I gave everyone except Simon a thumb up..
I don't like his first point about not needing a GDD because he is the programmer and can do what he feels like.

I don't think he was saying that he didn't need a GDD -- in fact I believe his point is completely unrelated to the presence or absence of a GDD -- because he's the programmer; he was saying that as a programmer, he also has design ideas and would rather work on his own than on an idea provided by someone else. He may or may not have written up his own GDD describing said ideas.

This is a motivation that influences many (perhaps most?) hobbyist and would-be-indie programmers -- they have their own ideas that they want to bring to life, and they have (at least some of) the skills necessary to do so -- they might even be the designers we began the whole discussion with, who were forced to learn another skill because they couldn't find any team willing to take on someone who is a "pure designer".

I gave everyone except Simon a thumb up..
I don't like his first point about not needing a GDD because he is the programmer and can do what he feels like.

I didn't say that i didn't need a GDD, and i didn't say that i can do whatever i feel like because i'm "the" programmer, I said that as a programmer i have the option of working alone which lets me do whatever i want (as long as i work alone, the second i ask someone to help me on my projects i have to either give up that freedom(Which, quite frankly i don't want to do) or pay them with real money (Which is what i do) )

Edit:
I know that "The idea guy" isn't really a game designer.
But most people seem to think so and I see it posted as replies in almost all threads I see where someone tries to pitch a game concept to find a team.
[/quote]

A person who tries to pitch a game concept to find a team is not a designer, he is an idea guy, If you're a game designer and want to join a team then you should show that you have some design experience and skill (a game concept or unproven GDD is not design experience, completed projects is)

almost noone hires a game designer to come up with concepts, game concepts tend to be formed through brainstorming, especially in smaller teams, any game designer worth his salt should be able to take another persons game concept, even if it sucks and turn it into a fun game.

This is a motivation that influences many (perhaps most?) hobbyist and would-be-indie programmers -- they have their own ideas that they want to bring to life, and they have (at least some of) the skills necessary to do so -- they might even be the designers we began the whole discussion with, who were forced to learn another skill because they couldn't find any team willing to take on someone who is a "pure designer".

This is i think usually the case, i picked up programing when i was 10-11 in order to take my game ideas from crayon sketches to actual playable games, Trying to pitch my ideas to someone didn't even cross my mind (If you want to get something done you have to do it yourself) and as it was before we got things like Klik&Play , GameMaker, internet (ok, internet existed but i didn't have access to it) picking up programming was the only option, As i got older programming in itself became more interesting than game design but i still enjoy making games and i have tons of game ideas that i want to make and quite frankly, never will have time to complete).

A person who tries to pitch a game concept to find a team is not a designer, he is an idea guy, If you're a game designer and want to join a team then you should show that you have some design experience (a game concept or GDD is not design experience)

I'd agree with that -- much like preparing a pitch for a publisher, someone looking to join a team a designer really needs to do a good job both of pitching the idea in question, and of demonstrating their own skills and usefulness to the team. This should ideally involve a proven track-record of previous titles, but obviously everyone has to start somewhere, so those without a track record might show off a successful board-game design, prototypes put together with a point&click game maker, detailed documents and concepts, annotated sketches of maps (even better if you've put some together in an editor!), etc. If the project in question is planning to launch as a commercial indie effort you might go so far as to require a relevant degree.

A GDD alone proves nothing -- as glhf mentioned in the OP, many people manage to push themselves all the way through writing a completed screen-play, but that alone does not necessarily mean their work is of good quality or would make for a good movie.

So "the idea person" or rather the game designer an has insane amount of work.. He just does most of it before a dev team begins working on it.

(Emphasis mine)

I wouldn't agree that the majority of a game designer's work is done before developers start work on a project; there is still plenty to be done communicating to the team, clarifying anything that wasn't clear, making changes to the initial design where necessary, balancing game-play once you can test things, etc. Any so-called designer who approaches a team looking to hand over a completed GDD and expecting to do minimal or no further work is obviously not a real designer who will be a valuable team-member; (s)he is just an "idea guy" who happens to have taken the time to write up their idea in detail, in much the same way that an average-Joe who writes out a screen-play is not necessarily qualified to call themselves a screen writer.

@simon
If you are using your own GDD as a programmer then your not only a programmer but a designer as well... That's two jobs.
And you don't have to have completed games to be a game designer.. that's just so others can know you're good at designing games without looking at your GDD.

@JBadams
A GDD doesn't prove anything but neither does previous completed games. Previous completed games (good ones) says that you can create good game designs but doesn't prove your next one will be good.. Just increases the likelyhood. A GDD says a lot even if you don't have previous completed games.

