The Forge Archives

The so-called "Power 19" have been clogging up the design pipes here for too long. I'm here to kill the Power 19. These questions purport to consolidate nine years of collected wisdom about designing RPGs. To my eye, they are out of context at best, and limiting and confusing at worst. Furthermore, they make it REALLY HARD to have a discussion about your game when first we have to read through this wall of text in the form of the answers, and second, rather than asking fruitful questions, we have to pick apart your answers.

This is the First Thoughts forum. You're coming here with some half-baked ideas rolling around your noggin and you want to ask some questions and get some answers to see if you can and should bake 'em fully. Answering this mutant questionnaire is not going to help you take a game from concept to completion.

Also, if you're already playing your game, skip this forum and these questions entirely. Go straight to Play Testing.

If you're trying to articulate your design, this is your forum. Post your rough idea -- what's your game about? -- and let people ask you questions. The act of answering will help you better understand your design.

Now for the killing.

Debunking the Power 19[/b]
1.) What is your game about?

This is a decent question to start with, but it's incomplete. Perhaps the next 18 questions will shed some light on it.
When I do conceptual game design panels with Jared, we love punchy answers like "Consequences" or "International Finance" or "Lust." We LOVE asking follow up questions based on those. "Oh really? How is it about that?"

"Survival" is about the worst answer you can give to this. All games are about survival; no game is about survival. At least, I have yet to see a functional design that makes an interesting game out of the act of survival. That Avalon Hill game, btw, is terrible. I digress.

A full answer is something like this: "My game is about fighting for what you believe. You play the role of medieval mice in a dangerous forest, contending with weather, wilderness and animals as you try to resolve your ideals with the realities of a society of creatures on the lowest rung of the food chain."


2.) What do the characters do?

Not a terrible follow up question, but it could be tighter. "Who are the characters? What is their role?" would be more to my preference.



3.) What do the players do?

Vital, but overarching. Way more important than what the characters do. Game design is about making people do stuff that they would not otherwise do. So always think in terms of what the people at the table are physically doing. What are they saying? When are they saying it? How are they interacting with the game pieces?



4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

This is exactly the same question as the first question. You cannot disentangle setting and premise. Next!



5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

What the hell does this mean? I think idea is to ask, "If your game is about International Finance, why is there a giant section in character creation about military service?" At this stage, focus your character creation (if you even have any) slavishly on your premise. Just build what's absolutely necessary to put a character on the table. Flesh it out later.


6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

This is a poorly worded restatement of question 11. It's redundant, weird and unnecessary.


7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

How does your game reward players for following the premise? What's the currency system? What's the reward system? This is a BIG question and a major element in design. If anything, only a very general answer here suffices -- "I'd like to have a game that encourages players to be puritanical gunslingers, so..."


8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

Why does this matter? What does credibility mean? Why is narration a responsibility? Is this meant to ask about IIEE in layman's terms? If so, I'm lost. Or is it about permissions and expectations? If so, who cares?! You do NOT need to be thinking about this now. You should be thinking about, "I want to play space buccaneers and shoot unapologetically evil aliens with rayguns. I'm going to need rules for space buccaneers, unapologetically evil aliens, shooting, and rayguns. How do I get these elements to fit together in an exciting, interesting way?" If you can come up with a solution for that, you're way ahead of the game.


9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

This question is ridiculous. "How is your game awesome?" is not a productive question at this stage in design. See the comments for 8.


10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

This is a decent question, but oddly placed in the list. Why so far down? Why after reward mechanics? Anyway, the question assumes that you've got a clue. It should be more along the lines of "What resolution mechanic best serves your premise? How can you use dice/cards/chips/narration rights to reinforce the feel and goal of your game." On the whole, the basic iteration of your resolution mechanic should be very simple and not fiddly. Bring in the fiddly bits -- and the stuff that reinforces your premise -- with other mechanisms that play on the basic resolution: modifiers, luck points, repeated or escalating rolls, etc.


11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

Ugh. This is a perfectly valid question, but it's the same as questions 6 and 10 and it's fucking esoteric. What's really being asked here is, "If your game is about finance and bankers, why do you have a Strength stat?" or "Why are there stats for drowning, falling and machine guns in your game about suburban cat-people romance?"



12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Advancement is cool, but by now you're overwhelmed by the previous 11 questions. Don't worry about this shit now. Focus on your premise, what a character looks like and basic resolution. Come back to this when you have a clue.


13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

This will come to you if you focus on your premise. Don't worry about this now.



14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

Worst. Question. Evar. Why are you worrying about this? This exercise is about design. It's not a marketing panel. And there's an obvious answer: You want the players to have a really fucking fun time. You want them to feel a particular set of emotions. Great. We all do. Next question.


15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

I think what this question is trying to gently ask is: Why does your game about high finance have a chapter on combat that's ten times longer than the chapter on finance? Does your game about playing heroes in a declining age really need 40 pages of setting material describing the ancient history of the world? You're in First Thoughts. Your game isn't ready for this question. Save this question for when you're done.



16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

Come on. Really? What does this have to do with anything? At this point you better be freaking drooling and delirious with excitement about the freaking paper your game is printed on if you're hoping to take a design from concept to product. There's a fuckton of hard work down the road. If you're not in a stupor of excitement now, find another hobby.


17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

This question is useless. Just make your game the best game it can be. If you're not absolutely 100% in love with your game, scrap it and start over.


18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

Shoot this question in the head. This has nothing to do with game design. Publishing goals are what you talk about when you ask "How do I publish my game?" Right now, you should be designing a really cool game and that's it!


19.) Who is your target audience?
Curb stomp this question. Your target audience is YOU. You think this game idea is cool enough to post on the internet about it. That's all you need to get started. Later, if the design has legs, you can think about big picture stuff, but for now focus on the design itself.

To reiterate: Don't use the Power 19. Look at the first three questions -- maybe -- and post your idea in the First Thoughts section. Don't be cagey, be open and honest about your design and your goals. Ask questions and don't be afraid to step up and answer tough questions when asked. Wrangling over design will make your game better.

Interesting post...I agree with a lot of the sentiments, but...

Quote from: Luke on July 18, 2009, 12:36:34 AM
This is the First Thoughts forum. You're coming here with some half-baked ideas rolling around your noggin and you want to ask some questions and get some answers to see if you can and should bake 'em fully. Answering this mutant questionnaire is not going to help you take a game from concept to completion.

