Richard Rouse III

The Rise and Fall

and Rise Again of
Game Design
Rules
02/18/15

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RichardRouseIII/20150218/236699/The_Rise_and_Fall_and
_Rise_Again_of_Game_Design_Rules.php

Game designers create rules. It's practically the job description for what we do. As game
designers, we tend to see the entire world in rules, imagining how life can be better
understood as a rules-based system, because rules-based systems are what we
create. In digital games in particular, these rules tend to be hard and fast - because a
computer inherently only understands true and false, not shades of gray. And since we
spend our time thinking in rules, it's not surprising that many game designers attempt to
apply the same rigor to the craft of making games that we do within the games
themselves. We want there to be rules about game design.

The 400 Project

Over the years there have been many attempts to codify game design rules. One of the
more sustained efforts started with a talk Hal Barwood gave at GDC 2001 titled "Four of
the Four Hundred." In this session, Hal started off with the assumption that maybe there
were "400 or so" rules of thumb that governed game design, and then proceeded to talk
about four of them. This was followed by another talk the next GDC, with Hal now joined
by long time collaborator Noah Falstein. Noah went on to continue adding entries with his
column in Game Developer magazine, incorporating contributions from many other
designers. The collaborative effort was named the 400 Project. Today, there's a
spreadsheet that shows how far the project got - around 110 rules of this writing.

I always found this rule-cataloguing endeavor to be interesting because of what it implies

about scope. There are 400 rules? And are those rules really universal to game
design? It's a bold statement, but also somewhat plausible. When I asked Hal about his
motives for starting the project, he said: "There's an almost inexhaustible number of
rough-and-ready maxims -- rules-of-thumb -- that reflect the bemused bafflement that
threatens all creative endeavors (and life itself). They help to make sense of the vast and
daunting possibilities. I believe that the very informality of rules-of-thumb is what allows
them to hold real content -- actual wisdom." But when I asked Hal how he felt about the
project in retrospect, he was very aware of the limitations of such an exercise, and was
concerned that game design rules are sometimes taken too literally: "The kinds of rules I
rebel against are those that imagine game design to resemble compiler design. A two-fold
folly: on the one hand, a belief that following very precise rules can result in an engaging
game; and on the other, a belief that what is engaging is driven by cool science and
logic." When I talked to Noah about the status of the project, he said that he had started
work on further refining the list, categorizing it, but that it's a side project that he can only
get to when his schedule allows. Yet Noah was still bullish about the 400 Project, though
he too advised caution in using the rules: "I think the idea of rules is great - as long as
you don't take them too seriously, Hal and I quoted Captain Barbossa 'The code is more
like "guidelines" rather than actual rules.'"

The Problems with Rules

While still maintaining the value of the 400 Project, Noah and Hal both admit that creating
a "definitive" set of rules can be problematic. The use of the word "rule" itself may be the
start of the trouble. "Rule" implies something immutable, something one must follow if one
does not want to be disqualified or thrown out of the game.

Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's book Rules of Play has the word "rule" in its title, but
reading the book one finds that it doesn't really cover game design rules per se - the rules
it refers to are the rules in games themselves, and the book endeavors to create a
framework for game analysis and thought more than a recipe for designers to
follow. Talking to Eric about it, I asked if this was intentional, and he confirmed that it
was. "Because game designers tend to be structural, analytic thinkers, coming up with
grand sets of "rules" for good design is very seductive. Including for me! Over the years, I
have tried to cultivate skepticism towards those kinds of systems." Eric pointed out an
additional problem with rules: they can date you. As in all art forms, creating strict
parameters and rules for what art should and should not be is inevitably discarded by the
next generation. Eric again, "Any rules we might think of to define good design in a game
will tomorrow become the Man that all the kids want to overthrow."

Daniel Cook, who has written extensively about game design on his
blog www.lostgarden.com, finds game design rules more problematic than any of the other
designers I spoke to. As he put it, "They are highly context sensitive, rarely make
interesting predictions for the project at hand and have very little analytical power." Dan
prefers functional models that are better suited to analysis and improvement of games in
development, with these models helping designers find solutions to their here-and-now
development problems. But he concedes that functional models are not something one
can easily explain in a blog post nor do they boil down to a catchy tweet. As a result they
tend to get less attention (though you can read a good write up of one such functional
model on Dan's site). He did say that designers can benefit from creating context-specific
rules for themselves, whether for the long term or just for a specific project. "Sometimes,
you need to define a radically constrained black and white world as a creator to push
yourself sharply in an interesting direction. But that is an aesthetic goal, not some
observable universal structure that is applicable most everywhere."

How Design Rules Are Useful

I'm inclined to agree with all the disadvantages of game design rules that these designers
pointed out to me. So why am I still fascinated by them?

First of all, for new designers I do think reading about game design rules can be an
interesting entry point to the craft. Rules tend to make bold statements that can spark
questions in a curious novice designer. If hearing about a rule is followed up with further
reading in a particular area, that can be a great starting point for learning about game
design. But as discussed above, if the rule is taken at face value without further study,
that rule may end up doing more harm than good.

