Why Game Design Docs Still Matter, Even for LiveOps
Fixing the flaws, keeping the clarity, and staying agile.
Deep Dive by NotebookLM.
Game design documents have evolved from massive static files into flexible, digital tools that adapt to real-time development needs.
Traditional GDDs are often too rigid, outdated, and ignored, but modular and agile-friendly formats solve these problems.
In LiveOps, fast-paced updates demand lean documentation focused on purpose, KPIs, and clear ownership to maintain speed and quality.
Game design documents have come a long way since the industry's early days. Back then, they were hefty, physical documents, sometimes hundreds of pages thick, filled with handwritten notes, sketches, and annotations. These documents served as the single source of truth for the entire team, covering everything from gameplay mechanics and storylines to technical requirements and art direction.
As games became more complex and teams grew in size, the role of the GDD shifted. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, they had become essential project documentation, often formalised as part of contracts with publishers. If a publisher signed a studio to build a game, the GDD was usually part of that agreement. The expectation was clear: stick to what is in the document, renegotiate a change or risk not getting paid.
But game development is not static. Scope shifts, features get cut or added, and entire mechanics are reworked mid-production. To keep up, the GDD evolved into what many teams now treat as a living document, which can change weekly or even daily as the game takes shape.
Fast forward to today, and most GDDS are digital, modular, and constantly updated. They live in tools like Confluence, Notion, or Google Docs. They are no longer static PDFs filed away after pre-production. Instead, they are built to stay relevant throughout the entire development cycle, especially for cross-functional teams working across design, programming, art, QA, and marketing.
Some historical GDDs have even made their way online, giving us a glimpse into how teams used to work. The original GTA design document, when it was still called Race 'n' Chase, the Deus Ex doc full of cut features, and the infamous Doom Bible, which included everything from level plans to takeaway menus, all highlight how documentation was both practical and personal.
Common Criticisms of Traditional GDDs
Despite their long history and usefulness, traditional game design documents have plenty of baggage. Here are some of the most common complaints I have seen teams wrestle with:
They go out of date almost immediately. Once production starts, features change quickly. Keeping the GDD updated becomes a job in itself, and it is one that often gets skipped.
They are too rigid. Locking in ideas too early can kill creativity. Some GDDs force teams to stick to initial plans instead of evolving based on what feels good during testing.
No one reads the whole thing. Large, exhaustive GDDs are often ignored. Most people just skim for what they need or avoid it entirely.
They are built on guesses. Since GDDs are usually written before development kicks off, they are full of assumptions. And those assumptions do not always hold up when you start building and playtesting.
They are not user-friendly. Walls of text, poor formatting, and unclear structure make many GDDs hard to use. If it is painful to find what you need, it will not get used.
They do not capture the fun. It is nearly impossible to describe fun in writing. A GDD might list mechanics, but that does not guarantee the gameplay experience will actually be enjoyable.
They discourage iteration. Requiring every feature to be fully defined up front can stop teams from experimenting, failing fast, and learning on the fly.
They do not reflect how games are really made. GDDs are often static, while game development is dynamic and messy. Especially in agile teams or LiveOps environments, the document needs to move as fast as the work.
They try to do too much. A single massive document is hard to maintain, hard to reference, and hard to assign ownership to. Breaking it into modular parts works better for most modern teams.
The GDD's Core Role in Modern Development
At its core, a game design document is about clarity. It gives the team a shared understanding of the game's purpose, how it works, and what matters most. That is essential, even for experienced developers.
Without some form of central reference, things start to drift. Design might shift in one direction while engineering solves different problems. Art might get ahead on visuals that no longer fit the plan. And nobody notices until time has already been wasted.
A GDD helps prevent that by anchoring conversations. It allows you to document decisions, highlight constraints, and share the why behind each feature. It also makes onboarding new team members or bringing external partners up to speed easier.
It is not just about development, either. A well-structured GDD can help manage scope, track features through production, and support milestone planning.
And when stakeholders like publishers, licensors, or investors need updates, your GDD helps show the thinking behind what is being built. It becomes a tool for visibility and trust.
GDDs in Agile and Modular Workflows
Traditional GDDs tried to cover everything in one giant document. That approach does not work in agile environments, where priorities shift quickly and iteration never stops.
Modern teams break documentation into smaller, focused pieces. You might have one doc on player progression, another for combat systems, and a third for the core loop. Each piece stands independently and can evolve without dragging the rest of the project with it.
User story mapping is a great way to organise this. By laying out the player journey and grouping features around it, you get a clear visual of what matters most. It helps teams prioritise, spot gaps, and see how new features fit into the game's overall flow.
Gherkin adds another layer of clarity. Writing features in the “Given / When / Then” format clarifies expectations, especially across design, dev, and QA. It also ties directly into behaviour-driven development if you are working that way.
Impact mapping is another tool that helps keep modular documentation focused on outcomes. It starts with the goal and then maps out the actors (like player types), their behaviours, and the changes needed to achieve that goal. For GDDs, this helps teams avoid overbuilding by showing which features actually support the intended outcome. It also makes challenging scope creep easier and ties every mechanic back to a real player or business impact.
This modular and story-driven approach speeds up updates and keeps documentation usable. No one wants to dig through a giant doc to find a single variable or rule.
Most importantly, this setup reflects how agile teams work. You do not commit to every detail up front. You build, test, and adjust based on what feels right and what the data tells you.
The key is to capture the pillars. What must be true for the game to work? What constraints are in place? What systems rely on others? You can just nail those down first, then build the rest as needed. Let the documentation grow with the project, not ahead of it.