It's like... Would you buy a share in the stock market just because it's been climbing in the past? (previous games)
Or would you take a look at the GDD and see if it's a potential good game (Analyze the share in stock market to see if there's an incoming reversal or the company is having trouble etc)?

Both is better than none but I would for sure go with the GDD if I had to chose just one of these.

Btw, I would like a list of all titles that fall under game designing?

There's sooo many titles and I don't know them all really.. but like there's creative director, level designer, story writer(?) etc..
I also think game designer should have marketing in the game design too.. How will it be marketed? Published? competition? potential revenue? Also think they should design the website as well.
So would be cool if someone can make a list of all titles that fall udner game designer and a short description of what each titles job is

A good game designer is not necessarily skilled at marketing or at web design/development. These are different and very complex fields and would entail the designer taking on multiple (and not particularly related) roles, which you initially said was a bad thing. I would agree with your own initial assessment; ideally a game designer should not have to take on multiple roles, including marketing or web design. In reality of course they may well do so, as it is common in indie development to take on multiple disciplines.

Job titles vary from company to company, and there is very little in the way of any sort of standardisation; the requirements for a designer at one company may be very different from those at a different company. Case in point, "designer" can sometimes really mean "artist". You may however find this report from the IGDA to be relevant; pages 7-8 list various common "design" job-titles with a brief description of each.

A GDD says a lot even if you don't have previous completed games.

A GDD says that you can write a GDD; nothing more or less. Without that proven track record it may be completely worthless. To be clear, I'm not saying you should prefer a designer with a proven track record over one who has a GDD; I'm saying any designer worth having will have both, or if they are just starting out will have taken the time to produce something else to show you (levels or mods for an existing commercial game, "game maker" games, annotated sketches, a successful board game, etc.) in place of a track-record. A GDD is just a starting point, and just like your example of an average Joe who has taken the time to write a screen play, tells you near to nothing about the potential success or failure of the final product.

If I might reference Daniel Cook again:

[size=2]from "Why you should share your game designs" (Lost Garden)

Your game design is simply a starting point
A game starts out with 1% game design and end up 100% production and polish. During the production and polish stages of the title, the game design is likely to change dramatically. For example, there was once a genre busting game design by a famous designer that involved a magic hammer and was described as an epic fantasy action RPG. Something very interesting happened along the way to creating the title. First, they did what every good team does in the early stages. They prototyped the concept and evolved what worked. The grand initial design ended up turning into an intense FPS shooter. What was this fantasy RPG? It was a little title called Quake.
...
A game design ends up being closer to a movie script than it is to a blue print. The director who executes your design has a major impact on the ultimate results.[/quote]

@simon
If you are using your own GDD as a programmer then your not only a programmer but a designer as well... That's two jobs.
And you don't have to have completed games to be a game designer.. that's just so others can know you're good at designing games without looking at your GDD.

@JBadams
A GDD doesn't prove anything but neither does previous completed games. Previous completed games (good ones) says that you can create good game designs but doesn't prove your next one will be good.. Just increases the likelyhood. A GDD says a lot even if you don't have previous completed games.

It's like... Would you buy a share in the stock market just because it's been climbing in the past? (previous games)
Or would you take a look at the GDD and see if it's a potential good game (Analyze the share in stock market to see if there's an incoming reversal or the company is having trouble etc)?

Both is better than none but I would for sure go with the GDD if I had to chose just one of these.

a GDD doesn't say anything about a persons design skills, things that look good on paper rarely is as good in practice which is why game designs tend to change drastically during development, hand the same GDD to two different teams and you might end up with completely different games possibly even in different genres (Changes can be very drastic and good designers are probably more able to make drastic changes if they spot an opportunity for it) (id Softwares Quake for example is an excellent example, it started out as a fantasy RPG but ended up a sci-fi action shooter because the designer wasn't afraid to make drastic changes when testing revealed opportunities or flaws) (And the designer was obviously also good enough to realise that the game would be better if the changes were made)

This is why a GDD is nearly worthless as a basis to hire someone on, If i hire a designer i'm not interested in what starting point he can provide, i'm interested in the results he can deliver especially if there are technical or practical constraints to what can be done (For indies this is always the case) , a solid SC2 level says more about a persons design skills than any GDD ever will.

I wouldn't call myself a game designer even though i have designed games since its not what i primarily do, just like i don't call myself an artist or a composer even though i've drawn pictures, built 3d models and composed some music tracks. I would consider it extremely disrespectful towards those who actually dedicate themselves to those jobs.

Edit:

I think we are partially talking about different things aswell, If you are a designer trying to form a team then having a GDD is far more important than if you are a designer trying to join a team.

If you intend to join a team then your GDD will most likely not be used at all as the team has allready gone beyond that point (It might be a starting point for a second project though) and any decent team will be far more interested in what you can do with an existing concept.

