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.
You are here
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.
I like those diagrams so much that I feel lonely about it, and I was getting so irritated with being too personally talky during labs. that I was pleased to find the solution to both. "Bring your own," I said, and led a little curriculum through making them.
This is an excerpt from my conversation with Ken Oswald, who contacted me regarding a bunch of role-playing topics. He was especially interested in the references he'd run across about Sean Demory's 2002 game le mon mouri, so here is the bit where we went through its system diagram and talked about its content.
I’m playing Monsterhearts, due to a series of coincidences that fell together just right, so here you can see three undead teens try to be normal at a privileged, sequestered, high-pressure school.
Here's the follow-up to the earlier post in which Jason D'Angelo talked about my little diagramming habit. I'd planned to get this content into the comments there, but the games are so interesting and the diagrams are - I think - illuminating enough to merit their own presentation.
I'll also emphasize the point I make toward the end, that each game's diagram differs from the others in terms of what the rules refer to. That's a big deal.