*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 05, 2014, 03:48:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 55 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: We tried baseball and it didn't work  (Read 1170 times)
Tobias
Member

Posts: 446


« on: July 03, 2007, 12:56:04 AM »

I searched, but didn't find a reference to this yet. If it's already here, my apologies.

http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/jatBaseball.htm

Greets,
Tobias

Logged

Tobias op den Brouw

- DitV misses dead gods in Augurann
- My GroupDesign .pdf.
Valamir
Member

Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2007, 07:32:46 AM »

Yeah, I think I first encountered this on the BW site.

Its pretty much an exact description of what all game designers have to put up with...programmers or table top.
Logged

Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2007, 08:45:38 AM »

Heh. This is, surprisingly, precisely in the correct forum. Great post, Tobias.

Best, Ron
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2007, 01:59:16 PM »

My god, that's devistating in the way it's funny. I think in part its talking about people latching onto a technique, like scaling (what the hell is that, anyway) and having it there without any reflection on whether its needed - and of course demonstrating the considerable fallout from that. You don't often see articles which talk about using stuff without reflection.

It's also got that sort of table top 'oh, they couldn't mean X, so well have Y of course' "logic" path. Eventually resulting in the delusionary conclusion that they had actually played the game, have actually experienced its qualties. An experience they haven't had, of course.

This was inspired by computer programmer culture? Wow - the parralels!
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Filip Luszczyk
Member

Posts: 746

roll-player


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2007, 04:05:02 PM »

Only, the experience is always personal, affected by the group's specifics and play circumstances. There's no universal experience in playing any game, I think - at most, you can get something close enough for the differences not to be easily noticeable. So, I suppose the game's qualities need to be rather broad, or (almost) nobody but the author will be able to actually have an experience that fits the scope of his design goals.

For example, we had the "they couldn't mean X" logic in our DitV games, as we approached the system with some assumptions and part of the rules wasn't written in a way that would make it apparent to us that the assumptions are wrong. The variation we played as a result, however, was functional and generally fun (i.e. fun enough to overshadow most of the other stuff I've been playing back then). Whether we've been experiencing the core qualities of the game despite our misunderstanding of the text, however, I can't be sure as I have not much to compare.

On the other hand, I guess there's no certain way to have a set of rules that would be perfectly unambiguous for anyone.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!