What do you consider the difference between a bad system and a good but not great system...

>The universal objective metric
Not only is there no such thing, you putting forth that argument is EASILY disproven.

It relies on the idea that a system cannot be used for anything beyond what it was designed for, and that's ignoring the very genesis of the hobby. Adapting a system for different uses, uses beyond the scope and intention of the original designer, is the essential start of every single system. Every last one.

To even put forth that as an "universal" metric, let alone the ridiculousness of an "objective" one, is ignoring a fundamental truth about games. They are subjective to an extreme, and you might as well be trying to present a "universal, objective metric" for what dictates if a painting, book, movie, or other work of art is good or not.

If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system. It's that simple.

You're talking about something new and different. And that's okay! But by adapting it, you are changing the design intent of the system as you become the designer. And from that point, the same metric applies.

I dislike this because the term stupid ideas is way too subjective. Ideas aren't stupid, presentation usually determines a piece of media's quality.

>If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system. It's that simple.

No, it's not that simple. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

There is no game, none, and I highlight that fact once again by repeating it, none, that is intended for only a single style of play. The concept is ludicrous to even suggest. Think about it for a brief moment. And, there's no designer out there that would ever even try to get anyone to commit to running a game in a singular, precise manner. In fact, almost every single designer encourages people to adapt and alter the game to suit their own preferences, under the well-understood truism that people prefer games catered to their personal preferences.

So, rather than "you are changing the design intent of the system", you are actually matching it.

I know you WANT a universal metric, but not only is there none, yours is particularly terrible.

Welcome to games. They're subjective.

>Ideas aren't stupid

That idea is.

I disagree with you, but I see the logic in that and it's a compelling argument. At the end of the day, I think the difference between a great game and a bad game are based on personal preferences and you just can't put tight rules on that. However, I do find differing game theory to be really interesting.

Now you're just twisting my words.

The design intent of a system need not be super specific (although it can be. The Mountain Witch, for example, tells a single specific story of betrayal amidst Ronin on a single quest). 'Heroic high fantasy' can be a systems design intention, and a huge number of different play styles can fall within that.

But it's also very clear if something you're trying to do is outside of that. And assessing a system on failing what it never set out to do is just ridiculous.

Likewise, if a system sets out to do something and fails, creating a system where it achieves an alternate goal you invented or altering the system until it achieves its original goal is an equally ridiculous argument for calling it a success.

Systems can be assessed by their design intention. If you refuse that essential premise, there's no basis to assess them at all. It all becomes so purely subjective that you can't really say anything concrete, because the subjective experience of using it can and will always be different.

As a GM, I love using 5e, but I recognize it's not ideal.

>The design intent of a system need not be super specific

You need to realize that it never is. Even The Mountain Witch, for example, has mods for it that expand the game, and while the base game is presented as a single specific story, it never discouraged exploring ideas beyond what the author presented.

Ultimately, of course, is that the "design intention" is a meaningless statement that often comes as an misunderstanding or even an accusation. There is absolutely no room there for "universal, objective" metrics.

>Likewise, if a system sets out to do something and fails, creating a system where it achieves an alternate goal you invented or altering the system until it achieves its original goal is an equally ridiculous argument for calling it a success.

Not at all. Imagine the hypothetical [your favorite game but everyone is My Little Pony characters]. If someone were to say "Hey, this game is great if you just ignore the MLP", the game is still largely a success even though it is flawed in the fact that it presents ponies in a bizarre fashion. In fact, many popular games originated from a similar, if not quite so exaggerated, genesis.

Original goal is meaningless. Design intention? Only useful for evaluating the designer, and only in the explicit question of whether they can build a system to match their vision, and not an overall statement of their skills as a designer.

>It all becomes so purely subjective that you can't really say anything concrete, because the subjective experience of using it can and will always be different.

If you want something more "objective," you need to actually look at more objective evaluations. Ease of learning, speed of play, replay-ability, ease of adaptation, and so on and so forth are far more "objective" than "does it match the designers intent?" But, even so, I am going to have to force you to realize even these are still ultimately subjective evaluations, as well as the subjective question of importance.

But none of your examples engage with my key point. They change the system to something outside of its original design goal, and then you assert that it's actually the same thing and the distinction is meaningless. You're not making an argument, you're just telling me I'm wrong and demanding I accept your alternate paradigm.

