Approaches to game design

In practice there are many games without scoring systems, without a method of determining victory. However in the practice of table top gaming I do not consider them games. Instead, they are activities. Games specifically contain the concept of (competitive) victory determination and other things don't. This is a recursive definition. Games are those things with scoring systems. Scoring systems define those things which are games. That recursion is unfortunately unavoidable and perhaps even axiomatic.

Fun, while desirable, has no function in the definition of what is and isn't a game. Sure, things are better when they're fun (for whatever your local definition of "fun" is), but there's nothing in the logical definition of what is and is not a game which requires considering "fun".

Scoring can be anything. Who crosses this line first? Who gets the largest number of X, smallest number of Y? Who is not eliminated? Who gets the Frobbox? Whatever the method, it determines victory. Most money, checkmate, first over the line, last one standing, most points, player with the Snitch, least points -- they're all scoring methods as they set the criteria for victory and thus the entire focus and goal of the game.

There's a built in assumption there, that games are played for victory. But like the differentiation of games versus activities, it isn't so automatic. Many players don't play to win. They have various other reasons and motivations: they want to see what happens, they're along for the ride, something to fiddle with while socialising, make sure that John doesn't win, whatever. In some cases with such player's there's even a counter-morality that trying to win (too hard) is wrong or at least socially unwelcome. However in line with the above differentiation between games and activities as goal-centric activities (ie scoring), such players are not actually playing the game. They have not accepted the definitional cornerstone of the game definition, that victory per XYZ is the purpose of the game (for whatever XYZ scoring method that game has). They're engaged in an activity which masquerades as a game. Presumably at some point the system will pop up and annoints a "winner" in order to end the shared social activity, but the players never accepted that scoring goal for themselves and thus are not striving for victory per that goal. To that extent they are not playing a game, they're involved in a social activity, just one with game-like trappings.

Abstractly a game can be defined as any system with goals, barriers to accomplishing those goals, and abilities to use to accomplish those goals. At an even simpler level for tabletop gaming, a game can be defined as anything with a scoring system, as the scoring system both sets the goal and describes (at least somewhat) the barriers and player-abilities regarding that goal.

I think the scoring system is very important for supporting the theme and feeling of your game. Even in games that don't have a win condition there is usual some sort of points system. In the latest version of Paranoia, an extreemly fun role-playing game where everyone is a loser, there is a Perversity points system. You can earn these chits for two things- entertaining the gamemaster, and disposing of your teammates in a particularly twisted or ironic way. This supports the paranoia of Paranoia and the feeling of bootlicking when the world is run by a totalitarian computer.

In my own game, I have a political theme. So rather than the standard ticking down, like Magic, which supports a feeling of combat, OR ticking up, like Setters, which supports a feeling of accoplishment, I have something very differnt. I have five Totems the whole game that you can take from other and can be taken from you. This feels a lot like a set number of votes and keeps things feeling constantly uncertian. I also employ a tension with Tools. They are very powerful, but once they are all invented you can be out of the game if you have no totems. So it feels to players who are behind like a ticking timebomb, but agian a player who is ahead can be behind a turn later. So it becomes about timing- which agian is reminisent of politics.

When I come up with an idea for a new game I have to answer the following two questions for myself:
1) How do players interact?
2) What is the goal of the game?

Because, sometimes I come up with a great scoring system and supporting mechanics, but the game doesn't allow players to interact. Or, sometimes, I have a great idea for an interactive mechanic, but without an overarching goal in the game yet determined it doesn't serve a purpose.

Starting with a theme makes it easier to determine the goal of the game and how players should interact. In fact, when you get stuck during the design, you can look at the theme and often you'll see the solution right there. Starting with the theme helps me to focus the design, so that's how I usually do it.

A game without a scoring method or any form of competition is not a game but rather a toy.

Not following the games objective could be fun.

Reminds me of my first twillight imperium game. The game was going pretty bad for me and it was long and boring. So I selected a player, the one with the most points, and I attacked.

All the players were like "what is he doing?". They all tought I had a secret of objective of some kind, but no it was a personal objective: capture the homeworld of another player.

So I just keep putting preasure on that player which had a "WTF" reaction. Doom stars came in later to puch the enemy. I was last in the victory points, but it was so much fun.

Unfortunately, the game did not reward a fun part of the game which is capture an opponent's home world. So this is why players does not do that because it won't lead you to victory. Instead, they prefer to reward other boring stuff.

Yes, there are many approaches to game design, but they are all just starting points: some of us starts with the theme while others with the concept of the game or with the mechanics.
but you still need to take care of every aspect of your game,for example if you starts from the mechanics it doesn't mean your game can't be fun or can't have some role-playing elements in it (or a strong theme) and vise versa, if you starts with the theme it doesn't mean your game doesn't have to be complex (with many strategies and hard decision making).
As a game designer you have to make sure your game is well thought from every aspect.

As for my approach to game design... it varies, most of the time I have some cool theme in my mind and so i starts with it, but some time I have a cool mechanic that i believe in and starts building the game from there.

I'm the opposite. I tend to design from mechanics. That said, the game I have that is closest to done started with a theme... This'd make an interesting poll, actually. Mechanics or Theme?

The logical problem always comes first for me, then mechanisms and last or somewhere mixed into the middle, theme. I've no binding to theme; it is just a source of convenient nouns and verbs to couch the game in. However as discussed in my article Theme meme mimetics, if I isolate the problem and mechanisms with sufficient accuracy then thematic accuracy falls out as a natural by-product.