thread: 2010-03-18 : First game theory, second game theory
On 2010-03-22, Vincent wrote:
Overall, the first games I see are sharp and solidly-grounded; this isn't about heartbreakers at all. Like, take what Nathan Russel says down here in the show of hands thread:
"My 'success' with Space Rat was more accidental than by design. Since then I have come to better understand what I was doing (let alone what others were doing!). I think it has made it harder to design subsequent games, but am not yet able to articulate why..."
I don't think his success was accidental! Far, far from it. His story seems like the common one to me: a person designs a striking, insightful first game, as if by accident, but no matter how much inspiration they have for a second game, they can't seem to make it work. All the design decisions that were self-evident for the first game turn into no-solution problems for the second.
My proposal is that the reveal-the-bedrock theory contributes to those "as if by accident" successful first games, but it does so by liberating you to express your preexisting insights into roleplaying as a practice. What it doesn't do is spark new insights.
You should all know that I haven't thought this out very thoroughly, though, and I haven't been observing very carefully. I'll cheerfully defer to anybody who's thought or observed more clearly than I have.
