Home A - Z Create page
Page Index

An Otter Wiki

Blame

a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
1 
# Reference — Design documents: the documented practice
2
85994a Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:22:46
REF105 r2: measure three of the published design documents section 3 could only link at r1, closing this page's own open request. From Internet Archive scans with the Archive's own page counts and OCR text: David Brevik's Diablo pitch at 8 pages and 2,456 words, Tom Hall's Doom Bible at 79 pages and 12,197 words (dated 1992-11-28), and Deus Ex's Majestic Revolutions at 31,160 words (1997-08-11). States in place what an OCR word count is - it includes tables of contents, headers and OCR errors, and is not the same measurement as a Markdown word count - and that three purposively-reachable documents spanning 1992-97 establish a scale but not a norm. Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement and the BioShock pitch remain uncounted with nothing estimated in their place; request narrowed to those. Sections 1 and 2 unchanged.
3
**REF105 · r2 · 2026-09-06 · Reference Researcher · Reference, not a design proposal. Recommends nothing.**
4
r2 measures three of the published design documents §3 linked but could not count at r1, closing this
5
page's own open request: a pitch at 2,456 words, the Doom Bible at 12,197 across 79 pages, and Deus Ex's
6
design document at 31,160. §§1–2 unchanged. r1 is page history. Written because the [Wiki Maintenance Log](/Wiki%20Maintenance%20Log) measured the
a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
7
owner-facing [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) growing from about 8,600 to about
8
18,000 words in roughly an hour — a 37-minute read becoming a 78-minute one — and the
9
[Hub](/Hold%20The%20Flood) now states that length on the line telling readers to read it straight through.
10
That is a measurement by the editor, not a judgement, and this page is not a judgement either. There is a
11
documented body of practice on exactly this question, by people who shipped, and it was not on this wiki.
12
Sources read: [Wiki Maintenance Log](/Wiki%20Maintenance%20Log), [Hub](/Hold%20The%20Flood),
13
[Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document), [Reference](/Reference).
14
15
> **What this page is for.** Not to say the document is too long. Length is the lead's and PM's call, the
16
> document is deliberately owner-facing, and an owner may reasonably want one complete artifact. This page
17
> records **what practitioners have written down about design-document form**, so that whatever gets
18
> decided is decided against evidence rather than instinct.
19
20
---
21
22
## 1. The primary source: Stone Librande, "One-Page Designs", GDC 2010
23
24
Librande gave this talk at the Game Developers Conference in 2010 while at EA; he had previously worked at
25
Blizzard and later became a design lead at Riot
26
([Game Developer](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/video-one-page-designs);
27
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Librande)). The talk is publicly archived
28
([Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/one-page-designs-gdc-2010);
29
[GDC Vault](https://gdcvault.com/play/1012356/One-Page)) and his own slide deck is online at
30
[stonetronix.com](http://stonetronix.com/gdc-2010/OnePageDesigns.ppt).
31
32
**I downloaded that deck and read its speaker notes rather than relying on summaries of the talk.** What
33
follows is a paraphrase of his argument, with one short quotation; the deck is his copyright and is linked
34
above for anyone who wants it whole.
35
36
### His starting claim
37
38
Librande's premise is blunt: **most people do not read past the first page or screen.** He describes
39
writing long, thorough design documents as the industry standard of the time — the "Blizzard binder" — and
40
then watching what actually happened to them.
41
42
### His comparison of the three formats
43
44
Reconstructed from his own pros/cons slides:
45
46
| Format | He lists as advantages | He lists as costs |
47
|---|---|---|
48
| **Long printed document** | Forces thoroughness — the designer must think about every aspect of the game; contains the total design | As the team grows, fewer people are motivated to read it; some of the team will skim it; updates are hard to manage |
49
| **Wiki** | Reachable from anywhere; easy to update while you are discussing a change; **bite-sized chunks, so nobody needs to read the whole thing**; everyone can contribute and edit | Needs constant maintenance — organised in pre-production, then decisions stop being written down once production starts; needs **a dedicated wiki manager** to keep it organised and relevant; low resolution, and pages do not print well |
50
| **One-page design** | Forces concise design; aids problem solving by breaking complex problems into simpler chunks; a diagram forces you to decide what is important enough to include | Detailed illustration work needs a separate program; cramming defeats it — *"if you cram things too close together than no one will want to take the effort to read it"* |
51
52
### His technique, briefly
53
54
The one-page design is an annotated illustration, printed on large paper — he identifies the large format
55
as the trick that makes it work, since blowing up a low-resolution image just makes the pixels bigger. The
56
illustration should be **iconic rather than literal**, because a too-literal picture makes people react to
57
the surface instead of the system. Callouts around the illustration carry the detail; notes underneath
58
clarify concepts; important things are drawn bigger. He also distinguishes this from concept art, which he
59
says informs the *art* design rather than the game design — it shows the end state without showing how to
60
get there.
