On the whole I approve of RPGs because they do something people have long forgotten how to do, exercise their imagination. Except for a few people, they want to be good guys saving the world, how can that be wrong?

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

I was determined to keep the game fast so I purchased a sleek digital chess clock to force the players to move quickly. As a game design technique I consider the use of a timer to be a blunt hammer solution. Given the choice, I would prefer crafting a set of rules that intrinsically encourages fast play.

If I do a really cool drawing, but it doesn’t help the player play the game, then what’s the point?

Play is the exultation of the possible.

Most people enjoy depth in their games. Even when the teach is easy and smooth. When they say “I want something simple,” it rarely means “I want something shallow”; it’s usually code for “I don’t want a burdensome onboarding experience.”

I like funny games. [...] Most games labor under rules that are designed to be fair. Otherwise why bother playing? Right? Here’s the problem: Fair is not funny.

We call simple systems that perform robustly in complex situations elegant.

From a design perspective, it’s useful to understand what audiences exist for games; and how diverse the form actually is. And while success can be achieved by catering to the aesthetic of a particular audience, games that break the mold are often the most interesting. Still, it is worth contemplating what pleasures gamers draw from the games they play, and why they enjoy them.

The main reason that a human would work to follow a rule without error when playing a game for fun is if s/he believes that the game will be more fun when the rules are perfectly followed. If this is not the case, players will change or ignore the rules.