and unfun. You have to remember to balance your design goals against the fundamental goal of making a game that is fun. >>68326465>takes a fat shit in the thread>I'm just discussing traditional games my way
>>68319817>a game that appeals to what those folk enjoyThat's the easy way to do it, but even better is when you give them something they didn't enjoy before, but learn to love afterward.That's what happened with the "Souls" games and Minecraft. Nobody asked for those, they came out of nowhere
>>68328249The souls games didn't come out of nowhere, they actually had a predecessor.
>>68315543>fail faster!!"The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up."
>>68325193So you shouldn't "fail forward" then? Got it
>>68328461why lie? there was zero demand or hype for that style of action game. If they wanted to make a "fun game" that "appealed to people" (ie. copied what's popular) they would never have made it
>>68330043>not just completely ignorant but also retardedYou're the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>>68330118>immediate Durring-Klingon effect autistic spasmholy shit the redditors are herebtw if you want to post any citation for your lie you can go ahead but you won't fag
>>68330192You really want to double down?There's really no excuse for being so stupid and ignorant, dumbass.If only you had the internet before you, and access to 99% of the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips, you might be able to learn something. Instead you have to make a complete fool of yourself and beg here for someone to feed you scraps of knowledge.
>>68330217what the fuck are you smoking?
>>68316852Most people who dye their hair aren't egotistical and insecure. There's nothing wrong with caring about one's appearance.
>>68328249>That's what happened with the "Souls" games and Minecraft. Nobody asked for those, they came out of nowhereBoth of those had niche audiences who saw the appeal and created demand long before they were smash hits. Souls was born from King's Field and influenced by tons of other games. Minecraft was originally billed as a more accessible Dwarf Fortress and was influenced by Infiniminer. Both Dark Souls and Minecraft took a couple years to hit their stride.
>>68318881That first one sounds like my dream game holy shit. That second one sounds great too. Damn I'm jealous. Tell me a story from this explorer game please.
>>68315577>If I spend four hours achieving exactly dick and manage to screw us out of any way forward, despite my best efforts, then it has not been an enjoyable experience.Then stop being a bumbling idiot and manage to get shit right. Most games dont have things that work in one way only, you usually have at least a handful of ways to get shit done so if you you fuck up its all on you and/or the others that couldnt do some critical thinking exercises. Failing isnt supposed to be "fun" its supposed to be a learning experience you last-place-but-still-receiving-a-medal insufferable fucking loser. If you had an actual job worth a damn youd know that one fuck up can make your castle of atta-boys crash to the ground with no "falling forwards" childish shit.>Yeah Tom, listen bud you just completely fucked up our meeting with X who then gave all their business to competitor Y making us lose out in hundreds of millions in potential profit...>But dont worry big guy, we're all winners here! Instead of a promotion we're just giving you a raise!Get the fuck out of here, fall forwards into the grave and make a new character.
>>68320223If the game is over because your character died, that's on you
>>68332037Of course the game only grinds to a halt if the players are pussies who can't handle a little char-death.
Fail faster just means that you should get started testing shit and developing prototypes now rather than daydreaming about how awesome the project that you're scared to get started on will be.>Make prototype>Get feeback>RedoThis is how all game design works. Now keep in mind, parsing feedback and good feedback from bad feedback is an art in itself, but you DO need to see how people other than yourself react and play your shit.But the point is you should get started.
>>68332491PS: to clarify a little bit further, nobody ever made a good game on their first attempt. Or if they did, it was blind luck.The very first private, wip version of all your favorite games was probably completely awful.Design is all about iteration and testing. That's what "fail faster" means.
>>68332491Ah, that's good.Thought it meant something completely different.
>>68332548A major hurdle for any creative field is learning to "put yourself out there" and have your (initially) bad stuff get harsh feedback. Every good artist started out drawing stick figures, nobody was drawing the mona lisa in the cradle.
>>68332037If the game is over twice because your character died... end the game once, you can't end it again!
