Reductive design is the logical step from the old adage that less is often more. The key to this concept is that you do not put in anything that does not serve the central purpose of the character, plot, game play, etc. Just as a sentence with too many flowery adjectives become cumbersome to read, so do game design.

Having read a lot of the design thoughts and threads, I feel that some of us could use a could reminder on this concept.

i.e. in terms of plot and characterization

yes, a cliche that is poorly executed is terrible. But you know what else makes it worse? having too much stuff that distracts from the core of the character. There's a distinction here, of course, it's okay to give LAYERS. Layers of characterization means that what is on the outside still adheres to what goes on at the core. But having multiple conflicting aspects that all contradict each other, or simply adding parts that do not serve any purpose to the character? kind of distracting. i.e. if your character's whole thing is about revenge, anger, and his obsession towards it, throwing in that the guy likes pottery just seems odd. (Unless, of course, said pottery is a reflection of what he USED to be like prior to becoming obsessed with vengeance, or said hobby is somehow key to his transformation)

in terms of game play, we can see this in subsystems. While it is tempting to make a system that can accommodate over thousands of different activities and allow for exploration of the entire setting in a million different ways, there are unfortunately a finite amount of resources and time that you can put into making the game. As such, you need to be efficient in what you put in. Zero in on what is important to your design, and make those awesome. All the extra parts? either enhance them so that they can also be part of the core, or drop them entirely. A half executed idea does not work well in a finished product. (Prototyping to try out a concept, on the other hand, is okay)

I would like to propose an exercise, where we each talk about how we can use this in our current projects to better our design.

Fortunately I haven't reached this point designing my current game.

I know one of the big problems with my last design was that there was just too much going on not directly related to the plot and characters. Too much side stuff that, while likely to interest the character, would serve function only as filler stuff to learn some background on the game and for hardcore gamers to acquire the best equipment and skills. There was just too much going on for everyone, and while it would enhance game play, it was also overly ambitious.

I think all designers would benefit from having a cut list as far as ideas, systems and information that will make it into the final game. The open-ended worlds and MMOs are so popular now-a-days that some RPG Designers here are trying to incorporate things from those engines into RPGs, where they don't belong.

Generally the less is more idea doesn't apply much to RPGs, I don't think. RPGs are designed to engulf the player in an immense world somewhat, throwing all kinds of backstory and side events and such at them.

Generally I think people only probably run into this issue with RMXP/VX due to the fact that they can just copy pasta subsystems into their games. Many users scroll through countless script databases looking for systems that "sound cool" and then just use all of them. I shudder when I see some peoples credits lists for scripts and they've used atleast 20 scripts by other people. This is probably the point where people should consider which features really contribute to the game and which ones they should cut.

Fortunately in rm2k3, because you have to code every custom system you want yourself, you don't really see games that have "too many" features. I maintain its the superior rpg maker!

I don't see how people lacking restraint makes XP/VX inferior platforms for making games...

Either way, although I agree with the OP, I haven't really run into a project that "does too much" in terms of game systems. I have been overwhelmed by a couple of games, but I think that has to do with my low tolerance for actually playing RM games.

Well, in terms of raw power there's no question that XP/VX come out on top. But I think if you randomly took an rm2k3 game that employs custom systems, and a random XP/VX game that employs custom systems, more often than not you'll find that the rm2k3 is a superior and far better designed game. Thats not really the fault of XP/VX so much as it is simply the type of community thats bred when you give people components to piece together of which they don't even understand the workings of - the games are hopelessly cliche mashups.

It all depends of what you call "custom systems". For you, a custom system in 2k/2k3 is made by the designer while a custom system made in XP/VX is just a script downloaded and plugged into a game. But guess what: there are also downloadable event systems made with previous makers that people can simply plug. However people with that kind of mindset are more found with XP and VX (especially VX) simply because it's the newest installement and "OMG it's new so it's better".
I might add that if I take a "random RM2k/2k3 game", the amount of rips from commercial games is way higher than for a "random XP/VX game". The total of horrendous games made with RM2k/2k3 has nothing to envy to the lastest makers as well. They just tend to be older, since less people use the older engines.

