thread: 2006-08-27 : Kerflufflizing
On 2006-08-27, Vincent wrote:
Guy, what you're asking for, it's not possible. You have to watch people play your game, and you have to know them well enough to see when they aren't having fun, no matter what they tell you afterward. You have to be able to see what they're bringing to the table to make the game fun for everyone, that's absent from your rules.
I know you're frustrated about not getting outside playtesting, but I'm really talking about you watching critical people play with your own eyes.
Yes, the people at the Forge Midwest can provide it for you. I helped provide it for Matt Wilson and for Gordon Landis at GenCon. Camp Nerdly is going to be just exactly what someone needs. I'm all for that - with the recognition that if your cell gets together only once or twice or three times a year, your effective design schedule will have to adapt to the fact.
Jasper, I think Ben and Clinton's answers to you are very good. I like both "Vincent's endorsement draws attention, it's the goodness of the game that does the rest" and "Vincent's endorsement is good because Vincent endorses good games - the good games come first."
Ben, I didn't mean to steal wind out of talking about designing for a social context on your blog; I just meant to talk about critical artistic communities. Of course the two are related, though.
Avram, the ethical reason that I see is this: the internet is marketing, not just development. If I talk bad about a game here on my blog, I might both at once be stupidly wrong and cost the other designer money. If I'm going to risk being stupidly wrong, I'm going to do it somewhere where the consequences are on me, not on the other designer.
"I'm sorry, you're right, that was stupid and wrong of me. I've caught up now I think, go on?" vs "I'm sorry, you're right, that was stupid and wrong of me. I've caught up now I think, go on? Oh and sorry about messing up those 15 sales for you."