>>68331756uhhhh the fact that they started as tiny niche games and eventually blew up is 100% the point. There was no HYPE around their RELEASE because they DID NOT TARGET EXISTING mainstream sensibilities and demographicsWhy is that so hard to admit? Nobody cares what they were "inspired by", what matters is that they created them how they wanted to despite the fact that 90% of people would have told them there's no market demand for it
>>68332491In that case it's not about failing faster, it's about creating builds and testing them like always. The "faster" part is always about making the minimal tiny speck of a system and then immediately ditching it if somebody frowns at it. Normal development includes builds and testing, there is no need for "fail faster" except if you're a visionless hack who cares more about deadlines and pandering than creativity
>>68333733No, they really did have plenty of hype. From Software had a large following for decades. The Dark souls trilogy is a follow up of Demon Souls, which is a follow up of the King's Field trilogy which by the way was their first game back in 94 and what they were always making. Each iterated and evolved upon the works of the previous and developed a larger and larger following and attracted more fervent fans. Step by step.>Nobody asked for those, they came out of nowhereIs patently false. Why is that so hard to admit?
>>68333849don't hurt yourself stretching that hard anon
>>68333925Look kid, even though that place is full of idiots you'd be laughed out of /v/. I get that you don't know jack about videogames or history that you weren't around for, but being snarky and talking out of your ass isn't going to convince anyone or make you any less wrong.
>>68332037>>68332393Games where nobody dies are boring trash
>>68333951imagine being such a pendantic retard that you actually think "came out of nowhere" has to be literally true. Like literally, actually manifest out of some other dimension. And imagine not realizing that "Souls" includes demons souls, and that less < 1% of gamers have heard of King's Field. I'm a regular on /v/ and what a faggot you'd have to be to say>you'd be laughed out of /v/in any context whatsoever
>>68333788I think you still don't quite get it.It's "faster" as in "get started building something now instead of sitting on your ass dreaming like an idea guy".It's "fail" as in "your first attempt WILL be shit but you should do it anyway so that you can learn to improve it and not be shit."
>>68315543I unironically enjoy Matt Colville's videos. I like the way he thinks, the history of the hobby bits and how he presents them, the details he puts into the characters. He's a good story teller. I could listen to him talk about nerd shit for hours.
>>68334483It has nothing to do with me, friendly anon. It has to do with every example I've ever seen of somebody preaching "Fail Faster" like it's the Gospel of Jesus Christ being a soulless uncreative hack who thinks they're a good designer because they "failed fast" and iterated themselves into a piece of shit that has to be spammed off the ground with marketing dollars and A/B group testing, not forethought and design craft.You can say anything you want about it, but that's what the advice is producing in the real world.>>68334637this thread has nothing to do with him
>use the same bullshit in every game>cinimatic crap>make things impossible because storyHonestly, he's an awful dm
>>68334001>all this effort just to not admit you were fucking wrongYou keep doing those mental gymnastics you'll turn into a pretzel, dipshit. Grow the fuck up.
>>68335347Stop responding to him, he's a shitposting troll and you keep feeding him (you)s
>>68315543>"Make sure it's fun" is useless adviceHow to tell somebody has never designed anything useful in their life.
>>68334931What about fucking Super Mario Bros?Miyamoto would have his guys program out the stage, play it...then tweak it to be better.The same goes for every old Nintendo game, every old Capcom game, every old Konami game...you can read the development diaries if you like.It's literally the same philosophy that's been used to make every decent game that's ever been made. > not forethought and design craft.They'e not mutually exclusive.The point is that no matter how good a designer you are, no matter how much forethought you put in, you can't fucking imagine the entire game system playing out and everything that can possibly go wrong.You HAVE to TEST things. And you need to have humility to realize you WILL need to CHANGE things. That's ALL it means.
>>68335877Oh, and last but not least, you have to LEARN things.Everyone who starts designing games, is going to learn things that they didn't know along the way. There is no way to learn but by doing. You can read all the game design philosophy and interviews you like, but there are nearly infinite number of little nuances you have to pick up along the way and ones that will be totally unique to what you specifically are making.That is why you "fail faster". Get off your ass and start making prototypes. The first prototype will be shit, but you can revise it once you've learned why it's shit.
>>68335486Or played any games.Seriously, half of the rulesets I've tested felt like "make it fun" would have been a revelation for the designers. But then, even "make it" would probably be too much to ask from some of them.
