Here we are talking about how playing it safe in the world of design is a loser of a philosophy. To prove that I can link any disparate topics, here is a similar discussion about football. The esteemed Dr. Z (probably the best technical football columnist) writes about how some teams get so scared of taking a huge chance and instead lose quietly.

There are coaches who are always looking for ways to beat you, who will go for the throat. Give us 40 seconds and one time out and we’ll put points on the board, is their philosophy. These coaches have Super Bowl rings.

There are coaches whose playbooks are filled with things that can go wrong. They have a fine working knowledge of the terrors of the game. They coach not to lose. Yet they lose, maybe not over the course of a season, or a career, but they lose the big ones. Let me tell you about this latter breed.

The article was spurred by two incidents, in two seperate weeks, where fraidy-cat coaches were so terrified of an unlikely scenario (interception, fumble, sack) that they gave their kickers long, unlikely field goals in very hostile, pressure cooked circumstances, rather than try to throw a couple passes to get a little bit closer and make the kick a little bit easier

In the first of the football games he mentions, the coach decided to let the fate of his team rest on a rookie kicker who had never faced pressure, rather than letting the third-best quarterback in the league do what he’s done all year, and move the ball a little closer. It’s ironic that dancing with the one that brung ya is considered ‘bold’, but it is. Going for 3 makes sense on paper, but not in a game as emotionally driven as football.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, previously, we discussed why management and marketing make ’safe’ decisions like making a hybrid EQ/Elite game. They don’t want to be blamed for taking excessive risks. Note how this compares to how NFL coaches act, from my other favorite sports columnist, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

TMQ’s theory of NFL coaching psychology is that most coaches are motivated by the desire to avoid being blamed. Of course, they don’t want to read stories in the Monday newspapers about how the team lost, but what they really don’t want to read is stories in the Monday newspapers about how the team lost because of a coaching decision…If Bolts coaches had called a play-fake pass or a bootleg to get better position, and a turnover resulted, they (the coaches) would have been blamed for losing the game. Instead, Nick Kaeding is blamed for missing the field goal.

Does this mean that there’s no situation where they should have gone for a fieldgoal? Of course not, but they weren’t in the playoffs on the strength of their field goal kicker’s leg, they were there on the basis of having an outstanding offense. Their coach just went conservative at the end.

Similarly, should a game borrow nothing from other games? Of course not. There will be plenty of times when borrowing something from Everquest or another game is the right thing to do. But first and foremost, you have to stop thinking conservatively, figure out what your own niche is, and to thy own design vision be true.