>They change the system to something outside of its original design goal,

Which has NO BEARING ON THE QUALITY OF THE GAME.

If you wanted to try designing a game system for submarine warfare, that while brilliant failed to emulate submarine warfare, that doesn't mean the game is bad, especially if someone were to take that game, change a few names, and say "look, this submarine game with brilliant mechanics works infinitely better as a ninja combat game."

If you believe the most important part of a game is this ephemeral "design goal", a goal that beyond all else is often EXPLICITELY stated by the designer to be open for modification, than you are trying to establish one of the most pointless parts of a game as its most important facet.

If someone buys a game that advertises itself as a submarine combat game and the rules do not work properly, they would call their purchase a bad game, entirely justifiably.

That someone else might come along and point out the ruleset works better if you think of it in a different way is effectively meaningless, unless you go out of your way to repackage and retheme the whole thing, at which point... It's a different game.

>If someone buys a game that advertises itself as a submarine combat game and the rules do not work properly, they would call their purchase a bad game, entirely justifiably.

If the game is well-designed in every major aspect but fails to emulate submarines, what kind of petty person would insist that its failure to emulate submarines makes it a bad game? They can say it was disappointing in that facet, but would they be able to deny that its other design decisions are brilliant? Does one failure destroy an entire game?

You said you want an objective, universal metric. If it does not apply to this situation, than you cannot call it an objective, universal metric.

This.
FPBP
Others said it well too.

>i disagree, largely because it puts a lot of undue attention on the designer's goals and intentions
That is a valid criticism, easily sidestepped by changing the focus of that intention.
If you use the best fantasy game as a hard science fiction roleplaying game, you might find it a bad game because it does not match your intended use.
Or, "there are no bad games, just games that are bad for the intended goal."

Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.
Which circles right back to the first post.

I have a tool that is a combination pliers, wirecutters, and flathead screwdriver.
They are good pliers, poor wirecutters, and an adequate screwdriver.
But they are a great combination pliers, wirecutters, and flathead screwdriver.
Intention matters.

Rules and mechanics are interpreted by their presentation and context. If a game has a theme, people are going to entirely justifiably expect the rules and mechanics presented to fulfil the promise of that theme.

The only place pure mechanics outside of theme are really relevant are abstract games which intentionally eschew theme in favour of mechanical purity. Otherwise, how well the mechanics reflect the theme will always be a factor that has a real and tangible effect on the quality of the game as an experience and a product.

If I was sold a game marketing itself as a gritty, realistic and accurate WWII simulation, and the actual game was an admittedly well executed experience involving pulp superheroes, never built or non-functional nazi superweapons and prototypes or the mystical arts of the Thule society, I would call it a bad game. I made my purchase and selection with a set of entirely reasonable expectations and the game did not live up to them.

I might comment on the fact that, looked at from a different angle, the game works quite well, but that is irrelevant. The game failed to execute its premise.

A film that advertises itself as a comedy will not do well if it never makes you laugh. It might be an incredibly well executed drama, but if people go in expecting laughs and do not receive any, they will view it as a bad experience, and are entirely right in doing so.

>If you use the best fantasy game as a hard science fiction roleplaying game, you might find it a bad game because it does not match your intended use.

You might, or you might not. Subjectivity comes into play. You might actually discover that the best fantasy game works even better with hard science fiction. You must remember that almost every single game has mechanics with roots in dramatically different genres.

>Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.

No, it is not a universal metric, and in fact, there are no universal metrics. It's understandable that you would like them, but we're talking about something extremely subjective, and while you might value the design goals of the designer, I find them ultimately inconsequential because the fallibility of any designer extends to their decisions on what their design goals are. You are also failing to appreciate that "the goal established by its creator" is never to produce an immalleable product.

>Rules and mechanics are interpreted by their presentation and context.
And thus are HIGHLY subjective.

>I would call it a bad game.
You would be free to, just as long as you didn't demand that anyone respect your opinion at the level of some universal, objective metric.

You should have enough sense to respect that I very well may see past what I would consider superficial trappings into the core of the system, recognize what fluff it may be better suited for, and would be delighted to explore the well executed experience. I would say that the flaw is simply the theme, and that the game itself is brilliant constructed and a charm to play, something I would happily recommend to anyone looking for a system to run pulp-superheroes.