This is kind of true, I remember the first time that I encountered the "Power 19". I read through the questions and thought "Fair enough, I'll give this a go"...then when I actually started wading through the questions and answering them for my game I had to think again. Many of the questions seemed to repeat themselves, others didn't seem t address my game design ideas at all. I thought that maybe I was thinking about game design wrong, and that's why I didn't get it. So I thought I had to re-adjust my thinking to a way that made the "Power 19" make sense.

I think that the first time I posted a "Power 19" about a game I was working on, nobody responded. Pretty disheartening, but I've been around here long enough now to say that I got over it. 

But when all is said and done I have found the "Power 19" to be a useful tool. Like all tools, I choose to use it when I think it's appropriate and I ignore the bits that I feel are superfluous (which in many cases is about half of the questions...but it's a different half for each different project).

Quote
If you're trying to articulate your design, this is your forum. Post your rough idea -- what's your game about? -- and let people ask you questions. The act of answering will help you better understand your design.

That's probably some of the best advice a newcomer could receive.

V

Part the first: As Vulpinoid said, the Power 19 is a tool. It is not a presentation format. I once made the same mistake and posted a Power 19. I'd been around long enough to know better, but this Power 19 thing seemed cool, so I did it anyway. I don't think anyone responded to mine, either.

Part the second: The Power 19 doesn't work for every game. Some games the questions simply muddy the waters, or are completely irrelevant.

Part the third: The Power 19 could use some editing, I agree. Most of your specific points are spot on, Luke. Some, however, I disagree with.

Q2: What do the characters do? I like this one phrased the way it is. Your question is too ambiguous. This question asks the very specific question of what your characters are DOING in the fiction. What sorts of actions do they undertake? I think that's a golden question, because it allows you to focus your design on making those actions, and only those actions, possible and shiny.

Q4: Isn't the same as the first question, it's a zooming in of the first question. Sure, setting and premise cannot be untangled... But you can think more specifically about the setting portion of the whole deal. That's what this question is intended to get you to do. Think about the specific contributions of the setting to the premise.

Q18: Thoughts about publishing intentions ABSOLUTELY should be thought about early in the process. Maybe not in depth... You shouldn't necessarily worry about page size, layout, etc. But you should definitely think if you want to design a game for you and your friends, for free .pdf distribution, or for a full-on commercial print. Having an idea of your destination is important.

Q19: Yes, definitely, YOU are your target audience.. But what the fuck does that even mean? I fit pretty broadly into the target audiences of a dozen highly-different games. My tastes vary at any given time by too many factors to count. This question gets you to think about what tastes your game should satisfy.

More generally, a lot of your criticisms are based on the idea that the Power 19 is intended purely for the First Thoughts forum. It's not. It's a general list of questions to get you to think about your design process, and to hopefully challenge your assumptions, at any point in your process. I'd already been years at my projects when I looked to the Power 19, and it still helped me focus my thoughts. Of course, I've been years on those same projects since, so perhaps I'm not a good example of its efficacy.

I think the Power 19 might, in some cases, be useful for game designers to go through, on their own, and answer for themselves, but they are definitely hard to parse as a way of presenting your game on a forum.  In my mind, the most useful questions for someone to answer when posting to First Thoughts is:

1) What part of your game are you most excited about?
2) What do the players/characters do?

...because the answers to those two questions, in almost every case, are what the core of the game and its mechanics should be about, if you haven't figured out exactly what your focus as a designer should be yet.

Additionally, those two things should be closely related, because otherwise the things you are most excited about won't translate in play into stuff the players are excited about doing.  And that makes for unexciting play.

Hi Lance, JWalt,Vulp,

I am talking about the Power 19 specifically in regards to First Thoughts. Those questions are too much for someone just trying to codify their nascent ideas. Answering these retarded questions should not be seen as the default step to getting started on this forum. Yeah, maybe when your game is written, you can come back and take a look at them, but in this context, they only serve to kill discussion.

In regard to the last question: you should be making this game for you and only for you because it excites you to the point of delirium.

Fair enough. In the context of First Thoughts, most of your criticisms are spot on, though I stand by my comments on Q2 and Q4.

I also forgot to make the point with absolute clarity that a Power 19 as a presentation method in First Thoughts is a really, really bad idea. As a tool, it should be used for your own purposes, to help you think about your ideas in a structured way.

One thing I think, after having perused a couple Power 19s here in First Thoughts... Question 3 should be bumped down for a Question 2a: "No, really. What do the characters DO, in play, at the table? Be specific!" Because it appears to be the one that people answer the least productively. They give vague-ass answers that are very, very hard to take anything useful from.

Just my opinion, I think most people post these Power 19's simply for validation of the idea, not because they're really interested in any sort of useful constructive criticism. I don't think this is a fault of the Power 19, so much as simple human nature. In other words, even with the best-worded and cleverest questions ever, you're still going to get the same result.

(Meh, I guess I shouldn't remove myself from that category though I've never posted a Power 19 .. I'm still new to the game.)

Daniel

Thanks. I think that this is really good advice. I tried out a Power 19 as one of my first posts and it was a bit overwhelming to me and not as helpful as I was hoping. Likewise I have rarely made it through someone else's Power 19.

I think that this can help to focus conversation here.

How about a Power Six and Three Quarters? Nah

There's always the "Big Three", I think it was called, which was the proto-form of the Power 19. The Big Three is simply the first three questions. It predated the Power 19, and someone thought it didn't go far enough in helping you think about your design process. Perhaps for the purposes of kickstarting your discussions in First Thoughts, the Big Three would be much better suited.

I agree that power 19 don't really have any place in "First Thoughts", which I have written about before (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25888.0). The best way to get feedback here, is to try to make a post that can be the starting point of a discussion. If you present a semi complete game and ask "what do you think" (as you would do with power 19), you will not get any helpful answerers.

- Anders

I've found the Power 19 tremendously helpful in getting game design started. It makes you think about how all the different elements of your game should tie together. I think as a game designer, you can post a partly-finished power 19, and get a huge amount of useful feedback. The power 19 I posted for Night and Day helped turn it into the system my group is always asking me to run more of.

Additionally, it's probably wise to avoid absolutes like 'never use the power 19'. You thinking the power 19 sucks doesn't make it suck. I'd agree that it isn't the most useful tool, but I think saying 'don't use the power 19' is taking the idea way too far.

