A few months ago when I was on an indie RPG kick, I came across the lovely forum story-games. Its a great place. One of the first posts I did there was part of a “5-minute” RPG challenge. Just come up with a new game…Quick!
The game I came up with is not worth mentioning (few 5-minute ideas are) but I wrote a couple posts that rehashes things I talk about regularly in real life but I don’t mention much online. Because of the length of the exchange I am breaking them into two blog posts. This first one dealt with the importance of playing with game design but though a very meandering path beginning with ruminations on my profession. This post deals with why I so greatly value design development.
TomasHVM, the initiator of the 5-minute challenge:
Hi Justus! Thank you for posting those thoughts (in the earlier post); very interesting.You are right, of course; ideas are cheap. But you do not find the good ideas if you don’t dare to play around a bit, with ideas of all sorts. That’s what we have done in the 5 minute thread.
Having people learning something from dabbling in game-craft is very nice, even though most of them don’t go further with it. Their ideas are still out there, in the form of games posted, and in thoughts had by the people who read those games.
Such a practice is very nice for the culture of game-craft.
My Response:
Tomas, I very much agree, I hope I did not seem too harsh…I guess an unspoken assumption that I didn’t make clear is that I believe all initial ideas are crap. Even if you have a moment of of genius, the slightest bit of prodding at that nascent state would show major problems that could easily derail the initial idea. Whatever the creative endeavor, it is the refining process that takes brilliant notions and turns them into complete “thoughts”…and generally the refining process entails taking the idea-spark and doing a lot of bad iterations, developing the idea until something halfway decent come out.
I think this is an issue of unnuanced internet tone, but when I say ideas are cheap and generally crummy, I mean to say it in a very fond way – in that you gotta start somewhere, and it’s rarely pretty. But that’s where we all start. The next step – and out of the scope of the 5-minute game exercise – is to flesh out these ideas.
By the way I quite like the idea of “game-craft”. Reminds me of a book, How Buildings Learn. Its not written by an architect, but I really like his provocative theory that one of the major problems of the profession of Architecture is that it wants to view itself as an art or a science, but one is too capricious and the other too rigid. He felt it would be a much better approach to view architecture as a craft. It’s an interesting book, worth checking out (though I’m not sure how applicable it would be to game-craft, though maybe the ideas of accretion and changes over time might be particularly relevant to RPGs as opposed to other types of game).
TomasHVM:
I’m quite comfortable viewing game-design as both craft and art. Those terms are not at odds with each other.As for viewing “all ideas as crap”; why take such a position; it lacks the nuance of reality. And I do not see it as very constructive either; you may work as hard to make your ideas grow into a beautiful work of art, even if you consider some ideas to be the golden nuggets you need to believe in your work.
My final response:
Ahh, I think it is empowering to think that all ideas start off weak. I believe all strong ideas start as weak ideas that have been carefully developed and nurtured. It’s a mindgame for me. The problem in thinking that there are “great concepts” to be discovered, is that I end up constantly seeking “better” design concepts in lieu of actually taking a “good enough” design concept and developing it into something “great”.
To be clear, I’m not saying all ideas are *equally* crap. I’m just saying that all initial concepts have major problems that need to be resolved through hard work and diligent development. Of course, some ideas are worth developing and some are just completely dead on arrival – recognizing what idea has potential is a fundamental task of an effective designer. But after having found a decent starting concept, continually looking for a “better idea” is a recipe for going nowhere. Such a designer just constantly starts over, he will continually waste his time chasing his tail while someone who spends their efforts developing a decent idea will go much further.
Funny thing is that this approach to architecture design in school also applies to architecture craft in professional practice. Its most obvious when you draw up construction details for a building – which is inherently an intimidating task because that is where one’s knowledge (and lack thereof) is most on display. When someone is new to the practice, they won’t know how something is assembled. So when they are tasked to detail something, it is really easy for them to freak out and freeze up while staring at the blank page! I always tell my less experienced colleagues (and often to myself) the first detail is going to be a fucking mess, in fact you’ll most likely draw three or four shitty versions of the same detail before you get it right. But that’s just the way it is, and the sooner you draw the crappy details the quicker you’ll develop a good one.
As I write it out it sure does sound like a strange pessimistic design philosophy…but its worked well for me. Design is a mind game, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other folks have a more optimistic mind game that is better suited for their design process. But mine mindset is all about embracing initial failings and avoiding the a stalemate of overthinking things.
Funny thing is that I don’t at all intend to sound dismissive of the 5-minute exercise – there is a powerful energy in great brain storming sessions and a joy of discovery with all these ideas coming from all directions! All projects start somewhere and loose free-flowing brainstorming sessions are one of the best ways of getting a lot of ideas on the wall. The more ideas you throw up, the more likely you’ll find one that will be a good starting point.
But I’m also keenly aware that the next step will take a lot of work. But hey! The next step always takes a lot of work, so why be a downer? In my last paragraph of the initial post I meant to acknowledge that “yes, I am certain that all those games in the thread had serious issues, but it seems silly to dismiss the 5-exercise for what it isn’t.(a practice of fully developed thorough game design).” I certainly enjoyed the exercise for what it actually was, a collective creative push in throwing things ideas up into the air, a maelstrom of community brain activity.
Also Posted on Boardgamegeek.com