As of late I have been working with different approaches to experimental game design. And by experimental I mean using the design process to shed light on some theoretical concern. One way to answer the question of whether an RPG can do something is to make one that does, or see where the attempt fails from a variety of approaches.

The question I have is, what sort of theory questions do people have that would be well served by an experimental design? This can either be a question of proving a particular design is possible, or examining the failure of an unachievable goal.

I look forward to any ideas on the matter,

-Mendel S.

Mendel--

Good to see you again. I'll take up your offer.

A couple months ago I started a thread over in GNS theory entitled An Experiment in Congruence. The hope was that some of the brilliant designers here would throw their ideas into the pot and help the attempt to design a game by which setting and situation created play in which all three agenda would functionally operate together. Unfortunately, the thread degenerated into an argument about whether such a thing was possible, instead of a concerted effort to attempt it.

My ideas are there; you can use them or abandon them as you see fit. My interest is whether it is possible to create a game in which conflicting player agenda will lead to coherent play, because the choices which address premise, challenge, and discovery are all compatible within the context of the game.

Let me know your thoughts.

--M. J. Young

Based on my thinking about ritual and RPG's, I would like to see a game whose mechanics and whatnot focus on the division in-game/out-of-game. I don't mean on the distinction between player and character, but instead between, you might say, player and regular Joe. That is, the distinction between the world as instantiated within a game, involving both the shared imaginary space in which play events occur and also the shared communicative space in which players interact about the game, and on the other hand the world entirely outside the game, in which people go to their jobs and play with their kids and pets and have sex and drive cars and all that. Oh, and write on the Forge, of course.

My thought is that a game like this would get so tangled up in itself that it wouldn't work well, because the whole nature of RPG's is such that this line is taken as known. It's like challenging an axiom from within a constrained mathematical system. But I might well be wrong about this.

clehrich wrote:
My thought is that a game like this would get so tangled up in itself that it wouldn't work well, because the whole nature of RPG's is such that this line is taken as known. It's like challenging an axiom from within a constrained mathematical system. But I might well be wrong about this.

clehrich wrote: ... That is, the distinction between the world as instantiated within a game, involving both the shared imaginary space in which play events occur and also the shared communicative space in which players interact about the game, and on the other hand the world entirely outside the game, in which people go to their jobs and play with their kids and pets and have sex and drive cars and all that. Oh, and write on the Forge, of course.