In the first post of the Principles of Design series, I state that engineering isn't architecture. I'd like to unpack that in this post.
The heart of my argument is that if you only pay attention to the mathematical/mechanical elements of game design you are missing most of what makes design design. I'd like to back that up by directing your attention to the non-stop discussion in the game design sphere about how good mechanics aren't enough to get a game to sell, that you need something else. What you don't see in those spaces is a clear, concise idea of what that something else is. In one case, it's table presence/curb appeal. In another, theme or narrative. Perhaps it's innovation or player experience. I think it's all of those things and that they all fall under having a better idea of Design from a formalist perspective. Hence my series.
Now, I am not saying that you have to have studied design theory to be a good designer. Like with any skill, some people will have a greater innate understanding or taste without any formal training. You don't need to know music theory to be a musician. You don't have to have studied story structure to be a novelist. But an untrained musician still works within the bounds of music theory, by and large, and an untrained novelist who is any good usually has an innate sense of pacing and structure even if they don't have the vocabulary for it.
So there are plenty of great board game designs and designers. But there are also plenty of easily avoidable goofs that have little to do with pure mechanics. Mechanics are also said to be 'designed' but more and more I think of them as 'engineered'. I don't mean that to sound negative, either. Engineering is the 'How to' and is beautiful and complex in its own way. Design is the 'Why'. Now that our hobby has a lexicon for the mechanical understructure, I believe it is time to develop an aesthetic lexicon to go with it.
Oftentimes, we see art as a thing people either can or cannot do, whereas engineering is the result of training. But art skills can absolutely be improved with training. Most of art is being able to see the important parts of what you are trying to execute. The rest, of course is the execution. We become better designers when we can see without effort or extensive product testing which options will better support the whole design.
Developing your aesthetic sense can help with theming, table presence, visual information transmission, pacing, sell sheets, pitching, and more. Knowing what information or elements to include and what to leave out is the core of design. This could mean more beautiful, atmospheric games, but also games that are funnier, scarier, more exciting, more fun.
You may believe that it is the work of a developer or a publisher to steer a game to a certain artistic expression. But having a clear design vision will make your game stronger, even if it gets redesigned down the road by a publisher. Developing a better sense of design doesn't require you to be an artist or a great writer. A good designer can make a 'clip-art on white cardstock' game that clearly articulates the design vision in an appealing way. And of course, if you're planning on Kickstarting your game, then having a good design foundation is a must.
Students of theatre are strongly encouraged to cross-train in areas outside of their focus, in order to better understand the process of making theatre, but also because artistic training of any sort will make you a better artist. So even if you are a mechanics only designer who relies on someone else for theme, graphics, layout, art, sell sheets, prototypes, etc., you still need to have an understanding of design. Even from a mechanics only standpoint, the principles of design still apply. All elements of a design should be fully integrated. Every element should add to the experience and reinforce the design vision. Your mechanics should be designed to produce a desired experience. Perfect mechanics in a vacuum is not a game. And if mechanics, too, are experiential, then they are also subject to emotional content, pacing, and mood.
Every element of board games should be designed. All it takes is a little aesthetic sense and a vision. And a few guiding design principles, of course.
The heart of my argument is that if you only pay attention to the mathematical/mechanical elements of game design you are missing most of what makes design design. I'd like to back that up by directing your attention to the non-stop discussion in the game design sphere about how good mechanics aren't enough to get a game to sell, that you need something else. What you don't see in those spaces is a clear, concise idea of what that something else is. In one case, it's table presence/curb appeal. In another, theme or narrative. Perhaps it's innovation or player experience. I think it's all of those things and that they all fall under having a better idea of Design from a formalist perspective. Hence my series.
Now, I am not saying that you have to have studied design theory to be a good designer. Like with any skill, some people will have a greater innate understanding or taste without any formal training. You don't need to know music theory to be a musician. You don't have to have studied story structure to be a novelist. But an untrained musician still works within the bounds of music theory, by and large, and an untrained novelist who is any good usually has an innate sense of pacing and structure even if they don't have the vocabulary for it.
So there are plenty of great board game designs and designers. But there are also plenty of easily avoidable goofs that have little to do with pure mechanics. Mechanics are also said to be 'designed' but more and more I think of them as 'engineered'. I don't mean that to sound negative, either. Engineering is the 'How to' and is beautiful and complex in its own way. Design is the 'Why'. Now that our hobby has a lexicon for the mechanical understructure, I believe it is time to develop an aesthetic lexicon to go with it.
Oftentimes, we see art as a thing people either can or cannot do, whereas engineering is the result of training. But art skills can absolutely be improved with training. Most of art is being able to see the important parts of what you are trying to execute. The rest, of course is the execution. We become better designers when we can see without effort or extensive product testing which options will better support the whole design.
Developing your aesthetic sense can help with theming, table presence, visual information transmission, pacing, sell sheets, pitching, and more. Knowing what information or elements to include and what to leave out is the core of design. This could mean more beautiful, atmospheric games, but also games that are funnier, scarier, more exciting, more fun.
You may believe that it is the work of a developer or a publisher to steer a game to a certain artistic expression. But having a clear design vision will make your game stronger, even if it gets redesigned down the road by a publisher. Developing a better sense of design doesn't require you to be an artist or a great writer. A good designer can make a 'clip-art on white cardstock' game that clearly articulates the design vision in an appealing way. And of course, if you're planning on Kickstarting your game, then having a good design foundation is a must.
Students of theatre are strongly encouraged to cross-train in areas outside of their focus, in order to better understand the process of making theatre, but also because artistic training of any sort will make you a better artist. So even if you are a mechanics only designer who relies on someone else for theme, graphics, layout, art, sell sheets, prototypes, etc., you still need to have an understanding of design. Even from a mechanics only standpoint, the principles of design still apply. All elements of a design should be fully integrated. Every element should add to the experience and reinforce the design vision. Your mechanics should be designed to produce a desired experience. Perfect mechanics in a vacuum is not a game. And if mechanics, too, are experiential, then they are also subject to emotional content, pacing, and mood.
Every element of board games should be designed. All it takes is a little aesthetic sense and a vision. And a few guiding design principles, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment