Hello All,
I'm wondering, has something like 'group design' of an RPG ever been tried on the Forge? On-line? Everyone free to contribute?
90% chance it'd become a real hodge-podge, but diamonds are compressed dead organic matter anyway, right?
If anyone's up for it, I'd like to know. Many a way to try it - heck, we could even use Universalis to build it. :)
It has been tried on this and other fora. The problem is always the same: nobody really owns responsibility for the design. As a result, as ideas diverge through discussion, membership and interest fall off as possibilities are ruled out; usually it trails off to end with a whimper.
Ah. Any links to old efforts, here or on other fora?
I can understand the dying with a whimper thing... it's to be expected, I guess. What if you have a deadline, or converging effect in the design anyway, to prevent just that?
Universalis (which I'm really into right now) has a 'scene' structure - so what if design was in 'scenes'? (Or in modules, whatever). The Universalis method also allows relatively easy transition into 'playing' and non-playing.
Quote from: contracycleIt has been tried on this and other fora. The problem is always the same: nobody really owns responsibility for the design. As a result, as ideas diverge through discussion, membership and interest fall off as possibilities are ruled out; usually it trails off to end with a whimper.
What you need to avoid this is an organized design comittee with defined officers and structure to adhere to (not in sofar as rules themselves go, but in defining said rules). That is, assign two people to design character gen rules, two people to design conflict resolution rules, two people to design character growth rules, etc - and naturally, you'll need some people to make sure all of the pieces work together. In short, run the group design effort as you would a business (because hey, that's what it is - the business of making a game).
Yeah, I think James is on the right track with his suggestions. I think the most important thing to avoid the project just fading away is to have someone who is in charge of the project, authorised by the group to make final decisions and arbitrate any disputes.
Quote from: Andrew MorrisYeah, I think James is on the right track with his suggestions. I think the most important thing to avoid the project just fading away is to have someone who is in charge of the project, authorised by the group to make final decisions and arbitrate any disputes.
I can see this model working.
Here are links to the other such project I know of:
Let's Make a Game! (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3768)
Enlightenment (GGD Group Game Design) (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3936)
Enlightenment (Group Game Design)--Character Design and Setting (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4127)
Applied Design Theory: Enlightenment Group Game Design cont. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6660)
best,
Emily Care
Being done.
The Hive/Defector is being written in collabrative effort between several people, and yes it did involve much banter and discussion, however I'd like to point out that it is currently in Beta format and is almost ready for playtesting. Once we decided to get serious, we did indeed get serious about it.
Nothing is online thus far, it's currently being layed out and all that stuff, art is being done currently.
The group consists of people in the US, England, Germany, Sweden, Mexico and assorted other parts of the globe. All of us contributed ideas to the system, and a few are doing the art.
James has a good idea, however you'd want to make sure that these mini groups didn't conflict with each other. Having three or four groups instead of one large one can lead to massive errors in communication.
To date the largest problem we had as a group was my execution of my computer leaving me without the tools or the access to keep my domain online.
So, Tobias, are you willing to be the person responsible for making this happen? If so, and you get this going, I'd love to contribute.
The problem with collaboration is that most good game design is highly focused. As soon as you reach a point where no one person or group says "the buck stops here" you are setting yourself up for incoherency. That is not to say that the Forge can not be used to develop a game in concert, but someone has to be at the top keeping everything tied together and making sure that everything gets integrated.
For example, i would consider Tony's work on Capes (found here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11823&highlight=capes) here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11914&highlight=capes) here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11951&highlight=capes) here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11998&highlight=capes) here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12072&highlight=capes) here, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12189&highlight=capes) and here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12313&highlight=capes) to be highly collaborative. Tony, Sydney, I, and a number of other people hash out ideas and generally try to make Tony's game better. However, it is important that one person be in charge because a couple of steps back in the design process i really felt that the game should go in direction X while Tony really wanted direction Y. If no one had creative control and was able to say "yeah, your idea is ok, but we are still going to do it my way" then there is a good chance that my interest would have faded. However, even if i think that there is a better way to do things, Tony is the decision maker.
Now that roll of creative control could be taken up by a committee, and it would probably be fine. But if no one took that position you would not really have a unified design with a single purpose which i think is vital to getting a game finished.