But beyond the novice, I know lots of experienced designers who swear by their personal
rules. This is certainly the case for me. Specifically, when working with teams as a
consultant or advisor, if I spot problems I tend to use past experience to help explain why
I think there's an issue. Usually I have distilled this past experience down into a rule,
though typically I don't present it that way to the team. Instead I focus on the details of my
past project, show how a similar problem arose for that game, and then talk about what
we did to fix it (if we were fortunate enough to fix it - of course failure is almost equally
useful as a learning experience). In these instances, the strict "text" of the rule is not my
focus, but instead the larger context and framework it provides. As Dan Cook put it, in this
case the rule is functioning as a "Memetic for a hard won wisdom." When we spell out
these lessons in easily memorable sound bites, it can help as a way to plant a bookmark
in our own experiences. But we must remember that the rule itself is just a signpost. To
truly do the game design work we need to understand the larger game design problem,
not just the catchy phrase we use to remember it.

The Best Rules are Personal

As a designer, I find that some of the most intriguing rules are ones associated with a
particular designer whose work I admire. For example, I quite like this list of rules Warren
Spector developed in collaboration with Harvey Smith for use on the original Deus Ex. Sid
Meier is probably one of the more famous creators of "rules of thumb" for game design -
a good summary of some of those can be found in this fine articleby Civilization III &
IV designer Soren Johnson. The game fan in me loves hearing the rules a creator set for
themselves before working on a beloved game; dissecting their creative process can be
fascinating in itself. But as a designer, I don't necessarily see those rules and think "Aha!
I must apply those rules directly to my own games and then they will be perfect!" That
would be foolish. Those rules worked for Warren, Harvey, or Sid in the context of the
games they were making at the time they were making them. Extending them beyond that
can be problematic.

I think all game design rules are local - to a genre, to a project, to a particular
designer. When hearing about interesting sounding design rules, always remember to
analyze the context. What genres does this rule work in? What effect would this rule have
within that genre? Is breaking this rule appropriate now that the audience and medium
have matured? In what type of project teams and development environments will this rule
even work?

On that last point, it's often important to think about how game design rules will work within
a team environment. When working with a team of designers, basic agreement on the
design principles the project is operating under is crucial. Often this will be established by
the project's design leads, as we saw from the example from Harvey and Warren for Deus
Ex. Making such a set of mutually agreed on rules can be a tremendous tool for keeping
a game design team moving in a focused direction.
As a game designer working on a large project where another lead designer is calling the
shots, one inevitably thinks the boss is sometimes wrong - they're designing by their own
rules, not yours. But at the same time, every designer is building their own rule book,
whether they get to use it or not. What are the things that matter most to them? How
would they do things differently than other designers? In this way, design rules can
become very personal.

For many designers who have worked on large teams, independent development can hold
that bewitching allure of finally getting to "design by my own rulebook." I've been
extremely fortunate in that I've gotten to play mostly by my own rules on some of my past
projects (though certainly not all of them). Other times, I have worked primarily as a
consultant and advisor, where I was helping teams identify and strengthen their own
"rules" and guiding principles to make their games stronger. In the last half year I've
started on a new independent project - right now I'm enjoying working within some of my
own rules that will create a very different game. Other designers wouldn't necessarily
agree with my design choices, but isn't that the point?

A Design Rulebook of One's Own

Whether you're an indie flying solo or a designer on a tight-knit team at a bigger company
or one of many designers on a giant team at a giant company, the way you work with
design rules will be different. As you read about the design rules in places like Gamasutra
always use a filter. Consider the source - who is the person stating this rule? What have
they worked on? How is that game similar to the game you are working on and the
problems you face? Even if a designer is brilliant and you love their work, keep in mind
that any rule they put forth will probably be a personal, aesthetic choice that governs that
person as a creator. Those rules can be fascinating and informative, but they are far from
absolute. Accept them or reject them for your own personal rulebook, remembering to
add rules of your own creation that will define you as a game designer.

If you'd like to hear some interesting creators talking about their own personal game design
rules, in two weeks come see my GDC session "Rules of the Game: Five Tricks of Highly
Effective Designers."

Comments

Matt Allmer 18 Feb 2015 at 9:49 pm PST

Ah memories…

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132341/the_13_basic_principles_of_.php

I've since reorganized them to 7. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They are words
to live by.

Login to Reply or Like

Gian Mastrorosa 19 Feb 2015 at 10:43 am PST

As you cited Zimmerman's Rules, I like to highlight that your text express a common
belief among the people writing rules, at least on the books I've read recently. This is
really healthy to the community, but I fear it's not how the beginner Game Designers look
at those rules.

In fact, I would call them all "hints". I think it's more appropriate, since they're used to
direct you to some kind of problem and think about a solution, instead of presenting the
solution in the form of strict rules to follow.

Great text btw.

Login to Reply or Like

1
Josh Foreman 19 Feb 2015 at 3:34 pm PST

Good thoughts. I feel like there may be actual, universal rules. But they are far
fewer than one might expect. I think the ones that are fundamentally built around
human psychology could be those. Such as Jessie Schell's concept of flow:

http://refractedpixel.com/indiedevstories/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/flow-
channel1.png

The more you dive into the nitty gritty of specific genre conventions the further you
stray from the universal psychological core that drives an attraction to games.

Login to Reply or Like

Richard Rouse III 19 Feb 2015 at 4:49 pm PST

I like "game design hints" - but not like a hintbook for an old adventure game, but rather
hints for how to play a competitive online game. There is no absolute. They can help you
get better, but they can't make you (or the game) good.

I think there are universal properties to game development, but I'm not convinced they
are rules. I think they're more universal concepts for player state, like flow as you
suggest, or "Form follows function", or "Easy to learn, hard to master" (though if you think
about it lots of great games violate that). There are also universal frameworks for how to
structure a game design, or universal working methods for how to make a game better
over time. But rules? I think those are more personal.

- Richard

Login to Reply or Like