thread: 2013-09-03 : Ordering the Conversation: How do you choose?
On 2013-09-05, Clayton Grey wrote:
It seems like a lot of people are chasing the tail. I believe I'm with Gordon, but I think the context you're providing is clouding the real question.
Your example case seems to suppose that spell casting is the featured means to overcome the world. In order to answer this question in full, one must at least understand the mechanic/subsystem's role in relationship to the rest of the system and your design goals. Maybe featuring spell casting would be antithetical to your design intentions?
But lets get jiggy with it:
Evaluating a subsystem outside of intentions or goals is a challenge, because there are many fruitful decisions that can lead to different kinds of games based on the desired reading.
For example, lets say we wanted to make a game about being all-powerful wizards in a world full of regular people. One or more of you will bring the world to it's knees as a by-product of your natural all-powerful state.
In that case, the first possibility isn't a problem because it's a desired inevitable outcome. One might design the questions that other players should ask of that player to inform the other phases of a turn and how they should play out as a result of the casting.
That is to say: those are all valid subsystems if they accomplish your goals for the larger system. So to answer your specific questions:
The group should have a conversation about the spell casting that compliments that subsystem's role in the larger system.
As the designer of the game, I should consider my goals and decide if the subsystems I'm considering are appropriate. If I'm not sure, I probably need additional constraints.
But really what your asking is just:
Does [subsystem] embody [intention]?
Where a subsystem might be "dice based look-up tables" and "uncontrollable power" might be the intention. In which case, I'd say, it could probably work!
Providing a broad description of all mechanics in terms that effectively relate how players feel as a result of interacting with them would be quite a literary feat.
While my mental footnotes fail me, there is an inherent aspect of games that require interaction to understand. You seem to be asking for a way to communicate that experience gap without needing to play.
If we knew that, games would probably be boring.