So, if you bought a chocolate cake, and upon tasting it and finding it was actually strawberry cheesecake, you wouldn't complain? Even if it was an excellently made and tasty strawberry cheesecake, it still isn't what you ordered. And that's ignoring the possibility that maybe you don't like strawberry cheesecake, meaning the quality of what you ordered is irrelevant.

>you wouldn't complain?

It would be a flaw. But, if it was tasty, would I call it a bad cake?
Personally, I like both kinds of cakes, and would consider the particular flaw of a mixed up order to near the level of being inconsequential.

I'm not denying that missing tone is a flaw. What I'm telling you, practically pleading with you, is that you need to recognize that if that's what you consider to be the universal objective metric for whether a game is good or not, you are being ridiculous.

Take this final example, from someone begging you to expand your point of view for a moment.

A game is designed with the intention of presenting being trapped in the most tedious and boring Hell. It largely involves filling out thousands of spreadsheets, that the Game Master looks over for mistakes, and if you make a mistake, you have to start from the very beginning. Game times are measured in years, and if you somehow manage to fill out all of the spreadsheets, the GM tells you that there was an unavoidable contradiction on pages 5,678 and 9,878, and that you're going to have to start over.

Is this a good game? By your universal objective metric, it's a fantastic game, and you would not have any right to complain about it when someone insisted that you play it.

No, ideas cannot be stupid. An idea is simply a thought, and has no attributes in existence. It intrinsically can't be anything more than it is. Compare an actual real thing that has physical and measurable traits, such as your dumb face, which can be quantified and be proven to be stupid.

From literally the first post
>Sets out a narrative goal (generally emulate x genre), and has mechanics that inform this narrative without being a burden to the players. Alternatively, have a mechanical goal and accomplishes it without sacrificing other aspects of the game or the narrative experience

*Bzzt*. Please try again.

>*Bzzt*. Please try again.
Okay.

>The universal objective metric for assessing a system is the systems own claims for what it is designed to do.

If your only recourse is pointing out less precise wordings of the same general argument, you're admitting you don't really have a point.

>You might, or you might not. Subjectivity... ...genres.
You actually typed all that out to explain what the word "might" means?
Yes, "might" also means "might not."
Wow, your need to argue is extraordinary.
As such, I might just make my point and go:

>>Thus, the only universal metric is one that compares the games relative effectiveness at achieving the goal established by its creators.
>there are no universal metrics.
The truth of that statement is subjective.

We agree that "bad game" is subjective.
Whenever you have a quality that is inherently subjective, like "far", you can only gauge it by comparison to another value.
This value needs to be universally unique to the specific subjective comparison, like the location of speaker who said "far".
Thus, when someone says "It is far.", the implied meaning is "far as perceived from the speaker" or "a distance the speaker thinks is far from here".
A subjective term is rendered into an actual functional quantity for this specific instance.

When attempting to do this with "bad game", we could use "a game the speaker thinks is bad".
However, with a game, there is also the value set by the intent of the designer.
This value will remain a constant with each specific game and is therefore much more useful for generating universal meaning.
Thus, a "bad game" becomes "a specific game that does not achieve it's specific intention." and the subjectivity is reduced to the appraisal of how effective the game meets it's goal.
This appraisal, since it is based on specific information, is inherently less subjective than "game I don't like."
More to the point, it can be universally applied to all games meaningfully.

>the fallibility of any designer extends to their decisions on what their design goals are.
This just means that the intention, one aspect of the game, is flawed. This is inconsequential.

>"the goal established by its creator" is never to produce an immalleable product.
They might not be. Or they might.

If my argument is to directly quote you, and destroy that quote that you hoped would encapsulate your argument by using it as your conclusion, then that is basically achieving a perfect victory over your idea of this "universal objective metric" you wished to put forward.

Now, you are absolutely free to back pedal and retract your "The universal objective metric for assessing a system is the systems own claims for what it is designed to do" statement. In fact, I was hoping you would, because I have very little stomach for people who argue as tediously as you do, and had hoped you'd see reason a little earlier and more amiably.

D&D is still a bad system, OP, no matter how you dress up your troll question.

>This appraisal, since it is based on specific information, is inherently less subjective than "game I don't like."

Less subjective does not mean objective.

>More to the point, it can be universally applied to all games meaningfully.

No. That's already been disproven, In fact, giving the creator's intention undue importance can actually be applied in way that presents an absolutely meaningless argument in the face of considerably more important facets of a game.

