For the past year and a half, I’ve been running a meetup group in my town for roleplaying games. Every few weeks, we run one-shot events intended to be accessible for new players. I’ve introduced a few people to roleplaying games, and many people to indie games.
You are here
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've been working up a Design curriculum for role-playing for a long while, so when Justin Nichols approached me for a game design discussion that leaned toward mentoring, I accepted without reservation.
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.
I’m spacing out the discussion of Tor’s project post by post, because it’s in such an early stage that each chat we have turns into a big block, or stage, of the process. If I’m not mistaken, this one is pretty much the turning point from “playing D&D 5th edition on purpose” to “his own actual game using the 5th edition OGL.”
The absolutely nascent stage of game design sometimes isn't any different from how you found yourself spinning some feature of some other game you happened to be playing. One may even "know" that hey, wherever I go with this will be something different, even when still thinking so closely to the primary experience that it's pretty much the same as tweaking it at the table.