thread: 2009-09-09 : Waah
On 2009-09-09, Simon ROgers wrote:
I’m wondering if I’m Sagredo or Simplicio!
An example: Luke an I talked at GenCon last year, and shared an observation that it’s satisfying for a group to see a difficult mechanical process through. Some Burning Wheel conflicts, some Dogs conflicts, they’re frustrating in the moment but at the end of them you’re relieved, you’re satisfied, and the game overall is stronger and better than it would have been without the group’s accomplishment.
It took me a while to work this out with Dogs - that is, I was trying to get the mechanical process of conflict out of the way so that we could “get on with the game”, not understanding that the conflicts with their physical movement of dice, addition and interaction with the traits was the central part of the game. When I understood that these actions, these mechanics were the game, the game worked for me.
I agree that there is a certain aesthetic and emotional satisfaction to be gained from the system itself, more so if there is a resonance between the system and the theme. A great example of this is the Skull dice in Steal Away Jordan - snatching it up is like saying “Screw this. I need this thing, and I don’t care about the consequences.” If you touch it, you must use it.
I’m fascinated with emergent properties, and intrigued how you can actaully design rather than just discover them.