Crashing into Intercon
Very excited for Intercon this weekend, but due to the various committments in my life, I'm unfortunately going to be a bit stressed about the time I'm not getting things done. Over-committed is of course my typical state, but I've taken on certain things recently out of necessity even though I didn't particularly want to. I'm costuming a production of Tartuffe that opens the weekend after this one, which is a nice experience and normally I'm very happy to do this sort of job, but I'm busy enough that I probably wouldn't have gone for it if I didn't really badly need the money. It's not super-convenient for that to be away all weekend for Intercon, but I'm just going to have to deal. :-P Also, for the first time ever, I have elected to not get a hotel room, in the interest of economizing. I hope this isn't a huge pain, but I really can't swing it this year.
It turns out that due to a crisis his family is dealing with, Bernie isn't available to come up this weekend to help me run Brockhurst. bronzite is kindly stepping in to take his place, for which I am very grateful. It is mostly unedited from the original version. This will be only the second run ever of Brockhurst, and I've always believed you need at least two goes-through to decide if your design is functional. One player may have an unusual experience, making a given design choice succeed or fail, but if it happens to two or more, than you can make a pretty accurate assessment. The first run in particular seemed plagued by outside problems that I think were a factor in how people experienced the game, and I'd love to see how things go in the absense of that. At the very least, two data points should provide a better metric of what's working and what needs addressing when I seriously edit.
It turns out that due to a crisis his family is dealing with, Bernie isn't available to come up this weekend to help me run Brockhurst. bronzite is kindly stepping in to take his place, for which I am very grateful. It is mostly unedited from the original version. This will be only the second run ever of Brockhurst, and I've always believed you need at least two goes-through to decide if your design is functional. One player may have an unusual experience, making a given design choice succeed or fail, but if it happens to two or more, than you can make a pretty accurate assessment. The first run in particular seemed plagued by outside problems that I think were a factor in how people experienced the game, and I'd love to see how things go in the absense of that. At the very least, two data points should provide a better metric of what's working and what needs addressing when I seriously edit.