Started by Ron Edwards, January 15, 2011, 11:51:43 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 15, 2011, 11:51:43 PMI'm merely making a writing style point, but a designer attitude point. My take is that one does best to design for people who already get it . . .
QuoteI'm also happy to go point by point through your suggestions, and detail why I did what I did in each case, to search for bad practices, if you think that'd be more fun/productive/doable.
QuoteMy approach was to ask "what do I want to reward people for?" and then "what minimum ingredients do people need before they can do that?" plus, finally, "what's a simple structure for doing it over and over and then finding a good stopping point?"I wonder whether that's a stupid way to approach a game design, or whether I just didn't execute it well. I would love to have a conversation about that if you're up for it and think this game would make a good case study.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 17, 2011, 10:31:24 PMHere's the logic behind my suggestions: spreading out the "information of play" across the different ways to establish such information. A hell of a lot of it was pre-play lists, then choosing from those lists, as well as certain redundant points. I simply cleared out some redundancy and moved some of the pre-play information into immediate situational prep and during-session improv.
QuoteI'll just need the right spatial arrangement, so that the Element at top left can be connected to the Element at bottom right without cutting through all the Elements in between and making a big mess of things. Ugh. Any thoughts on that?