thread: 2008-09-24 : That Reminds Me
On 2008-10-01, Vincent wrote:
(Ron's right.)
The games that come to my mind, Jonathan, are Shock: and Universalis. I know that you're after player-adapted dynamics, not necessarily content, and those are both noted for their open content. It happens that they're also both games where within the rules the players have a lot of control over the dynamics of play.
You may know all this already, I don't know whether you've played them, but just in case:
In Universalis (and correct me if I'm off, Ralph, I haven't played with this feature), changing the dynamic of play is just a matter of doing it, same as introducing a character or setting element. Want a GM? Make one. Want victory conditions? Set some.
In Shock:, changing the dynamic of play would mean choosing Praxes very carefully, not necessarily intuitively, and then maybe adopting guidelines for the audience's d4s. It'd be more limited, but I think it'd be an interesting challenge and you could get some really cool effects, if you undertook it.
Like, imagine playing with Praxes "with an internal monologue VS with outward action only," and "because it's what I would do VS to illustrate a point." Playing with Praxes that are meta- like that would totally change the dynamic of play.
Anyhow, I'm not saying this to say "ha, we've already solved that problem." I don't think any design problem is EVER solved for good and all; there should always be more games, more solutions, more variety, more fun. I'm saying it to back up my non-disagreement, and to say that I think your optimism's demonstrably well-founded.