You're just being fanboyish right now.

That being said, I agree with one of your points. Most of the games with "over the top features" are victims of this exact mindset: take everything that sounds cool and put it in, just because it is found in Game X or Y. It's taking the entire design process the wrong way and in most cases this is a mistake corrected by experience.
To summarize, this isn't wrong to have a lot of features, especially in a RPG. What is wrong is to have unneeded, unpolished features present just for the sake of "being cool".

However, there's something that bugs me in the Op and doesn't really seem to relate to the number of features:

Too much character development URGHHZQ%FK. More seriously, concerning character depth, there is never too much. People are complex and if a game reflects the complexity of the characters, then it is a good thing. RPGs are a story-oriented genre, so, in theory, you should want to play with well-developed characters. This quote may be simply badly worded, but implies that your character has to be simply a plot device, mono-dimensional. This is totally wrong.

My little burst of fanboyism aside, this was basically the point I was trying to make. RMXP/VX in particular breeds this mindset simply through the convenience of being able to plugin advanced features willy nilly, and you're right that people overcome this behaviour simply through experience. I suppose I long for the days where people new to rpgmaker started bottom up - that is they started simple and worked their way up (like they should, imo). Whereas with XP/VX people tend to start top down, begining with mashups of scripts and learning from experience that way.

And you're right, rm2k3 games can be horrible in their own way when you have people using the same 5 chipsets from FF6, Tales of Phantasia and Secret of Mana, etc (people suggested I make FF72DR with the FF6 chipsets, *shudder*). However, XP/VX seems to not have this problem simply because its difficult to use anything but the default tiles. Whether this is good or bad is debatable, but it makes a lot of XP/VX games look the same which is something I can't help but fault the engine for.

I do dislike how "custom systems" aren't really the badge of honor they used to be. As you said, now with scripts anyone can modify the default systems pretty easy. But you have to admit, a lot of the magic is gone when the systems aren't custom tailored to your game.

I think badly worded is the right interpretation here.
To clarify my position, LAYERS are fine. Character depth is made through layers. There is, however, a distinction between extraneous details and adding depth. Depth happens when your character in question reveals a side of him that does not contradict from the core of the character. that core doesn't have to be a mono-dimension plot device pulled from tvtropes.org or anything like that. But it is generally something fairly succinct by comparison to your backstory.

What I am opposed are characters who have all these extra details written about him that frankly contribute nothing to the story or the character development. This is what I mean by extraneous parts. Prime example of this is pretty much the entire Tekken series from 3 onwards. Their primary protagonist, Jin, has become just a walking marty stu because of it. His primary conflict is about his bloodline and his blood related family. However, on the side he also has a bunch of other side plots that end up not getting developed. He has a rivalry with Hwoarang (the taekwondo guy), but that basically got dropped, and thus became wasted space. He had a romantic sub plot with Xiaoyu, resident genki girl, but was summarily dropped. He has a million "villain of the week" moments where he just ups the ante to fight another aberration from beyond, but none of them leave any real lasting imprint on his character. (Even though he should be the PRIMARY person to be effected by it) All of this, mind you, do not necessarily HAVE to be extraneous. But the fact that these were dropped without any development, meant that they clearly were not important to his character in the first place. (At least in the minds of the writers)

Granted, we're talking about a fighting game right now, so we can cut it some slack. But this can happen in RPGs as well. What does it mean for your protagonist to be an orphan? What does it mean for your protagonist to have a particular sexuality? Effective characterization milks these aspects for all it's worth. Bad characterization will have these attributes simply sit in the background but have NO effect on the character what so ever.

Funny what started out as a discussion and point about reductive design, along with exercises, became a new discussion within itself.

It now seems to be a fight over engine potential. Something that is about as productive as arguing religion.