That said, if you have an idea that you think would be fun to do up in committee the let's get to it. I am really enjoying being involved in Capes, i can see involvement in further development being a lot of fun.
Note: Capes is in no way owned by me, and it is entirely possible that Tony does not see development in the same light as me so he might not even consider it to be collaborative.
Thomas
Thomas, I agree. That's what I was talking about with one person being responsible for adjudication and final decision making. In a LARP I was involved in a while back, about half a dozen people had creative input, but there was one head honcho. As he put it, he alone possessed "The Foot." None of the rest of us had The Foot. We'd come up with ideas, debate, and argue them out. Sometimes we'd resolve the issue. When we didn't, The Foot would come down, meaning discussion was closed and the head guy would make a decision. It worked out well. So basically, I was asking if Tobias wanted to take on the power of The Foot and get something going.
I've noted two other instances of collaborative game construction on the Forge. The first is Jake Norwood talking about creating a space combat game:
Interesting Space Dogfights (//indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8670)
And, from memory, Universalis (although it was created by Ralph and Mike) was adjusted after extensive feedback from playtesters. So that might count. I believe those discussions are still available at the very beginning of the Uni forum.
Quote from: Tyrantyou'd want to make sure that these mini groups didn't conflict with each other. Having three or four groups instead of one large one can lead to massive errors in communication.
That is what project supervisors/leads are for - it's there job to act as a liason between the smaller groups and to keep all of them up to speed, making sure that each of the stays on the same page. Alternately, an actual liason position could be created to deal with inter-departmental schism.
Quote from: jdrakeh
That is what project supervisors/leads are for - it's there job to act as a liason between the smaller groups and to keep all of them up to speed, making sure that each of the stays on the same page. Alternately, an actual liason position could be created to deal with inter-departmental schism.
Isn't that a bit complicated? I mean sure if you are designing the biggest thing since D&D or White Wolfs Vampire, then of course you need a team of people doing various things. But for a book that might be no more than a hundred pages?
Of course this may be argued on a professionalism standpoint (Act like a big dog, get treated like a big dog), and I'm not saying that your views are wrong. I just don't think that they work for me. I do have a pretty special group of guys working with me though, we've known each other for years, through our mutual association with The Abyss (kult-rpg.org) and I like to think that even though we all come from different countries we have the same goals in mind, to create.
I would absolutely hate to 'hire' someone to do any of thier work because I wouldn't know then as well as I do these guys, and couldn't trust them as well either.
On the other hand this may all devolve into another 'style'. Some designers need structure and order to get things done, others may prefer all out random creativity.
As an aside, I suppose one could consider me the project lead, as I usually post a set of rules and then discuss them, making revisions as they are needed. If someone has ideas for another part, he will post them and we go about the same tasks.
I'm sure there are as many different ways to collaborate on-line as there are groups to try them. That having been said, are we all talking about the same thing when we say "collaboration"?
Thomas (LordSmerf) is quite right that Capes is being written very much as a collaborative effort. I wanted to make sure that I could actually put the vague notions in my mind into words that other people could understand, and I am humbled and grateful for how enthusiastic people have been both in forcing me to clarify my descriptions when they were lax or contradictory, and in showing me better ways to achieve my underlying goals. So I came to collaboration primarily as a way of enforcing and aiding communication.
By comparison, I think I see some folks here who want to create collaboration as a way to reduce individual workload, and some who want to create collaboration as a way to foster a creative community, and so forth.
These are all worthy goals, but they're not... you know... the same goal, and putting it all under the rubrik of "collaboration" might cause confusion the same way as having a hard-core Gamist and hard-core Narrativist talk about creating "a good story".
Quote from: Tyrant
Isn't that a bit complicated?
It's way less trouble than it seems, plus there are some people who really like the challenge of coordinating projects like this.
Quoteand I'm not saying that your views are wrong.
Oh, I know - I'll be the first to conceed that they might be [wrong]. I merely take an organized approach to most work/hobby related things.