Some supporting material to consider.
Why LiveOps Needs a Different Approach
When running LiveOps on an established game, the documentation approach shifts again. You are no longer planning entire systems from scratch. You are updating, tweaking, and layering new content on top of what already exists.
A full GDD for every feature does not make sense in this environment. The pace is too fast, and the scope of each update is usually narrower.
Sometimes, prototyping a feature is quicker than writing it down. Building a rough version and seeing how it plays can be more useful than speculating in a document if you are testing a new event type or tweaking game balance.
That said, even when you prototype first, you still need documentation. Once you have landed on something that works, writing a quick feature brief helps everyone stay aligned. It captures what was decided, what to watch out for, and how the update fits into the bigger picture.
LiveOps work still needs coordination. Designers, developers, QA, and marketing must understand what is changing and why. And if something breaks or underperforms, having documentation makes it much easier to troubleshoot or adjust in future iterations.
LiveOps Docs: What to Include
LiveOps documentation should be lean but purposeful. It does not need lengthy write-ups, but it does need to cover the essentials.
Start with the feature goal. Could you tell me what you're trying to achieve? Is this a content drop to drive logins? A limited-time event to boost revenue? Or a quality-of-life tweak based on player feedback? Knowing the purpose helps everyone make smarter decisions.
Next, define success. Include the KPIs you are tracking, whether engagement, spend, retention, or something else. This keeps the team focused and helps you evaluate the update after launch.
Approvals still matter. Even if you are moving quickly, a clear owner or lead should be signed off on to ensure features align with the broader game direction.
From there, nail down the technical details. Server-side values, item IDs, durations, and dependencies must be adequately documented to be implemented, tested, and supported.
Finally, track what has gone live and what is coming next. A simple release log can save loads of time when juggling multiple updates or troubleshooting live issues.
GDD in Development vs LiveOps: A Shift in Focus
In early development, the GDD is often detailed and comprehensive. It sets direction, defines systems, and aligns the team on the overall vision. Updates to the document are less frequent and tied to big milestones.
LiveOps, on the other hand, runs on speed and iteration. The documentation needs to be lean and modular, focused on the update, the goal, and the technical setup. Instead of one large document, you will have a collection of smaller ones such as feature briefs, event specs, tuning docs, and configuration sheets.
Approval processes differ, too. In development, changes may need multiple sign-offs. LiveOps is often a faster cycle, but oversight still matters to avoid breaking something in the live environment.
Where development GDDs are about building the foundation, LiveOps documents are about keeping that foundation strong while layering in new content without disruption.
Who Owns What in the GDD
For a GDD to stay useful, it needs clear ownership. Otherwise, parts of it go stale, updates get missed, and no one’s sure what’s still valid. Ownership does not mean one person writes everything. It means someone is responsible for keeping each section accurate and current as the game evolves.
Here’s a rough breakdown of how ownership typically plays out on well-run teams:
Design owns the mechanics briefs, feature specs, progression systems, and player-facing rules. They document how the game is meant to work and what players can do.
Product owns the KPIs, goals, and success criteria. They define what each feature tries to achieve and how outcomes will be measured.
Engineering owns the technical constraints, dependencies, and integration notes. They flag what’s feasible, what’s blocked, and what systems need to be considered.
Art owns the visual requirements. That includes target styles, asset lists, mockups, and animation expectations, plus notes on reusability or tooling.
QA helps document edge cases, test scenarios, and known limitations. They often write test cases and acceptance criteria and contribute to validation checklists based on the GDD.
Some teams assign these roles explicitly in the document itself. Others manage them through naming conventions, folders, or tags. Whatever the approach, what matters is that someone always watches each piece of the document and keeps it useful. If it’s everyone’s job, it quickly becomes no one’s.
The Game Producer’s Role in GDD Development
Producers are key in ensuring the GDD is more than just a document. Their job is to keep it relevant, practical, and used by the team, not just written once and forgotten.
A producer helps guide the document's structure to match how the team works. That often means encouraging modular, task-focused docs instead of a single, bloated file. They work closely with leads to ensure someone owns every section and that updates happen when decisions change.
Producers also act as a bridge between disciplines. They ensure the GDD captures input from design, art, engineering, and QA, reflecting real constraints like time, tools, and team capacity. If a feature spec doesn’t align with what's technically possible or resourcing, the producer is usually the first to flag it.
Producers rely on the GDD to map work into milestones, track dependencies, and align team output with business goals in planning and scoping. If the documentation is unclear or outdated, it creates risks in delivery.
Finally, producers help reinforce the culture around documentation, not by forcing everyone to write more but by assisting teams to understand when documentation saves time and reduces risk. A good producer knows that a well-maintained GDD is not just admin but infrastructure.
Conclusion: Do Not Skip Docs, Adapt Them
You do not need a massive document for every new feature. But if you skip documentation altogether, you are making things more complicated for your team.
Clear, concise documentation helps keep everyone aligned, even when updates are fast and frequent. It supports better planning, smoother implementation, and quicker follow-ups.
LiveOps primarily benefits from small, focused documents such as feature briefs, config sheets, and event specs that are kept current and easily managed.
It is not about writing more. It is about writing enough in the correct format at the right time.
I have a weird, somewhat heretical idea of merging the backlog user stories with documentation. To put it simply, treat the backlog as documentation. Although many challenges arise. The inability to turn everything into a document (or set of documents), the need to control changes so there will be no sabotage in the Team. Yeah, no known to me tools allow to keep that idea afloat ;-)