I have no reason to retract it. Your arguments are pure semantics that you've consistently failed to prove have any real merit when considering the actual experience of games and how they're presented. But I probably should stop arguing now, if only because the other user in the thread is engaging you on the same semantic level and doing a far better job than I am.

Thank you for at least giving up. I'm actually saddened that that's the best I can expect from you, but considering your arguments, it's probably more than I should have hoped.

But really, your "universal objective metric" idea is ridiculous.

I don't even like D&D. I just was curious to see people's answers since I'm designing a system myself. I'm not super experienced though so I figured I'd set my goals for 'good enough' and started wondering. Everybody is always saying systems are shit, but I was curious if so many systems are really shit or if they are just not great. Passable, but not ideal.

Rather than pretending to be civil while you gloat, would you engage with the person who, as I said, is doing a far better job dismantling your weak excuse for a point and who you have yet to properly refute? You've not earned the right to be so smug just yet.

Already engaged. I believe my refutations are proper as well.

And, I'm not lying when I'm telling you that you make me sad, genuinely sad, because I feel like I can sense the undercurrents as to why you are so adamant on establishing some "universal objective metric," even though you plan to do so on something that is not only ultimately subjective, but also subjectively consequential.

I was hoping that you're just being obstinate for obstinate's sake, and I was thanking you with sincerity that you had at least enough sense to give up when you did.

Pretending you can see some imaginary personal reason just makes your lack of argument seem even more pathetic. The 'agenda' is establishing a common frame of reference to allow actually useful discussion and analysis of games and systems, a universal standard that can be applied usefully to all game systems and actually creates a basis for discussing and comparing them. The 'alternative' you offer essentially renders all potential discussion of systems completely meaningless.

This.

"All things are subjective."
"There are no universal metrics."
"Words are arbitrary and therefore without meaning."
Regardless of their truth, these statements are meaningless.

You simply demanding that I accept your personal standard as universal isn't going to work, especially when your personal standard is terribly subjective and largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of evaluation.

I'm sorry, but you can't just establish a "universal objective metric" by saying it's universal and objective, when it's neither. Just take comfort in that it's not necessary to have system discussions that a PERSONALLY meaningful, just like a painting can have PERSONAL meaning to you.

We can both discuss the merits of Neoclassical paintings over Postmodern paintings (or vice versa), however, we cannot by any measure ever claim some universal objective metric for what determines a painting as good or bad.

You need to come to terms with that.

They are not meaningless, especially when they're used in an argument against someone hoping to establish their personal views as objective and universal.

In fact, it's at those times that the truth of those statements is not only meaningful, but vital and irrefutable.

>They are not meaningless

>"All things are subjective."
If true, so is the idea that all things are subjective.

>"There are no universal metrics."
If true, there is no universal metric of truth to prove that it is true that there are no universal metrics.

>"Words are arbitrary and therefore without meaning."
If true, then the words in that sentence are without meaning, meaningless, and avocado.

>If true, so is the idea that all things are subjective.

Are you hoping to create a contradiction through semantics?

The important point is that what is subjective remains subjective, regardless of the desire to turn it into an objective metric. I did not claim all things are subjective, but the unfortunate truth is that in the extreme, it is true. Hoping for an objective, universal metric and presenting one that is so easily refuted does not even warrant calling all things subjective, since it's easy enough to show how his metric is subjective alone and has already been done.

>>They change the system to something outside of its original design goal,
>Which has NO BEARING ON THE QUALITY OF THE GAME.
You muddied things up a bit, but here is where you failed to refute user's point:

>If you're adapting a system for a different use, you're no longer talking about the system.

You assert to the heavens that no game designer intends only one style of play.
That "almost every single designer encourages people to adapt and alter the game to suit their own preferences"
I question that assertion is universally true, but fine. Let's accept that.

If there there intention was stated that the players be able to adapt it to their own needs, then the adaptability of the game becomes a metric by which the game succeeds at it's intention.
If the adaptation is dependent on the the player adapting it, then the player is designing the adaptation, becoming a new designer of a new system for their intentions.

user was right, you are not.

>there there
*their*
Typed it twice, misspelled it both times. heh

This arguement is pointless and stupid. Can we talk about games instead?

>Good
Has a lot of elements that people enjoy, generally considered good.
>Great
I like it.

