On 2008-02-05, Jonathan Walton wrote:
|
Yeah, I think I clarified my position on the Big Model to Elizabeth in a conversation right after you two discussed this. I'm sorry if I gave her the impression that it was useless or somehow inapplicable to "our style of play / design." That sounds like elitist posturing, which I hope isn't how I come across (at least, not anymore). Like Shreyas, I feel like the Big Model doesn't directly address the issues that I find most interesting in design and play, but that's not surprising, since Ron articulated the model because he was interested in other concerns. That doesn't mean that the Big Model couldn't be applied to the things I'm really interested in. It just might not be the best tool for the job. Right now, I'm most interested in (in no particular order): -- non-narrative game experiences -- structured freeform -- using maps, boards, and other tools that can be physically manipulated during play -- games without character sheets or statistically quantified character traits -- games where there are different player roles / abilities, where different players affect the narrative in different ways Basically, I'm interested in the way in which specific techniques and tools (or the lack thereof) radically change the structure of the play experience. Most post-Forge games are content to have their core rules basically do the same thing and use the same tools, leading to play experiences that are relatively similar in structure despite using different rulesets. I'm more interested in building custom toolboxes for different games, such that individual play experiences really do vary significantly, in style and form as well as in content, between games. |
Some maybe useful links: Complete Index of Entries Search for a Post or Comment Search the Forge Forums |