Occasionally, I'll think I've said something actually insightful about an RPG or made some cool thing.
And then, pretty soon, I talk myself into believing it's just dunning-kruger.
In decreasing order of confidence:
-- I am not a shitty person
-- I am not a shitty player of games
-- I am not a shitty MC of AW-style games
-- I have some oddball and pretty interesting game design bits
All that being said, I do wonder if any and all hacking of AW I've ever done just makes it worse. This is a thing I do not have an answer to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hacking always makes something better and worse. It widens the possibility of something being beneficial, though the totality might not be for everyone
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think you have Creutzfeldt–Jakob
prion diseases are scary, Karl Larsson!
ReplyDeleteSoo... I don't know you super well, but I would err on the side of "not-shitty in general". And a lot of what you do isn't up my alley, but again that doesn't make it objectively shitty, or even that I think it's subjectively shitty... though often I find it mildly confusing because I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteI strive for not shitty.
ReplyDeleteIs it the zombie stuff, or the pbta stuff you don't get, Matt Johnson?
Somewhat the PBTA stuff, but you have a fascination with finance that I don't share, so when you make things based on resources (like your solar sails game) I just sort of shrug at it. Also some of your book reviews, where you literally say "I wanted more banking"... that stuff. Not really my thing. :)
ReplyDeleteI do!
ReplyDeleteThe coin and dagger series had too many daggers and not enough coin!
But, here's the thing: It's not about the math. The math, the finances, that's the boring bit. What's fantastic to me is economics (esp behavioral economics) provides a rigorous methodology to describe human behavior through studying incentives. It's not always (ever) true, but that is still really impressive to me.
That we can change people's behavior -- and the behavior of entire societies -- by changing the incentive structure is about the greatest act of magic I can imagine.
So, yeah. Maybe not you're thing. That's OK. :-)
Makes what worse?
ReplyDeleteMo Jave My concern is any hack I've ever written is objectively worse than the material it was derived from.
ReplyDeleteAh. I think games don't have the same scales so that objectively might be a bit subjective. They're probably different, but they have different goals and measures. Plus, chances are the games you are hacking have likely put some serious time in, and weren't always where they are now.
ReplyDeleteAll your beliefs stated here, regardless of ordering, seem true to me : ' )
ReplyDeleteHave you ever considered trying your hand at some sort of broad-view social simulator game? Probably computer-assisted. Mucking around with underlying incentives resulting in different social behavior sounds like a great match.
All creators feel this way. It is perfectly normal. No matter how many tines people say things like, "You made that? That's amazing!" I end up thinking that I'm an utter sucking failure and not good at anything.
ReplyDeleteTell me more about that, Jesse Cox
ReplyDeleteYeah, Edward Hickcox. That seems true. Still, knowing a thing and feeling a thing are different.
ReplyDelete