It's a tired old cliche I know, but what do you want the game to be about? What are the characters going to do? What are the participants going to do?

These are all simple questions that have a huge impact on where you go with the game, how you design mechanics, setting elements, even the very structure of the game itself, to support what you want it to do.

You're familiar with Cold City, so I'll use that as an example:

What is the game about?: Hidden agendas, trust and monster hunting in 1950s Berlin.

What do the characters do?: They are secret agents from a variety of nations who must collectively hunt down monsters and technology from World War Two.

What do the participants do?: One (the GM) sets the scenes, plays the role of antagonists and allies. The rest (the players) take on the role of individual characters, each representing a different nation.

That's a simple breakdown of what the game is all about.

So, the thing to do is think about these things and try to work out in your head what means would allow you to translate that stuff into an entertaining game. In Cold City, the mechanics support those themes of hidden agendas and trust. They are vitally important to the game. The background supports this and brings in what Berlin is like as a place.

A game you are designing might be totally different. You might want to have a game that is heavy on tactical combat decisions but that also allows players to bring in flashbacks about their characters to give them and edge in that situation. That's just plucking something out of the air.

A well written, well structured traditional game is just as difficult to write as an 'indie' game, with the same rules applying. Again, it very much depends on what you want from the game.

Do you have any current ideas for a game that you would like to discuss? Ideas that are rolling around in your head, but you are unsure how to approach them? If you came up with your own solutions to design issues as well (even just top-of-the-head stuff), that would be a great basis upon which to really get the discussion rolling.

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

Thanks Malcolm, that is a good way to approach it. I'll mull it around and try and come back with a solid starting point idea and plan.

Regards,

Shane

As always Malcolm has hit the nail on the head. However I would add one other (potentially controversial) thing.

Don't get too locked into the 'indie' and 'trad' thing. One thing I have discovered is that your game will grow to be what it will be and it may well buck some of the preconceptions that you had when you started. Trying to make a game something that it isn't in order to fit a label is never a good thing.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Neil and Malcolm both make very good points, and I'd reiterate Neil's advice about indie vs trad games. The more you read and game, the more you'll find that those boundaries aren't quite as clearly-defined as you might first have thought, so sit down to design a "game."

To back-up this point and reinforce Malcolm's, take a look at D&D4 from the same perspective. The designers appear to have approached it in this way, and it's all the better for it:

What is the game about: it's about going into a dungeon, killing monsters and taking their stuff.

What do the characters do: the characters raid dungeons and tombs, fight monsters they find there and steal their treasure. They get more powerful as a result.

What do the participants do: one player (the DM) sets the scene, controls the monsters and acts as the antagonist and narrator. The other players (the PCs) each control an adventurer, planning out their actions and combat manoeuvres.

Hope that helps somewhat!

Neil, Andrew, thanks for that. Its a very good point - I'm designing a game, not an 'indie' game, or a 'traditional' game - just a game.

And good points about D&D4, thats a nice example (and a really fun game, too, to boot!).

Shane

Malcolm's big three questions (they're traditionally called the Big Three) are great.

Also, I'd suggest...

Imagine actually playing your game around the table. Imagine what people say, how they start a scene, when they'd roll dice. In your head, go through a little script of how everything works.

Make sure that little imaginary script sounds fun. (Lots of people write games sound functionally OK, but which wouldn't actually be fun to play.)

Write rules down based on that.

Then go to a pub with a friend. Run him through your game, as a test version. Kick ideas about. Try things out. When something feels wrong, change it. Do that, and you'll have a good, workable first draft.

Graham

Yeah, make sure you have an idea of where the fun is in your game.

Is it a tactical minis game (like D&D4E)?
Is it about crafting emotionally moving stories?
Is it fun to explore the vast setting?

And, don't neglect the mechanics, tacking them on as an afterthought does not a good game make! You want the mechanics to directly promote the type of fun you're going for. Like 4E's MMO styled combat mechanics.

I always start my game design by designing the core mechanics, and working outward from there.

Welcome aboard the good ship endeavour!

Cheers
JoE

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

And remember ... design in a way that makes you comfortable. All the techniques you may find online to help you (power 3, 19 etc.) are just suggestions. In the end whether you design from the fiction, or the core mechanics, or the play style, or whatever, make sure you design a game you like and can be proud of.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/