I will make this absolute statement, and you can listen or not as you choose:

Don't post your Power 19. Yes, sometimes you will still get feedback, but I know that my eyes aren't the only ones that begin to glaze over when I start reading down that particular wall of words. You're not getting feedback because of the Power 19. You're getting feedback in spite of the Power 19, because you managed to say something interesting enough and useful enough to catch the glazed eye and make it focus again. You're getting feedback because someone cared enough, for whatever reason, to wade through the post.

Use it if you think it's helpful. Absolutely do that.

But then take the parts that it helps highlight for you, and post that in a way that communicates your design hassles and emphasizes where you want help.

Name me one game with more than thirty copies sold that started from a publicly posted Power 19.

Paul

Now you're equating success in design to copies sold? Paul, I'm shocked!




I'm kidding.



Seriously kids, don't use the Power 19. There's no rationalizing or discussing needed. There are better ways to talk about and learn about game design.

What I've noticed was that a lot of folks used the Power 19 to talk about their own games in kind of a promotional way. Like, "My game is pretty much done, and I want to tell you about it"... and then use the Power 19, which basically is a wall of "DR;TL" text. I wanted to back up a step, give folks who have their game done or mostly done a way to talk all Hippy-Like about what their game is and why it's cool, and actually engage the reader. Give them a hook, something more to do than read a wall of text. My solution was the "Narcissistic Self-Interview 20":

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5841

In truth, it's probably just another wall of text. But it's a wall of text that recognizes, and in the end engages the reader. So you can still wank on about your game, and give the reader something more to think about. As well as making the questions more directed as if they were about to play the game, not reading a design document.

Aaaanyway.

Quote from: Andy Kitkowski on July 19, 2009, 02:14:14 PM
What I've noticed was that a lot of folks used the Power 19 to talk about their own games in kind of a promotional way. Like, "My game is pretty much done, and I want to tell you about it"... and then use the Power 19, which basically is a wall of "DR;TL" text. I wanted to back up a step, give folks who have their game done or mostly done a way to talk all Hippy-Like about what their game is and why it's cool, and actually engage the reader. Give them a hook, something more to do than read a wall of text. My solution was the "Narcissistic Self-Interview 20":

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5841

In truth, it's probably just another wall of text. But it's a wall of text that recognizes, and in the end engages the reader. So you can still wank on about your game, and give the reader something more to think about. As well as making the questions more directed as if they were about to play the game, not reading a design document.

Aaaanyway.

That's hilarious (and appropriate).

**Re-posted in the proper thread. Sorry for the confusion.**

LOL  Oh man!

Luke, the sentiments in your first post here are precisely why I was asking if I should post a Power 19. Are you coming to Gen Con? I'd love to shake your hand for this. :)

After decades of roleplaying (I started in the late 1970s), knowledge of sites like this one, the power 19, the "big three" and so on has only reached me recently, long after it was new and shiny. As such, I only really have one observation to share, mostly regarding the "what is your game about" question...

In reading about this question, the vast majority of text dedicated to discussing it on the internet at large seems to be about how to answer it "correctly" with a lot of gnashing of teeth about how people go about answering it badly. As a newcomer, the opinion I therefore formed almost immediately was "if you have to explain the 'proper' way to answer a question, then your question sucks".

Or, perhaps another way to put it: if answers to your simple, catchy question are not providing the information you are seeking, then your simple, catchy question is probably not really asking what you think it is asking, and you need a better question.

(I could go on a bit about how the "you're answering it wrong" vibe coming from a number of different directions on the net seems to me like it narrowed the focus of game design unnecessarily for a while, but I'll leave that for another time.)

Oh Wordman, you're missing the point. The idea behind the "what is your game about?" question is to start a discussion that productively focuses on important things like design goals, premise and themes while stripping away the wrong-headed assumptions, like your game is about survival, having fun or it's not about anything.

Quote from: Lance D. Allen on July 18, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
There's always the "Big Three", I think it was called, which was the proto-form of the Power 19. The Big Three is simply the first three questions. It predated the Power 19, and someone thought it didn't go far enough in helping you think about your design process. Perhaps for the purposes of kickstarting your discussions in First Thoughts, the Big Three would be much better suited.

The first three questions of the Power 19 are not the Big Three. The Big Three are part of a process of generating a dialogue about a game idea and helping the game designer really zero in on what he's trying to achieve. They're not a form to fill out, just a place to start a conversation.

Luke and Jared run panels every year at Gen Con (and many other cons they attend) in which they use the process to great effect. It's always illuminating, and well worth checking out if you're going to be at Gen Con this year.

The Power 19 is really a mutant take on the Big Three that misses the point.

Quote from: Luke on July 24, 2009, 01:24:21 AM
Oh Wordman, you're missing the point. The idea behind the "what is your game about?" question is to start a discussion that productively focuses on important things like design goals, premise and themes while stripping away the wrong-headed assumptions, like your game is about survival, having fun or it's not about anything.

And I think you are missing my point. "The idea behind" the question may very well be what you say, and that idea may be very useful. But that idea is not conveyed by the question. Find a better one.

It's not a question. It's a conversation.

Quote from: Wordman on July 24, 2009, 07:56:35 PM
And I think you are missing my point. "The idea behind" the question may very well be what you say, and that idea may be very useful. But that idea is not conveyed by the question. Find a better one.

I appreciate that you don't get anything out of the question. But I promise you that if you attended one of our seminars, I would ask you this question and, from that start, as No Clue pointed out, we would have a productive conversation about the concepts of roleplaying game design.

-Luke

Do you have transcripts of such conversations? In particular those that begin with you asking the question and someone answering it "wrong".

I suspect that, in such cases, after these two utterances occur, you start asking real questions about what you are interested in, and the discussion goes from there. That is, I suspect that if you eliminated these first two lines from the transcript (i.e. the question and the "wrong" answer) that absolutely nothing, zero, would be lost from the conversation.

Transcipts!

Classic Internet demand for "evidence."


Anyway, you may suspect all you'd like. My methods may not be perfect, but I have far more profitable conversations than not.

If you're interested in seeing how the process works, follow some of the threads I participate in.

And perhaps google "Socratic Method"

Interesting. I'd not really thought of it that way. Recently, I was making the same gripe about this question.

