Auteurs and Committees

There are two competing concepts about designers floating around the hobby right now: design by committee and the auteur designer. Design by committee (henceforth DBC) usually presents as emphasizing incorporating ideas from playtesters and the importance of developers to the design process. The auteur designer, on the other hand is presented as the genius artist whose artistic control is vital to the success of the game. I think this binary approach lacks nuance. 

Let's look at the downsides of each approach first. At its worst, DBC is crowdsourcing popular ideas rather than developing a skills and creativity in parallel to playtester feedback. I think a lot of independent designers start at this point, hoping playtesters will critique their game into something that is good. I believe designers should develop an independent concept of quality, so they are less reliant on playtester feedback to make design choices (as opposed to development choices). Design studios, on the other hand, seem to suffer from complexity creep and competing design visions. Popular games become bloated with expansions. Some games simply feel messy, as when the theme, art, and gameplay are somewhat mismatched. 

On the other hand, the clear downside to the auteur designer is a lack of perspective. Obviously, these designers are still playtesting their games, but frequently lack the outside input of paid developers. A more obscure downside is that the hobby has a weird relationship with designers because of the perception of artistic control. Every game is the product of some sort of collaboration. Even Ryan Laukat isn't manufacturing and distributing his own games. The auteur designer gives off the illusion of full artistic control, but very few designers actually succeed as solo outfits in terms of accolades or profits. I think that publishers could do better about viewing designers as artistic collaborators and that a conversation about design vision versus product vision should happen before contracts are signed. But designers also need to approach games as a collaborative medium. 

Another unfortunate reason driving the auteur designer is credit. I don't buy into artist myths. All art is collaborative on some level. All collaborators deserve credit. In addition to fixing BGG listings, I want to see design studios more transparent about who worked on what. I'm not a fan of design pseudonyms when who the pseudonym covers changes over time. Give people credit for the games they've worked on. This is important for the development of informed games criticism and also to avoid exploitation as the industry grows. Yes, some designers want more credit than they deserve. But a collaborative industry should be generous about giving credit, for the goodwill it builds if nothing else.

The benefit of DBC is perspective: more creative people set at solving the same problem. The benefit of the auteur designer is a single, driving design vision. Where I believe the discussion (inasmuch as there is one) breaks down is that these benefits are not mutually exclusive. Clear design visions and additional perspectives are both vital to good game design. I don't think solo designers or design studios are going anywhere. Everyone can benefit from using better forms of collaboration, better communication, and clearly articulated vision statements.