Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by clehrich, February 16, 2005, 05:14:18 PM
Quote from: clehrichAnyone actually get this far? Responses? Questions? New applications and suggestions?
Quote from: Eero TuovinenOne question people will probably have concerns the desirability of the bricolage effect. We're many of us designers here, and there's really deep roots to what that means. Bricolage easily becomes the antimatter of rpg design, and much of what we think of as good design - unified rules systems, flexible and covering techniques - is very much about bricolage control. They're there to ensure that bricolage does not and need not happen.
QuoteThe question is: considering the difference between how bricolage happens in AD&D and SitF, for instance, is it a desirable effect in the former? The latter uses the effect intentionally, but for AD&D it's not nearly so clear-cut.
Quote from: Clinton R. NixonFirst, great job. This is exactly the sort of article I've been wanting to see.
QuoteSo, you've reassured me on my design aesthetic, which is (to me) a good thing. See, all the games I design have these huge gaping holes in them where I'm really thinking "This sort of thing right here is usually established as a hack by the game group anyway, so let them go ahead and do that." In The Shadow of Yesterday, there's a good example: the range of actions taken within one intention, and the specific-ness required in a stated intention. Of course, I release the game and someone immediately says, "Hey, what about that?" and I feel like a schmuck.
Quote from: CPXBSee, this is precisely the sort of thing I mentioned in the "too much theory" thread. I was reading it and just when I was a little bit into it, I found myself wanting to talk not about gaming but about philosophy, and the interpretations that Chris uses.To talk about the gaming part of his post, then, requires me to accept his theoretical postulates, which I don't. So I can't really talk about what he is talking about without talking about something that is not gaming. To enter into his discussion about bricolage and gaming I have to accept his various interpretations. If I don't accept his interpretations, to discuss them moves the conversation away from gaming.I see this as a system of control. The front end of the discussion is padded with a lot of authority based ramblings that one must accept in order to talk about the gaming part of the post.
Quote from: JereI think you need to take some session transcripts (or just actual plays) and apply the ideas here to them. I hink some mroe practical application would be valuable.
Quote from: clehrichThe other way seems to me to follow Champions's lead rather farther, which is what I've tried to do with Shadows in the Fog. What's needed is deliberate ambiguity. You need some bits in there, which are clearly powerful and important, that are sufficiently constrained that people don't say, "Um, I have no idea how to use this at all," but are sufficiently open that players can readily bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate. You also need a system that, in its mechanical and rhetorical design, makes clear that such mucking about is intrinsic to play. This is what I've tried to do with Interpretation as a core rule.
Quote from: clehrichAny GoO players out there want to pitch in with examples of what this beast actually ran like? I just love the fact that you've got 208 pages of dense mechanics that don't quite explain things clearly, and it's billed as "rules-lite." :)