>>68332491>This is how all game design worksI'm going with "no", Jeff
>>68315800>>68318572It is more along the lines of the player's failures still moving the plot forward, as opposed to there being no plot progression whatsoever and the campaign stagnating
>>68335937It's not even necessarily a lack of skill, either. I find myself sitting down sometimes being all "oh shit this is going to be the coolest most intricate random farming community table" and before I know it I'm five hours deep and it takes nineteen rolls (Two of them with d24s) to create a random village.And likeThat's _cool_ but my players aren't going to have fun if they're watching me roll for fifteen minutes every time they enter a new village. One roll on one d20 is better.You could replace "make sure it's fun" with "make sure not to forget your purpose while you autistically dig deeper and deeper" but idiots like OP would just find a way to ridicule that advice as well.
>>68318518Just because someone is "popular" doesn't mean they're "right, tumblrfag. I wish you returned to your shithole site, also.
>>68318518>popular individual who has played the game for decades,He's sure as fuck played it yes, but my god if you've seen The Chain streams, he sure as fuck can't DM it. The dude is all "flash in the pan" with his barely original setting that he doesn't make the effort to be creative.Dude slaps middle school tier names onto shit and expects people to be wowed like "SAILOR OF THE STARS" and "WARORCS" and "NIGHTMARE TENEBROUS"
>>68330512They're right, you know.
>>68336196>That's _cool_ but my players aren't going to have fun if they're watching me roll for fifteen minutes every time they enter a new village. One roll on one d20 is better.all this and you could have made it fun simply by adding one line: PREROLL YOUR FUCKING SETTLEMENTS IN ADVANCE, DUMBASSHaving said that, you're absolutely right some mechanics really should be considered, will this be fun? Case in point: D&D 3.5E grapplling rules. Ok, you can only do certain things in grappling. There's a whole load of rules to remember and all that shit. Is it actually fun? Or is it a real headache to deal with?
>>68336262I was stunned when I first started watching those streams. You'd think that the guy who's made a name for himself by releasing videos teaching people how to DM would know how to DM. But it's exactly as you say, he seems to give something an excessive name and then zero description, assuming that the "amazing name" will be enough to make everyone impressed. The only worse thing is when he drops an amazing name as some kind of homebrew shit followed by ZERO explanation, as though it should speak for itself.
>>68336408It's no wonder that The Chain is bleeding views like crazy, as well he's salty as fuck that people keep comparing him to Critical Role
>>68336431Wasn't one of his first tweets something like "Well it's weird that you say the stream sucks because I and all my players are having fun so I guess you're wrong."Not exactly like that, but it's very much the spirit of the message.
>>68336431>People are critical of CR in their subFucking lol, no they aren't because damn near anyone who is gets banned or downvoted into oblivion. He mad
>>68336445That more or less just sounds like this incarnate. Dude's deflecting his subpar stream using his friends as a shield.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLikThe expectation of when you stream and put a product out is that it will be GOOD, that and I don't think it's a mutually exclusive affair to have an ENTERTAINING stream and also a fun time for your friends. The Glass Cannon's a clear indicator of that
>>68331990Roleplaying isn't a job though you retard it's a hobby. Nobody wants to watch the DM jerk themseles off about how harsh his world and his "lessons" are.
>>68331510Are most people who dye their hair specifically because they're going gray egotistical and insecure?
>>68336809Not him, but lots of people are insecure, and lots of people dye their hair, it's hard to say exactly how those correlate and the two groups overlap.I will tell you though that roughly 2 out of 3 of women dye their hair.
>>68315800No, you faggot, it's the difference between.>Imma try to crack the lock. Rolled a 2.>It doesn't openAnd>Imma try to crack the lock. Rolled a 2.>As you're fiddling with the rusty lock, you hear steps coming your way. Looks like the guard is back.Make failure interesting instead of just saying 'No!'
>>68321202You don't understand, the story is not some emergent thing that develops through player choices and actions while playing the game, it is my (as the GM) cool fantasy story idea that I planned in advance. Failing forward is how I make sure players stay on script when the dice I get them to roll doesn't meet some arbitrary number.The alternative is to let dice rolls matter and plan failure states into adventures. What kind of degenerate does that?
>>68336431Is the game really going that badly? I suppose I did notice his overall channel view plummeted astronomically but I just assumed that was due to fewer DM videos.
>>68338964Does Matt Coalville have a vagina?Might explain some of his takes
>>68340102Didn't he kill a player in the first episode because they didn't understand it was a scripted cutscene, despite literally having a video about never leaving players like they have no choice but to fight because they'll kill themselves and get mad?
