THE INSPIRATION
While browsing through the forums I came across this bit of advice:

Alex wrote:
I do have one piece of advice: prototype! Thinking about your game is a whole lot harder when nothing is nailed down yet. Don't worry too much in getting it right on the first go. Instead, try to make something playable as soon as possible. Once you have something solid to base your questions on, it becomes much easier to see where problems may lie or what is not helping your central premise.

This is very cool. I think that we have a need for simple prototypes to prove that we can do what we want with the ideas we have before spending a year or so to "get everything right".

I went to Protospiel in Ann Arbor MI last weekend with Paul Czege. It was a three day con with everybody playing everyone else's boardgame prototypes 24 hours a day. After the game, we would sit for a half hour or so and give feedback. It was a lot of fun and we played some really nice games.

There were some incredibly finished games and others that used paper cut outs for pieces but there was little correlation between the coolness of the games and the doneness. I did play a few that were not done enough to get  all the way through but none that weren't going anywhere.

There is no reason we could not do it for RPGs as well. While it is not the point of this thread I encourage anyone with space to hold Prototyping parties everyone bring what they are working on and play them.

I applaud you and your effort and will try to play along. I was trying to get my Roman Space Game done for the end of this month and got caught up in other things; another week won't hurt and the encouragement of seeing people play with paper slips is an inspiration. I will try to have a working prototype by the end of next week.

Great. Glad to have  you on board.

Ok, I'm a bit of a newbie here, but I'll bite - got a few ideas for a game system kicking around in my head anyhow so I'll see if I can't get it hammered down into a core rules doc over the next week :) very much looking towards the KISS principle rather than the "bring 10 different sized dice and half a dozen sourcebooks" approach... (Oh, and since this is my first post on the forums, if I succeed in getting the rules down in a week it'll be jumping past First Thoughts entirely)

Oh, and background about me bit: Player, Occasional GM, general RPG freak - Currently with my gaming group I'm playing a mix of GURPS, DnD (2nd and 3rd ed... avoiding 4th ed personally... whats with getting rid of chaotic neutral? I *like* my pyromanic thrillseeking mage tyvm), and a couple of games using the Call of Cthulu/BRPS rules. (Essentially, pretty much every player in the group is also GM'ing a game, rotating so its a different game each week)

One question about this little... contest? challange? - Obviously a playtestable rule system is the end goal for next saturday, but what about background setting? So (using commercial games for analogies) just the rules (e.g. GURPS), or with a basic setting such as fantasy or sci fi (e.g. D&D), or a "full" setting, background world (e.g. BtVS, Serenity, B5, Vampire:TM)
In all probabiltiy given the time constraints not much more than the rules would be achievable, but if anyone has a clear idea of the background setting it might be nice to see a half page or two on the world(s) the rules are "origionally" designed to be played in...

Start with what you can use right away. If there is a pre made background you could use that your players will all know go with that. If not start with broad strokes. Or better yet, think hard about the genre and setting and let it come out in the rules. Try to make the rules convey the setting. So if you were doing a pirate game express the rules so that they carry the flavor.then when you have the rules at the table find what you are explaining of the background an go back and write that up later.

Ctrlphreak wrote:

In all probabiltiy given the time constraints not much more than the rules would be achievable, but if anyone has a clear idea of the background setting it might be nice to see a half page or two on the world(s) the rules are "origionally" designed to be played in...

A little late to the party, but I'd love to make a contribution if you'll have it.

Any preference as to how games should be displayed? Googledoc? .PDF? Sent to you by the deadline or simply published somewhere on the net with a link here?
Any futher preferences as to presentation? Or structure? I'd imagine a title followed by 6,000 words organised into three loose paragraphs wouldn't be cool...

M. wrote:
A little late to the party, but I'd love to make a contribution if you'll have it.

Any preference as to how games should be displayed? Googledoc? .PDF? Sent to you by the deadline or simply published somewhere on the net with a link here?
Any futher preferences as to presentation? Or structure? I'd imagine a title followed by 6,000 words organised into three loose paragraphs wouldn't be cool...

Sounds great.
This contest-format gives me great opportunity to play with a stream-of-consciousness design: conciseness of setting and rules being such that a group may open the game, read it to one another and play right off the bat without any single player having to digest a history then regurgitate piecemeal for the benefit of the others. In fact I’ve been toying with the notion of a scripted rulebook: eldest player reads paragraph one aloud, then the player on her right reads the next and so on, or something. So by the end of forty minutes players will have had time to grasp the necessities of play, brainstormed some concepts and made characters. Too forced?
Hmm, now I’m just thinking aloud. Anyway, early rising tomorrow to make the most of a free morning! Wish me luck.

For any of you working frantically toward Saturday's deadline you might want to have a look at Troy Costisick's Latest Blog Entry on Socratic Design. It concerns common pitfalls for first-time game designers, and I found it incredibly helpful.

