no subject provided.
One of the things I've come to realize is that I really need some negative spaces. Periods of silence, reflection, aloneness, whatever. I don't need only those and they don't have to be super dramatic; on the Japan CHP trip they would often take the form of listening to a song or two by myself before falling asleep. But those moments are really important.
At the same time I've sort of trained myself to see those times as "dead space" that can be filled with other things; new ideas or media or whatever. Sometimes it is important just to have the long walk that has no real purpose.
***
Some very good designers have explained that they got started because no one was making the games that they wanted to play. That's awesome and I love the games that have come out of that mindset.
But for me - there are a lot of games out there already that I want to play. More than I can, in fact. So while I enjoy tweaking mechanics and thinking about them, I can't say that there's any real lack of the games that I want to play. While there is a definite attitude in places like SA's traditional games forum or from the impression you get listening to designers' podcasts, I don't think there's any real need for me to do that. Lucky me! I can spend more time playing all these great games and trying to fine-tune my own campaigns.
I do think that I've finally jumped one of the game design hurdles and that is overly conflating genre and system. Now, this is complicated by the fact that a lot of indie designers write systems to fit a certain genre, but that did not used to be the case.
So where I used to think "complex nested mechanics = fantasy" and "streamlined mechanics = horror/mystery" I have finally seen that this is not necessarily the case. It often is but a lot of that comes down to the deformation of people's expectations due to D&D's massive gravity.
I think it was partly that association that got me so into World of Darkness, but it was also the really fascinating nature of the game world. It was only later, after much closer scrutiny, that I discovered that the rules didn't really fit what I needed them to do. And that, in a lot of cases, neither did the metaplot - as interesting as it could be to read. A bit of a lesson there about going full collector on something or buying too much into the culture of games as discussion material rather than something you actually, you know, play. (I think this is a ridiculously common trend in role-playing communities and especially in the WW sphere.)
So anyways, while I absolutely do enjoy Lovecraftian horror, I've started to think that part of the appeal of CoC D20 was the simpler rules and not having to deal with all that supplement bloat. Because, obviously, I still really love fantasy and running fantasy type games. I was just scared off by the 3.5 framework, and I don't think anyone can be especially blamed for that.
It's relevant because I am trying to think a lot harder about what games or supplements I want to pick up this year. I've tried to cut down significantly; it has helped that some of the initial mad flood of kickstarters has slowed down a lot as people work to actually fulfill these mad dreams that they sold in the past.
I think that, most likely, after Pirates! wraps up I will run another fantasy game if people are still interested. Maybe something like 13th Age, Apocalypse World: Dark Ages, or Burning Wheel. All games I'd really like to stress-test, though of course I have a longer list of stuff I'd like to try or play at some point or another.
There are other days when I light up with ideas for Delta Green or Trail of Cthulhu (especially Book Hounds of London) but I think that it's harder for me to maintain that particular mood/idiom. Plus I do tend to over-identify with my gaming stuff, so getting too much into the nihilism of cosmic horror without something else to balance it out can be problematic. And while I enjoy reading Lovecraft's mad science tales, I honestly cannot internalize the idea that seeking more knowledge is a fundamentally self-destructive and doomed act. It really goes against my own grain at a fundamental level.
When it comes to the personal identification side, well, sometimes I still feel like I'm hiding a certain immaturity. Like, aren't you a little old to be inventing secret cultures for tieflings? I don't really have an answer except to say that it makes me happy and that I feel there's an element of escapism, favoritism, or nostalgia in a whole lot of hobbies and it's not just me.
***
I saw a (very good) Extra Credits video on introducing complexity in fighting games, since most players never really come close to appreciating high level play. I thought it was very interesting because the same problems crop up in both science and RPGs. Of the games I mentioned above, both 13th Age and Burning Wheel are a bit higher on the complexity scale. I still think they could be rewarding, but, well, it's often a matter of presenting the information in manageable chunks.
Computer RPGs (especially jRPGs) do this, dribbling out the stuff you need over the course of the game. Pen and Paper RPGs have this brilliant framework for it in the level system, where they could make sure that the more esoteric stuff (like grappling, for a 3.0 D&D example) doesn't come up until later levels instead of utterly deluging the beginning player.
In fact, that's closer to how I understand the first D&D games were set-up. But 3rd ed really fucked this up by including the whole idea of system mastery and trap options; suddenly the game started punishing you for trying to learn it in play.
That's one of the things that I think game design needs to get as far away from as it can. Break stuff into manageable, organized chunks; don't try to cram 600 pages of exceptions into a new player's brain all at once.
***
When I talked to Pat last weekend, I asked him if he could believe it had been ten years since we finished high school.
His answer, roughly was this, "Only ten years? It feels longer than that. Think how much things have changed since then."
