Designing Against Type

[Eric Farrington]

Long time readers of the blog know that I have a few "maxims" that I espouse as a game designer. Basic ideas like:

Choice is good
Firepower vs. maneuver
Innovation is over-rate
Choose the best tool for the job
Game designers must create games

There are others, but those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

Now that I have a few games under my belt, I am starting to run across a bit of a unique issue. How do you design against your own "Type" of game? What do I mean?

Joseph A. McCullough had a great deal of success with Frostgrave. This was a well-received game that has received a lot of attention. It has a few core design elements that make the game, the game that it is. However, it was so successful that it spawned a variety of alternate games using the same basic ideas and structures to it. In a sense, Mr. McCullough now had a game "Type"

I am sure we can all think of other designers and games that have a certain 'Type" to their games. A Type is certain core game play elements that they focus on or re-use. In a way, you can think about it as a "brand" or audience expectation that is designer X is involved then the buyer's have a certain expectation of what is "in" the game.

Therefore, I suppose we can refer to a Designer's Type as the following:
Core game mechanics that are applied across various game genres by a single designer

I myself have a "type" of game as well. I have found I can make a variety of "Ancient" games using the bones of the Men of Bronze system. I can make fun, flavorful, and interesting games using the core rules with some flavor tweaks around the edges. The logic of using a Type is inescapable.

So, how do I work to Design Against Type?

bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2021/09/wargame-design-designing-against-type.html