Rule Zero and Perceptual Slip

Check this out

The initial claim was that, if you want the game to work, if you want it to be a complete, functional entity, Rule Zero is required.

So, assuming that continued, enjoyable function of the game is the primary reason for rules to exist, then they’re best served by having a Rule Zero, because without that one rule, the rest of the rules do not achieve their goal in the case of Exalted. Functionality is absolutely a requirement of a complete game system.

Read the rest of the post.

It had me going for awhile while having the sense of wrong in the back of my head.

The wrong is in the initial expectation – who is to provide the ‘complete’ game?

I like to think I follow a very common trend in that the person who made the product supplies all of the product.

However, what if you blur the desire of wanting a complete game? Blur it so much that you want a complete game – no matter who makes it complete? And oh look, here’s rule zero – and ‘I want a complete game’ and hey, I’ll use rule zero and hey look, you need rule zero if you want a complete game.

Except it’s not ‘want a complete game’ in any sort of standard, day to day sense. It’s ‘want a complete game’ in a sort of burning desire, do whatever it takes, doesn’t matter who does it just get it done, way.

I see this sort of…issue(?) around alot. I wonder if I’ve broken into the unconcious part of it this time?

Short update

Few,  it’s been awhile since I posted here.

I think with my other blog, as the readily apparent monetized content ideas started to run out I switched to using it more as a personal blog…and so I didn’t bring my more personal things here.

So,  does anyone know of a good blog listing service?

On to development – currently I’m looking more toward actual fiscal return, if you didn’t already guess. This is less about trying to get a ‘good’ design and instead something that greases the wheels of income. It grants a distance that leads to an interesting perspective – for all the roleplayer designers who will go on about how awesome this or that game is, none of it comes down to any real fiscal traction in the real world. What is a ‘good’ game, how can I make one and sell it to you?

Oh, RP designers will answer and talk and waffle on and on – they love having you by the ear cause you need this. But really, seemingly, all they want to do is talk about what is a ‘good’ game – they don’t want to play a good game or buy one, they want to talk and talk and talk.

That’s the perspective I gained from looking at fiscal systems rather than RP systems – RP designers only want to talk about what’s good. They don’t want to give any concrete examples, it’s all left in handwavery vagueness which, if you ask about it, of course, involves more talk. And more talk. It just ends up a talk trap that goes nowhere concrete.

I suppose that’s not even a bad thing in itself, if they don’t want to go anywhere concrete – it’s just the acting as if they are in the process of making something real, that’s the issue.

Of course the general audience for things outside RP, is actually pretty nacisitic, with each individual confusing their own preferences for ‘how to do things’, thus it’s a completely unnurturing environment out there for discovering your own path – one of the reasons I blundered into talk traps, I guess.

I’ve got some ideas for what might be called the survivalist creator, I’ll see if I can line some up for those of you in a similar position to myself, some time in the future. Probably duplicate posts on both my blogs.

Oh, and I have a web comic called dungeons and abstractions! I find it amusing, and I don’t think I’m a unique snowflake!

Who loves zombies!?

I’ve put up some screen shots on my monetized blog (yes, yes, I want some revenue…checking it out helps a fellow game designer – and if you want the favour returned, leave a comment with your blog/site and I’ll check it out in return :) )

http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-loves-zombies.html

In terms of dependable income, game design isn’t really fair

On my other blog I’ve raised a point comparing the selling of food and the selling of games, and how people always expect the same food and are fine with that. And because of that someone can get a dependable income from growing food. But with games, they alway want something new – and this negates any dependability from game design.

Here’s the link

http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-terms-of-dependable-income-game.html

Imaginative workouts don’t happen unless you let something press on your imagination

From the forge, and as it’s quoting my post, context takes a moment to kick in.

Whoa, Jaakko, a ’should’ slipped in from somewhere and I think Marshall took it up too. I’ve described that I think imagination in a group becomes harmoginised and stagnant and for myself, I look for rules that fuck up that harmoginisation, for the new ways we go when were can’t do the very first thing that comes to our imagination. It’s not a matter of should, it’s a matter that when imagination is in charge of whether rules are followed, that harmoginisation pretty much remains perfectly intact. Perhaps I’m wrong about the whole harmoginisation thing, but I take it to be true and I’m pretty much over games where imagination comes first and foremost/imagination controls whether rules are followed. That’s me. Now I’m assuming something about 3:16 prompted or encouraged Marshall to simply do as imagination dictated (he does mention above that ‘the rules say to award Effectiveness’). If not and he did it off his own bat, well I’ll still go with my first comment – if the nuke thing had been within the rule structure, I admire the art made and skill it took to make it/to fit imagination within a rules construct. But just ignoring rules makes me go ‘Uegh’, mostly out of anticipating something else and not getting it at all. Not that that matters a great deal, I was just expressing my hope (that’s why my posts were small, as it’s not a terribly important subject)

Marshall, the above might explain me better, because force shmorce, my positions not about force. But taking your high ground example…what I’d like to see is when everyone including the GM think he’s on higher ground and want to give the bonus, but can’t as the rules stop them from doing so! How does their imagination get around that, aye? There’s a bit of an imagination workout, stretching the imagination from the usual harmoginsed group way of thinking into a direction they, without the game, would not have gone. But then uegh…ignore the rule because clearly blah blah subtext imagination first blah blah. Ie, No work out (ugh…okay, to dilute my point but be pedantically accurate – in this particular instance (perhaps not in the rest of play), no work out).

