This is definitely something talked about in software as well. Do you create something that is a tool to be used in many different ways, including workflows the designer considers suboptimal, or do you create something that pushes users to work in “better” ways?
Re: Opinionated Boardgames. There's definitely a similar divide in boardgames. It often lies between:
A) games that are perceived as fair contests of skill, where players are given identical or fairly similar starting positions and all have access to mostly the same set of paths toward a clear victory (and often using their themes to present power fantasies for players), and
B) games that care more about simulating particular scenarios, allowing for (or relying on) significant political manipulation to balance player positions, somewhat zero-sum paths toward victory, and presenting flawed systems as (sometimes) a critique of power. Fans of the former games sometimes see the latter as simply unfair or "just kingmaking."
Cole Wehrle's games are great examples of the latter type, and his GDC talk, "King Me": A Defense of King-Making in Board Game Design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UraJElx1ebg), is a wonderful presentation of why the latter type of game works, how the former type is an ideological outgrowth of a particular historical morality, and how even people who obsess over "fairness" in boardgames often don't understand fairness in boardgames:
On opinionated games, I find the term 'generic game' to be pretty misleading. Systems like FATE, GURPS and Savage Worlds all have strong opinions about how things work in the worlds of their games. Rules that tell you how to determine 'what happens next' are always based in some designer's opinion about what kinds of things are likely or unlikely, or interesting or uninteresting, or fun or unfun, and which of likeliness, interesting-ness and fun-ness matters most.
In my experience, when most people talk about 'generic games', what they really mean is one of two things: that the game is setting-agnostic or premise- agnostic; or that the system is a collection of modular rules that a game-runner can combine to create a game that reflects their own tastes — or rather, their 'opinions'.
This is definitely something talked about in software as well. Do you create something that is a tool to be used in many different ways, including workflows the designer considers suboptimal, or do you create something that pushes users to work in “better” ways?
The link to the 40k article is missing. Can you share it a still? It sound very interesting
Re: Opinionated Boardgames. There's definitely a similar divide in boardgames. It often lies between:
A) games that are perceived as fair contests of skill, where players are given identical or fairly similar starting positions and all have access to mostly the same set of paths toward a clear victory (and often using their themes to present power fantasies for players), and
B) games that care more about simulating particular scenarios, allowing for (or relying on) significant political manipulation to balance player positions, somewhat zero-sum paths toward victory, and presenting flawed systems as (sometimes) a critique of power. Fans of the former games sometimes see the latter as simply unfair or "just kingmaking."
Cole Wehrle's games are great examples of the latter type, and his GDC talk, "King Me": A Defense of King-Making in Board Game Design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UraJElx1ebg), is a wonderful presentation of why the latter type of game works, how the former type is an ideological outgrowth of a particular historical morality, and how even people who obsess over "fairness" in boardgames often don't understand fairness in boardgames:
On opinionated games, I find the term 'generic game' to be pretty misleading. Systems like FATE, GURPS and Savage Worlds all have strong opinions about how things work in the worlds of their games. Rules that tell you how to determine 'what happens next' are always based in some designer's opinion about what kinds of things are likely or unlikely, or interesting or uninteresting, or fun or unfun, and which of likeliness, interesting-ness and fun-ness matters most.
In my experience, when most people talk about 'generic games', what they really mean is one of two things: that the game is setting-agnostic or premise- agnostic; or that the system is a collection of modular rules that a game-runner can combine to create a game that reflects their own tastes — or rather, their 'opinions'.