In questi tempi di blog che chiudono, viene voglia di salvare da qualche parte i post migliori. Non che si possa fare per tutti, ma almeno per alcuni...
Questo è un
post che Paul Czege ha postato nel suo
blog in aprile. Parla dei motivi per cui ha scritto il gioco, e di altro. Sono due post, li copio-incollo tali e quali, e poi aggiungo una mia domanda a commento e la risposta di Paul.
In the Clutches of a Game Design -- 04/15/2008I used to say I created My Life with Master to show other designers the kind of games I'd be excited to see from them as a consumer. Of late I've realized that's only part of the reason, and that myself I didn't even understand what exactly I was trying to "show". And as a result I've started to understand why I've kept designing games.
If you file the serial numbers off of My Life with Master, and then keep filing until all that's left is the underlying framework, you find a social structure for collaboratively creating a story that relies on: shared creation of antagonism, to be managed in play by the GM; conflict resolution, based on a few thematically meaningful character stats that fluctuate with each and every conflict outcome and manage progress toward story closure; and an institutionalized preservation of the protagonism of player character.
Now take a look around. Take some recent games and file them down to the framework, and you find shared creation of antagonism, conflict resolution built from a small knot of thematically relevant character stats that fluctuate with every conflict, etc. You find what's effectively the same architecture of collaboration, transported to new themes.
So, mission accomplished, right? Time to retire.
But damn if I haven't been dug in on Acts of Evil for all I'm worth since early 2005. I spent the better part of a year working on a game called Soul of Man prior to Acts of Evil, and then put it on the shelf after alpha playtesting. But Acts of Evil has had me in its clutches for three fucking years!
Why?
(Enjoy psychoanalyzing me in the comments if you're so inclined. I'll hold off on what I've realized until tomorrow.)
In the Clutches of a Game Design (part two) -- 04/17/2008In The Sorcerer's Soul Ron suggests playing a game of Sorcerer, and then playing a second game, this time among the prior generation of characters, and which results in the situation that was dealt with by the characters in the first game. When I read that suggestion I asked him how it played. And he said he didn't know. That he'd never done it.
Recently, for only the second time ever, I had the experience of playing My Life with Master, as a minion, rather than running it. My wife Danielle ran the game. So in that game there's this scene where I'm wanting the Sincerity die and I'm roleplaying for it. And Danielle says, "If you want the Sincerity die you're going to have to do better than that." So I close my eyes and think for a bit, and then I come back with more passion, and more intensity. And she gives me the die.
What I've realized is that I designed My Life with Master to do that.
Honestly, I don't think I'm a very good player. I tend to create emotionally repressed characters who aren't particularly interesting for other players to watch. Yes, if the GM does everything right with his or her delivery of antagonism to my character, for maybe three sessions, everything, then my character explodes into dramatic protagonism. And it has happened. Once. Usually the GM doesn't do everything right, and my character fizzles, or rather, remains...unaccessed.
I designed My Life with Master to stretch me as a player, to train me where my skills are weak. And as a GM too. The whole group gives me, as GM, a challenge of delivering meaningful antagonism through the concept of Master they create, stretching the range of my creativity.
Bacchanal teaches me to create narrative that holds the interest of the other players using uncommon content. And in current local Acts of Evil playtesting I've realized the game is a crash course for the GM (with a player feedback loop) in creating interesting NPCs.
What I've realized is that I design games, at least in part, from an awareness of my own creative weaknesses and a desire to move through them. And I think then my games are compelling to folks who share my creative desires. Acts of Evil still has me in its clutches (in a way that Nicotine Girls doesn't), because it still has something to teach me.
I think that's what My Life with Master tries to show other designers that I'd be excited to see from them as a consumer: games you designed to challenge the limits you perceive to your own creative and collaborative skills when you play them.
Comments (2) What about Nicotine Girls?
#1 Moreno R. on 2008-04-19 09:04
Hey Moreno,
I put Nicotine Girls to the Internet in May, 2002, but I didn't actually play(test) it until early August, 2003. I designed the core of My Life with Master in the months prior to July, 2002, and playtested it at Gen Con that year. It went through external playtesting and got written and published for Gen Con 2003. So by the time I playtested Nicotine Girls, My Life with Master was designed, playtested, written and off to the printer. And what I realized after the Nicotine Girls playtest is that everything the game could teach me about delivering antagonism customized to the player characters, and about aiming for the end of play as a creative destination I'd already learned from My Life with Master. So, Acts of Evil, which yet has something to teach me, still has me in its clutches feverishly designing. But Nicotine Girls doesn't. I do love Nicotine Girls, and it wouldn't be that hard for me to write the rules up more fully, with examples and play advice. But with so many other design ideas that represent real learning opportunities I wish I had time for, I just don't ever seem to find time for Nicotine Girls.
Paul
#2 Paul Czege on 2008-04-28 13:13