>I did not claim all things are subjective
No, you said "There are no universal metrics."
Which if true, means there is no universal metric of truth to prove that it is true that there are no universal metrics, making you wrong.

>but the unfortunate truth is that in the extreme, it is true
If it is true, that truth is subjective, and therefore not objectively true.

dub dub speaks objective truth.

>then the adaptability of the game becomes a metric by which the game succeeds at it's intention.

You've failed to establish that as an objective metric by which the game succeeds at it's intentions. How adaptable the game is is not the final word on whether a game succeeds at all of its intentions, and that's without even looking at the subjectivity involved in establishing the question of what defines how adaptable a game is.

Sorry, but it still fails as a universal objective metric. You're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible.

>No, you said "There are no universal metrics."

In regards to establishing the quality of a game? Yes, so I would ask you kindly not to chop up my statements. You will not be able to provide a universally agreed upon metric that will determine one game as good and another as bad. No matter what you do, some people will enjoy the "bad" game and provide substantial reasoning as to why, while the people will hate the "good" game and overload you with criticisms. Welcome to art.

I have directly explained why what he insists are universal and objective metrics are merely personal and subjective.

'Bad' and 'Good' do not mean 'Not fun' and 'Fun'.

At no point has anyone said it's not possible to enjoy a bad game. The opposite is obviously true. But you can still point to traits of a system that add or detract from the quality of an experience and classify them as good or bad based on that.

> But you can still point to traits of a system that add or detract from the quality of an experience and classify them as good or bad based on that.

Yes, but not objectively or universally, and the proposed idea that the creator's intention is significant is particularly personal and subjective, especially since you'll find games with multiple creators, and games with intentions that are not clearly stated.
To attempt to evaluate a game on your subjective opinion of what the game's intention is and to claim it is a universal and objective metric is beyond ludicrous, especially as the intention of the person using the system tends to trump the creators.

At best, you can argue things like "This game doesn't have a lot of typos and the grammar is good, and the pages are in order," and you might be able to get away with calling those pretty damn near universally and objectively good traits. But, you're straying pretty far from universal and objective if you want to claim something as grossly subjective and of grossly subjective importance as establishing author's intent and then hoping to evaluate whether a game matched that intent as the most significant determination of the success of a game.

Hell, sales records are more objective than that, and for the love of all that is sane let's not try to pretend sales numbers are what determine if a game was successful.

>How adaptable the game is is not the final word on whether a game succeeds at all of its intentions
Yes one metric is not the Pass/Fail of game success because there are multiple metrics and it's an analog scale of quality.
This refutes nothing and is more than a little silly of you to suggest.
If your next attempt at a reply contains something similar, I will not continue this.

>and that's without even looking at the subjectivity involved in establishing the question of what defines how adaptable a game is.
I am not defining the scale and determining factors of what is and is not "adaptable".
If we did, there would be some smaller point you could argue was subjective, then we would argue that, until we finally narrowed it down to something objective or arbitrary.
And it's pointless.

If, as you've asserted, the designer's intention was for it to be adaptable:
Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.

Sorry, you're still wrong. You're going to find yourself being wrong a lot if you insist in the pursuit of wrong beliefs.

>I would ask you kindly not to chop up my statements.

>No, it is not a universal metric, and in fact, there are no universal metrics.
You're welcome.

>This refutes nothing and is more than a little silly of you to suggest.

It actually refutes the idea of matching the creators intent as a universal and objective metric, because it renders it subjective and ultimately of subjective importance.

>If your next attempt at a reply contains something similar, I will not continue this.

Please. Explaining how subjective things are not objective is pretty tedious.

>Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.

Any metric is not the same thing as an objective metric, or a universal objective metric. A subjective metric is simply a personal metric.

Once again, you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible.

No universal metrics in regards to the topic at hand, Mr. Semantics.

Consider the point clarified.

Like, it depends on how fun the game is to run and play in the end.

>It actually refutes the idea of matching the creators intent as a universal and objective metric, because it renders it subjective and ultimately of subjective importance.
No, it doesn't.

>Explaining how subjective things are not objective is pretty tedious.
You could have stopped your nonsense at any point.

