2005-06-06 : Immersion, Rewrite
Oh man, I just totally figured out how to talk about this.
Subtle rules, right? Subtle design goals?
[1] The affirmed rightness of your vision
This is social. Your fellow players share ownership of your character, remember; you want and need for them to affirm that your vision of your character is right. They trust you with your character. They won't step in and contradict, override, undercut.[2] Permission to act with passion
Furthermore, whatever you have your character do, they won't react defensively. If your character threatens something they value, they'll deal with the threat passionately in response, but without ever carrying the struggle up into the social level.You aren't constrained by the fear that having your character act might step on someone else's toes.
[3] Faith in the robustness of the game's fiction
And you have to trust that the game has room for your character in it. You can't be worrying whether this decision that your character's making might break the game. You have to know, securely enough that it's unconscious, that even if your character transforms the game entirely, the game'll survive.
Charles proposes a fourth:
I would add an additonal underpinning, which is [4] the degree to which the mechanic requires a state of mind which is similar to the PC state of mind. If my PC is trying to be totally open and honest with another character, and the mechanics for doing so pit us as players against each other in a competitive bidding war where one of us will lose and one of us will win, then that would seem to create a conflict between what I am experiencing as player, and what I am experiencing IC, and that may act to the detriment either of my ability to effectively use the rules, or to effectively remain immersed in my character, or both. If the mechanics instead involved us as players working together against abstract difficulty, then that might better mirror the IC situation, and better allow us to remain immersed.
I think that a game design that fulfilled these design goals would create extremely intense, profound play. Furthermore, I think that as a design challenge it's an excellent one: difficult but not impossible, at the frontier of theory, compelling and immediate, practically guaranteed to make a successful game.
Anybody have any thoughts about what the design might look like?
1. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
"Oh man, I just totally figured out how to talk about this."
Yes you did, and I'm quite sure it can result in good game designs. Good luck!
/ Jonas
2. On 2005-06-06, JasonL said:
Vincent:
Focused, Focused, Focused. This type of design has to be balls to the wall focused - laser like in it's efficency.
It'd have to have a designer willing to brutally cut out any rules that don't hew toward the premise.
And the premise would have to be crystal clear, concise and compelling.
The rules would have to be simple, shallow learning curve, but that combine in an alarming number of ways. Staggering in their combinatorial complexity, stunning in how easy they are to learn. In the "it takes and hour to learn to play, but a lifetime to master" category.
There'd have to be some kind of interest in the game as a game, as well as the game as a roleplaying game. Something entertaining or engaging in the way the rules interact beyond just the stuff we get out of roleplaying. I say that, because capturing the addictive feeling of a game like Pit, I think, would be something you'd need for this Questing Beast we're discussing.
Search and Handling times would have to be low, and tightly focused, too. Not a lot of crunch in how to apply the rules, but plenty of crunch in the way the rules combine, if that makes sense.
Those are the hallmarks I'd look for.
Cheers,
Jason
"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"
P.S. - Design it for us, will you Vincent?
3. On 2005-06-06, Matt Wilson said:
[1] Your fellow players share ownership of your character, remember; you want and need for them to affirm that your vision of your character is right.
So at some point the other players would have had the opportunity to put in the 2 cents or however much they needed. Maybe something like in character creation, I get to assign a quality to your character or make one change.
[2] Whatever you have your character do, they won't react defensively
I think this means that they as players have to benefit no matter what your character does. Your character acts, everyone wins. Even if it's "my character stabs your character in her sleep." Your character's gone, but now you get 10 tokens that allow you to do cool stuff you couldn't before.
[3] You can't be worrying whether this decision that your character's making might break the game.
You're talking about the character's decision, right? Not the player's? I don't believe you can make a game player proof. Anyhow, I think the secret to this is in not building a game around a single important-yet-vulnerable idea.
I'm thinking of Moonlighting and how it was built almost exclusively around the sexual tension between David and Maddie, and as soon as they broke the tension, the show died its slow painful death. That's a game breaker, when instead it should be endgame, or there should be another obstacle moving in to take its place.
[4] the degree to which the mechanic requires a state of mind which is similar to the PC state of mind.
I think there's games that already do that, aren't there?
4. On 2005-06-08, timfire said:
[shameless pluge] I believe The Mountain Witch meets all four of these criteria.[/plug] But still, I have some comments.
[1] The affirmed rightness of your vision
While agree with the principle, I'm not sure about this:
Your fellow players share ownership of your character
Maybe you could elaborate? I might be misunderstanding your intention, but I don't believe any sort of communial ownership is neccessary. TMW doesn't require it. I believe tMW affirms the players vision through the fate rules. Fates allow players to contribute anything they want to the game that relate to the fate in question. Also, no one else can controdict those contributions. This ensures that the player's vision is both ensured and protected.
But character fates and development definitely get intertwined, so maybe that's the type of thing you were referring to.
[4] the degree to which the mechanic requires a state of mind which is similar to the PC state of mind.
TMW does this, but I'm still thinking about it. Let me see if I can express my thoughts... I believe the mechanics should support the experience the designer envisions. That may or may not line up with the character's feelings.
For example, in tMW, the trust system + fates create a slight enease and possible mistrust among the players. Generally speaking, this matches the mindset of the characters. But depending on the situation, an untrusting character might end up giving away a ton of trust points, or a trusting character might end up giving away minimal points (like Judd's character's in relation to your character at the end of our game at Dreamation).
5. On 2005-06-08, Vincent said:
Tim: in all roleplaying ever everywhere, your character is communal property. We designers have to figure out how to work productively with that fact. The historical solution - "pretend it's not true" - will take us only so far.
As it happens, the Mountain Witch's trust mechanism is an example of just what I mean. When you increase or decrease your trust toward my character, you affirm that you've been paying attention to my character, you get what I'm doing with him, and you're committed to me carrying through. "Your portrayal of that character of ours is just right," you're saying. "I'm glad you're the one making decisions about who he is and what he does. Carry on with my blessings!"
6. On 2005-06-08, Jason Petrasko said:
I think this last one strikes a strong chord with my current designer agenda. I have a game which is in limber right now, simply because I don't know how I'll make the players identify with their characters.
In short, the game is called Fabricated. It's a world where humanity has moved on from earth, and left an immense super-computer behind. Eventually it's programming, that dictates it must serve humanity, caused her so much suffer she creates her own android/robotic humans. The game idea is awesome I think, and centers on the players playing machines that want more than anything to be human, something they aren't. They value human qualities, even vices and embrace them.
So, my problem is how do I design the game to make the players feel like they are inhuman, trying to be human. Can you see my dilemma? I had a couple ideas, but I'll stop from ranting here :)
JasonL, your description sounds very much like what I would envision. "The rules would have to be simple, shallow learning curve, but that combine in an alarming number of ways." - This sound like a layer of simple rules with many possible interations. I don't know how that really applies to this type of design. Could you elaborate on how you think it does?
7. On 2006-04-08, Vincent said:
Dammit, mPMR. You put funny marginalia on spam and I can't bring myself to delete it.
I know, I'll edit it down. That'll work.
RSS feed: new comments to this thread
This thread is closed to new comments.
home: anyway.
newer thread: 2005-06-07 : Periodic Refresher
older thread: 2005-06-06 : Happenings