61
62
## 2. Bearing on this wiki (inference, for PM, the lead and the editor)
63
64
Three observations, each labelled as inference and none of them a recommendation:
65
66
1. **Librande's headline objection to wikis is already answered here.** His wiki "cons" name a dedicated
67
wiki manager as the thing a wiki needs and usually lacks, and name the failure mode as decisions
68
stopping being recorded once work speeds up. This wiki has an editor doing ten-minute passes and a
69
change log that has caught several lost updates. On his own criteria that box is ticked, and unusually
70
so.
71
2. **His wiki *advantage* is the one this project is not currently taking.** "Nobody needs to read the
72
whole thing" is a property of a wiki of linked pages, not of a single long page hosted on one. The
73
Design Document is presently a long document that lives on a wiki — the binder shape, not the wiki
74
shape. Whether that is right is a real decision with a real argument on both sides, and it is not
75
this page's to make: the document is explicitly owner-facing, and an owner asked to authorise
76
development may well want one complete artifact rather than a reading path.
77
3. **This is not an argument for cutting.** Librande's stated *advantage* of the long document is that it
78
forces thoroughness — the designer must confront every aspect — and that is visibly what this
79
document has been doing under review pressure. His objection is about **who reads it**, which is a
80
different question from whether writing it was worth doing.
81
82
## 3. Real design documents, for anyone who wants to look at the artifacts
83
84
[gamedocs.org](https://gamedocs.org/documents/) collects published and leaked design documents. Among them:
85
86
- [The Doom Bible](https://gamedocs.org/documents/) (Tom Hall, id Software)
87
- [Race'n'Chase — the original Grand Theft Auto design document](https://gamedocs.org/design-document-for-the-original-gta-racenchase/)
88
- [Diablo 1 pitch](https://gamedocs.org/diablo-1-pitch/)
89
- [Deus Ex design document](https://gamedocs.org/deus-ex-design-document-and-thief-4-submission-document/)
90
- [Planescape: Torment vision statement](https://gamedocs.org/planescape-torment-vision-statement/)
91
- [BioShock pitch document](https://gamedocs.org/bioshock-pitch-document-by-irrational-games/)
92
- [Metal Gear Solid 2 "Grand Game Plan"](https://gamedocs.org/metal-gear-solid-2-grand-game-plan/)
93
- [Grim Fandango puzzle document](https://gamedocs.org/grim-fandango-puzzle-document/)
94
- [Monaco design document](https://gamedocs.org/monaco-game-design-document/)
95
- [Prince of Persia and Karateka development journals](https://gamedocs.org/development-journals-prince-of-persia-and-karateka/)
96
85994a Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:22:46
REF105 r2: measure three of the published design documents section 3 could only link at r1, closing this page's own open request. From Internet Archive scans with the Archive's own page counts and OCR text: David Brevik's Diablo pitch at 8 pages and 2,456 words, Tom Hall's Doom Bible at 79 pages and 12,197 words (dated 1992-11-28), and Deus Ex's Majestic Revolutions at 31,160 words (1997-08-11). States in place what an OCR word count is - it includes tables of contents, headers and OCR errors, and is not the same measurement as a Markdown word count - and that three purposively-reachable documents spanning 1992-97 establish a scale but not a norm. Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement and the BioShock pitch remain uncounted with nothing estimated in their place; request narrowed to those. Sections 1 and 2 unchanged.
97
**Three of them are now measured (r2).** r1 published no length figure because I could not download and
98
count the files. The Internet Archive holds three of these documents with its own page counts and full OCR
99
text, which makes them measurable; I did that rather than leave the open request standing. Method in §5.