>>68341905>t. Assblasted retard who doesn't run games
>>68330043Demon's Souls was directly inspired by the King's Field series of games as stated by the developers themselves, and a primary design goal was to return to the more difficult style of older RPGs such as the aforementioned King's Field and the Wizardry series.
>>68341976he also explained in the next video that he planned for him to die with the player.
>>68341976How did he get away with murder
>>68333849Nobody in the west knew what Kings Field was and the only moderately well known Fromsoft title for many years was AC. Demon's Souls blew up mainly because of importers or expats who brought news of the game and its online mode to mainstream in the states, but Dark Souls 1 really blew up out of nowhere compared to all their previous games.
>>68342164t. Virgin orbiter, champion of women's rights and social justice
>>68342220Yeah that's why the player looked angry at the table and tweeted about being mad after the game
Matt seems like the big autism who experience life through the lens of a certain set of rules. Not rules in the traditional sense you would imagine but in a "if X happens then Y must be true" sort of a way. So when he thinks he's done everything right, if it goes wrong it doesn't make sense to him and he dismisses it on a scapegoat rather than questioning the fundamental nature of the thinking that got him there
>>68336039And how do you think it DOES work? Do you think game designers are just fucking wunderkinds who throw an entire system together and it works perfectly on the first attempt?Why do you think there are bug testers? Play testers? Multiple builds and revisions? Iterative design is basic fucking common sense.
>>68342618>Do you think game designers are just fucking wunderkinds who throw an entire system together and it works perfectly on the first attempt?>Why do you think there are bug testers? Play testers? Multiple builds and revisions?pffff big name publishers like CGL put together wonderful pieces of RPG design elements like Shadowrun 6E and I can guarantee you that there was 0 bug testing, play testing, and only 1 main build and no revisions! The 12 pages of errata on day 1 showed that!
>>68342618You are arguing with someone who has never held a job let alone designed a game. Why give them the attention?
Let me offer a quote from a 30 year old Japanese developer on this process:>Especially with the Ys series, we concentrate on how good the action feels, so we create a lot of prototypes in our development process. The first thing we do is have the character walk and run. And so we have prototypes of the character walking and running, and we try the prototype, and if you feel good just walking in the game, and running in the game, then you know that's a go sign for you to move forward. But if it doesn't feel good at that point, then we just go back and recreate the prototype. So that's how we create games.Even WALKING requires iterative design.
>>68342831When I say "30 year old developer" I mean the company itself has been doing this for 30 years*
>>68331990>If you had an actual job worth a damn youd know that one fuck up can make your castle of atta-boys crash to the ground with no "falling forwards" childish shit.The bleeding edge of the economy is people setting VC money on fire to rapidly create deranged startups though. The most prestigious and well paid jobs today are about fail faster and fail forward.
>>68342618Concept and theme are defined before you start. A project that started without a single set of ideas is garbage every time. I'm giving you this class for free but don't get used to it>>68342830Stay poor>>68342831It's almost like they have a set idea of how walking should feel. Don't use words you doing know the meaning of
>>68342914It's bleeding alright. Investing in the "fail faster" startup is a guaranteed way of making your money fail real fast out of your pocket
>>68343122>Concept and theme are defined before you start. A project that started without a single set of ideas is garbage every time.Well, duh? Nobody denied that. That's not what iterative design is about.Yes you start out with an endgoal, a concept, and a theme for your project. That's NOT what was in question. You need to use iterative design to make that endgoal, concept, and theme WORK.
>>68343122>Concept and theme are defined before you start.That isn't mutually exclusive to failing faster. You do actually need a concept and theme, before trying it out, and seeing if it works. But if you take a concept and a scheme and sit on it and do nothing, then you'll do jack shit. The only way you learn is by doing.
>>68343261Example:You might want to make a game based around a hunter taking on singular, gigantic kaiju.As part of simulating this, you have a mechanic for climbing and scaling part of the beasts body......but when you test it, you realize that there are a number of flaws, exploits, bugs, and issues with this climbing mechanic that you could not possibly have forseen in brainstorming.So after testing, you go back and you redesign the mechanic. You might make changes to parameters (making the climbing faster or slower), you might fundamentally revise the way it works on a core level while keeping the same idea (maybe instead of slowing shimmying up like in Breath of the Wild, it becomes more like a wall jump where you go from one node to another), or if none of that works you might throw out the concept and try something completely different (maybe instead of physically climbing, your dude comes equipped with a grapple hook, so now you have an aiming and grappling and swinging mechanic instead of climbing).This happens all the time in game design since the beginning of the industry.
