Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by John Kirk, September 28, 2005, 12:43:09 AM
Quote from: J. Tuomas Harviainen on September 28, 2005, 06:21:25 AMwhich you actually IMO are
Quote from: J. Tuomas Harviainen on September 28, 2005, 06:21:25 AM- The only really significant problem I had with your text was that it constantly changes in style, from analytic to friendly chat to occasional moments of pedagogic condescension. If you have the time and the energy, tone the language a bit towards a more uniform structure (I'd personally prefer increasing the friendly how-to -guide style over the academic tone). Also give some consideration to how you reference the works of people you highly respect; a courteous "credit where credit is due" is better than the nearly fawning tone you occasionally use in those cases. (Not often, but still enough many times that it creates an illusion of not being completely objective, which you actually IMO are.)- A bit more emphasis on the fact that you're dealing with just tabletop rpg would be nice. You mention it briefly on p. 4, but I think a separate disclaimer paragraph very early on would be good.- A bibliography on non-game resources at the end would be welcome, and explain the background further. If you add one, consider also moving the ludography from page 4 to the end, but preserving it as a separate list.- Some reference to Wraith: the Oblivion's Shadow system might be a good addition to the Conflicted Gauge segment.- Add something to either Endgame, Structured Story, or both on how some games basically deal with just one story concept played over and over while others are broader - or just pretend that they are.- One reward system that's missing is that some games give bonuses for expressing a character or the game's genre logic. It can be seen as a part of Narrative Reward, yes, but given the excellent precision you use in differentiating things like health/damage systems, this distinction might also be worth making.
Quote from: Artanis on September 28, 2005, 01:16:54 PMI was wondering if you regard Ritual as a design pattern (Polaris comes to mind).
Quote from: John Kirk on September 28, 2005, 11:05:08 PMIQuote from: Artanis on September 28, 2005, 01:16:54 PMI was wondering if you regard Ritual as a design pattern (Polaris comes to mind).This actually brings up a very important point concerning Design Patterns in general. The term "Ritual" as used here on the Forge seems rather fuzzy to me. That's not a bad thing, it merely indicates that "Ritual" is an abstract concept. Design Patterns, on the other hand, are concrete methods to represent or support abstract concepts. For example, a character's "good looks" and "sociability" are abstract concepts. But, in role-playing games they are often represented concretely via a "Charisma" gauge. My feeling is that a number of different design patterns may eventually appear to support or encourage "Ritual", but it is not itself a design pattern. Sorrowfully, I haven't read Polaris yet. But, perhaps it does contain the first use of a form of drama resolution that will eventually be recognized as a design pattern.
Quote from: Blankshield on September 29, 2005, 12:06:18 AMJohn, take a look at Meguey's excellent post about ritual here. It may give some strong insight into how ritual pattern may tie into design.
Quote from: Meguey on September 01, 2005, 05:06:36 PMRitual has a definite pattern, and if a part of the pattern is missing, the ritual will feel hollow, incomplete, or simply not work. It's an X or hourglass shape, and it flows like this.