Quote from: hixI've noted two other instances of collaborative game construction on the Forge. The first is Jake Norwood talking about creating a space combat game:
Interesting Space Dogfights (//indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8670)
I would personally love to see this project revived. There were a lot of interesting ideas, and i believe that this could really go places. In fact some of the ideas involving Meta-hooks and Meta-kickers were really compelling. The reason things never went anywhere is because no one stepped up and said "this is my project, i want some input, but i'm in charge." If someone were willing to do that with Jake's old project or even with something else i am sure that a lot of people would jump on board.
Thomas
Yeah, I'm with Thomas here. Personally, I think Tobias should have the right of first refusal (or acceptance, of course) as to whether he wants to be the group leader, since he's the one who started this whole thread.
Quote from: Andrew MorrisYeah, I'm with Thomas here. Personally, I think Tobias should have the right of first refusal (or acceptance, of course) as to whether he wants to be the group leader, since he's the one who started this whole thread.
I agree.
Hi guys, I'd like so much to get involved... is there a free room?
Wow, you go away to a festival for a couple of days, and see what happens.
I'm thrilled by the response. Since people've asked, and I believe in putting your money where your mouth is - yes, I will run this, and since people want a designated 'Foot' (which I like as much as anything), yes, I'll be that foot.
That said, I will mention I'll be a humble foot - I've got no designed games out there, and while I am no creative slouch, I harbor no illusions that my ideas are always 'better'. So I'll try to have as light a touch as possible.
What I'll try to do is:
1. Maintain a list of people working on the game.
2. Pump out weekly updates with requests for feedback.
Anything more than that should probably just go to my inbox for sorting, mixing and matching.
Before we spawn off a different thread about the actual game (if neccesary), I'd like to ask the potential participants a few question on 'how-to' collaborate and where we're going
1. Why would you like to join this project?
2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?
Anyone who thinks there's an additional good question to ask (anyone with more management or group-organisation skills than I is welcome to chime in), please do.
You can PM the answer to me or (preferrably) post it in this thread.
What I'm interested in is what the designers see as the added value of such group design. To me, they are short-chain feedback, sparring, a wider orientation on which games are fun and a possibilty to meld ideas together that normally wouldn't flow together in just one person's brain.
In other words - what would be cool, and beneficial, to design as a group?
I'll leave that question out there as I ponder the answer myself.
Thanks for everyone's input so far!
Quote from: Tobias1. Why would you like to join this project?
2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?
1. Because it sounds like fun.
2. No, I'm wide open.
3. I could probably squeeze in a few hours per week.
4. I think a group brainstorming session (in a seperate thread) would be a good place to start. Once the basic ideas have been hammered out, we can divide into subgroups responsible for different aspects of the game. We might also want to have a thread for problem resolution. When one of the subgroups hits a wall, they can post their problem, and all group members can offer up ideas and possible solutions.
Quote from: TobiasIn other words - what would be cool, and beneficial, to design as a group?
From where I stand, it seems like the benefit will be, as you mention, the collaboration between different people. One person might find a particular design challenge almost insurmountable, while another might look at the same problem and solve it in seconds (thus my suggestion of a problem-solving forum).
Quote from: Tobias1. Why would you like to join this project?
To crib shamelessly for My Eventual Game as everyone else trots out cool ideas...
Quote from: Tobias2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
No, just a general predisposition towards snarky comments.
{EDIT: Wait, I'm not being fair to myself. I have a strong preference for clean, unified mechanics as opposed to lots of different mechanics for different aspects of the game, as the remainder of this post implies, and while I don't have a proposal of my own as yet, I will lobby hard that there be a strong core mechanic with as few exceptions and special rules as possible}
Quote from: Tobias3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
Teething 5 1/2-month old and impending election coverage (am a reporter) means I will have distinctly limited time, sadly.
Quote from: Tobias4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?
This is actually the question that impelled me to post, as opposed to just lurking:
For heaven's sake, don't break up into teams yet. You'll end up with a dozen unconnected mechanisms or bits of setting that don't fit together. At this early stage, mass collective brainstorming is the only way to go.
That said, you may have to split off "setting" and "system" into separate threads at some early point (though they need to continue to inform each other), and other splits may become necessary quickly for sanity's sake, but every participant should try to keep at least minimally appraised of every thread until the design's fairly solid. Breakout into teams is something for a later stage when details are being hammered out, not for establishing key system parameters.
