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:
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?
This is very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
The link to the 40k article is missing. Can you share it a still? It sound very interesting
Oops! https://timcolwill.com/40K.html
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:
Thank you for the insightful comment!