Swancon Wrap-up

The title is something of a misnomer since I was there only for the Saturday. At least 75% of the rest of Swancon happened without me there and has its own bards to tell those tales. However, what I did manage to witness transpired thusly.

I delivered a seminar (An Introduction to Story Games) early Saturday morning. The audience, though small, were engaged with the topic and listened intently. If you weren't there you missed out on the following:

• Story games occupy the intersection between the mode of production of fiction, the mode of performance of fiction, and the mode of consumption of fiction. To put it another way it's writing, improv and audience all in one activity.
• Good story games are structured to drive the players' consciousness back into the fiction with temporary detours into rules.
• My mind is currently chewing over the notion that good game design gives the tools for creating problems in the fiction so that the players can respond (solve?) those problems

All of that was decorated with examples from the forge, Vincent Baker's model of clouds and boxes, Robin Laws' analysis in Hamlet's Hit Points, as well as a host of other games and luminaries.

After this was said and done I set up a demo game of Fiasco in the gaming room and ran it several times before taking a break for lunch and a quick tour of the rest of Swancon, followed by a non-demo game of Fiasco. There were the requisite number of fedoras to qualify as a writer's convention, sufficient numbers of cosplayers to make for a presence, and at least one kilt. The dealers' room was mostly about fiction, including a significant collection of works by Gail Simone.

Speaking of Gail, I had hoped beyond hope that Fortuna would allow us to cross paths in between our scheduled activities but alas Fortuna did not smile on me that day. My copy of Wonder Woman #36 shall remain unsigned for now.

Kudos must go to Terry Chilvers for his organisation in the gaming room. He was organised before and during the event. I knew what was expected of me and had all the resources I needed to make it happen. It seems clear that I owe this man a game of Fiasco sometime.

And there's no con without networking. My aging business cards came in handy and may serve as the gateway to the next thing I contribute to in the Perth gaming scene. Watch this space for more.

Philosophical Taxonomy of Gaming Types

I have mentioned before that games convey moral principles, sometimes through a deliberate decision by the game designer.  Even though I'm a lurker's lurker at The Forge, I'm aware of the taxonomy contained in the GNS model.  It should be of no surprise that one key mind behind the ongoing development of the GNS theory is a biologist (with a penchant for bat genitals and the sounds that rats make after sex, it seems).  One of the building blocks of biology is the taxonomical structure (thank you, Linnaeus) which breaks down all life into a hierarchy, and which allows for unique naming to take place.  Thus, the GNS is a taxonomy.

 

But as I've said, games convey moral principles.  They also convey philosophical perspectives.  This, therefore, is not the biologist's taxonomy of gaming types; it is the philosophical taxonomy of gaming types.  It should be of no surprise that the mind behind this development studies theology and philosophy (with a penchant for bat food - the divine mango).

 

Existential

In which the game is about creating a story after the fact, looking back on the actions and decision points to create a story.  This is probably the most common of the story game types.  However, the mechanisms of the game probably prevent this from being a pure existential game, since those mechanisms incline the character towards certain decisions - that's incline, not force.  The player can still choose to have the character go against the option with the most likely success.

 

Dialectical

In which the game is about decision points that favour neither side of a conflict, and the story still moves forward.  This is the clash of two opposing motives creating a new situation that contains elements of both, but which is not actually either.  Typically this is seen in games that allow for two characters to oppose each other, fail, and still the plot moves forward.  Make failure interesting through the dialectical approach.

 

Fatalistic

In which the game is about the characters assuming and perfecting a role in the cosmos, with no necessary interest in the big picture.  Any game which is just about levelling up the characters is really about a character not simply accepting their fated raison d'etre, but embracing it and rushing towards it with all enthusiasm and vigour.  Fatalism should not be confused with fate; it is more to do with asking, "What was I meant to do in this life?"

 

Formal

In which the game follows an established narrative form, with structured events and decision points.  Any game that has an endgame mechanism is like this, in that the overall narrative has an end.  The form of the story always results in an encounter with The Big Bad (or similar), but there is no guarantee that the protagonists will triumph.  Any game that will always result in the characters dying, or going insane, or falling asleep, etc., is a formal game.

 

Solipsist Causation

In which the game reactively follows the trumphs and tribulations of the characters; bending the will of non-player protagonists and the acts of objective material around the existential history of the protagonists.  This is typically found in games in which the player can bank points from character suffering to later spend on changing the future (usually for character favour).  The character is the centre of the universe (whether actually stated in the game or not) because of this mechanism of balance, and therefore the character may as well be the only character in the universe.

This is far from a complete list.  What philosophical forms have you seen in games?

Why make a game?

I've been thinking more about Nobles of late and trying to answer the question, "Why am I making this game?" I could be spending my time making adventures and scenarios instead. I could be spending my time finding more players. So why make a game?

The first thing to say is that I have no intention of making money from this game. I'm toying with the idea of just giving it away as a free PDF, or perhaps as a low-cost PDF through IPR. Nobles is not (at the moment) a game of quality equal to something like Spirit of the Century, or Dogs in the Vineyard. I don't expect that it will ever get to be that good, because that's not why I'm doing it. Also, I quite like my current employment and don't really want to invest the time to promote my game and change careers to Game Designer.

Secondly, I'm designing this game to better understand how games work. I thought about trawling the Forge and reading all the threads on game theory and game design, but I would much rather learn this by doing. I want to try and design a game that includes various features, that does the thing I want it to do. By making a game, I get to learn it the hard way, but I will learn it the complete way. The end result should be better games for my players.

Ultimately, I don't expect to become a game designer (although the story of how Kill Puppies for Satan led to Dogs in the Vineyard plays with my mind a bit), but I want to become a better GM. Making a game is part of my plan. As Judd Karlman would say, this is hitting the heavy bag.

GenCon Australia

Barring something unforeseen, I'm going to GenCon Australia next year. The plan at this stage is to run a few indie games during the four days, probably on the Saturday. There'll be at least one session of Spirit of the Century, one session of Don't Rest Your Head and hopefully a session of Burning Wheel. Well, it's a hope, at least.

There are a couple of other people I've bumped into on The Forge who seem just as keen to fly the indie flag, so we're going to team up somehow and make an underground effort to put these games out there.