My tentative suggestion is the first thread should be a "high concept" thread just trying to get a basic sense of what you (err, we) want to design -- a gamist crunchfest? a elaborate setting with some light mechanics? hard-core narrativism with explicit rules for how the story evolves? Universalis in disguise? -- with Tobias as Foot providing the kick-off concept. (Hey, that metaphor even made sense).
Quote1. Why would you like to join this project?
Honestly I'm a lone wolf and I've never tried group design. I'd like to try this experience to improve myself.
Quote2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
I enjoy myself in laying out and formatting text. I've always a lot of wierd setting ideas in mind... we'll see.
Quote3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
I think I can spend an hour per day (more on weekends).
Quote4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?
Brainstorming first... then monarchy. You order, we do.
I hope I'm not too late to get in on this, but it looks really fun.
Quote1. Why would you like to join this project?
As someone who has toyed with the idea of being a game designer over the years I think this would be a really cool way for a group to use feedback and mass brainstorming to come up with something fun. I'd like to join to contribute my own ideas and to aid and witness the creation of a game from the ground up.
Quote2. Do you already have something in mind you wish to contribute?
Setting ideas, rules testing, feedback, and another mind for the brainstorm.
Quote3. Are there any particulars about the amount of time you wish to spend, or any other items in your agenda that make participation limited in some way (note: this is probably a good thing)?
Busy, but could dedicate an hour a day, more on weekend, and if there were a specific reason for a long length of time over a weekend or something, it could be arranged if I could plan it in advance.
Quote4. Which organisation-style would you prefer? Mass democracy and brainstorming with central write-up, modular designation of game 'bits' to smaller design teams, or any other style?
Mass brainstorm and then monarchy by one person for final decisions.
---
I think an additional added value in all this is that more than one person is vested in it. Not only would there be additional people for feedback and to bounce ideas back and forth, there would also be more people who would like to see the project carried through to the finish.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergI have a strong preference for clean, unified mechanics as opposed to lots of different mechanics for different aspects of the game ... I will lobby hard that there be a strong core mechanic with as few exceptions and special rules as possible
Yeah, I'm in agreement here. In theory, at least. Heck, maybe the basic concept we come up with will defy a unified mechanic. It's a noble goal, and I hope it works in practice.
Quote from: Sydney FreedbergFor heaven's sake, don't break up into teams yet. You'll end up with a dozen unconnected mechanisms or bits of setting that don't fit together. At this early stage, mass collective brainstorming is the only way to go.
Right. I'm with Sydney again. First step is definitely to have create a roadmap, so we know where we're going.
Quote from: JediblackBrainstorming first... then monarchy.
And yet another comment I just wanted to support; nice way to put it, Jedi.
I know we are not yet to this point, but i wanted to throw out something for consideration. For the past two years i have been keenly fascinated by meta-mechanics. One, mentioned earlier, was the meta-hook/kicker/bang stuff that got kicked around in the Interesting Space Dogfights thread (http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8670). Something that i have always been ever more fascinated by (but have never really had a chance to explore) are situational mechanics. Specifically, mandated seating arrangement, allowing only 10 dice when 13 are needed. Using real-world time as a factor for in-game bonuses, etc. So basically, i would really love to have an oppurtunity to hash out some new/innovative/cool meta mechanics.
Other than that, i have a fairly good grasp of dice generated probability curves and i am willing to GM test sessions of just about anything (once we get to that point).
Thomas
QuoteFirst step is definitely to have create a roadmap, so we know where we're going.
Also we can use a top-down development system. First we can sketch a concept and develop it adding more and more details. I'd recomend to keep setting and system divided (but of course system tied to setting, I mean "first setting and then system over setting" stuff).
During setting development we must think also to the gameplay. What characters do? How? But no mechanics yet.
When we have a very clear idea of what we want, math guys come in (LordSmerf and I could arrange for a good curve playing with Poissonian, Bernoullian, Flat and Bell things).
Add some quirks and here's a beautiful concoction!
We have now to write and layout it... but this is another matter.
Excellent.
