thread: 2005-11-10 : Open House: Ask a Frequent Question...
On 2005-11-22, Vincent wrote:
Tim: How concious are you in applying all the theory to a new design? Where do you start, and what checks do you do along the way to make sure that what you're doing does what you want it to in play?
Extremely conscious. That's what the theorizing is for. If I weren't using it at every single stage in my design, I'd stop doing it.
I start with my mantra: fit character, fit opposition, no way out but through, escalate escalate escalate, crisis, climax, resolution.
About checks: there's a skill you learn, which is to visualize actual play of whatever procedure you're designing. You learn to approach your procedure impartially, visualizing how it'll actually play, not how you hope it'll actually play. Cultivate that skill. I don't know how to cultivate it except to practice: imagine how it'll go, try it, did it go how you imagined? Keep practicing until you're reliably able to predict what'll happen.
As I design I'm constantly imagining my non-gamer friends or my rules-hostile gamer friends. My first check is "could I explain to Meg what to do and why to do it?" If I don't imagine I could, I revise. Next is, "if I explain this to Meg, will she want to do it?" If I don't imagine she will, I revise. Only THEN do I bother to imagine how it'll actually play.
And of course real playtesting is the only way to know.
This makes MB go "Hostile, that's me :)"
I'm historically very weary/wary of convuluted mechanics and charts and the like. I want the "how/why to play this game" to be clear and grabby. If it's not super clear, it better be super grabby!