It's quite possible that the point of the phrasing is to get you to answer that "wrong" answer.. So you can get it out of the way. You have to know that your first answer isn't sufficient to get at the core of your own game. I've tried to answer that question many times over the years for my various projects, and I'd like to say that I've gotten okay at getting at the heart of things. I've never had one of these discussions that Luke mentions as so productive (with him, I mean), but I've spent the last decade or so refining my understanding of this question. With three games in my design rotation, I think I can state with some authority that your first answer to this question will never actually be 100% right. The more you discuss it, the closer your first answer will become for future endeavors, though.

It appears that most of the disagreement with what I am saying can be summarized in a shorthand by the following statement:

Quote from: Noclue on July 24, 2009, 09:26:43 PMIt's not a question. It's a conversation.

This statement has two problems:

• It's considered totally true and useful only to those who already know what they are talking about.
• When applied to those who really need to understand it (i.e. those that don't know what they are talking about), the statement is completely false. To such a person, the presentation is such that it is just a question and not a conversation at all.

In other words, it is the type of wisdom that only makes sense fairly far along on the journey, which would be fine, except that it is presented as if it is the very start of wisdom. If it is "the conversation" that is important, then talk about the conversation; don't wrap it up as if the question is what matters.

Maybe I'm missing the point of this thread. It sounded to me like the point is to destroy the Power 19. I'm all for it. But, if that is the intent, then don't do it half-assed. Start with #1. Sacrifice the sacred cow, because it really doesn't do what you think it does. (Or, perhaps more precisely, it generates more in collateral confusion than you think it does.)

I completely believe that the conversations you talk about having are very illuminating in learning how to design the type of games that Forge theory likes to see designed. But, that being the case, beginners would be better served if you just started talking about the conversation directly, instead of hiding it behind a checklist or "catch phrase-like" questions, at least when not face-to-face.

In other words, if the truth is that "It's not a question. It's a conversation.", then just have the conversation. Leave the question at the door.

(And, for the record, I fully understand the Socratic method. What I am saying here is that, while I grant that it is probably useful in the types of presentations Luke is talking about, it is a total hindrance when used in "checklist" sort of way such as the Big Three or the Power 19. The Socratic method really only works when interactivity is rapid, such as in the presentations Luke mentions. It's possible to use it in an internet forum, but is a lot harder, and very few people can do it well in that venue (or any venue, really). My personal experience is that it also often works to cross purposes when only one side of the discussion knows it is being employed, as seems to be trendy in some places on the net these days. When dealing with things like the Big Three or Power 19, it fails because the answers are usually built in the bottle of someone's mind and only revealed in a way that doesn't support the method well. One more reason to destroy them.)

Well, I can agree with some of that. The Big Three is a teaching tool, not a game design checklist. I'm with you there. As a teaching tool, Luke and Jared have found it useful in presentations and, I presume, in forums like this one as well. The point of a question like this is to illicit a response from the game designer that will guide the conversation towards what the designer needs, rather than just instructing them on game design theories that may or may not resonate with them. If you ask "what's your game about?" and they go, "Well, its about hard choices and the consequences that come from following one's beliefs despite the odds," you know your having a different conversation from the guy that says "It's about survival" or "It's like D&D only I use a streamlined combat system based on the d100."

Quote from: WordmanThis statement has two problems:
    * It's considered totally true and useful only to those who already know what they are talking about.
    * When applied to those who really need to understand it (i.e. those that don't know what they are talking about), the statement is completely false. To such a person, the presentation is such that it is just a question and not a conversation at all.

Ah! I had the same reaction when first asked what my game was "about". I thought it was a simple question of setting, but now I understand it is a much deeper, more difficult inquiry, not unlike a conversation. I took some offense when told my answers were uninsightful, even after I said I didn't understand the question, but now I understand uninsightful answers are a rather common response, as is confusion. I'd advise those asking "what is your game about" to give some examples, and kindly alert those to whom you are inquiring that it should provoke conversation in pursuit of an answer, rather necessarily than a simple one or two sentence reply (although you may eventually produce such an answer, it's uncommon to have one right off the bat).

As for the Power 19, it's not that sharp a tool. Not a bad place to start privately, but publicly? Too much writing, not enough substance. Trying to answer questions like "What is your game about?" "Who are the characters? What are they doing?" and "What are the players doing?" are a much better start for First Thoughts, in addition to rule excerpts and snippets of theoretical play.

Quote from: Wordman on July 26, 2009, 07:52:18 PM
I completely believe that the conversations you talk about having are very illuminating in learning how to design the type of games that Forge theory likes to see designed. But, that being the case, beginners would be better served if you just started talking about the conversation directly, instead of hiding it behind a checklist or "catch phrase-like" questions, at least when not face-to-face.

Wordman, it certainly sounds like you're grinding axes here. What gives? I'm not a theorist of any stripe or kind. The type of design that I push for is more universal in application -- clear purpose, clear instructions -- than limited to even just RPGs.

The discovering what your game is about is a process. Most designers don't know what their game is about to start. And most designers have an idea that they're shooting for, but their mechanics are missing the mark. By asking the question and demonstrating that the mechanics don't support the answer, we can begin a conversation about better marrying the two.

No check list is ever going to design a game for you. Not a list of 19, not a list of three. However, there is certainly more than one way to tackle design and advice. You're welcome to dispense yours on this site, too.

-Luke

Quote from: Luke on July 27, 2009, 01:43:51 AMWordman, it certainly sounds like you're grinding axes here.

Then you may be reading too much into what I'm saying. If I seem to be belaboring the point, that is because I perceive that my point isn't actually being understood, which means I'm doing a crappy job of articulating it. Let me try it from a slightly different direction.

Many of the responses so far have dealt with "what we really mean" by asking "what is your game about?". I'm not talking about that, really. Instead, I'm talking about what message is actually perceived by someone starting out when the see the question "what is your game about?", particularly if they do so in the isolation of internet browsing. My contention is that:

• The difference between what is meant and what is initially perceived is very large.
• The techniques needed to make what is meant understood vary greatly depending on the venue (e.g. in person v.s. browsing the net).
• The current techniques used to make what is meant understood require a high degree of rapid interaction to work.
• To the average person starting out in game design who happens to stumble across this site and those it as spawned, that rapid interaction will be almost entirely absent at the start, as the person instead will be reading passively most of the time.
• The current presentation of what the person is passively reading often gives the impression that it is supposed to be consumed passively, while the reality is that it is not (i.e. it is meant to be a conversation, not a thought puzzle).

As an example, a lucky beginner might hit upon the following advice right away (maybe by seeing one of Luke's seminars): "you should talk to other designers to figure out what your game is about and how you can match your mechanics to make it so." Instead, however, the first advice most beginners find is just "What is your game about?". While the intent of this may be to lead them to the previous type of advice, it does not read that way. Instead, it comes across as "figure out in your own head what your game is about". In other words, while the intent of asking "what is your game about" in person is to start a conversation, the message actually conveyed when asked on an internet page (particularly in a format like the Power 19) is just the opposite: go off and figure these things out by yourself, then report back.

Another example of the type of problem I'm talking about:

Quote from: Noclue on July 26, 2009, 08:06:06 PMIf you ask "what's your game about?" and they go, "Well, its about hard choices and the consequences that come from following one's beliefs despite the odds," you know your having a different conversation from the guy that says "It's about survival" or "It's like D&D only I use a streamlined combat system based on the d100."

Take a good look at the dynamic this implies. What it means is that asking the question provides information and benefit to the person asking, but none whatsoever to the person answering. As part of a conversation, this is fine, as the idea would be that one asking now has intelligence on where to guide the conversation. When coming across the question on the internet, however, the one asking is entirely absent, and the only conversation going on is inside the reader's head. And in this venue, the question is useless, because it is not designed to directly serve the one reading it.

A player of mine, probably quoting someone else, once said "prayer is just an internal monologue upon which you which to force the properties of a dialog". The flaw in things like the Power 19 seems to be just the opposite: taking the properties of a dialog and trying to force them into an internal monologue. Questions that work very well face-to-face often fail when consumed passively. They certainly seem to in the form of the Power 19.

It sure sounds like we're agreeing.

The only minor difference is that I am using this, admittedly inadequate, software to try to carry on conversations.

Quote from: Wordman on July 27, 2009, 10:54:03 AM
Take a good look at the dynamic this implies. What it means is that asking the question provides information and benefit to the person asking, but none whatsoever to the person answering.

I agree with what you're saying. This was incredibly frustrating when I started posting questions here (not that long ago). I'm just wondering if, though this may not be the most intuitive way to get to the heart of the conversation for the person answering, maybe it really is the most effective way (so far) to get the conversation going. It seems that (if anyone) Luke would have a lot of experience with this.

I don't think that anyone is saying it's the only way to do things, just the way that has been the most helpful up to this point. I'd be interested to see some new approaches since, like I said, it's not the most inviting way to be introduced to game design.

Quote from: Luke on July 27, 2009, 01:07:32 PMThe only minor difference is that I am using this, admittedly inadequate, software to try to carry on conversations.

I guess part of my point is that I don't see this as a "minor" difference. Forum conversations are very different animals than face to face conversations, and require different tools to reach understanding, though there is some overlap. But, my broader point was also that ideas about game design are often consumed far afield from even forum discussions, as reading passive essays in isolation. In that context, tricks that work great for face-to-face conversation fail miserably, in particular the "what is your game about?" question.

But, so what. The point is to kill the Power 19. To that end, consider the following (sort of based on what I've been saying, mostly not): several years worth of discussion about the Power 19 is now etched into the internet. While some of it links back to some kind of "source" (usually the post in Socratic Design, to which I am intentionally not linking, for reasons that will become clear in a second), much of it does not. Thus, when a budding newcomer encounters the term "Power 19", they google it (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Power+19%22). At this point, a critical first impression is formed based on what they see on the first page of results.

What they see first right now (at least, I do) is the aforementioned post on Socratic Design, which talks about what a great idea it is, even though the questions are presented without much explanation.

Until that stops happening, the Power 19 will never die.

Killing things on the net isn't really possible without the explicit involvement of those who put them there. The best you can hope for fighting in the arena of Google is to gain more mindshare than the other guy. As an example, the only thing speaking against the Power 19 in that first page of search results is this thread. This is already in the fourth position in the results I see, which is a good start.

Instead, imagine a world where the first result on the Google search is a blog post called "Problems with the Power 19" or "Why you shouldn't use the Power 19" or something similar. I'd wager that you'd soon see a lot fewer people using it and, importantly, knowing why they don't.

Maybe this thread can act as such a post, but seeing how it has already been misinterpreted in another thread on this same board, a blog post would probably work better. Once created, if everyone who wanted the Power 19 dead made a point in linking to that blog article (with the link text saying "Power 19") any time they mentioned it in a forum or blog post, it would hit the top Google ranking in no time (at least, provided it didn't link to pages that currently have a higher rank, which is why I didn't include a link above). At that point, instead of newcomers being guided to a toolset they will be chastised for using later, they are directed to where you want them to go in the first place.

Over in another thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=28380.msg267043;topicseen#msg267043), Patrice said:

QuoteOn a side note, that's why "kill power 19" doesn't help much more than power 19 itself, because nobody can eventually chew the hard bit for you, however satisfactory the thread might have been in a primal scream sort of way.

(emphasis mine)

It was definitely worth a chuckle. I thought it an apt and amusing commentary on this thread, despite the fact that I've found this thread rather educational.

Of the power 19 (http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-are-power-19-pt-1.html) questions the ones I really like in answered in a post are 2,3,14,15,16. Why? Because for me they constitute the core of design intent for the game; what do we see, what do we do, how does it effect us?
Also 2 and 3 emphasise the character player spit, such an important thing to keep track of. These are the ones I zoom in on, because I know they are questions that people will be able to answer illuminatingly.

Luke, I wonder if you put these up the top would you be so mad at them? Just like "what is your game about", I treat them as the start of a conversation: Look at your responses in previous questions, the part that gets the most colour is "space buccaneers, unapologetically evil aliens, shooting, and rayguns". Immediately, people trying to work with you know what to hop on board with and suggest ideas for.

17->19 are clearly inappropriate for first thoughts; it's not a marketing driven design process, but an inspiration driven one!

The remaining questions are either those I consider to be advanced: 1, 8, and 9, which contain useful design insights in the form of an almost incomprehensible question, or are those that suggest a basic list of rpg components:
pre-existing setting, character creation, resolution mechanism, character advancement, incentives.
I'd rebuild those as:
starting inspiration and restrictions, pre-play creation mechanism, conflict mechanics, all other change mechanisms, and ways for the players to coordinate (incentives/flags etc).

Now obviously that's my personal take, so for my personal set of questions I'd shift things around into:

What do the characters do?
What do the players (inculding GM) do?
What do you put the most effort into describing?
What kind of effect do you want to have on your players?
What part of your game are you most interested in?
What parts of the game are you having most difficulty with?

Then after that, as advanced questions:
What is your game about?
How does your game divide authority for deciding (and narrating) what happens?
How does your game keep players interest and make them care?

Then the hows:
How does your background and setting relate to what you want the game to be about?
How do you introduce that setting to the players?
How do the players (including GM) create the starting situation and characters?
How does that relate to your what your game is about?
How does your system resolve uncertain situations?
How does your system keep track of changes to characters or setting?
Are there any standard progressions or built in changes, and how do those work?
How do the way things change reinforce what your game is about?
Do you have any ways to help players coordinate and deal with problem behaviour?
If so how do those relate to what the game is about?

I'd ask people only to answer the first 6 in their post, but to think about all the others. Amusingly, there are 19 of them! I'd suggest my second "how" is not commonly considered, but I think it's pretty relevant, especially if there is a lot of content to get across.

You can't kill the power 19, but you can leave it to obsolescence by replacing it with something else. So is my alternative worse? Or does it not go far enough? Does it miss out something important? Could you do better? Go for it!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Filling out a questionnaire isn't going to design a game for you.
It's a waste of time.

Engage people on these forums in a dialogue. Then go home and play your game a lot. That's it.

-L

Quote from: Luke on July 28, 2009, 05:51:48 PM


Engage people on these forums in a dialogue. Then go home and play your game a lot. That's it.

-L

Kinda like it... straight forward... efficient.... lol.



When i filled the power 19 i misunderstood a lot of question. It should be formulated better maybe.
I did make me think about some issues though, so i would say not totally useless...

Luke,

I might have expected someone critiquing the Power 19 to at least reference the original sources for it:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17286.0

http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-are-power-19-pt-1.html

http://socratesrpg.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-are-power-19-pt-2.html

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1955&page=1

I think reading some of the follow-up comments in those links would be very illuminating.  The story-games thread breaks down toward the end, but it's still part of what the Power 19 were back then.  Back in '05, the original intent of the Power 19 (if you read the Forge Thread) was to be a question bank for experienced designers to ask newcomers to design.  Later it was used by designers to talk about their game and that's how I wrote about it on my blog.  Many of your concerns were already addressed when I said,

QuoteDon't just throw them out there and expect people to pick up on it. No. It's your job to tell the readers of your post what you want out of that thread. They can't read your mind. The Power 19 is a great tool, but it's useless if it just sits there.

I was going to respond to each of your comments regarding the questions of the Power 19, but I realized they are strictly expressions of your own personal opinion, not a comment from a forum moderator or some game design commandment etched into stone tablets.  You don't care for the Power 19.  Cool.  Other people do.  Cool.  Why poop in their soup?  Unless the forum moderator states otherwise, people are free to express their designs any way they like on this forum using whatever tools they feel suits their needs best.

You talk about how, in your seminars, you use question 1 to springboard into follow-up questions about a person's design.  The Power 19 does the same thing.  Few people have the chance to attend your workshops.  The Power 19 is a poor substitute, but it is there for people to use.  Ideally, I think it's best used in private or, perhaps, as a marketing tool.  However, for four years now (which seems like ages ago), it hasn't been used that way.  When I compiled them, I never advocated posting them like people have.  But there's been a lot of time and space between my original thoughts and today.  All that to say this: telling, almost commanding, people not to express themselves in a certain way seems totally antithetical to entire indie movement. 

While you raise some fair points about why the P19 is not best suited to forum discussion, the way you did it was totally wrong IMHO.  It's not useless or a waste of time or any other negative adjective you've attributed to it and saying that it is those things ignores the people who have found it useful and demeans their work.  I don't think that's what the Forge, Indie RPG movement, or the First Thoughts forums are for.  It seems to me that you are using your status as a phenomenally talented and successful game designer as a bully stick to get people to post the way *you* want.  There are solid arguments against using the Power 19 in a forum, but you're not making any of them or if you are, you're using totally the wrong tone and spirit to convey those arguments.  I have all the love and respect for you, and feel that indie role playing games wouldn't be where they are today without your contributions, but on this, I take issue with the way you have presented my work and characterized the people and games that have used it. 

QuoteEngage people on these forums in a dialogue. Then go home and play your game a lot. That's it.

This is the best thing you've said in this entire thread.  Too bad it's not until page three and buried under mounds of text of you blasting anyone who has a different point of view on this topic.

Paul, honestly, sales = success?  Didn't we kill that assumption years ago?  Has the success of indie games gotten to the point to where that's how we think about it?

Peace,

-Troy

Troy,
No, really. At best, they're counterproductive. At worst, they're a waste of time.

I'd been away from First Thoughts for a while. Upon my return I found, as a substitute for dialogue the following:

"How do I present my game idea."

"Answer the Power 19."

And the post that followed would be/is a wall of text. The answers were/are half-hearted answers at best or just skipped with a "I don't know" at worst.

Readers had to sift through a wall of text to begin asking questions. Worse, the questions seem to encourage posters to stick to their assumptions and cling defensively to what they thought game design should be.

I came back to First Thoughts to try to help. To try to stir up the community's game design energy at the entry level. I found myself actively avoiding Power 19 threads. I talked to many of my peers. They felt the same way.

So I debunked the questions, forcibly. To shake things up. To make people think. To revive a culture that challenges assumptions.

And then you went and brought the status games into the mix. My criticisms are based on critical thought. My posts are in my voice. That's it. So don't start with the status games.

Kill Power 19,
-L

QuoteSeriously kids, don't use the Power 19. There's no rationalizing or discussing needed. There are better ways to talk about and learn about game design.

I hate to see a message like this without saying what those ways are. I don't quite qualify as one of these new "kids" that might be coming here to "talk about and learn about game design," but I still don't feel like I know what these tools are. 

In general, I don't really see the forge as a great place to learn about game design. The articles aren't really organized into any coherent "start here - go here" format. A lot of the best discussions and information are buried within posts and sticky-ed "read this first" threads.  A lot of people who do show up here really don't understand what's going on -- "Aethera and the kill power 19" being a great example. Those people really only learn the what and the where from the people who respond to them.  On top of all this, there's a bunch of bizarre lingo that takes a lot of time to understand. 

Instead, I see the forge as a place to discuss your game concepts and individual play experiences. This allows you to hone your game. Occasionally, an old hand will stop in and enlighten the reader on some aspect of game design, and while the rookie will become wiser for it, I wouldn't consider that a learning tool.

I think it'd be great to see a resource which discusses common pitfalls of a new designer, and what to read and why.

Sorry if this post diverges from the original intent of your post.

And it's great because The Forge isn't a place to learn game design. I would have shun such a place. It's a place to share your ideas, sparks and play experience, and to build from that. From what I'm reading, it looks a bit like you were expecting to be spoon-fed. If this is a case, I dearly hope your expectations weren't met. Imagine what you say coming true: you would find here a big series of articles with no debate and feedback, pure theory display, maybe organized in "lessons" "common pitfalls in game design" lectures and the like. Some luminaries would post their lessons once in a while as people would follow the "good direction".

Quite the contrary, I maintain that what is a pitfall for you might be a stepping stone for me. This is all key in "indie". It's about you, your game, your sparks, your experiences and what this all gives birth to. Yes, that means you have to delve, shuffle, dig, ask, play, report, share again, delve again, dig again, destroy, create, try, etc. because it's about shaping your designs, not about becoming someone else's enlightened disciple.

Power 19 might be the good way for someone and not so relevant for someone else. I think that Luke tries to address the tendancy to take Power 19 for granted and the easy-mode fashion of posting it and consider it as THE good start. If I were to subsume this thread in a productive way, I'd say that there's no good way to start, that you have to find your own according to your ideas. If Power 19 fits and suits that, great, use it. If it doesn't, don't get stuck in the pattern fashion and do it your way, you are an indie designer after all. And don't expect models, frames and lessons to do the thinking for you. There's nothing to learn actually.

I always thought that the P19 were much too front-loaded with opinion, but that's just my personal take and Troy, you are correct to point out, pooping in your soup is not something worthwhile. However, I do agree with Luke that the First Thoughts Forum would be a more productive and useful place if nobody ever posted a filled-in P19 catalogue again.

- Frank

I agree. I've never liked the Power 19 but that isn't really the problem.

The problem is that this is supposed to be the First Thoughts forum. You need to go quite far beyond your first thoughts to fill in the Power 19. If even one in ten people coming here looking for advice on their idea go elsewhere or give up because they think that they need to fill out that questionnaire then the forum isn't fulfilling its purpose.

Quote from: Patrice on July 29, 2009, 05:36:17 AMyou are an indie designer after all. And don't expect models, frames and lessons to do the thinking for you. There's nothing to learn actually.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. I don't understand what you're saying here at all.

Kill Power 19,
-Luke

Mmmh.

It's going to be very rambling. I've seen games in which the chapters were called Color, Situation, System and System bits were called Currency, Efficiency and Positioning. I'm pretty sure one can find games around powered by Power 19 in the way they comply and match with the Power 19 implied premises. What I'm basically saying is that, despite models and frames being useful for some mirroring function, indie game design isn't about trying to fit in a model that will deliver a clearance stamp to the game, but about expressing creativity with this media (a RPG) and sharing it.

There's a tendancy I'd like to address which lays in following the models instead of trying to think about ways to express what's inside your mind. This is a very common history: at some point, the model which was used to help and foster creativity becomes the horizon and defines what's next in such terms that the model becomes an actual block for the creativity. I think that's part of your issue with Power 19 being set as a frame for everything. My answer to this is that if you kill Power 19, the best thing would be that nothing comes as a replacement so long as Power 19 is used as a starter. I don't deny the potential uses of Power 19 at further stages, I think it's just misplaced.

That's a bit of what I mean by "there's nothing to learn". What I say is that learning should be part of the process once the process has started, but shouldn't serve as a basis for launching it nor as a final destination. In an ideal world, newcomers would just happen to come by and post whatever design lays in their minds, focused and committed to their thread. If reactions involve Power 19 logics, then fine. If they don't, then fine.

Hey Troy,

Quote from: Troy_Costisick on July 28, 2009, 09:31:51 PM
Paul, honestly, sales = success?  Didn't we kill that assumption years ago?  Has the success of indie games gotten to the point to where that's how we think about it?

Okay, name me one game that started as a publicly posted Power 19 that's been played by three groups who don't have a member who knows the designer?

I never used the word "success". The Power 19 is a tool. Folks should know what other designers have or have not managed to achieve from using it.

Paul

Personally I agree with the people who've been saying that the Power 19 doesn't do what it's supposed to, but I haven't participated in the thread because I've never felt I needed it ..

That said, I can't help but notice how much debate this is generating. Rather than debating abstractly, why not make it concrete? Make a contest or something, for a better set of "Power Questions".

(As I said .. I've never felt I needed the questions for my own project so I'm not going to bother following through with hosting such a contest. Just thought I'd throw the idea out there if someone else wants to pick it up.)

Dan

Paul,

That's a red herring. The Power 19 is completely irrelevant to success. Name me 5 games that didn't start as a Power 19 that have been played by three groups who don't have a member who knows the designer.

Now name me five more.

Okay, another 5.

We can keep going with this, but I don't think we need to.

I have used the Power 19 with Mage Blade. Since the inception of this discussion, I went back, found it, and re-read it. I found it quite insightful, and the answers I gave there are as true now as when I wrote it. In some cases, they may actually be more true. Now, sure, I wrote the Power 19 well over half-way into my development cycle, but referring to my development cycle is a joke. Around the time I wrote my Power 19 is the point when Mage Blade actually became something more than just an obsession for me. It became a game with some real potential for play, something I really wanted to play for reasons other than to say I played a game I wrote.

Starting with the Power 19 is probably not going to get you very far. WE GET THAT. It's been stated, restated and ratified by the guy who flipping wrote it. It was never intended as something for someone to just pick up, fill out, and throw on the internet. As someone who had beat his head on the basic concepts of his game over and over, and watched other designers do the same, I was finally able to answer the questions to my utmost satisfaction. It has become one more document in my list of resources, and one of the things that's been continuing to drive my current development.

No matter how many Lukes, Bens, Pauls, Patrices, or even Lances bash the Power 19 on the internet, it's not gonna disappear. Accept it. Get over it. Help people in your own way, despite it.

QuoteThere's nothing to learn actually.

Wow, I'm sorry, but what conceited bs.  This isn't an abstract art show, these are games and there are important things to learn. For example, here are some of the most important lessons a game designer should know, even if they choose to design a traditional game.

