Our topic this time is the length of play as it relates to game rules. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s not as simple as seeing what the rules say and obeying them; people play long or short in defiance of those rules (when present) all the time. The question is when or how the rules facilitate the decision to continue to play.
You are here
At this point, we needed to do three things at once. First, to make sure we filled in any missing points or caught up with anything Justin wanted to revisit; second, to lay down some important points about design as a process, as I thought we'd maybe strayed into play-theory at the expense of the real topic of "make a game;" and third, to take the time to address any topics as they occurred to either of us as we went along.
Here's another discussion of Quella Volta Che, aimed at the nuts and bolts of "what happens" in play, due to player choices and statements. We couldn't have done this without the previous session which focused so intently on content.
I’m not making any claims about the logic or organization by this point in our talks, rather, I’m hoping Justin isn’t thinking that I’m totally making it up as I go. It's certainly been helpful to me to recognize what pieces I need to pull into their own how we play discussion so they can be treated as understood for a how we design presentation.
Here's the second session with Justin Nichols as I test my current notions of a Design Curriculum upon him. Last time, we talked about the desireable "reward" cycle of excitement, engagement with the procedures, and inspiration. This time it's about a particular structural rubric you can find attached to this post.
I cannot as yet summarize or eulogize or otherwise "state" my response to Greg's death. It wasn't that much of a surprise, yet was as hard as they all have been. He was a grandmaster of this activity we do, and he was my friend.
This five-video discussion is more of a celebration of encountering his work, with a little bit of reminiscence occasionally. I don't have much to add except for these:
Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect - fictional things, probably the single most direct fictional content to be interfaced with real-people speaking and using rules, in the hobby. In a recent dialogue with Zac Porcu, he called it "the beating heart of role-playing."
"Everyone knows" what a relationship map is, but they're definitely not all the same thing, especially with these variables exposed:
Here's a good example of what Actual Play posting here can be: reflections afterwards. I recommend it. Here the game author is involved and thus rules questions abound, but whoever and about whatever is totally OK too.
For Circle people, the rules questions included how order-of-action relates to groups, and some math concerning the components in a venture, both of which did require some clarification of the text.