tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post114238419000914523..comments2023-09-28T07:23:51.376-07:00Comments on ProjectPerko: Who needs players? Who needs GMs?Craig Perkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142483311178794552006-03-15T20:28:00.000-08:002006-03-15T20:28:00.000-08:00Errr... no guarantee that it'll work for anyone, o...Errr... no guarantee that it'll work for anyone, of course. It's never been run before, although I'll give it a shot starting Friday.<BR/><BR/>It might work well as a GDC metagame, I suppose. It's that kind of a game.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142483252924151362006-03-15T20:27:00.000-08:002006-03-15T20:27:00.000-08:00Hmmm... bits of your statement are hot, bits of yo...Hmmm... bits of your statement are hot, bits of your statement are icy cold.<BR/><BR/>Remember, this is primarily a <I>social</I> game.<BR/><BR/>I will, of course, be sharing the rules for free once I finish them. Which, hopefully, will be tomorrow. They're not exactly complex.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142481852555540772006-03-15T20:04:00.000-08:002006-03-15T20:04:00.000-08:00I'm not saying people fit squarely into four pigeo...I'm not saying people fit squarely into four pigeonholes, but rather individual play styles are made up of varying ratios of those four styles. And even that isn't an absolute dogma, just a bit of theory that might prove interesting in practice. <BR/><BR/>But if you've got an atomic implication of that kind of range, than its probably the same ticket. The idea is that novelty (which lends itself to collaboration) and conflict (the oppoiste) are both balanced by agencies effecting positive and negative feedback, and thus the player's roles compliment each other and perpetuate the content. Style is a variable in this scheme. <BR/><BR/>Am I hot or cold?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13614962832390315553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142479335557889672006-03-15T19:22:00.000-08:002006-03-15T19:22:00.000-08:00Well, I disagree vehemently with the "four kinds o...Well, I disagree vehemently with the "four kinds of player" model, so, no, that's not what I'm using.<BR/><BR/>To be specific, I made a game, then I cut until it was its core components. Upon thinking about it, I found that all the play types were incorporated in those core rules.<BR/><BR/>However, I have some... doubts. We'll see if it works out.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142463630996520112006-03-15T15:00:00.000-08:002006-03-15T15:00:00.000-08:00"I also have a type of gameplay you don't have. :D..."I also have a type of gameplay you don't have. :D"<BR/><BR/>My interence of which synchs nicely with my intended comment. Connecting play loops or modes together into an overall loop is a good idea, and implies that competetive play cannot be the primary play loop, only one of the constituent loops. Regardless of the context of your game's world, I would imagine four basic loops consisting of Conqueror (i.e. the general), Manager (i.e. a governor), Explorer (i.e. a scientist who "researches" new game elements) and mimic (i.e. the artist who plays the social dynamics of the other players and the in-game NPCs). These types synch with Bateman's catalogue of different play styles. <BR/><BR/>This supra-loop allows every player to be the "main character" and is self-perpetuating in that the Conqueror inclines to introduces positive feedback to the conflict, the Manager introduces negative feedback to the conflict, the Explorer brings positive feedback to the novelty which frames and/or fills the conflict, and the Mimic/Participant brings negative feedback to the novelty, essentailly giving new innovations "cultural" normalization. The term for the last play style isn't great, but you see what I'm saying hopefully.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13614962832390315553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142444148568764012006-03-15T09:35:00.000-08:002006-03-15T09:35:00.000-08:00Feeeed me, Seymour!I'll look into it, thanks.Feeeed me, Seymour!<BR/><BR/>I'll look into it, thanks.Craig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142441688178771752006-03-15T08:54:00.000-08:002006-03-15T08:54:00.000-08:00What, I need to do everything? Fine, here's the f...What, I need to do everything? Fine, here's the faq (linked off the main page):<BR/><BR/>http://www.nprime.net/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000299<BR/><BR/>The end result is that it's a giant player-generated-story-content machine. If you doubt how well it works, go to the Aberrant Fiction topic, and look at the amount of text generated in the past moth alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142440853994275912006-03-15T08:40:00.000-08:002006-03-15T08:40:00.000-08:00You linked me to a forum, not a faq or a rule set....You linked me to a forum, not a faq or a rule set. :P<BR/><BR/>Yeah, my game idea has some elements of player voting in it, as well. It'll be fun to compare. :D<BR/><BR/>I also have a type of gameplay you don't have. :DCraig Perkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173752470581218239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758224.post-1142433191206504992006-03-15T06:33:00.000-08:002006-03-15T06:33:00.000-08:00Ooh, a challenge. Good.First off, check out here:...Ooh, a challenge. Good.<BR/><BR/>First off, check out here:<BR/>http://www.nprime.net/forum/ultimatebb.php<BR/><BR/>It fits what you described EXACTLY, save for the fact that you need a few things to start (the Aberrant system rulebooks are a big help, and a 'net connection is a must, but other than that, pretty much as you described).<BR/><BR/>So, taking your requirements fully to heart, we should look at the kind of games that can fit into your rules.<BR/><BR/><B>1) Game can be carried around in back pocket.</B><BR/><B>2) Game can be played without dice or other contraptions.</B><BR/><BR/>OK, so we're limiting ourselves to paper, pencil, and player action. IOW, a larp, or possibly a diceless pen&paper game.<BR/><BR/><B>3) Game rewards long playing.</B><BR/><BR/>So every time you play, you should get something. But this 'something' needs to be obtainable <I>without</I> GM permission.<BR/><BR/><B>4) Less experienced players not made to face more experienced players directly except by choice.</B><BR/><BR/>This can be accomplished through system or plot, but I think a simple rule of 'you get no benefit from defeating someone less powerful than you' would be sufficient for this, and can be built into just about any system. Preventing griefing is more difficult, though, and would require much stronger rules. Instead, you would be better served by allowing it to happen, and kicking players out of the game when it does (requires minimal GM interference, as long as the punishment is noted in advance of the game. Also assumes a small (100 or less per GM) player base).<BR/><BR/><B>5) Three or four very different play types to address different player types.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm assuming you mean primary modes of play, rather than mini-games within a single 'more important' story. In this case, you'll want to have the interpersonal (role playing), the logistical (strategic play), and the tactical (roll playing) be independent 'games'. Thus you can satisfy each of the primary player archetypes individually in their own field of expertise, or in several.<BR/><BR/><B>6) Resonance between different play types, echoes between game types.</B><BR/><BR/>Here we start to get challenging. Building on my last assumption, we would have to allow good role playing to have an effect on both the logistics, and the mechanics, of the game. And vice versa.<BR/><BR/><B>7) Very minor GM intervention.</B><BR/><BR/>Not impossible, but this makes everything harder. With a GM to mediate, we could have a very flexible system. Without, we have one of two things: Either a very rigid and in-depth system that needs to take everything into account, or a player-democracy. I'm going to go with the latter, as the former merely places all of the work of the game in advance of the game, while the latter shifts the work of the game to the players.<BR/><BR/><B>8) Much opportunity for player innovation and invention.</B><BR/><BR/>Is built into the very idea of a player democracy.<BR/><BR/>So, there's the idea. Have a system based around the players' voting. If I've got time later, I'll come up with a suitable example system based on that idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com