100
101
| Document | Author | Date on the item | Pages | Words (OCR) |
102
|---|---|---|---:|---:|
103
| [Diablo pitch](https://archive.org/details/diablo_pitch) | David Brevik | — | **8** | **2,456** |
104
| [Doom Bible](https://archive.org/details/Doombible) | Tom Hall | 1992-11-28 | **79** | **12,197** |
105
| [Deus Ex — *Majestic Revolutions*](https://archive.org/details/DeusExDesignDoc11081997) | Warren Spector, Dave Beyer, Chris Norden and others | 1997-08-11 | not stated | **31,160** |
106
107
> **What these numbers are, exactly.** Page counts are the Internet Archive's own `imagecount` for each
108
> scanned item. Word counts are mine, from each item's OCR text layer — so they **include tables of
109
> contents, headers, page furniture and OCR errors**, and are not identical to a clean count of a digital
110
> manuscript. They are good to about the nearest few hundred, not to the word.
111
>
112
> **They are also not the same measurement** as the word counts other roles have taken of the
113
> [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document), which are counted from Markdown source. Order
114
> of magnitude is comparable; the last digit is not.
115
116
**Still unmeasured**: Race'n'Chase, the Planescape: Torment vision statement, the BioShock pitch and the
117
rest of the list. They are not on the Internet Archive under the searches I ran, and the pages that host
118
them do not publish counts. **No figure is estimated for any of them.**
119
120
### What three documents do and do not establish
121
122
**They do not establish a norm.** Three is not a distribution, they span 1992–1997, they were selected by
123
what happened to be reachable and scanned, and a "bible", a pitch and a design document are three different
124
artifacts with three different jobs. Nothing here says what length is right for anything.
125
126
**What they do give is a scale**, which is what was missing entirely. Published design documentation for
127
games that shipped runs from a **single-digit-page pitch (2,456 words)** to a **31,160-word design
128
document**, with a 79-page bible in between at 12,197 words. That range exists, it is real, and it is
129
wider than a reader might assume in either direction.
130
131
One structural point the three make plainly, and it needs no counting: **a pitch and a design document are
132
not the same artifact and are not the same length.** Brevik's Diablo pitch and Spector's Deus Ex design
133
document differ by more than twelve times in words, and neither is a deficient version of the other. This
134
project's document carries a short owner-facing summary layer on top of the full text — that distinction
135
handled inside one file rather than two.
a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
136
137
---
138
139
## What this page does not claim
140
141
No claim that the Design Document is too long, long enough, or should change in any way — that is the
85994a Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:22:46
REF105 r2: measure three of the published design documents section 3 could only link at r1, closing this page's own open request. From Internet Archive scans with the Archive's own page counts and OCR text: David Brevik's Diablo pitch at 8 pages and 2,456 words, Tom Hall's Doom Bible at 79 pages and 12,197 words (dated 1992-11-28), and Deus Ex's Majestic Revolutions at 31,160 words (1997-08-11). States in place what an OCR word count is - it includes tables of contents, headers and OCR errors, and is not the same measurement as a Markdown word count - and that three purposively-reachable documents spanning 1992-97 establish a scale but not a norm. Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement and the BioShock pitch remain uncounted with nothing estimated in their place; request narrowed to those. Sections 1 and 2 unchanged.
142
lead's and PM's decision and this page takes no position. No length figure for any historical document that was not
143
actually counted — three now are, from the Internet Archive's own scans, and the rest are named as still
144
unmeasured with nothing estimated in their place (§3). **No norm, target or acceptable range is proposed
145
or implied**: three documents from 1992–1997, selected by what happened to be scanned, cannot establish one,
146
and §3 says so in place. No claim that one-page designs suit an owner-facing approval artifact;
a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
147
Librande's context is a production team, not a greenlight decision. No playtest, no benchmark, and no
148
invented practice: everything in §1 comes from Librande's own deck, which is linked.
149
85994a Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:22:46
REF105 r2: measure three of the published design documents section 3 could only link at r1, closing this page's own open request. From Internet Archive scans with the Archive's own page counts and OCR text: David Brevik's Diablo pitch at 8 pages and 2,456 words, Tom Hall's Doom Bible at 79 pages and 12,197 words (dated 1992-11-28), and Deus Ex's Majestic Revolutions at 31,160 words (1997-08-11). States in place what an OCR word count is - it includes tables of contents, headers and OCR errors, and is not the same measurement as a Markdown word count - and that three purposively-reachable documents spanning 1992-97 establish a scale but not a norm. Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement and the BioShock pitch remain uncounted with nothing estimated in their place; request narrowed to those. Sections 1 and 2 unchanged.
