Contemplating my design process February 7, 2009
Posted by Ian in Applied, Creative Agenda, Game Design, Personal Reflection, Simulationist, Theory.2 comments
Talking, even half-heartedly, about sketching out a game again shook loose something in the back of my head. I started to think about how I design, why I design, and then I started thinking about how I think about play. What is more, I have been producing a game of PTA for my gaming group, a more active role than I have taken in gaming for a good long while (it’s been refreshing, with a few bumps).
Somewhere over a slice of pizza, it hit me that almost all of my design efforts to date have been presumptively focused toward a Simulationist CA.
Simulation CA and Modules February 6, 2009
Posted by Ian in Creative Agenda, Game Design, Methodological, Simulationist, Small Idea, Theory.add a comment
You’d think there would be cobwebs over here! It seems like forever since the roleplaying mechanics part of my brain has been turned on.
Anyway, there is this little idea that has been tugging at my sleeve, so I figured I would dust off this old blog and post it here. It is a pretty simple one that combines me thinking about module play in light of the recent discussion here about setting and oracles; that old Myst-style of computer play; and my youthful days of playing D&D modules.
Random Thoughts about Modeling Debate October 16, 2008
Posted by Ian in Game Design, Methodological, Small Idea, Theory.add a comment
In honor of the last presidential debate, my mind is churning over that ever-elusive mechanic to simulate and even structure social conflict more minutely. And, heck, I haven’t posted over here in like forever, so I figure, why not? Let me sketch something really rough out.
Macchiavelli in Play? January 31, 2008
Posted by Ian in Applied, Game Design, Methodological, Small Idea, Theory.add a comment
I’m sure I’m not the only player who picked up Vampire when it first came out way back when, read through the material, thought it was so interesting and different than what had been going in gaming, and then sat down to discover I had no idea how to run or play the political intrigue that supposedly drove the game.
And it crossed my mind there might be a way to structure those interactions a little more. The biggest thing is to give political and social bonds some sort of mechanical weight. Here is a basic idea:
Social conflicts always have enduring consequences. If you lose a battle of wills, you get a consequence recorded directly onto your character sheet regarding your relationship to the winner. That becomes a demand your character must meet or pay some resource to ignore (back in the day, Willpower).
Ideally, over time, there would emergent tensions in those consequences, perhaps even to the extent that a single player would have conflicting injunctions.
Some extra fiddly bits might be useful, like giving the victorious character a pool of resources they can offer their subject for following their injunction. That sets up a follow and get rewarded or disobey and have to burn resources.
Of course, any given player should have a limit on how much bounty they can distribute in a single session, so that a player with lots of social power is in the position of having to play favorites.