>>Either it's adaptability is a metric that can be determined to as a factor in the games success or it is not such a metric and is dependent on the person that adapts the game for their intentions, making it a new game with new intentions.
>Any metric is not the same thing as an objective metric, or a universal objective metric. A subjective metric is simply a personal metric.
The metric in what you are replying to is one of several metrics that comprise the individual expression of the overall simpler, universal metric of "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do."

Once again, you're going to find yourself wrong a lot if you insist in the pursuit of wrong beliefs.

>The metric in what you are replying to is one of several metrics

Subjective metrics.

>that comprise the individual expression of the overall simpler, universal metric

Universal? Not universal and objective metric?

Looks like you're finished and realized you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible. Glad you gave up.

>Universal? Not universal and objective metric?
>Looks like you're finished and realized you're going to find yourself failing a lot if you insist in the pursuit of the impossible. Glad you gave up.
I actually hadn't stated the term "objective" once in my argument in any of my posts, but that's just one more wrong belief of yours.
As such, I didn't think to include it my last post.

I take it you are conceding your original objection to the existence of any universal metrics?
Good of you to relax your tenacious hold on your wrong beliefs.

Anyway, "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do" is an objective metric.
Striving to prove that the actual assessing of specific examples done by subjective human beings will be subjective assessments is a fruitless exercise that does not change the objectivity of the simple metric.

For a brief, beautiful moment, i was hoping you were just being an idiot and arguing a non-issue.

>Anyway, "assessing a system by the system's own claims for what it is designed to do" is an objective metric.

You stupid idiot.
You pure and simple, absolutely retarded, every other insult I can gather, idiot.

You've given up in the other way. You've committed yourself to something so stupid, purely for the sake of salavaging some sense of pride, that you've forced me to dismiss you as a pure and simple idiot for trying to argue something not only blatantly false, but something that was disproven in the very first post addressing the issue.

No part of that extremely subjective statement, built from other subjective parts, has even a foundation of objectivity. You've blindly shot yourself in the foot, and did so with eagerness.

Good night. I rose to your bait enough, and am saddened to discover you were just a very stupid troll all along.

Nope.

>Nope.
To expand on this, you have reduced your argument to declaring victory with an unsupported assertion and repetitive insults while trying to sound superior.
Nope.

>What do you consider the difference between a bad system and a good but not great system? Hard mode: you can't mention great systems at all.
alright. the difference is in the workload I have to put up with as a GM in house-ruling to make the campaign run as I want it to.

This is my criteria as well.

Seeing the "THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVES!" faggot flail around is fun. Especially since his method of argument reminds me of a troll I'll not name.

I am probably wrong in your honest opinion, but
A good system is defined by enough strictness of rules to shut down immediatly any argument between players/GM, while keeping flexibility to adapt rules to your own playstyle.

A great system is as above, but it's also balanced, easy to learn, while also being deep for veteran players, with optional/alterntive rules being a possible option.

A bad system is a system that fails to set a guideline for both players and GMs, leading to arguments (which are the biggest fun-killers, imho), misinterpretations of rules and such.

For examples we'll take on chargen:
A good system allows you to do every class/race you could possibly immagine, while giving you appropriate hinderances that most players will agree on being fair, while also allowing you to make new combinations that won't be differently balanced.
A great system will also have chargen easy enough that a newcomer won't be lost in the charsheet while also allowing for veteran players to make advanced decisions that give added depth to a character mechanic.

A bad game will have contradictory rules, trap options, or a strictness of choices

>A good system allows you to do every class/race you could possibly imagine
Can I role up an Elder Dragon Kender Kitsune?
heh

Not to be a dick, but this criteria feels like you base most of your experience around d20/other 'gamey' systems.

Which is not a problem, but makes your criteria very narrowly applicable (and it's also somewhat easy to game).

What you say might be true, but mind expanding on that?

For me the distinction between "good but not great" and "bad" lies in how much the in-game mechanics and the system's purpose co-align. Being a WoDfag, here's my examples:

>Vampire: the Requiem
It strives to play more on the monstrous aspect of vampirism being a huge crutch for them by adding loads of frenzy stipulations. But it also added Predator's Taint, which needs to be interpreted in very certain ways in order to not screw up the entire game into a manic display of every vampire going mad every time they meet another. Also, certain disciplines end up extremely overpowered since you don't need to spend anything activating them, which can be either houseruled or played on by an experienced ST. All in all, VtR is a good system, but since it needs an experienced GM so that it can't end up a gory Benny Hill sketch, it's not great.