Quote = Marshall
But, really, fucking with the kill economy doesn?t hurt anything. It doesn?t matter when people level up, get promoted, get demoted, only that it happens. The when and why become fodder for the playgroup, as they turn it into bonafide elements of Situation (and especially Conflict), which they can and will do, all by themselves.

Well, as I’ve basically said above, I’d like to see the kill economy fucking with your imaginations, rather than the other way around. Okay, you’ve worked this nuke into the fiction and it’s gone off, with the apparent idea of massive devistation. But hey, let’s say the kill economy fucks with your imagination instead – how do you fit your imagination into the kill economy? How can you fit this nuke explosion in somehow WITHOUT breaking the rules structure? That’s the imaginative hurdle/hundred kilogram imaginative weights to work out with.

But hey, if the author wrote it with the vibe (or however you might put it) that you ignore the rules at that point, hey, your playing right. I just already own games like that. For myself it’s not enough anymore. I’m basically just expressing my hope for what products are available, when I’ve responded in this thread.

Reddit – another echochamber?

It struck me that reddit offers no return for posting links on it, unless your harmoginised with the mindset already there. It’s an echochamber – if you don’t think like them, you don’t get traffic – so people who don’t match their mindset either leave or start to conform to it. Thus it’s a bunch of people self confirming each other. Sure, perhaps it blocks out spammers. But it also blocks out challenging thought in the process.

My actual gripe is that this isn’t upfront. If they said they are a big ass echochamber from the start, well, okay, it’s their lives. But no, they seem accessable instead, which is pretty false, as either you conform to their mindset, or GTFO. A bait and switch. Reddit…into the bin!

Designing strictly for yourself makes more sense, even in games design?

I was thinking just this very moment, whether it’s possible to get trapped in a mindset of making a group activity (and I think I might have posted about something like this before)

Take this for example – if you just made things to amuse yourself, like drawings, well, they amuse you and your productive, you make them. Now potentially at some point you might be able to take what you’ve made, or your own now developed and skilled capacity to make some money from that.

BUT if your trying to make a game and you take that to be something other people are to play and not just yourself (and how many game designers design just for their own play? Few, especially compared to the number of artists who draw for their own pleasure), well, then your stuck in terms of making some money!

Because all that time you’ve been striving to make this stuff accessable to other people already. Unlike the artist who has been producing many works and honing his skills, all the while having fun, you’ve been chasing after accessability to other people. Instead of holding back a product until an echange of some goods/money has occured,you’ve been chasing after plays and trying to give, give, give.

I dunno, I’m trying to grope at something where basically I need another person in order to forfil this creative activity – which, without such, the production of material and increase is tons slower than if I was doing a creative activity where I just need myself (like the drawing).

I think I haven’t been selfish enough. Recently I’ve been trying to get more monetized and of course that involves some more selfishness, and that made the idea of just making a game to fit my own desires come across my mind. And the contrast is deep! I can even, if only just, feel the entire feedback loop of creation and completion, and how it’d just be far more rewarding.

Eh, something I’m thinking about, anyway.

Backyard green talk

There’s something really satisfying about pulling 2kg of very fresh potatoes out of the ground. I looked it up on coles online and they are around $2 a kilo…$3 for the fancier ones. I like to rate these as fancier, because they are incredibly fresh, of course. Know what it’s like to find a $5 note on the ground? This is like finding $6 in the back yard :)

Yeah, I know, I should really look at how long it took to grow them, and yeah, I didn’t write down when I put them in. It has taken awhile for that $6 to happen. But still, it’s encouraging!

And yeah, I kind of sound like my monetized blog right now, talking the numbers. But I’m chuffed, and those are the terms that come to mind :)

No story? Or did you forget what you did?

MMO crunch asks is borderlands a mmog, and in doing so asks if there is a story http://www.mmocrunch.com/2009/11/09/is-borderlands-a-mmog/

This is what I had to say in short:

In terms of story, I always look at gamers who expect to read a story in an interactive medium and think “Wha!?”. It’s an interactive medium – YOU make the story.

What I would grant is that these games, not at all right now, have any tools to record player actions and layout a story (or atleast a log of cool events). So it’s easy to forget the story you just made.

I wrote more on my other blog

« Older entries