thread: 2011-06-07 : Concentric Game Design
On 2011-06-13, Ron Edwards wrote:
Lots of things ...
1. I think the basics of a reward system must be in the filament or it's not a filament. I do not think the details of rolling dice and moving things forwards are always in the filament - or to put it differently, in a good game, they are, but many RPGs are flatly not good.
2. This bulb et cetera idea is clearly still in development. I think it will benefit from considering whether we're equating the innermost pieces with the shortest-term components of play (short-term Techniques and Ephemera in Big Model terms) or not. It's easily read that way. I suggest that this reading wouldn't be all that great.
3. Vincent, I think you're not raving about Sorcerer. You've nailed the distinction between the Sorcerer supplements and the Sorcerer mini-supplements perfectly. I have to repeat, over and over, that the relationship map method is not fundamental to the game and indeed changes the game. I wish now I'd spent more time in 2000-2002 explaining the game without it.
4. I think there's more to the filament level of the reward system in Apocalypse World than you're saying. For Sorcerer, for example, it's about the big four outcomes. For Apocalypse World, I suspect that it's some kind of trade-off among security, hope, and knowledge. In other words, the reward system is *not* "kick ass, road warrior!", any more "dude! demons are real!" would be in Sorcerer.
Best, Ron
