On 2009-04-08, GB Steve wrote:
I understand that there is less of a feedback loop with IAWA once the resolution has started although I don't see that as missing. It's just how it works. And for me, it works better than Dogs because it's shorted and clearer what everythin means.
That's because I'd also contend that Dogs often works as if it doesn't have any right facing arrows. That's because it's pretty easy to justify the use of any trait which in the end is the same as saying "because it's on my character sheet". This might well not be the intent of the design but it certainly happens. To be truely right facing, you have to bring in elements that exist outside the character sheet and with Dogs, you're not always doing that.
I've been thinking about this quite a lot recently, Rob and Joshua's podcast was instructive in this too. I guess it's because I like games in which not only system matters but cloud matters too. I see the game as a series of constraints that contain the fruitful void into a space where it is constrained enough that the things that happen make sense in a mechanical and aesthetic way to the players, but are not so constrained that the game becomes mechanical. And this aesthetic is extremely important, I think, in constructing a fruitful void that means similar things to all the players.
I think it's perfectly possible to set up these contraints at the start of play, or develop them as you go along.