I agree with one thing though. It can be damaging to a game to plug in a bunch of cool systems. Systems really are best when they're tailored or designed for your game. I think when picking out scripts for a game, that's key. Grabbing the systems that make the most sense in your game. Avoid the temptation to add a system that just sounds cool, no matter how small it is.

I really think the people in the Games Under Construction thread would benefit greatly by lurking around the Theory and Design thread here.

I think more important than reductive design is balanced design. Likely this is where reductive design is needed. If you have a BAJILLION AND 1 OMG!!!1!@! awesome systems in your game, none of them are going to stand out. They'll overwhelm your player.

If you have a ton of character emphasis and drama they'll just meld together and overwhelm your player.

Give the most impact to your scenes and systems by spacing them out and keeping low points inbetween. Introduce things at a steady pace.

Example. Say you put an elemental system into your game. Instead of giving your player all the elements at once and explaining them to him, give him some elements to start, and introduce the rest slowly. Reincarnations does a good job of this, and is a fine example of how a game can leave you really wanting to see more from it's system.

EDIT: Also, elliot makes a fine point as always. If we add something about the character, it should really be looked at from the characters point of view.

I agree with Kread that it has to do with experience.

Most everyone who picks up RPG Maker (any version) does so because they like playing games. It's rare that this person has experience with game development, so it's not surprising that they go overboard with ... well, everything. They're modeling their project after the commercial game XYZ - which includes an epic plot, a bazillion features and anything else that just seems cool. But as they get experience with game development, they (hopefully) start fine-tuning their future development to have more realistic goals and to be better suited to their abilities.

XP/VX may seem like they make procuring systems easier, but that's not really a case. A lot of the really awesome scripts aren't plug-and-play (meaning you need to set them up, probably learn a bit of eventing and scripting plus understand how they do what they do) and they frequently don't work together properly. This alone makes the developers a little more mindful and creative as to what they use. Add to this that too many scripts can cause lag or that some scripts make regular eventing wonky and you have just as many reasons for reductive development as an RM2K user does. Both developers have to learn and understand the features they're trying to implement as well as how to do it.

I reduced the size of my project, got rid of a few features and condensed the story after I finished making the first chapter. It gave me a good estimate of just how long each chapter/section would take. As I'd like to actually finish the game, I took a good, long, critical look at my original plan and got rid of the unnecessary fluff. My game wasn't overly ambitious to begin with, but getting a part of it done and using it as a guide really helped. So, my advice to anyone looking for it would be to create your design, start making the game and then take a step back and evaluate.

Oh, and as a side note ... It's pretty lame to read negative remarks about XP/VX and how RM2K is superior (or vice versa, for that matter). It's fine that you're proud of your accomplishments in whatever engine, but it's unnecessary to patronize or insult people who chose differently or have different strengths. General game design (ie topic like reductive development) isn't specific to the engine being used and all developers can benefit from it.

Yeah but then again, in reality, people are full of contradictions. I think the problem is more how those details and contradictions are conveyed. Tekken example aside (Tekken is a huge mess story-wise and well generally we don't really care for fighting games even if there are exceptions), in a RPG, you have ways to convey what you call extraneous details outside of the mandatory dialogue scenes.
Like, for instance, NPCs conversations in tows, objects examinations or why not small "dinner" optional scenes in the inns...
You don't need to shove all details in the player's throat during event scenes, you have plenty of tools in a RPG.


Yes. A lot.


Again, depends. You never have too much character development in a RPG. You only have poorly done character development. If you only use event scenes for this end, then obviously you have to limit to avoid making the plot and all the dialogue confusing.
There is always a part that the player should try to discover by themselves, whether it's with a large encyclopedia, party journal, NPCs, optional scenes and so on... If you're interested in a character, or a certain part of the backstory, you logically will try to find out as much details as possible, even if they're insignificant in relation to the plot, and if those details are effectively hidden somewhere, it is a good thing.