anyway.

I missed that one about Tablut. My first experience with it was a PC game in the 90s called King's Table. It had a Ragnarok theme: the king was Odin, the white pawns were the Aesir, and the black pawns the fire giants and other forces of darkness.

Interestingly, unlike the one you posted, the game was on an 11x11 board, with 12 white pawns (in a diamond pattern) and 24 black. The king was also limited to 1 or 2 spaces of movement in a single direction. Also, a match consisted of two games, one in which you play white and one in which you play black, and you had to win both matches to win the game. Otherwise it was the same.

It also had a 'Ragnarok' mode in which each side picked 4 out of 6-ish special pieces themed on personages from Norse myth, with special rules and/or moves, to replace 4 of their pawns. Frex, Tyr (white) and Garmr (black) had to be surrounded on three sides to be captured, while Heimdall (white) and Loki (black) moved diagonally instead of orthogonally. I remember finding this mode frustrating, however, as I had a hard time recognizing the special pieces, remembering their rules, and factoring that in my strategy.

Not too long ago I built my own board for this at work (I work in a lumber yard) and challenged one of my coworkers to play (I hadn't played it in at least 10 years). I was immediately struck by how interesting the design was. I liked how you had to think in order to set up a capture that wouldn't immediately meet reprisal, and was awed at how the game favors white even though black out-numbers them 2 to 1.

I need to find some other people to play with so I can continue to study it.

From RPG Design, Craft and Discipline:

"Notice how it feels to have a sound idea, versus an unsound idea; notice how the latter demands a sense of conviction to make up for itself, and the former instead invites exploration."

I had to highlight this. It's a great observation for life, not just game design.

My personal takeaways:

• Just because I can see how the momentary actions of play connect to the game's point and purpose doesn't mean the players can see it.  The players need to be able to see it.
• The black box of the GM's judgment can be an obstacle to the visibility of such connections.
• One way to go from insight to design is to think through the situation your insight describes, in terms of what outcomes could result and what conditions could factor in.
• The possibility of truly unwelcome outcomes is more important than their actuality, as a yardstick of whether a game is truly getting people to do what they wouldn't have just done without it.
• Pushing the limits of what players will accept can give more value to a smaller audience.
• Don't assume that telling someone to do something will actually get them to do it.  There are more effective alternatives, however.
• Players may skip or forget the outer details of games, so it can be useful to have a core that functions without them.
• Options to change a social system include: 1. Content ("We're on Tatooine and I'm a storm trooper!") 2. Explicit principles and instructions ("Immersion is most important; whenever your immersion is broken, call a time out.") 3. Fictional structure ("After this scene, the game says the Nazis pull out of the city and we have one scene left.") 4. Constructed interactions without cues ("There's a GM and it's me.") 5. Procedural cues ("Roll dice for narration rights.") 6. Fiction-mediating cues ("Roll dice for which character wins.")

It's been a challenging and genuinely thought-provoking year.  Thanks for these discussions, Vincent!

Great stuff, thank you for the summary! It's some very useful context.

Dave:

I like your insights, too! I get all of them except...

"Pushing the limits of what players will accept can give more value to a smaller audience."

What does that one mean?

Just referring to what Vincent said in this post (last paragraph).

Vincent,

I was wondering if you have some insight on why we tell stories or rather why we want to (with all your posts on design, social interaction, and your three questions) particular with games.

Thanks,
ara

Ah, makes sense, thanks, Dave!

We're equal, not interchangeable

I like that one. Also a good reason to keep convetional GMs.

Here's a topic I'd like to throw into the queue for eventual discussion:

How do you effectively change a social group's permissions and expectations to accommodate a given instruction?  E.g., is a clear connection to the activity's purpose sufficient, or are formal feedback and incentives necessary?  Are there any technical "do"s and "don't"s?

If the correct answer is different for every problem, how does a designer arrive at the correct answer?  What's best to examine or focus on?