Scribbles and Horrors

This post is a response to Markus M’s Human Centric Game Design, which aims to provide a groundwork for making non-electronic RPGs with “human centered” design rather than something like “computer centered” design. I have some objections to the notions presented in this manifesto, which I’ll lay out here. I’ll address each of it’s 5 points.

1. Minimise Arithmetic
Computers are much faster (and mor accurate) than humans at performing mathematical operations. Why not leave it to the machines and spend our time on something else?

Objectionable here is the idea that we should cede arithmetic to the computers because they supposedly can do it faster and more accurately. When approaching the idea of a human playing a game, why should I care one way or the other whether a computer could do it faster? Cars drive faster than people, and bikes are more efficient, but neither of these has much bearing on whether going for a pleasant walk in the park is a good idea. In fact, prioritizing cars for locomotion because they’re faster than walking directly leads to environments which are less human friendly.

Mathematics is one of the most beautiful things human beings do–the idea that it might be “not human centered” for a game to have people doing math is fairly ridiculous.

Of course, I understand that lots of number crunching can be frustrating in many sorts of games. It can be a slog to keep track of many modifiers. Arithmetic in one’s head isn’t easy for everyone (me included), and doing math on paper can slow down the dynamic moments in some games. But this doesn’t mean that games with lots of math in them aren’t human-centered; it just means that they cater to particular kinds of playing styles.

Now, you can say that you don’t like those kinds of play styles. You can say that it’s frustrating that the primary assumption for making moves in most RPGs is that you roll dice and add numbers. (I personally think it’s quite frustrating for lots of reasons!) But to claim that it isn’t human centered design to have a game with a lot of math ignores a big part of how people play games.

2. Minimise Exact Variable Tracking and Triggers
Again, computers do not forget unless you ask them to, of if they are feeling very bad. Conserve human memory and processing power for the things that really matter.

An extension of 1. above. I’ll reiterate that taking the time to precisely track the game your playing can be a very worthwhile activity. Stop to smell the roses, that sort of thing.

I’ll also point out that in the rules for Monopoly if a landlord forgets to ask for rent before the moving player’s turn is over, the player doesn’t have to pay! Human forgetfulness can be a really excellent piece of a game.

3. Lean Into Improvisation and Open-ended Problems
Computers cannot be creative. Humans can. Leave space for this. Design your games to make use of this. Humans can react to open-ended structures, and improvise solutions to problems. Humans can fill the blanks you leave them.

This is mostly true and I like it.

4. Embrace Malleability, Reject Rigidity
Humans can adapt in the moment. Not everything needs to be predefined, why not make use of this? You can change things whenever it makes sense. Make a ruling to bend a rule, change your plans to take player decisions into account.

Here’s where I fall off again. Human beings are very adaptable, this is true. Making new rules is fun, this is also true. But, like, the whole thing about a game is that it’s a bubble of rigid processes within a social situation. Rules govern behavior in games, that’s what they’re there for!

Again, there are lots of different ways to approach rules. Some are better for certain situations than others, or are better for some people or playstyles than others. But, often rigidity is what you need! Frequently rigid rules force players to come up with creative solutions to problems, such as those advocated by 3. above.

Nomic is one of the best games ever invented, and it would be very difficult for a computer to play. It is almost infinitely malleable, and yet its rules are some of the most rigid and unbendable anywhere.

5. Tactility is Fun
You know what’s great? Touching stuff! Whether it’s moving minis around, drawing a map, or just rolling dice. Do something with your hands!

This is true and I won’t argue with it except to point out that it’s also fun to imagine stuff, draw stuff, and say stuff.

I guess my thoughts about this post can be summed by saying that I feel like it takes a fairly narrow view of what games are, what they’re for, and what is possible in them. Painting these really nuanced and interesting topics with such a broad brush misses a great deal. I don’t think the post is especially bad or anything, it’s not harmful to The Discourse or whatever. I just disagree with much of it.