2006-01-19 : Shock: and Conflict Creation
Fun game of Shock: last night. My guy was a slavedriver vacuumorph who learned the truth about his artificial slave religion - that it was, in fact, a religion cynically constructed by the true human overseers to keep the vacuumorphs in line - and learned something ambiguous and challenging about God, too. My cold-light-of-morning interpretation of what he learned is: just because your God isn't real, doesn't mean that God isn't. You can probably imagine my shielding-one-eye-from-the-blast reaction when I realized that's what Ben and Joshua had done to me.
Here's a note I wrote to myself on the back of my character sheet (reconstructed from memory): Omniscient conflict creation = it's good whichever way the stakes resolve = no reason to interfere.
As a game designer, you don't want both of a) the conflict is fully satisfying to everyone whichever way it resolves, and b) the game's dynamics depend on the uninvolved players participating mechanically. If we construct the stakes of the conflict so that I like both possible outcomes, I'm not motivated to cast in on one side or the other.
Better to bump the "it's fully satisfying to everyone no matter how it goes" up into the reward cycle, and let losing individual conflicts sometimes really, really suck. That way everyone invests in the conflict and its outcome - including spectators investing mechanically, if that's the way your game works.
I wrote the note when and where I did, reflecting on Shock:'s old resolution rules. Shock:'s new resolution rules confirmed it - confirmed it by, yes, bumping "it's all good" up into the reward cycle and letting conflicts sometimes go way bad, and consequently we all cared hard.
Ben, Joshua, Emily, would you say?
("Bumping 'it's all good' up into the reward cycle and letting conflicts sometimes go way bad," is a direct paraphrase of this thing Ron said, by the way.)
1. On 2006-01-19, Lisa Padol said:
2. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
3. On 2006-01-19, Matt Wilson said:
LP go "I disagree."*
JZ go "Me too."*
MSW go "So you must be playing wrong!"*
*click in for more
4. On 2006-01-19, Roger said:
5. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
6. On 2006-01-19, Ninja Monkey J said:
7. On 2006-01-19, Roger said:
8. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
9. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
10. On 2006-01-19, John Harper said:
11. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
12. On 2006-01-19, Vincent said:
13. On 2006-01-19, Ninja Monkey J said:
14. On 2006-01-19, John Harper said:
15. On 2006-01-20, Matt Wilson said:
16. On 2006-01-20, Vincent said:
17. On 2006-01-21, Ben Lehman said:
18. On 2006-01-22, Andy K said:
NinJ of the 0.2.4 Distilled rules, used at Dreamation last weekend
NinJ go "Ah. 0.2.0. Those were heady days, filled with optimism and unclear rules."*
*click in for more
19. On 2006-01-24, Tris said:
20. On 2006-01-24, Emily said:
21. On 2006-01-26, Ninja Monkey J said: