Lessons from Iron Chef

[Dav]

John:

When you utilize learning through play or design, you are applying theory.  And, an academic's point-of-view *is* useless for developing dimensions in Mass... unless, for some odd reason, that academic is theorizing and evaluating Masses in general (I dunno, I s'pose that might happen... somewhere).

The Forge should be just that: a forge.  It is not a lectern.

Game design should be the first priority, extrapolating odd philosophical notions from such action is a nifty exercise, but there comes a point where ideas and thoughts to this effect must be applied to be relevant.  Creating a dearth of terminology that can be bandied about is nice, but, in the end, much of it only threatens to make game design inaccessible to others.  Or, at the very least, allow a few people to become something of the "old boys club".  

Game design took a flying leap at the Forge.  I'm the guy that makes certain people don't start buying their own hype.

Dav

[Shreyas Sampat]

One other thing I learned from Iron Game Chef is that an ounce of design is worth a world of talking about design. It's just so much more illuminating to me to sit and think critically about a particular game than it is to chat about games and theory and design in the abstract.

[Asrogoth]

Whew!  "It is finished." ;)

I am so glad to be done with the contest... well, sort of...

I mean now I'm seeing things I wish I could "change" or "add" to my game.  I don't know how cheesy and infantile my first attempt at game-making may be, but at least I know I've FINISHED it!

I'm actually very excited about that most of all.

The things I learned was that a wealth of information exists here at the Forge through the mental acuity of the posters and their wide variety of designs.

I look forward to looking closer at everyone's games and possibly playing them.

[Ben Lehman]

The biggest thing that I learned from Iron Game Chef is that games with settings aren't the devil.

You see, I have struggled with setting-based games for a really, really, really long time.  I love setting.  I love creating setting.  And, thus, any time, I buy a game, I always end up throwing out the setting, or tinkering it to the point where it is effectively a different thing (I did terrible, wonderful things to Vampire, for instance.)  So I've always considered setting to be, well, worthless, as far as commerical game design, because I -- as a player -- never use it.

Polaris is a part of my fantasy world that I've known about for a long time, but I've never been able to satisfactorily model in a system (I had some Knights Stellar wander south and get involved with Orcs in a Riddle of Steel campaign once, but they were poorly modeled, and I only got by on a lot of fudging.)  When I saw that three of the ingredients were "Ice, Dawn and Assault" I said, "fuck it, this gets its own system, because it's too cool to keep on the outskirts forever."

A lot of elements of Polaris's design are drawn from more general work I've done -- the player roles, for example, are something which I worked out as a theoretical argument with someone about "GMless" play and secrets -- but they all got their little tweeks and, in the end, the system can do nothing but a particular group in a particular setting with a particular goal.  The sort of system that I hate.  The sort of system that I have publically decried for years.

And damned if I don't love the little bastard.

Other things include:  (mostly already said)

1)  Wow, I'm a better game designer than I was before I came to the Forge.

2)  Wow, everyone else on the Forge is a good designer.  Even the people who don't do a lot of theory.

3)  Theory not only crosses over into design, but directly impacts it in an appalling way (see above about player roles.)

4)  If you spend an entire weekend designing games all day and dancing all night, be prepared to collapse on Monday.

5)  Hey, look, two games with drinking mechanics which actually require you to drink OOG.  Is this the influence of Over the Bar or convergent design?  I think it's great, either way.

6)  If you want to play the game you've designed, and not GM, best write it so that every participants gets their own PC.  :-)

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  I sat down last night and worked out the math of the Zeal -> Weariness progression, and what that entails for the dramatic arc of the game, and there's whole levels of potential that I didn't even realize were there when I set down the rules.  There's this whole Sorcerer thing that goes on at High Zeal and High Weariness, and then in the middle it gets a little more about what your abilities are, and ghah.  I leave the interpretation and full effects as an exercise to the reader.  Suffice it to say that "experience" in no way effects character effectiveness in terms of chance of success, but instead effects *how* challenges are bid out.

P.P.S.  This game is getting published.  After judging, I'm going to post a revision / playtesting thread.  Are you ready to hash it through with me?

P.P.P.S.  If ING wants to playtest (hey, I even mention IRC play specifically in the conflict rules) that would be awesome.  If you play on a Saturday or Friday night and only have three people, I'll make a fourth.  (It's sort of like Bridge that way, isn't it?)  If you end up with an odd number of people, I'll write some rules for it :-)

[Emily Care]

a seperate thread? I though Ron nixed that idea...

Ack. Sorry, I missed that follow-up.  Ah, well. Too bad, it would be quite helpful.

--EC

[Ron Edwards]

I nixed something? Hol' on here.

Rather than clarify it here and drift the topic ... Emily, just PM me with what you had in mind and I'll let you know what I think. If I'm not mistaken at the moment, it's probably a "go."

Please continue with the What I Learned discussion.

Best,
Ron

[JamesSterrett]

It doesn't rate up at the epiphany level, but I've got a much better grasp on the degree to which system needs to be integrated with setting and premise to make a game the really fires on all cylinders.  I believe that's where Terminator Line is weak.

[Zak Arntson]

if I had the energy and gumption, I'd use some kind of randomizer at the beginning of every month to select 5 random concepts,  pick 3 of those and create a game out of them. a game a month, for a year. it would be a good personal challenge, and I am sure I would learn a lot.

I did something similar with Harlekin-Maus.com. It was exhausting, and I churned out some stinkers (see Superpets), but damn if it wasn't the best thing I ever did for myself as a game designer.

[John Harper]

I learned never to try to design game X when you're secretly trying to design game Y. It's like putting yourself in a headlock. Sure, it looks cool and impresses the ladies but it doesn't accomplish much.

I learned that one can create an RPG about penguin pirates or ice skating storytellers that I would actually play.

I learned that I love Zak Arnston and am going to have his babies. Squid-headed, telepathic babies.

Best of all, I learned what I already knew: The Forge is home to some of the most creative, productive, and inspiring people that I've ever had the privelege to associate with. You guys rock.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
if I had the energy and gumption, I'd use some kind of randomizer at the beginning of every month to select 5 random concepts,  pick 3 of those and create a game out of them. a game a month, for a year. it would be a good personal challenge, and I am sure I would learn a lot.

<drift> 'Scuse my irony :) , but isn't that actually a game itself? </drift>

[Lxndr]

Not to just go "what they said":

1.  Talking about it is all well and good, but nothing substitutes for actual design.  I've been slacking since I sent Fastlane off to layout, despite there being many things I've wanted to do.  The Iron Game Competition got me going again (in fits and starts, but still) and that's a good thing.  Momentum good, and practice helps make better, if not perfect.

2.  I've learned a LOT more than I thought by reading and playing, and in designing for this I stretched brain muscles I never knew I had.  I mean, "Frigid Bitch"?  Wow.  And I'm getting the confidence to post my weirdo ideas, at least in contest threads - and people actually like some of them!

3.  There's a lot of good ideas out there simmering under the surface just waiting for the right collection of random words and a little kick in the butt to get them to come into form.  I'm looking forward to the next breath of fresh air.

4.  Social competition doesn't have to be an evil and ugly thing - and I have enough of it inside myself to design games where it's encouraged, yet I don't feel dirty.  Well, not really.

5.  I can actually do a 24 hour game (my 3rd game was done in under 24 hours, although, like most 24 hour games, it needs tweaking and improvement).

[Jack Aidley]

To be honest, I'm not all that pleased with Chanter - there's some ideas in there that I really like, some nuggets of mechanics and setting that stand a good chance of living-on in other games, but as a whole I don't think it really came together too well - which isn't too surprising considering how stream of consciousness the design of it was.

I learned how hard it is to write setting for other people to use; and how much work it is to put together a coherant setting at all.

Next time, I'll try to develop an idea I'm happy with, rather than just shooting from the hip with the first idea I come up with and seeing where it leads me.

[dalek_of_god]

I was struck by how the games that seemed most interesting to me were the ones developed over multiple posts. I'm not sure if this is because of feedback in the IGC thread or because the best designers posted early. It may be simply due to many smaller posts being more readable than one long one. In any case, I know the strategy I'd employ next time - many posts and plenty of color.

Also, even though Habakkuk still needs a lot of work to be a workable game, I'm glad I finally got around to more than just starting . If someone has to come in last, I'm glad it could be me.[/i]

[Alan]

Hi guys,

My biggest lesson:

Creative insight comes more often, with more intensity and elegance while actually doing the work than while planning it.  

Two things I'm really proud of are coining terms for the parts of player declarations: Statement of Intent and Proposal of Effect, and the invention of Apotheosis, which makes my Wisdom scores work as a kind of reverse Humanity.

Writing Wizards of Ice and Twilight was an exercise of filling great swaths of procedure and theory I already had in mind to write someday, and at the same time discovering holes in the system - particularly the dice resolution system - that demanded some creative thought.  I think the solutions I found on the fly produced a decent dice system.  It awaits playtest, of course.

All in all, I found this very rewarding both in enjoyment and in satisfaction of completing something.

I also second the observation that starting with color components and a genre made the design process flow.

[Zak Arntson]

I'm coming in here a little late, I know. But the full realization didn't hit me until I was layed out by a fever.

When designing a roleplaying game, just as with a video or traditional game, you need to define states of play. This is often overlooked or poorly documented in an rpg's rules. You need to dictate which participants can do what, and exactly at what times.

This has been elaborated, with regards to player character actions, as IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect), but it really needs to be addressed at every point during play.

D&D (and many others) assume (or better, clearly explain) that there is a pair of standard states, GM Control and PC Action. PC Action is handled by the GM. Either the PC Action is taken into account and is inserted into the narrative via GM Control, or the PC Action leads to a Conflict state (or set of states). GM Control can also initiate these Conflict states.

Examining and playing with these states leads to interesting variations. With Terra Australis, my Iron Chef game, I have the normal GM Control <-> PC Action states, but a Conflict can be initiated by any participant. The difference is that the game is forced into a Conflict state by anybody, not just at the GM's discretion.

That was my big breakthrough. Examining and learning roleplaying games, looking at it from this perspective of changing game states, now becomes much clearer. I was rereading Dying Earth, a wonderful game if opaquely written (to the benefit of establishing color, but the extreme detriment of clear rules), and it made much more sense!