Started by Callan S., July 06, 2009, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: Callan S. on July 12, 2009, 01:42:22 AMQuoteI'm not sure I agree; people re-purpose things all the timeI'm talking about game authors and their design goals (specifically how a certain pair compromise each other to no benefit) - specifically about making new designs and how drawing from the old idea of baking art into mechanics might be a bad idea to learn and practice. End users taking the product and using it for some other purpose isn't an issue here
QuoteI'm not sure I agree; people re-purpose things all the time
Quote from: Callan S. on July 12, 2009, 08:01:32 PMI think you've looked past the design goal of it being a group activity (people get mostly the same amount of turns) and your looking at forfilling 'player experience' or as you directly put it latter, immersion. It seems to be just ignoring the original design goal of it being a group activity and looking at another goal entirely (player experience) instead, and your point is based on whether player experience is forfilled?
Quote from: otspiii on July 12, 2009, 08:29:54 PMQuote from: Callan S. on July 12, 2009, 08:01:32 PMI think you've looked past the design goal of it being a group activity (people get mostly the same amount of turns) and your looking at forfilling 'player experience' or as you directly put it latter, immersion. It seems to be just ignoring the original design goal of it being a group activity and looking at another goal entirely (player experience) instead, and your point is based on whether player experience is forfilled?Wouldn't the group aspect be a part of the individual experience? Multiple individual experiences and the way they interact with each other are the building blocks of any group activity. I only touched on it briefly and indirectly with the bit about favoring one person's experience over another's by letting one player take a bunch more turns, but it's just one of the uncountable different considerations you have to make when designing a game experience. You do have a good point in that it's, by far, one of the most important ones, though.I'd say that it's more than just immersion, though. It's a sort of mix of immersion and creative agenda. What emotions/ideas do you want to inspire/explore with your game? I was confused at first by your use of the word 'art' because that's the definition of art I use in my mind: any form of expression that communicates an emotion or idea through indirect means. I see things like the fiction just being a tool you use to help that emotion or idea connect to your audience better, not as being the art itself. I'm not calling your definition wrong, though. It's one of those horrible words where everyone takes it to mean a different thing. I had figured out what you meant by the end of your post, so there's no need to worry over semantics.
Quote from: Callan S. on July 12, 2009, 08:01:32 PMI'm talking about having a design goal of making a group activity. I'm not talking about having that as a design goal and then for some reason repurposing it?
Quote from: Danny2050 on July 13, 2009, 01:37:50 AMAnyway, my point is, the mechanic is aimed at group interaction. There are times during play where individual effort and experience is highlighted, but short lived so 80% of the game is group time, with lots of interaction and negotiating.
Quote from: Callan S. on July 14, 2009, 06:42:53 PMWell, in terms of the title, I've refered to the general idea amongst roleplay culture as a whole. Certainly many traditional games seem to include art in the structure of their mechanics, typically the combat rules.To me, group activity means everyone just gets a turn. For myself I'm okay with some fluctuation - perhaps someone gets 10% more turns overall, in the game.The thing is, I've refered to the idea of a group activity, roughly how I've described it here, as if it's one that is pursued in roleplay design culture on a general basis. I've sort of made that assumption because...well, roleplay is a group activity? Am I wrong and no one else carries this as a design goal? That would seem...conflicting? Also if it's the case, it means my thread title doesn't make much of a point given that it's pitting something off against a design goal nobody actually shares.
Quote from: Callan S. on July 14, 2009, 08:21:23 PMMisha, I think if it's not a 'larger goal' (as you put it), then you don't have it as a design goal (as I'd put it). Your coming to this thread with an entirely different set of priorities than myself (I say as the original poster and guide of what the thread talks about)Even on art and fiction, we don't seem to match - how you've divorced fiction as a delivery tool rather than being art delivering yet more art, I don't know. But we don't seem to match here, either.I'll totally grant perhaps I have some alien set of priorities that I've brought here that I've assumed most other people shared. But this thread is much like the premise of the impossible thing before breakfast idea - that base premise being if you have A as a goal and B as a goal, they just don't go together. In terms of this thread, if you don't have A and B as goals/priorities, then the thread doesn't address you, as far as I can see?