thread: 2010-03-18 : First game theory, second game theory
On 2010-03-22, Teataine wrote:
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, Vincent, the distinction is that you write your first game out of dissatisfaction with what you know. A kind of heartbreaker really. You play D&D, you realize you don't like a ton of stuff about it (like hit-points), and you tear it all down. You write a game to do it differently, you write a game that's kinda like D&D but has no HP or maybe you're more radical and write a game that's NOTHING like D&D. And you deconstruct and deconstruct until you hit the point where you realize the bottom line is that RPG rules are social manipulations, everything else is optional.
But that alone makes poor design, you need to rebuild now. There's no need to throw out hit points anymore. Instead, you recognise them for what they are: a pacing mechanic, and you can build upon that insight, you can now write a new game *with* hit points, but without using them "because D&D does" or write a game without them without rallying against them "because D&D uses them" - there is no more need to emulate or destroy, you've got your bedrock and all the lego pieces you want to play with, start building.
If you could do that with your first game, good for you.