>>68343286The dude seems to have a particular erroneous meaning of "fail faster" in his head that he doesn't want to let go of.IE he seems to think it means "flail blindly without any plan and without idea of what you're doing" when really it means "start working and understand you'll need to polish and revise your project"
>>68342478nah, demon souls was a commercial and critical success in the west and led the way for dark souls
It's frustrating but also kind of fascinating that you can have a very basic concept everyone agrees on but someone will die on a hill saying they hate it anyway because you referred to it with a term they associate with originating from the wrong political tribe.
>>68319280>I love making lists. I love tracking stuff like weight and ammo. Nobody I play with does, so when I DM I don't force people to track stuff.Are you me?
>>68316582i want to play your game anon
>>68327119>being a filthy trash with dead-end job>shitting on others on 4chan to copeIt's so obvious when you retards are crying
>>68336366A gold advice for you:Rulings, not rules.It's literally THE best way of keeping things fun, period.
>>68319280>so when I DM I don't force people to track stuffNothing really preventing you from keeping the track for them, internally, so everyone is having their own fun.I always have an abacus or at least set of counting beads at hand when GMing, because it's fun for me to play with those and always have a quick reference on what's going on. Players? They have their fun by knowing I have everything accounted for, so unless they feel like it, they don't need to be bothered with this shit on their own.
>>68343477Next time, try not being American. This usually helps with your kind of "problem"
>>68331990This is you and your "ideal" game.Go fuck a goat, you moron
I watch Matt Colville's videos regularly and it helps me improve my game. Not because his advice is good, but because it's usually terrible and it forces me to think about why it's terrible, so I can actually analyse the mechanistic aspects of running a game.
>>68342555>>68342220Yeah that was a pathetic attempt to salvage it. Lars looked reaaaaally pissed.
>>68318572I know this is bait, but stabbing an ally is still falling forward in a combat scenario.
>>68344370>I watch Matt Colville's videos regularly and it helps me improve my game. Not because his advice is good, but because it's usually terrible and it forces me to think about why it's terrible, so I can actually analyse the mechanistic aspects of running a game.lol, but also true.
>>68343477This is an astute and true observation. It's fucking ridiculous.
>>68344798... don't bring politics to the table?... kick out anyone that gets Pavlovian reaction to words that normal people use in normal conversations, but weirdos, regardless of their political spectrum, get triggered by?
>>68344798Astute and true fellow redditor
>>68344892It's referring to the fact that a huge amount of people are mad at "failing fast" because its similar sounding to "failing forwards", and also misrepresenting what both phrases mean.
>>68343420Honestly, the only thing that makes sense is the guy thinks 'fail faster' means literally sitting down, start rolling random dice, and deciding if that will be a game mechanic and what it will be.
>>68344468It definitely was a "look I talked with him after the fact and he was cool with it!". In the actual moment though, Lars was pissed off his player got killed in a cutscene, understandably so.
>>68345018I think a big problem with Matt's game is that his games start at 11 and he has nowhere to go from there. He has gods and demons wrecking shit from the get go, player characters ascending to divinity, all sorts of nonsense.I also find it funny how he constantly calls himself a writer and his credits are Evolve, a game with literally no plot and some trash tier litrpgs.
>>68345060Oh, also that he doesn't care about participating in a narrative, he just wants to tell a story. Like there's an episode of his youtube thing I distinctly remember where he talks about talking between like 3 of his NPCs for an hour while his players watched on.
>>68345171That's a huge problem with his DMing style. The fun thing about tabletop games is emergent gameplay and storytelling in a way that offers choice and feels organic, if you're dictating events that happen to your players and giving them no agency, you're giving an audiobook while the players listen, not a tabletop session.
>>68345627Forgot to specify tabletop RPGs but you get my point
>>68345638>>68345627Something else I don't understand, in the first "episode" of the chain, he let the players fuck around planning for 3 hours knowing full well that what they did didn't matter. Just force progress at that point or your players are going to feel like they wasted their time. To be fair though i think his players might be the slowest to do anything I've ever seen.And he is incredibly shit at rules for a guy who basically just does D&D
>>68342555>>68344468Link to the tweet?
>>68345702It sounds like Matt wanted an epic opening players be dammed. He should have made the original commander an NPC they all got to know and like.