If you intend to form a team then things get really rough as you have to not only sell your design, but also your ability to produce a finished product.
This is why most successful indie teams start out as 1 - 3 man projects, You cannot reasonably expect to attract talented strangers to your project unless it is at a stage from which the finish line is clearly visible.

I just don't agree and I'm sticking with what I've said previously.

a GDD isn't just 1% of the development progress.
the GDD is what tells how good the game will be.. and if a GDD causes 2 different teams to create compeltely different games then it was either a badly detailed GDD or the teams didn't follow the GDD correctly.

In movies for example.. There is 1 director. Sometimes more but most of the time it's just one. He directs the movie not the actors (programmers).
Actors should follow the GDD to the letter, no arguments. Only reason to not follow the GDD is if the director says otherwise.

You're saying the GDD doesn't say anything about how good the game will be but that's completely false.
You think producers and actors who are looking for a screenplay only are like "oh it's that guy who made 2 good movies before, you're hired.. I don't need to read your new screenplay". That they've made good movies before only puts him on their radar.. so when he has new screenplays (GDD's) they will read it... and if they like it (if the GDD sounds like it will make a good game) then they do it.

The major problem with game designers in indie games is, that you don't really need them. Before slapping me, let me explain:

Most people will think that the "idea guy" is automatically a candidate for the role of the game designer, which is just wrong, because with this argument 99% of the world population would be qualified as game designer.

To be honest, a idea guy is not needed in a small indie team, atleast in a team of unpaid individuals teaming up to create a game, I'm not talking about independent game studios which will hire people. In small teams you have a idea leader and a idea team, because else you would never keep up the motivation as long as you don't pay them.

So, what is left for the game designer. The role of a game designer is important, but it is just a role and you don't need to have one unique guy to design the whole game. In small teams you can give individual member game designing competence, i.e. the artist who has made some cool looking monster which will get a special role in the game has designed the game this way. Or the coder which comes up with some cool shader effect which will be included in the game as special ability has taken the role of the game designer. Often the game design will be discussed by the whole team while drinking a cool beer.

The next point is, small teams are most likely not working with a waterfall development process (GDD->implementation->test->done), they will work in a more agile process (either chaos or smaller iterations).

That's the reason you don't really need a single person who has taken solely the role of the game designer. It is more or less a team task and every team has a natural fear of people who want to tell them what to do and don't do anything else, then to write down what the team members have to do.

The solution is to either study game design and try to get a job in the game industry, or to learn some other skills and participate in a small indie team, or to hire people and pay them to do what you have envisioned.

The major problem with game designers in indie games is, that you don't really need them. Before slapping me, let me explain:

Most people will think that the "idea guy" is automatically a candidate for the role of the game designer, which is just wrong, because with this argument 99% of the world population would be qualified as game designer.

To be honest, a idea guy is not needed in a small indie team, atleast in a team of unpaid individuals teaming up to create a game, I'm not talking about independent game studios which will hire people. In small teams you have a idea leader and a idea team, because else you would never keep up the motivation as long as you don't pay them.

So, what is left for the game designer. The role of a game designer is important, but it is just a role and you don't need to have one unique guy to design the whole game. In small teams you can give individual member game designing competence, i.e. the artist who has made some cool looking monster which will get a special role in the game has designed the game this way. Or the coder which comes up with some cool shader effect which will be included in the game as special ability has taken the role of the game designer. Often the game design will be discussed by the whole team while drinking a cool beer.

The next point is, small teams are most likely not working with a waterfall development process (GDD->implementation->test->done), they will work in a more agile process (either chaos or smaller iterations).

That's the reason you don't really need a single person who has taken solely the role of the game designer. It is more or less a team task and every team has a natural fear of people who want to tell them what to do and don't do anything else, then to write down what the team members have to do.

The solution is to either study game design and try to get a job in the game industry, or to learn some other skills and participate in a small indie team, or to hire people and pay them to do what you have envisioned.

This sounds to be the way it is right now and is why I named the thread "Why dont game designers get respected in indy teams?"
Because they should get more respect.

Another thing is that just because it's indy doesn't have to mean amateur.
People can and should act professional and stick to their roles/jobs.

Have you ever seen what chaos and disaster it is when indy film makers team up and the director, actor, camera man etc they all want to direct and have their say in how to movie should progress. It just don't work.. It's like mixing food with other food that individually they taste great but when mixed together it's disgusting.

I've seen games that have had great potential be ruined because the devs didn't have a person in charge of the game design.
One of them was in favor of open pvp with harsh penalties and the other was in favor of consensual pvp with no punishments.. only rewards.
This leads to a game that both the open pvp players and the consensual pvp players hate.. zero playerbase.