I think, at least for him and me, that's true. I think we've tried to change and I think we have. So it's a very good answer to a fairly banal question.
At the same time I've sort of trained myself to see those times as "dead space" that can be filled with other things; new ideas or media or whatever. Sometimes it is important just to have the long walk that has no real purpose.
***
Some very good designers have explained that they got started because no one was making the games that they wanted to play. That's awesome and I love the games that have come out of that mindset.
But for me - there are a lot of games out there already that I want to play. More than I can, in fact. So while I enjoy tweaking mechanics and thinking about them, I can't say that there's any real lack of the games that I want to play. While there is a definite attitude in places like SA's traditional games forum or from the impression you get listening to designers' podcasts, I don't think there's any real need for me to do that. Lucky me! I can spend more time playing all these great games and trying to fine-tune my own campaigns.
I do think that I've finally jumped one of the game design hurdles and that is overly conflating genre and system. Now, this is complicated by the fact that a lot of indie designers write systems to fit a certain genre, but that did not used to be the case.
So where I used to think "complex nested mechanics = fantasy" and "streamlined mechanics = horror/mystery" I have finally seen that this is not necessarily the case. It often is but a lot of that comes down to the deformation of people's expectations due to D&D's massive gravity.
I think it was partly that association that got me so into World of Darkness, but it was also the really fascinating nature of the game world. It was only later, after much closer scrutiny, that I discovered that the rules didn't really fit what I needed them to do. And that, in a lot of cases, neither did the metaplot - as interesting as it could be to read. A bit of a lesson there about going full collector on something or buying too much into the culture of games as discussion material rather than something you actually, you know, play. (I think this is a ridiculously common trend in role-playing communities and especially in the WW sphere.)
So anyways, while I absolutely do enjoy Lovecraftian horror, I've started to think that part of the appeal of CoC D20 was the simpler rules and not having to deal with all that supplement bloat. Because, obviously, I still really love fantasy and running fantasy type games. I was just scared off by the 3.5 framework, and I don't think anyone can be especially blamed for that.
It's relevant because I am trying to think a lot harder about what games or supplements I want to pick up this year. I've tried to cut down significantly; it has helped that some of the initial mad flood of kickstarters has slowed down a lot as people work to actually fulfill these mad dreams that they sold in the past.
I think that, most likely, after Pirates! wraps up I will run another fantasy game if people are still interested. Maybe something like 13th Age, Apocalypse World: Dark Ages, or Burning Wheel. All games I'd really like to stress-test, though of course I have a longer list of stuff I'd like to try or play at some point or another.
There are other days when I light up with ideas for Delta Green or Trail of Cthulhu (especially Book Hounds of London) but I think that it's harder for me to maintain that particular mood/idiom. Plus I do tend to over-identify with my gaming stuff, so getting too much into the nihilism of cosmic horror without something else to balance it out can be problematic. And while I enjoy reading Lovecraft's mad science tales, I honestly cannot internalize the idea that seeking more knowledge is a fundamentally self-destructive and doomed act. It really goes against my own grain at a fundamental level.
When it comes to the personal identification side, well, sometimes I still feel like I'm hiding a certain immaturity. Like, aren't you a little old to be inventing secret cultures for tieflings? I don't really have an answer except to say that it makes me happy and that I feel there's an element of escapism, favoritism, or nostalgia in a whole lot of hobbies and it's not just me.
***
I saw a (very good) Extra Credits video on introducing complexity in fighting games, since most players never really come close to appreciating high level play. I thought it was very interesting because the same problems crop up in both science and RPGs. Of the games I mentioned above, both 13th Age and Burning Wheel are a bit higher on the complexity scale. I still think they could be rewarding, but, well, it's often a matter of presenting the information in manageable chunks.
Computer RPGs (especially jRPGs) do this, dribbling out the stuff you need over the course of the game. Pen and Paper RPGs have this brilliant framework for it in the level system, where they could make sure that the more esoteric stuff (like grappling, for a 3.0 D&D example) doesn't come up until later levels instead of utterly deluging the beginning player.
In fact, that's closer to how I understand the first D&D games were set-up. But 3rd ed really fucked this up by including the whole idea of system mastery and trap options; suddenly the game started punishing you for trying to learn it in play.
That's one of the things that I think game design needs to get as far away from as it can. Break stuff into manageable, organized chunks; don't try to cram 600 pages of exceptions into a new player's brain all at once.
***
When I talked to Pat last weekend, I asked him if he could believe it had been ten years since we finished high school.
His answer, roughly was this, "Only ten years? It feels longer than that. Think how much things have changed since then."
I think, at least for him and me, that's true. I think we've tried to change and I think we have. So it's a very good answer to a fairly banal question.