The recent discussion about the seriousness with which games are played brings up the issue of design intent. Ray Mulford and I once played a prototype of Al Newman's, and got into a long debate afterwards - I thought the game was intened to be a light family game, and made my comments in that context, while Ray thought it was a more spielfreaky game, and suggested tuning in that direction.
Of course, in that case we could _ask_ Al what his intent was. But this isn't normally possible, and there are a lot of games that don't work well when not played as intended. (In fact, I believe that many bad ratings are the result of games not being played as intended.)
So...
1) How do you effectively pass along to the players design intent in the rules?
2) Should a designer aim to design a game that works any way - or try to make sure the players play it the way intended?
3) Have you ever had a game that worked well - but not in the way you intended? (For example, a game you'd designed to be a light romp that worked best played very strategically.)
Joe
I think everyone's hit this one on the head... if it's a "silly" theme, the game should be light... but as always, there are exceptions.
I try to write the "story" or "intro" with a feel for what the game play should be like. Also, if you write the rules for a "rules lawyer" in mind (ie numbered sectioning and lots of references... like a M:tG rulebook) then the game will be played with some ammount of strategy now matter how sillly the theme is.
It's hard to say really. I think a designer should play a game that he/she enjoys playing... if there is enough playtesting and blindtesting done, I think any of these "problems" will be resolved before publication...
Read my little post about my "race" game in the "How do you make an abstract game?" thread... I intended my game to be a simple little race.... turns out, it's balls-to-the-wall strategy all the way.
Tyler