A questiom about the way we are doing things here; not a serious challenge to the status quo, just a thought.

The prevailing tendency, reinforced by the "creator owned" concern, is that of "auteur" design in which one person conceptualises both system and setting, conflict etc. However, the collaboratove design process for Enlightenment seems, to me, to be producing interesting stuff at the moment.

So I was wondering, is it possible to do something like the Connnections forum, and pitch settings, situations and premises for collaborative development? As in, this is my setting concept, it depends on these tropes being highlighted, who can build me a mechanic that brinhs these to the fore? Or vice versa: I have a funky mechanic that does X; can annyone help me put this in a place where that is important?

I wonder partly becuase of the example of HW, in which the system and setting were pretty much independant - or thats how it feels to me anyway. So I wonder, a question to the pros, how frequently the singular design is the model which actually goes to print; conversely how prevalent is such combined design as I have outlined above?

Can, in short, we get a Simulationist to design the setting, a Gamist to write the rules, and a Narrativist to build the default/starting premises, the "why play this game". Can that be done deliberately?

Hi Gareth,

I have been impressed by the Enlightenment project as well (h'mmm, that turns out to have been an auspicious name for it), and the idea of a forum dedicated to such projects isn't a bad one. Definitely goes into the "future possibles" pot, perhaps to be combined with the Iron Chef activities ... double h'mmmm.

As for the auteur issue, even the finest fan-identified auteurs act collaboratively, as I'm sure you know - it seems not to be a matter of how many people are involved so much as authority over what's done. So I (at least) am not calling for a strict one-man-one-game model.

But there's a funny line to avoid, too ... go too far down that road, and you have a fellow squatting like a toad over a bunch of wage-slaves calling himself the "creator" ...

Best,
Ron

Actually a really good example of how this can work is the initial Torchbearer thread, which was a model of positive collaborative work. Sure, it was obviously Shreyas' game and he screened all of the suggestions and ideas that the rest of us offered, but, all in all, it felt very much like a group project. In fact, so much so that I still feel like I have an investment in Torchbearer and want to support whatever Shreyas does with it (and have stolen much of his system for one of my own projects).

Of course, Shreyas didn't come to the Game Design forum looking for collaborators, so a new forum would be another issue entirely. Often too, I think people start writing games thinking that they will do it all by themselves but then find others who are as excited about the project as they are. In any case, it would be interesting to ponder what a "Contests & Collaboration" forum would do and how it would interact with Theory and Game Design.

Later.
Jonathan

Ralph and I did it. And I'm working with JB successfully so far. I can only say that I advocate it. There are, no doubt, risks. But I say just keep your head up and go for it.

Anyone want to collaborate?

Mike

I was thinking of the kind of thing were people ask for help with like magic systems. It might be that people could explain their setting idea, outline what they have, and ask for help build subcomponents.

Some time ago I mentioned working on a game based around the celtic cattle economy; I was thinking of it the other day in the light of questions about economnic play. I understand the principle; but I have failed to make an interesting GAME of the situation. I have toyed with a number of ideas, but nothing leaped out and grabbed me as Fun.

Anyway, maybe the Connections forum would already be able to do that sort of thing.

Hi Gareth,

Actually, my prevailing assumption is that Indie Game should include a lot of what you're talking about. Seems like quite a few games have managed to benefit from exactly that - almost, in some cases, achieving a subcontracting set of relationships from a number of people. I like that a lot and I hope that we can continue to encourage it.

At the more shared-partner two-man company or some kind of "My company with you three guys too" level, I think Connections is a little odd for a finding-space ... such interactions tend to occur on a more personal level, I think. But if someone wanted to advertise for such things, I guess Connections is the right place to do it.

Best,
Ron

P.S. This thread is indeed a cross between a Site Discussion topic and an RPG Theory topic, so I'll practice "maternal bias" and say, since it was born here, it can stay here.

This concept - essentialy sub-contracting portions of a game's overall design - might even be extended to a contest format. Given a game world description, who can come up with character generation rules and game mechanics that best implement an RPG for it?

contracycle wrote: Some time ago I mentioned working on a game based around the celtic cattle economy; I was thinking of it the other day in the light of questions about economnic play. I understand the principle; but I have failed to make an interesting GAME of the situation. I have toyed with a number of ideas, but nothing leaped out and grabbed me as Fun.

Part of the goal would be, in that scenario, seeing if my understanding were correct. I would need to be able to explain it such that it makes sense; if my model didn't make sense, and no-one could write a game for it, I'd be in trouble whatever happened.

I guess sometimes I feel we are trying to be polymaths; to learn understand reality well enough to sim it, drama well enough to create it, games well enough to write them, stats well enough to understand them... how plausible is all this, really?

All this, and I feel multiple perspectives are a good thing in their own right. I was just wondering how committed everyone was to the "I wrote it, every last frickin' word" which is the status quo; have we been doing that because there was no-one local to talk to, or because only one person can execute the vision? If there are now people to talk to, can we farm out roles as we might if a company? Can RPG-design be piece-work?

contracycle wrote: Part of the goal would be, in that scenario, seeing if my understanding were correct. I would need to be able to explain it such that it makes sense; if my model didn't make sense, and no-one could write a game for it, I'd be in trouble whatever happened.

All this, and I feel multiple perspectives are a good thing in their own right. I was just wondering how committed everyone was to the "I wrote it, every last frickin' word" which is the status quo; have we been doing that because there was no-one local to talk to, or because only one person can execute the vision? If there are now people to talk to, can we farm out roles as we might if a company? Can RPG-design be piece-work?