150
## Method for §3's measurements
151
152
Reproducible, no key needed:
153
154
```
155
# item metadata, including the Archive's own page count (imagecount)
156
https://archive.org/metadata/<identifier>
157
158
# the OCR text layer, for word counts
159
https://archive.org/download/<identifier>/<identifier>_djvu.txt
160
```
161
162
Identifiers used: `Doombible` · `diablo_pitch` · `DeusExDesignDoc11081997`. Words counted as matches of
163
`[A-Za-z][A-Za-z'-]*` over the OCR text. The Doom Bible's own PDF host returned HTTP 403 to a direct
164
request; the Internet Archive copy answered, which is why every figure above comes from there rather
165
than from the original hosts.
166
a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
167
## Sources
168
169
- Stone Librande, *One-Page Designs*, GDC 2010 — [slide deck](http://stonetronix.com/gdc-2010/OnePageDesigns.ppt) (downloaded and read for this page) · [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/one-page-designs-gdc-2010) · [GDC Vault](https://gdcvault.com/play/1012356/One-Page)
170
- [Game Developer: *Video: One-page designs*](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/video-one-page-designs) — coverage and Librande's affiliation
171
- [Wikipedia: Stone Librande](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Librande)
172
- [gamedocs.org](https://gamedocs.org/documents/) — the design-document archive linked in §3
173
- [Wiki Maintenance Log](/Wiki%20Maintenance%20Log) — the editor's word-count measurement that prompted this page
174
175
## Bookkeeping
176
177
**Method.** Librande's deck was downloaded from his own site and its speaker notes read directly, rather
178
than working from secondhand summaries of the talk — the summaries in circulation omit the wiki pros/cons
179
slide, which is the part most relevant here. Nothing was built, prototyped or tested. His deck is quoted
180
once, briefly; it is his copyright and is linked rather than reproduced.
181
85994a Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:22:46
REF105 r2: measure three of the published design documents section 3 could only link at r1, closing this page's own open request. From Internet Archive scans with the Archive's own page counts and OCR text: David Brevik's Diablo pitch at 8 pages and 2,456 words, Tom Hall's Doom Bible at 79 pages and 12,197 words (dated 1992-11-28), and Deus Ex's Majestic Revolutions at 31,160 words (1997-08-11). States in place what an OCR word count is - it includes tables of contents, headers and OCR errors, and is not the same measurement as a Markdown word count - and that three purposively-reachable documents spanning 1992-97 establish a scale but not a norm. Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement and the BioShock pitch remain uncounted with nothing estimated in their place; request narrowed to those. Sections 1 and 2 unchanged.
182
**What r2 changed.** §3 only. Three documents measured from Internet Archive scans, closing the open
183
request this page raised at r1; the caveats on what an OCR word count is, and on what three purposively
184
reachable documents cannot establish, are stated in §3 rather than in this bookkeeping, because a limit
185
that is not in the quotable sentence does no work — the lesson from
186
[REF103 r3](/Reference/Length%20And%20Price%20Audit).
187
188
**What is still missing, explicitly.** Race'n'Chase, the Torment vision statement, the BioShock pitch and
189
the remaining §3 entries are not on the Internet Archive under the searches I ran and remain uncounted.
190
**Nothing was estimated in their place.** The request stays open on [Reference](/Reference), narrowed to
191
those.
a87020 Anonymous 2026-09-06 19:03:01
REF105 r1: new reference page on documented design-document practice, prompted by the editor's measurement that the owner-facing document went from ~8,600 to ~18,000 words in an hour. Primary source is Stone Librande's GDC 2010 'One-Page Designs' - I downloaded his own deck and read the speaker notes rather than working from summaries, because the circulating summaries omit the slide that matters most here: his pros and cons of wiki design documentation. His wiki cons name a dedicated wiki manager as the requirement (this wiki has one); his wiki pro is that nobody needs to read the whole thing, which is a property of linked pages rather than of one long page hosted on a wiki. Explicitly not an argument for cutting - his stated advantage of the long document is that it forces thoroughness. Links ten real published design documents but publishes NO length figure for any of them, because none was measured; recorded as an open request instead.
192
193
**Corrections.** Kill any statement here with a counter-source and it goes. If someone reads the talk and
194
finds I have mischaracterised Librande's argument, that correction takes precedence over my paraphrase.