>Blood & Smoke
It's VtR 2e! And it doesn't know what it wants to do! It doesn't focus on vampires fighting an uphill battle to keep that last shred of humanity they've got, it doesn't focus on the murderdeathkill madness that could happen in VtM despite making vampires killing machines again, it introduces giant owl spirits that signal the apocalypse as an unsubtle wink, nudge and assgrab to remind you of Gehenna and it also has an XP system that can be very exploited to make your character a walking doomsday device. There is no focus and the mechanics feel like they belong in a Call of Cthulhu knockoff. Bad.

The only thing I've seen that consistently hinders a system is learning curve. If it's a shit curve, usually not gonna have a good time.

The learning curve should be consistent with the difficulty curve of the game itself

Eh, just your examples sound really d20 centered; many games don't even have races or classes.

I also associate "Strictness of rules", and especially using those rules to settle arguments with 3.x culture, which is probably my own personal bias at play.

Well, the Class/Race example was just an example, maybe should have used something like weapon choice or skills as examples...
I played both classless and raceless games, so that isn't the issue there (not yet found a game lacking both, sadly, because my group is fantasy-focused and they feel that classes and races are a must)

My god. When I went to bed last night I didn't expect the flailing sperg to last as long as he did. What magnificent fun.

I'm first poster, and went to sleep after posting. I can't say I expected
>a game is good if it does well what it says it does well
to be such a controversial topic.

It's a pretty non-controversial statement from my perspective, yeah.

But this sort of thing isn't exactly uncommon. This board has a lot of odd people who get super obsessed with single, specific things, often to a ludicrous degree. You just have to laugh because otherwise it'd get kinda sad.

It's really not.

I'm about 90% sure it's the guy who made >51637716

Considering that's one of the game's biggest criticisms of course he'd be triggered (or pretend to be, w/e)...

years ago when i used to be on /b/, i saw a less charming version of this pic (from mexico). *sigh.

>what has been seen etc.

It's more of trying to say that's an universal objective metric that's controversial.

It's such a subjective idea, and hoping claim a game objectively meets that goal or that it's of even relative importance leaves much to be desired.

It's not a bad thing to keep in mind, since designers meeting their design goals being good is fairly straightforward, but at the same it's very dangerous to put this as an absolute distinction of quality, since not only does it ultimately limit what can be achieved, it ultimately is a separate question from how good the final product is.

Take the Post-It for example. The designer's goal was to make a very strong glue, but wound up making a very weak one instead. To call that glue bad is trying to dismiss that the goal was shifted and adapted, and ultimately produced a very successful product.

The controversial part is hoping to establish it as objective or universal, since it's not objective and doesn't apply to all situations. Call it personal criteria and selective criteria, and very few people will fault you as long as you are able to recognize exceptions and other people's opinions.

>Take the Post-It for example. The designer's goal was to make a very strong glue, but wound up making a very weak one instead. To call that glue bad is trying to dismiss that the goal was shifted and adapted, and ultimately produced a very successful product.

The problem with this analogy is that the original product failed the original goal, THEN it was repurposed to create a NEW product, which then didn't fail.

The original "strong glue" was a failure. It lead to creating a different, good product.

This happens a lot in iterative design. You could say that the original cadre of d20 systems were pretty bad for being D&D, but repurposed for a superhero game (M&M) they are actually pretty good.

The issue is that we're not talking "strong glue" as the final definition of what we're discussing, but "good glue" or "bad glue."

Tell me that the glue is bad because it didn't meet its design goal.

The glue was bad because it didn't meet its design goal.

That adaptation beyond that occurred is irrelevant. The examples were stated earlier in the thread- If something fails its design goal but is then adapted to a new design goal, it is effectively a new product that can then be assessed by that design goal.

It's also worth noting that 'bad', in terms of 'fails to meet its design goals' does not mean 'completely without merit'. But if it's not fit to task, any other merits it has are generally unimportant.

If the original glue was sold as a strong glue, and I'd take it home, and glue things with it, and it wasn't strong enough, I'd say it's a bad fucking glue.

I'd not think of alternative uses, just like I don't think my broken remote is actually a good plastic object, because it works as a door stopper.

>That adaptation beyond that occurred is irrelevant.

No, it's vital and essential, far more than the question of whether or not a strong glue was produced.

