Topic: Now what about Ygg?
Started by: Christoffer Lernö
Started on: 6/16/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 6/16/2002 at 10:50am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Now what about Ygg?
Oooh, I'm soo impatient. Sorry everyone. I want to build further on Ygg, but first I kind of want your approval. I seem to work best after I just had some comments here on the Forge. That's the reason I'm pestering you with so many Ygg posts.
Any more comments on Ygg? Who likes it, who thinks it's a waste of time and why?
What about the idea to reduce the magic system as detailed in my last posting on Ygg magic?
This is essentially separating pre-made demonic abilities from the freer summon-like spells. Not such a big deal but I think it might work better.
What would you like to see next? Char creation? Combat? Skill resolution? I'll go what you find the most interesting. Or do you want the races and stuff more fleshed out?
(If you haven't checked out the current material it's here: http://ygg.blogspot.com)
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 24492
On 6/16/2002 at 7:59pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Christoffer,
I'm going to suggest something that you may not like. It is: you might do best at this point to write up something yourself, without input for a while.
Right now, your work on Ygg is a little bit like throwing "initiative!" out here at the Forge and then we all play a kind of guessing game to see what initiave system works best for you. We did this already at least twice with the magic. It's getting a bit tiring.
Ultimately, you are the author for Ygg. We can respond to what you create, but this isn't a free-for-all, communal design-a-game forum. You have to do the designing - yes, we can give input, but you're going to have to decide "what Ygg needs most," and how it's going to work based on your best efforts. After our input, maybe it'll get 100% re-tooled, but that's how it will be. We can't build it for you.
What's led me to post this, more than anything else, is this phrase of yours:
"... but first I kind of want your approval."
You know what? You already have it: approval to go and design your game. You had it before you even knew the Forge existed.
What you don't have approval for, and will never receive here, is hand-holding about whether you "should" design the game, or for how "good" it is. Those are ultimately subject to one person's approval, your own. Please, please don't use these boards as a motivator - I can't permit them to take on that responsibility.
Hey! That goes for everyone else, too! The Forge is supposed to be a community of service to everyone's artistic/design effort. If you use it as a means of motivating yourself, then brace yourself for a cold and cruel awakening one day - when it becomes clear that it cannot do it, and you feel (a) unmotivated and (b) betrayed.
Best,
Ron
On 6/17/2002 at 3:36am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Don't worry Ron, it's not that bad. :) I can only motivate myself I know that.
However the use of the Forge is that I have to articulate my ideas and also think about how others might see stuff I think is "ok".
I mean all the ideas I send here on the board are things I feel is ok. The valuable input of the Forge is that you can see if people also instantly feel the same way or if you need to do some more thinking. I feel this speeds up the process (if everyone seems to think an idea is ok there's not much need to consider drawbacks and advantages, but if you have an idea people dislike then you look at it again and decide if you can improve it, or maybe one feels that despite objections this is the road to take). Basically it saves energy and provides valuable feedback and inspiration. Isn't this what the Forge is about?
It's not MAKING the game for me, but making the progress towards a solid good game faster.
What I mean with the approval bit is that... well people have been saying they like the magic bit, and so I wondering if my last rule suggestion would spoil that for those people. I know it's ok with me, it will conform to my "ideas" of how the magic should be, but as I'm narrowing down the magic a little, I'm concerned that I might be cutting away pieces people think are really cool and I should keep.
So I'm kind of waiting to hear if people say: oh, that sounds like an ok idea, or if people will say "Oh, for a moment I thought you had something, but now... I feel like crying". Because it's kind of a wasted effort to create a whole framework for it just to tear it up again because it doesn't quite cover all I want to cover.
I didn't get any real feedback on that initiative idea either (with tokens and stuff), but that doesn't matter since there wasn't any earlier initiative system people told me they liked. You get my point? I just want to be sure I'm not destroying good stuff without knowing that's what I'm doing. :)
But back to the magic system, like I said I'd like that confirmation people think it might work and I'll shut up for a while, build the whole deal and present it to you later. Now how does that sound?
On 6/17/2002 at 3:36pm, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
.... and let me add some more.
What I want to hear is what people wish to see in fantasy plain and simple. Eventually I decide what I want and/or can put in the game, and of course how it should be done, but to hear a lot of differing opinions is very valuable and very interesting. Actually this kind of input is the most easy for me to make use of.
On 6/17/2002 at 6:12pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Market Research?
Pale Fire wrote: What I want to hear is what people wish to see in fantasy, plain and simple. Eventually I decide what I want and/or can put in the game, and of course how it should be done, but to hear a lot of differing opinions is very valuable and very interesting. Actually this kind of input is the most easy for me to make use of.
Now we're the source of your market research? Have you ever thought of writing what you like? Don't make a game that will be popular to regular posters on the Forge (especially limited to those willing to post a response). Make a game for an audience of you.
If "what [you] wish to see in fantasy, plain and simple" is not immediately apparent, I'm not sure you should be writing a fantasy game. How do I explain what I call 'the derivative principle?' If you make a game that you have little personal stake in (polling an audience and then making what they say), then what you create will be little more than a derivative of their ideas. Unless they have really great ideas for games (one would wonder why they weren't doing said design themselves), what you will wind up with simply can't be much better than the best any one of them would produce, and likely worse than that. (Unless you're some kind of market analysis expert, that is.)
When you say "Eventually, I decide what I want..." you are exactly asking us to do your work for you. We come up with the ideas; you edit them ('keeping what you want'). That'd be us doing the work. My personal feeling is, if you can't be bothered to do the work, then don't. Forget this vague 'fantasy game' thing until you have a concrete idea for it. (And don't start with the 'wiser heads...' thing, all flattery aside, it'd still be us doing the work. And hey, I gots my own fantasy game ideas.)
Saying "this kind of input is the most easy for me" goes without saying. 'Hey, do all the work! It'll be easier for me!' doesn't need to be said, it's a tautology.
Listen, I know you're afraid that you'll be "destroying good stuff" if you proceed, but really, no one but you can tell you what is good or not. I know you have a really high opinion of what goes on at the Forge, but are we really your target audience? (It'd be a pretty small one, if that.) If you want "that confirmation" if something will work, it only comes one way: playtest. If you want to ask for playtesters that's different, write the system and then ask. Don't ask before there's a system. Vaporware can't be playtested.
Finally, I hate to say it, but this is really starting to sound like begging. Take Ron's advice; "write up something yourself." We can't say anything about your ideas until we see them. What you've gotten has pretty much all the commentary you're going to get (until you write it). Write more, it'll get more response.
You spoke of articulating your ideas to see if we think they're "ok." Two things: you tell me; are they "ok?" Seems like our opinions shouldn't mean much until you know your own mind, until you have something that could at least be passibly 'finished' to go on. Second, why are you only shooting for "ok?" If I had an idea that was only "ok," I'd file it until later when I had something to add. I only work on ideas I think are 'great.' I only design something if it having it only in my head is really distracting. (Last week my partner articulated the idea for our modern færie game in such a fashion that it solved every problem I ever had with any example of the genre by turning it inside out. I am so taken with the idea, I have given up my more-than-a-decade interest in running superheroes completely; it's all I can think about. That is what I am designing.)
If you can't take Ron's word for it, take mine. All of your ideas are "ok." Go. Write something. Stop trying to get us to do it for you because ultimately then it wouldn't be yours.
Fang Langford
On 6/17/2002 at 6:14pm, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Aaah, just go ahead and shoot me and get it all over with.
I'm gonna go home and feel misunderstood now.
On 6/17/2002 at 8:42pm, Le Joueur wrote:
???
Pale Fire wrote: I'm gonna go home and feel misunderstood now.
Oh, don't take it like that.¹
First you ask for "approval;" Ron gave it.
Then you ask for 'what next;' Ron suggested the whole thing.
You come back asking if what you are doing is "ok;" I said that it was so far and that you need to go on.
You mention speed; who cares? Scattershot will only win the last place in the speed race, what difference does that make? Go as fast as you like; you say you're impatient, then why aren't you writing?
You talked about feedback; you already have it, we cannot do more than repeat ourselves. Feedback is a loop; you got feedback, now you must generate something else for more feedback.
Let us not be your inspiration; back to the motivation issue, if you can't inspire yourself, do something else.
You say you want a "solid game;" that will only happen when all the pieces 'fit together.' Solidarity comes from union; you cannot have a bunch of unconnected solid pieces and expect to have a solid game.
If you fear you will 'cut' pieces people will make, you can't make us tell you what they are, we don't know. Make the cuts; if people miss parts, they'll sing out. Action first, then reaction. If you expect us to tell you what 'not to cut' then, again, you ask us to do your work.
If your work cannot afford negative feedback ('hey you cut out what I liked'), then you aren't fully motivated; see above.
If you think writing can be done without "wasted effort" you need to learn about what a 'rough draft' is. Trust me, every writer will tell you 'more goes in the waste bin than on the finished page.'
And then you practically beg for "confirmation" that the magic system will work. Without seeing the whole things (and the whole game), there is absolutely no way for anyone to know; all we can do is guess. You've got the positive feedback, now do something with it.
Then you finish with, "I'll shut up for a while, build the whole deal and present it to you later. Now how does that sound?" Sounds great! I look forward to it.
But...
Then you append what I characterized as a broad call for us to write your game for you. What happened to, "build the whole deal and present it to you later?"
Tell you what; you want feedback? Here's some; I think it's past time you sat down and drafted the whole hoary monster front-to-back. Forget this 'a little bit here, a little bit there' stuff. What a game stands on, is its totality, how it 'fits together,' what makes it "solid." Just do it.
I know drafting sucks. (Look how long it's taking me to draft the Scattershot Techniques.) I just know the first draft will suck, but 'you can't find the gold unless you pan from the river.' Get us to the river and we might be able to help you find the gold, hesistate to cut and the patient might die (how's that for a mixed metaphor?). If you're stuck for a starting framework, this thread is gold as far as I know.
Just skip these 'what do you want to see' posts. Give us all of what you want to see and we'll let you know if we miss anything.
Fang Langford
¹ It's starting to sound passive-aggressive. 'Oh look! Fang's picking on me!'
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5708
On 6/18/2002 at 2:08pm, Mark D. Eddy wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Besides which, if you want to feel *really* misunderstood, I could just come along and tell you that you needed something that worked just like Shadowrun! ;D
Actually, that can be a powerful motivater: "I *hated* X, so I'm going to improve it! Let's do Y instead!"
On 6/18/2002 at 4:08pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
One thing you could try is spending some more time reading/playing/discussing other non-Ygg games and then taking what you learn there and applying it when relevant. That's something I've seen a lot of the Forge's best game designers do. Rather than requesting feedback in and staying in a receptive role, take a dynamic approach and fiddle around with other people's games/concepts. It'll be just as fruitful if not more so.
Laurel
On 6/19/2002 at 12:41am, Mark D. Eddy wrote:
Re: Now what about Ygg?
Pale Fire wrote: Any more comments on Ygg? Who likes it, who thinks it's a waste of time and why?
I'm slightly confused: You've got a game entitled Yggdrasil, and there's no Aesir, no Jotun, no Midgard Serpent, and no Norns. Was this deliberate? I like the stuff that's demon-based and so on, but the title makes me feel misled.
On 6/19/2002 at 2:55am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Hey Mark,
It might be time to let Christoffer regroup slightly, rather than hammering him with questions. I could be wrong about that, so this isn't a Moderator Hammerdown, just a personal note. I was planning to lay off for a while; others might consider that.
Also, I don't know if you've done this or not, but an author search for Pale Fire will yield a lot of material so far about Christoffer's thoughts on the game, including the factoid that "Ygg" is just a convenient label for the moment and not a big deal in terms of content.
Best,
Ron
On 6/19/2002 at 6:15pm, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Now I'm gonna post a pretty hostile answer here, brace yourselves a little ok? Initially my feeling was to ditch posting to the Forge at all but there's just so many interesting discussions here I can't help but to want to participate.
Sometimes, like now recently with some of the postings in this thread, but also before, I feel a little like a dog getting the "a nice meal and a pat on the head one day, kicked and screamed at the other". Incidentally something similar is used to tame wild animals as tigers (not REALLY similar, but what the heck), and it also produces really schizo behaviour in animals.
Now I'm definately not suggesting that people are doing this on purpose or even that people try to be anything but constructive in their postings. I'm just explaining what it feels like. However, there is something you can do for me, and that is to assume the best rather than assuming the worst. The same happened in the early Ygg discussions.
Let's look at what I wrote in this letter to see how misconceptions arose.
"I want to build further on Ygg, but first I kind of want your approval."
This was interpreted as me wanting approval for all Ygg designs. Actually it was a call for comments on the initiative thread (I wanted to know if anyone saw any immediate flaws with it) as well as the division into spell categories in the magic thread. Since I'd probably put down many hours coming up with ways of connecting them to the other parts of the system I was interested in having any immediately visible flaws pointed out to me. So the "approval" being more of a "yeah, go ahead and try it out we're interested in seeing how that initiative system and that magic works out, I don't see any immediate flaws just by glancing at it".
So, Ron's response of "yes sure we approve of you designing your game" didn't answer my question. Now I grant you that taken out of context my question could be interpreted as warranting such a response, but surely I have demonstrated that I have no problems with that? Mistrust.
Hoping to clarify I go on to post this stuff:
"What I want to hear is what people wish to see in fantasy plain and simple. Eventually I decide what I want and/or can put in the game, and of course how it should be done, but to hear a lot of differing opinions is very valuable and very interesting. Actually this kind of input is the most easy for me to make use of."
Which Fang comments with the following:
"Now we're the source of your market research? Have you ever thought of writing what you like? Don't make a game that will be popular to regular posters on the Forge (especially limited to those willing to post a response). Make a game for an audience of you."
That comment could almost be funny considering Mike Holmes write this in another Ygg thread:
"Your above analysis proves that it's probably the game for you. But it doesn't say anything about anyone except for you. Is your assumption that, if you like it then others will?"
With me answering:
"Well, the first priority is to make it something I like, because that's a good starting point. If I don't like it, what's the odds others will? I think I'm getting to the point I feel pretty sure it's moving towards a game I'd like to play, so along the way now I'm trying to gather people's opinions and see if there are stuff I can change which will keep it a good game for me and which will improve it for others than me. Trying to having coherence is one thing I can improve, so that's why I feel I should look into that."
Because I don't think this is the only place I state that opinion, I get the feeling that either people aren't remembering what I post or they don't believe me. Mistrust again.
The same goes for many other things. Basically I have to repeat myself and say that yes I already have thought of that thank you or why yes that's what I was planning all along as I have been saying from the start. Now this is probably due to people reading the text and not putting things in context, it's not so strange that people don't remember all my postings, but eventually I'd like to hope people would give me the benefit of the doubt at least.
Again, I know these posts are only meant to be helpful, but they disappoint me nonetheless in the lack of trust I feel they exhibit. The feeling is that one day you can get posts like "oh, that's really interesting and new! Cool!" and the other you get a pm from someone who says you're trying to let everyone else do the work and that you have no original idea in your head whatsoever.
The contradictions and the mistrust is what really disheartens me.
Before I end this letter, I like to apologize for any finger pointing. Fang, Ron and Mike, I'm only using your letters because they happen to be recent. Please don't interpret this as me being upset with you or that I blame you in particular. I'm just trying to explain how the phenomena arises. Naturally it's just as much on my side as I also "mistrust" you in the sense that I get a feeling of mistrust from you.
I just ask you all to help me to avoid feeling let down like this. If I try to do what I can and you do what you can I'm sure there will be no more problems.
And finally, I'm posting this publically because this, as I've mentioned before, has happened before while posting so it's not just for some persons in particular.
Ok... Hope that came out ok (but with my luck it will probably be misunderstood too ;) ).
Best,
Christoffer
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2424
Topic 2474
Topic 2475
On 6/19/2002 at 9:59pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Now what about Ygg?
Hi Christoffer,
The choice is yours. Either (a) this site is a valuable place to be, for your purposes, and you'll have to accept that others sometimes have different standards from you, regarding what they want to contribute for you; or (b) it's not, and the folks here are not to be trusted.
No amount of defense or self-justification on anyone's part - whether yours, Fang's, mine, Mike's, or whoever's, is of any worth at all. If you decide (b), then anything that's said is not to be trusted anyway. If you decide (a), then it's superfluous.
The choice is entirely yours, based on all of your interactions so far, across hundreds of posts and private messages. I suggest that others not contribute to the discussion, because there is (and cannot be) a discussion about that.
Best,
Ron
On 6/20/2002 at 3:18am, Le Joueur wrote:
Sorry About That
Respectfully Ron, I disagree.
Pale Fire wrote: Now I'm gonna post a pretty hostile answer here, brace yourselves a little ok? Initially my feeling was to ditch posting to the Forge at all but there's just so many interesting discussions here I can't help but to want to participate.
Egads, man! No wonder you think I'm hostile; this post of yours was anything at all if it wasn't polite and well-worded. Hell, everything you've posted today has been gold.
Pale Fire wrote: schizo behaviour
You might be surprised, I think that's because not everyone reads every post. Similarly each of us is in different mindsets at different times. I know when I've had a tough day I skip over a lot of my 'tooth-pulling' editting sweeps.
Pale Fire wrote: assume the best rather than assuming the worst.
We try, we try. Sigh. You know, sometimes one can even miss the obvious.
Pale Fire wrote: Let's look at what I wrote in this letter to see how misconceptions arose.
"I want to build further on Ygg, but first I kind of want your approval."
This was interpreted as me wanting approval for all Ygg designs.
I want to say that's a little unfair, but it just came out looking exactly like that. (Especially when your followup did nothing to clarify what you wanted to say.)
Pale Fire wrote: Actually it was a call for comments on the initiative thread (I wanted to know if anyone saw any immediate flaws with it) as well as the division into spell categories in the magic thread. Since I'd probably put down many hours coming up with ways of connecting them to the other parts of the system I was interested in having any immediately visible flaws pointed out to me.
The problem is, in a separate thread, there was no way we could know that (look up, you didn't mention initiative at all). Without the connection, the call for comments sounded like only a call for blanket approval.
Worse, you have to admit, the way you put it did not sound like a call for "immediately visible flaws," and then there's the worse problem.
There aren't any.
That's exactly what we've been struggling with here. You say, "What's wrong, what's wrong?" We look at you funny, cause we don't see it. We say, "Nothing, let's see more," and you think we're attacking you.
Pale Fire wrote: So the "approval" being more of a "yeah, go ahead and try it out we're interested in seeing how that initiative system and that magic works out, I don't see any immediate flaws just by glancing at it".
Funny, when I read Ron's first post up there, that's what I thought he said. (Also, this is still the first time you have explicitly asked for "flaws" in this thread - remember each of us doesn't read everything. You've a great magic system, for your game; its basic approach is so far removed from mine that I don't even read those threads.)
Pale Fire wrote: Hoping to clarify I go on to post this stuff:Pale Fire wrote: "What I want to hear is what people wish to see in fantasy plain and simple. Eventually I decide what I want and/or can put in the game, and of course how it should be done, but to hear a lot of differing opinions is very valuable and very interesting. Actually this kind of input is the most easy for me to make use of."
Which Fang comments with the following:Le Joueur wrote: Now we're the source of your market research? Have you ever thought of writing what you like? Don't make a game that will be popular to regular posters on the Forge (especially limited to those willing to post a response). Make a game for an audience of you.
You have to admit, yours was a very vague blanket statement that had absolutely no reference to "immediately visible flaws." You are misreading me only as much as I you. I was, in effect saying, 'nope, no flaws here, keep writing it the way you are.'
Any emotion invested in my post was surprise that, from where I sat, Ron gave you exactly what you asked for and you responded by just changing the words and asking again.
Pale Fire wrote: That comment could almost be funny considering Mike Holmes write this in another Ygg thread:Mike Holmes wrote: Your above analysis proves that it's probably the game for you. But it doesn't say anything about anyone except for you. Is your assumption that, if you like it then others will?
With me answering:Pale Fire wrote: Well, the first priority is to make it something I like, because that's a good starting point. If I don't like it, what's the odds others will? I think I'm getting to the point I feel pretty sure it's moving towards a game I'd like to play, so along the way now I'm trying to gather people's opinions and see if there are stuff I can change which will keep it a good game for me and which will improve it for others than me. Trying to having coherence is one thing I can improve, so that's why I feel I should look into that.
Because I don't think this is the only place I state that opinion, I get the feeling that either people aren't remembering what I post or they don't believe me. Mistrust again.
Now you're suffering from the idea that every person reading this thread has read everything else you post. I know I don't. I also know that I don't expect everyone else to read everything of mine. Do you read all of it? I go to great lengths to put in links to everything I refer to no matter how far back because I assume there are many people who don't read all my writings and that some come in in the middle.
Pale Fire wrote: The same goes for many other things. Basically I have to repeat myself and say that yes I already have thought of that thank you or why yes that's what I was planning all along as I have been saying from the start. Now this is probably due to people reading the text and not putting things in context, it's not so strange that people don't remember all my postings, but eventually I'd like to hope people would give me the benefit of the doubt at least.
And I don't expect people to be psychic. If you want someone to tell you if your work has any problems, ask "Does this have any problems?" Don't ask, "What would you like to see?"
Pale Fire wrote: Again, I know these posts are only meant to be helpful, but they disappoint me nonetheless in the lack of trust I feel they exhibit. The feeling is that one day you can get posts like "oh, that's really interesting and new! Cool!" and the other you get a pm from someone who says you're trying to let everyone else do the work and that you have no original idea in your head whatsoever.
The contradictions and the mistrust is what really disheartens me.
A forum of discourse without contradiction between members would be boring and closed to new members. (Although I think a Personal Message like that is impolite and would avoid its sender.)
Pale Fire wrote: Before I end this letter, I like to apologize for any finger pointing. Fang, Ron and Mike, I'm only using your letters because they happen to be recent. Please don't interpret this as me being upset with you or that I blame you in particular. I'm just trying to explain how the phenomena arises. Naturally it's just as much on my side as I also "mistrust" you in the sense that I get a feeling of mistrust from you.
Hey, call my name and I appear; that's one of the problems with being the Field Director at Large for the Midwest Devil's Advocacy Department. Honestly, I neither trust or mistrust you; I take everything you write at face value without context or emotional attachment (as much as I can). I write expecting the same. If my ideas are not ridiculed, as I was slow to learn, that means they're 'approved of.' Unfortunately, around here, few people really have time to send kudos for everything without flaw.
Trust me; no news is good news.
According to many Personal Messages I have traded, when no one at all responds to one of my posts, it means it's flawless, not ignored. It took me a bit to get used to it (and my partner has to remind me from time to time). You might also want to note that 'me too' posts, while not being unwelcome, are excluded from the norm.
Pale Fire wrote: I just ask you all to help me to avoid feeling let down like this. If I try to do what I can and you do what you can I'm sure there will be no more problems.
I'm doing my best. If you read any of the above with even the breath of animosity in my voice, you're reading it wrong. Try rereading it with the 'patient father' voice on. I only want to help.
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 2424
Topic 2474
Topic 2475