1) There are ways to make a game that don't resemble any of the big RPGs
2) Task resolution vs. conflict resolution
3) How player rewards affect behavior (and how to reward non-traditional behavior)
4) People want to get different things out of the game. (not necessarily a baptism in GNS, but an understanding of what people might get out of a game.)
5) How to develop your premise into a complete thought

and there are a dozen more.  It seems like every time I see fresh meat posting a game design problem, I think to myself "Wow, I had the same problem" and that's where I think there's a common set of pitfalls for every new designer.  You might not hit all of them as a new designer, but you'll always hit several.

Hmm, maybe I need to find some time to write something like this up...

Now this is getting over-heated :).

I'm sorry to do this self-quote thing but I've said in the late message all I could answer to this, here:

QuoteThat's a bit of what I mean by "there's nothing to learn". What I say is that learning should be part of the process once the process has started, but shouldn't serve as a basis for launching it nor as a final destination. In an ideal world, newcomers would just happen to come by and post whatever design lays in their minds, focused and committed to their thread. If reactions involve Power 19 logics, then fine. If they don't, then fine.

What else can I say that I agree with you David?

And, still keeping to the same message, I won't get into sides here, I'm not bashing Power 19, Lance, just stressing its shortcomings as a first thoughts pattern.

Quote from: ShallowThoughts on July 29, 2009, 02:21:00 PM
That said, I can't help but notice how much debate this is generating. Rather than debating abstractly, why not make it concrete? Make a contest or something, for a better set of "Power Questions".

Answering a questionnaire will not help you design a game!

Patrice,

your name was used in vain. Don't take it personally.

Luke,

Is it impossible to conceive that answering a questionaire might help others help you with your design? Obviously 19 questions aren't needed for that, but you seem to get some mileage out of using 3 to start a discussion.

Quote from: Lance D. Allen on July 29, 2009, 03:47:13 PMIs it impossible to conceive that answering a questionaire might help others help you with your design? Obviously 19 questions aren't needed for that, but you seem to get some mileage out of using 3 to start a discussion.

The problem is that until you know what their game is there is no way to know which questions they should be answering.

If they say they want a game about survival or adventure then you need to get them to be more specific.
If they say that they want to make a game about people being brought to their limits through tragedy and suffering then you want to know how they plan on representing that in their system and setting.
If they say they want to make a reaistic simulation then you need to ask what it is they want to simulate exactly.

No one question can work for a games and if you just bundle all the questions together that might be appropriate then for every question that might help you will have five that will probably hinder the process.

Hey Lance,

Quote from: Lance D. Allen on July 29, 2009, 02:33:12 PMThe Power 19 is completely irrelevant to success.

I don't think it's irrelevant. If an aspiring designer is drawn to the Power 19 he should recognize it as a warning sign, and turn back. The Power 19 institution is comforting to a psychology that believes working harder, being more thorough, being more comprehensive, revving the mental engine more aggressively is the way of making creative progress. But it's not true. Doing the same thing, thinking the same way, just harder, and more thoroughly, isn't the way of making creative progress. You need to challenge your assumptions, or put yourself in the position of having them challenged. You need to think differently, not harder. You need to put yourself in the position of having insights. The Power 19 isn't about challenging your assumptions; it's about girding yourself with them. This is why accepting it, or helping people despite it, aren't options. To help them you have to hack away at the psychology that's drawing them to its comforts.

Paul

I want to post here but I don't feel like I can add much to what Luke and Paul have already said. I think by this point we have four years of experience that show that there's not a lot to be gained, from a game design prospective, from filling out a questionnaire.

The power 19 doesn't need to be replaced by a different set of questions. It doesn't need to be replaced by anything. It doesn't work. It's usually counter-productive. In the instances where it's not counter-productive, the time and energy could probably be better spent on actual game design.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben Lehman on July 29, 2009, 06:04:04 PM
The power 19 doesn't need to be replaced by a different set of questions.

But we do, as we always have and always will, need to strive to ask better questions in general.

For instance, "what is your game about?" does often get asked here in response to a new game idea, and usually leads to a page and a half of misunderstanding alternating with people saying "you don't get it" and repeating the question in more or less the same way. This is usually frustrating for everyone involved.

Sure, nothing in the Forge terms and conditions says you should never be frustrated, but: have we identified any good ways to shorten the process (in this thread or elsewhere)? And would those maybe belong in a stickied thread?

Lance,
Anything is possible. Is it impossible to conceive that filling out a questionnaire limits your creativity? Is it impossible to conceive that being challenged on your (often really bad) assumptions is a positive and progressive element to design?

Mike (and MJ from way back),
Design is a frustrating process. Even if you answer Ye Olde First Question "correctly," the next step of backing up that answer is no less frustrating. Design is not a peacable, happy, smooth process. By it's nature, design delves into problems, questions assumptions about answers, and tries to find a new perspective. This is often a painful (and occasionally exciting) process! I think recognizing and accepting that is more important than finding a sugar pill question.

As Vincent so eloquently put matters on his blog, "You are not safe here."

-Luke

Obviously it's not impossible to conceive that a questionnaire can limit creativity. That's what this whole thread has been conceiving, after all.

But here's the thing.. If it does, they're the wrong questions. Find new ones to ask.

Your second question was even more rhetorical than the first. Where at any point has anyone advocated stopping with a list of standard questions? Absolutely no one is advocating that. You have to ask questions to get people's assumptions on the table so they can be challenged. It's pretty obvious to me that there are a limited range of questions one can start with to begin this process.

The frustrating thing is, I'm pretty sure you know that, and use that, already. So why not just say "these are the questions to ask to start a conversation."? Obviously after the answers have been given, all bets are off on where the conversation goes from there. A list of questions is never an end. It's just a beginning, and some beginnings are better than others.

Quote from: Lance D. Allen on July 30, 2009, 01:02:42 AMSo why not just say "these are the questions to ask to start a conversation."?

Because a list of well-meaning questions is what got us into this mess in the first place. Seems rather arrogant (and counterproductive) to replace Troy's list of bad questions with my own set of misbegotten assumptions.

Better to keep things organic and foster a community of challenging assumptions and discussion. No one is right. No set of questions is going to make magic.

-L

Hey everyone,

Five pages is a lot at this site.

Let me review this thread in exquisite detail and return with a verdict. Not on the topic, necessarily, but on the discussion itself.

It may be that I say, "No trouble, carry on, hugs, thanks," or it may not. Until then, please don't post. A day's break won't hurt anyone. If you find yourself twitching with agony because you want to post to this thread, then write up an actual play topic instead.

Best, Ron