There is only a single glue. It is not a new product simply because its ultimate use has changed from its initial design, no more than a system is a brand new system because someone uses it in a manner different than the designer does. If that were to be the definition of what makes it a brand new system, than all of us do nothing but play brand new systems.

>It's also worth noting that 'bad', in terms of 'fails to meet its design goals' does not mean 'completely without merit'.

If "failing to meet its design goals" is what makes it bad, then what do we call its overwhelming success? A non-issue, irrelevant only because it overturns your personal definition?

By your definitions, many people will prefer "bad games" over "good games," making your personal designation hardly universal.

I'm not too hung up on the narrative itself. That's the job of the GM to set the mood and help provide the sense that you are no longer "Joe the plumber" but are now "Crognak the Barbarian Warlord". Also note, I said help, not do it for you. If you don't want to play pretend the GM can't make you play pretend.

My big issue is mechanics. The nuts and bolts.
>Great
Scalable, by which I mean you can run as rules lite or heavy as you want. So if your group doesn't want to bother with a table dictating how the current of a river affects your swimming, you don't have to. But if you want some ultra-realistic role-play, or to make a ton of die rolls, you can include those rules.

Simple. The rules make basic sense and don't require a ton of dice. Don't get me wrong, sometimes rolling a big ass pool of dice is fun, but I'd rather only roll one to three dice on a regular basis. This is my main issue with D20, it requires several different types of dice based on what you are doing and what you are using. I'd rather have one type of die and then roll 1-3 of them.

Balanced. What it sounds like. It's hard to completely break the game and players aren't punished for things like someone making a mage and another making a martial.

>Good
Any system that does two of the above well, while failing at the third. IE, a game that is simple and scalable, but it isn't balanced for shit. That would be good, but not great, as I would have to put in more work for everyone to have fun.

>Bad
Doesn't do any well or only does one well. IE, a game with exceptional balance but it's complicated as fuck and you can only run it rules heavy. This would be pretty bad as it would not have the adaptability for different groups and would just bog everything down as you are forced into roll-play over role-play.

>There is only a single glue. It is not a new product simply because its ultimate use has changed from its initial design,

The original strong glue was to be sold in a bottle.

The weak glue is sold attached to the postit papers.

They are different fucking products, and I'm not sure why you keep pretending they aren't.

>If "failing to meet its design goals" is what makes it bad, then what do we call its overwhelming success? A non-issue, irrelevant only because it overturns your personal definition?

Oh. It's because it"s you. Nevermind then.

I guess it's the fundamental disconnect. Arguing that it remains the same thing when it's adapted for a completely different purpose strikes me as ridiculous and basically eliminates huge swathes of potential discussion, because it's impossible to call anything bad since you can argue that it's great if you just do something different with it.

Design does not exist in a vacuum, and without considering its current context- The goals and claims of its designer- you effectively render all discussion moot. Between that and an (arguably) flawed objective metric, I'll pick the latter every time as it at least provides the basis for discussion, while your argument provides nothing at all.

The glue itself is unchanged. It's a very useful glue. More importantly, you seem to think that "what it's sold as" is the only information about the game available.

Take the GMO seed issue. A company sold its patented genetically modified soybeans as animal feed, and a farmer simply purchased them and planted them and began growing the plants himself. While the company only intended the seeds to be used as animal feed, its use by the farmer enabled him to turn over a dramatic profit before the company sued him for bypassing the patent laws that they used so that farmer's wishing to grow their plants would have to buy their identical but more expensive and separately marketed planting seeds.

False equivalance. Glue is not an adequate comparison to games. Try something like a laptop and you'd be closer. Because a laptop can fail to meet specifications, both yours and the claimed ones, but that doesn't necessarily make it useless or obsolete. Whether or not said laptop is useful for your purposes is another matter entirely.

But if I buy a laptop and it's not up to the advertised specifications, I'll take it back, ask for a refund and call it a bad laptop. Because if a product fails to meet the expectations it has established for itself, it is a bad product.

>The original strong glue was to be sold in a bottle.

But wasn't.
The glue itself is unchanged. If you told me that the designer's goal was to make glue that could make people fly, I would consider it an interesting factoid, but not at all important in whether evaluating the glue's ultimate form.

You are also moving further and further away from the core of the analogy.

You can do that with books too, you know. Shocking, but true.