Due to a little illness on my part (took yesterdayafternoon and this morning off), I'm a bit swamped at work right now. So I'll not start a new thread just let and let this one sit out on the forum one more day.
In the meantime, I'm glad to see everyone's initial reaction as to which process is desired (brainstorming first, anarchy leading to monarchy) matches my own feelings.
I myself am not leaning to a mathematical crunch-fest, nor a thick book. while a large team would make it easier to churn out more material, it would also mean more coordination required to get every tested, checked, and agreed upon. Rather, I'd like to use the brains involved to make a sleek elegant core of, say, merely three brilliant ideas (which one person could never think of), and then test the tell out of it with the people-resources we have.
As to setting and system - my first thought would be to either pick a setting that's really hard to do and abstract (requiring lots of interesting solutions and a novel system), or to pick a fairly generic setting, and turn the way the system deals with it upside down and inside out.
Also, for those about to brainstorm: first rule of brainstorming is to NOT be critical. If you see an idea you don't like, keep a lid on commenting on it at first - or try to run it forward in a way you think will work (without ignoring the initial idea). In round 2 you get to be critical.
I'm not going to sign every post with 'thanks', so assume I'm grateful for your cooperation from here on.
Also, we should, at some point, discuss how this puppy's going to get distributed/published.
Only a thought... Couldn't we ask for a forum here at the Forge? So at least threads will be all in one place.
Quote from: JediblackOnly a thought... Couldn't we ask for a forum here at the Forge? So at least threads will be all in one place.
We could ask, of course, but I don't really see the need for it. I can't imagine this will generate more than half a dozen threads at most.
Quote from: TobiasAlso, for those about to brainstorm: first rule of brainstorming is to NOT be critical.
Thanks for bringing this up. When I run the creative meetings at my agency, I've had to make this point so often that I now assign moderately embarassing punishments to anyone who breaks this rule. It's amazing how embarrassed an executive will get when they have to sit on the floor for 15 minutes, or some such. :-)
Which brings me around to another thought... How does everyone feel about setting up some ground rules and such before we get going? Personally, I think everyone should explicitly give Tobias a set of powers to help keep things on track. My first thoughts on the matter (please comment, revise, add, etc.):
1. Tobias will start all new threads on this project.
2. Tobias will have pseudo-moderator status with all participating members in all project threads (so, for example, he can give someone a time-out for posting, or end threads if they derail into arguments, etc.).
3. During the brainstorming session, Tobias will occasionally post a quick bulleted list of the ideas so far, to make sure nothing gets lost in the discussion. Alternately, Tobias can pass this responsibility to another one of the participants.
4. Any participant is free to call for a vote in order to resolve a dispute, but Tobias must agree to a vote before participants cast their vote. Tobias can provide summary arbitration instead of allowing a vote. In the case of a tie, Tobias will arbitrate a decision. All participants must agree to abide by a vote outcome or arbitration by Tobias.
5. All posters who want to take part in the project should agree to these rules before posting on the project.
I hereby sign onto the Morris Manifesto and proclaim my undying fealty to Tobias, our Foot.
As for the "Space Dogfights" thread that people cited, a few thoughts on why that worked (or almost worked -- I don't think an actual game exists as yet): 1) a strong leader and 2) an engaging "high concept" that got everyone going. I think it's coming time to work on (2), which is probably a separate thread; but in the interests of (1), I defer to Tobias on that.
I also suspect we probably want some strong setting-and-situation combination for which we can then build mechanics, as opposed to a cool mechanic which we then find a situation and setting for*. But I could be wrong; it's one of my hobbies.
EDIT: *Not to diss LordSmerf/Thomas's thoughts on situational and metagame mechanics; they sound cool -- and precisely the kind of thing I wouldn't think of, which is the value-added of a collaborative effort in the first place.
I undersign too.
Wow. A manifest that gives me powers. I undersign as well and will strive to not use them. :)
At least I've run brainstorming sessions before.... so I will start off a new thread, brainstorming on setting and system (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=133039). This thread I'll keep for meta-topics such as organisation of the development, for now.
Let´s see what develops!
Is this the forum where anyone who wants to get involved should say so, and agree to the rules for doing so, then?
Signed on to the so named Morris Manifesto.