I've noticed that I'm still focusing too much on a finalized game rather than a playable game. I need to stop editing and spending so much time searching for the "right" words and get something down that's minimally understandable. I've considered recording as I explain my mechanics out-loud and then transcribing those explanations. I seems like, as soon as I sit down in front of the computer I tend to complicate things which are intrinsically fairly simple.

Good luck all and keep up the work.

The more I work on this the more I realize I need to do.

• I'm putting "fantastic" ideas, that I've come up with, together for the first time to find out that they aren't compatible.
• I'm finding large holes in my design.
• I'm realizing that my best ideas are stolen from other games.
• I have renewed admiration for existing games.
• I now know that I really don't understand game economy, or how to create rules to motivate certain behaviors.
• I'm considering calling my game "Savage, Burning, Primetime Fate in the Vineyard."

That is all.

Sooooo, Saturday has come and gone.

I have made a great deal of progress, but I don't have anything playable yet.

Some of the ideas that I've been working on are just not compatible (or, at least I haven't found a way to use them together). It's like I'm designing two games at once. One, a story game and one, a tactical game. I don't know if there is any way to reconcile the differences.

The document that I've been working on all week is mostly the tactical stuff. There is almost no room for roleplay in it. So, I'm at another crossroads. It's nearly playable, but it isn't an RPG.

I need to figure out whether I, in fact, do want to produce a roleplaying game. One of the goals that I've had in the back of my mind as I've worked on this game is making it accessible to my non-roleplaying (more like, anti-roleplaying) friends, and it's made things really tough.

So, I think I'm back to the drawing board. I'm not scrapping everything, I just need to rethink what my goals are and figure out how important certain parts of the design are to me.

I do have a document for anyone who is interested (just send me your Email address: micah at mjbauer dot com ) but I'm not going post it here because it's not playable and I don't consider it complete in any way.

So, in a way this whole exercise has been a failure, but it did encourage me to look critically at what I was working on and I think that was helpful.

How did everyone else do? Was it helpful for you? What problems did you run into? What problems did you actually solve? Is it worth trying again?

Hey man,

I like this challenge quite a bit. Game Chef helps folks figure out what "playable" is, but when you're mulling independent game design projects it's helpful to be challenged with a meaningful "aim for something playable" milestone. The August deadline amid preparing for Gen Con didn't work for me, but I'd absolutely participate if you do it again. Maybe with an end of August deadline? And I wouldn't mind seeing it become a thing.

Maybe there's a way to institutionalize the challenge? A designer sets himself a target for "something playable" and challenges others to meet the same deadline? Does it need some structure of group identity to create forward momentum? "Join Protogruppe 83009 and make something playable by the end of August!"

Paul

mjbauer wrote:
Sooooo, Saturday has come and gone.

I have made a great deal of progress, but I don't have anything playable yet.

Some of the ideas that I've been working on are just not compatible (or, at least I haven't found a way to use them together). It's like I'm designing two games at once. One, a story game and one, a tactical game. I don't know if there is any way to reconcile the differences.

So, in a way this whole exercise has been a failure, but it did encourage me to look critically at what I was working on and I think that was helpful.

How did everyone else do? Was it helpful for you? What problems did you run into? What problems did you actually solve? Is it worth trying again?

  This is something I'd really, really like to do.  I came in really late to the party or I'd have still attempted it.  If you do it again, I'm totally in.  There's nothing like a group of people to help you get something finished.

I think I'll reissue the challenge soon after the GenCon madness is over. Maybe I'll make it a little more formal this time and give a little more warning for anyone who wants to be involved.

I'd certainly like to give it another shot.

By the way, I'm playtesting my combat system this Thurs with my gaming group. It's not a full game, but it's more than I've ever had before, so I'm excited about that.

This is something I would have loved to have been in on, especially since unbeknownst to me, I have already done it. Around the exact timeframe you started this I was designing a game at a frenzied pace. Now I am just polishing the rules so the play-testers (whom I have zero of at the moment) will have it easy. But either way, I think this shouldn't be so much a contest as a two week monthly challenge. What if the first two weeks of every month were This Challenge, and the remaining days were spent reviewing the created systems by those who participated, creating a community within the forge dedicated to creating working systems and playtesting them all within a month. From there, the knowledge gained could be polished and the game worked on or tossed out depending on how much the community liked or enjoyed it. From there, either a new challenge could be started, or a continuation, with two weeks of polishing followed by another two weeks of testing. This kind of structure to game design would really promote useful and timely feedback. Plus, if it got big enough, you could have two groups working at different times. So, one group would be making games in the first two weeks and playing/reviewing in the second while another group was designing games in the second two weeks and playing the games in the first. Perhaps even group crossover could occur. But those are just ideas. I think this has a lot of potential.

Cheers,
--Norm

This is a great idea for an endeavor or contest or organized group effort or however it turns out.