I release this "Exposure Draft for Comments".
It's the first part of a unified model for role-playing.
Your comments/critique/hints and any other feedback is deeply appreciated.
http://nuke.robertograssi.net/RPG/Articoli/tabid/63/Default.aspx
http://nuke.robertograssi.net/Portals/0/RpgFiles/AUnifiedModelForRoleplaying-PartI-20080208.pdf
Thanks in advance.
Rob
As a general remark, I would say that a slideshow-style presentation may come across as somewhat cumbersome and laborious. Thus far you've described what RPGs are, in the broadest sense, but you haven't really presented a system for the purpose.
Slideshow is handy for me, to shortly report my ideas.
I'm going to consolidate the part I including some things that I've missed, and report the 'game' meaning in the rpg model.
As far as the system is concerned, I give the definition of what an rpg system is in the current slides.
Rob
QuoteSlideshow is handy for me, to shortly report my ideas.
It may be easier for
you to understand, but bear in mind that:
A. your
audience is the first and foremost consideration.
B. 90%+ of your audience already know 90%+ of what you're telling them, (albeit on an informal level.)
C. you could compress the same information into one or two slides with almost no loss of information, simply by using a smaller font, thus making it much easier to read.
If you were giving a live presentation, slides would be fine, since you'd actually be giving out most of the information verbally, in the form of examples, critiques, anecdtoes etc, in front of an audience sitting at a distance where big fonts are needed. But this isn't the case.
rgrassi,
I have to agree that these slides need to be condensed and refined. There are too many slides that tell me almost nothing and are there to "prep me" for something to come.
I suggest you refine your message and reduce the information to your main points and only do slides for those points.
For example slides 21 and 22 could be a single slide. They did not need to be two slides. Or slides 11-15, these could and should be no more then three slides at most.
Hope this helps.
Daniel
Thank you Daniel. All your comments and feedback are really appreciated.
In order to reduce possible misunderstandings I'll be back when the complete model is ready.
I think that when ALL the material is there, then the purpose of 'verbose' part will be clear.
In any case, thank you very much...
And I'm still open to 'design flaws' feedback if you see any, at the moment.
Cheers,
Rob
Here's the updated link to the "Public Draft" of the model. Now I start to work on Part II.
Feedback and comments, as always, are appreciated.
http://nuke.robertograssi.net/RPG/Articoli/tabid/63/Default.aspx
http://nuke.robertograssi.net/Portals/0/RpgFiles/AUnifiedModelForRoleplaying-PartI.pdf
Rob
Just for clarity- do you actually intend to use these slides in a lecture setting using a projector, and so forth?
Quote from: Alfryd on February 16, 2008, 12:07:08 PM
Just for clarity- do you actually intend to use these slides in a lecture setting using a projector, and so forth?
No. I've no lecture to do.
Slides are used here to present my ideas and discuss them.
Rob
This version seems to be clearer in what you are trying to do. I still believe it needs more refinement, but then that is what you are doing.
I believe this may not be the best format for your efforts, unless you wanted this to be a slide presentation. I believe if you mean for us to just read it and "understand" then you might want to use a series of essays to present your ideas and expand upon your thoughts.
One last small pet issue: I would resist the urge to use Wikipedia as a source for almost anything. The inability to insure a minimum level of accuracy checking alone call into question their value as a source.
Hope this helps.
Daniel
Quote from: casquilho on February 16, 2008, 08:18:41 PM
This version seems to be clearer in what you are trying to do. I still believe it needs more refinement, but then that is what you are doing.
It needs refinement, for sure.
QuoteI believe this may not be the best format for your efforts, unless you wanted this to be a slide presentation. I believe if you mean for us to just read it and "understand" then you might want to use a series of essays to present your ideas and expand upon your thoughts.
You may be right, but I've had a lot of feedback, and probably the "slideshow layout" helps to read it, instead of the "essay layout".
QuoteOne last small pet issue: I would resist the urge to use Wikipedia as a source for almost anything. The inability to insure a minimum level of accuracy checking alone call into question their value as a source.
Could be. But I'm trying to define a model using 'normal' words (and their common meaning) rather than invent words and assign arbitrary meaning on my own.
Rob
QuoteYou may be right, but I've had a lot of feedback, and probably the "slideshow layout" helps to read it, instead of the "essay layout".
Nope.
Quote from: rgrassi on February 17, 2008, 05:08:31 AM
Quote from: casquilho on February 16, 2008, 08:18:41 PMOne last small pet issue: I would resist the urge to use Wikipedia as a source for almost anything. The inability to insure a minimum level of accuracy checking alone call into question their value as a source.
Could be. But I'm trying to define a model using 'normal' words (and their common meaning) rather than invent words and assign arbitrary meaning on my own.
Sounds good, so use a Webster's Dictionary. The issue with Wikipedia is I could go right now and change the entry you are linking back to and now your reference has just changed.
Use a dictionary that is recognized to define "normal" words in my opinion.
Daniel
Rob,
I think this deserves a wiki style. That way peopple can drill down on the words where they question your meaning, but it doesn't distract from your main point.
Also, I didn't get very far in, but there seems to be a lot of pointless distinctions. Man-made systems imlpy there is architecture in all man made games. Why do we need a seperate distinction for architecture and how are they different from components?
Finallly, why not re-use materiels like the big model and/or Whitson Kirk's Design Patterns of successful RPGs?
Well, good luck with your project.
Hey Rob,
This is a tricky thing to do. I have a couple of questions before I make any comments...
Who is it intended for?
What will be the final style? Essay or slides?
Slides put me off. Not sure I can help if it's slides.
I've updated the file and going to write Part II.
http://nuke.robertograssi.net/Portals/0/RpgFiles/AUnifiedModelForRoleplaying-PartI.pdf
@brainwipe
QuoteWho is it intended for?
What will be the final style? Essay or slides?
It's intended for the public.
Final style will be essay.
@dindever
Wiki style may be useful, but not now.
QuoteWhy do we need a seperate distinction for architecture and how are they different from components?
Components are part of an architecture. Architecture is the union (in slides there's a "+" but it's not correct) of components and relationship between them.
QuoteFinallly, why not re-use materiels like the big model and/or Whitson Kirk's Design Patterns of successful RPGs?
Final section of part II will consider other models/materials and how they map onto mine.
Rob