The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What I am saying, though, is it's still valuable to know "I'm feeling left out of my game" or "I want a faster horse." Interpreting what that means is the designer's job. What Ford is saying is when people say they want a faster horse, they mean they want a faster mode of transportation, or even that they want to be able to travel further. It's the designer's job to find the real need underneath the expressed need.
Absolutely. I would view that as knowing what’s good for them as much as meeting their needs. Assuming meeting unstated needs is a good thing, I hope. Yes, there’s a problem when people are jerks about it, but the problem is jerks being jerks. It doesn’t make what they are doing more or less art. (Unless the implication is that pop music and Marvel movies can’t be art due to their mass appeal, which is quite the provocative position to take.)
Especially given thats what Shakespeare basically was in his time.
Incidentally the reason I think I appreciate ol' Willie more as a poet than I do as a playwright. Culture might have shifted and now we think of those plays as stuffy pretentious affairs but really Willie was playing to the cheap seats.
And of course just a century or two later in a different discipline we get young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart whose competitive for the title of first memelord in history.
I mean, the Magic Flute is a genuine work of art, but its also true Mozart wrote it out of petty sibling teasing to see if his sister could actually hit the notes in the Night Queen aria.
This was a question that came up several times during the development of GDS; several times people wanted to add a "social" quadrant. The counter argument usually was that while social elements were important, and could trump the others, it was operating on a different layer.
I don't deny it's "operating on a different layer". That's beside my point. Now the author of GNS theory is arguing that the S is operating on a different layer. Perhaps at some point he'll realize that they are all different layers.
Especially given thats what Shakespeare basically was in his time.
Incidentally the reason I think I appreciate ol' Willie more as a poet than I do as a playwright. Culture might have shifted and now we think of those plays as stuffy pretentious affairs but really Willie was playing to the cheap seats.
And of course just a century or two later in a different discipline we get young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart whose competitive for the title of first memelord in history.
I mean, the Magic Flute is a genuine work of art, but its also true Mozart wrote it out of petty sibling teasing to see if his sister could actually hit the notes in the Night Queen aria.
Will is an interesting case. He was clearly aiming at his audience but had talent that took his work far beyond mere 'pop music.' It would be interesting to see how many artists play to the gallery vs pursue a completely independent vision vs mix both.
One thing that would be interesting to understand is, for those who are unhappy at their tables, what they have to say about it. As in, how are they feeling about their ruleset and the table they play at, and the overall satisfaction of play? Then maybe probe a bit deeper. Maybe a survey? Hmmm.
Will is an interesting case. He was clearly aiming at his audience but had talent that took his work far beyond mere 'pop music.' It would be interesting to see how many artists play to the gallery vs pursue a completely independent vision vs mix both.
Yeah going back to the MCU reference, Civil War was chock full of cheap seat playing.
But it can't really be denied that the individual performances and scriptwriting weren't superb beyond that. Chadwick Boseman was a class act, and the entire sequence with
Tony finding out what happened to his parents and the interlude between bouts is just astonishingly well written and acted by all involved.
Plus its also a good thing to consider that Fight Choreography in particular, which has fortunately enjoyed a golden age since the first John Wick (Bourne was a false start don't @ me lol), is another example of something where people don't appreciate the artistry behind it or even see it as art.
Fight Choreography has a huge functional overlap with how Musicals work, and just as Musicals (and in particular, dance forward musicals) are an art form, so is fight choreography.
The image of Cap and Tony going at it was pulled straight out of a comic book, but the entire fight is a masterful bit of storytelling through violence as these people beat the ever loving crap out of each other. Tony's murderous intent is well conveyed as is Caps desire to just protect Bucky, while Buckh just wants to run, and you can see it all on screen in how they fight.
It all says as much about these characters and what they're feeling as any poignant dialogue does, and thats the cumulative result of multiple artists working in tandem, from the actors themselves to the choreographers, directors, set designers, and on and on.
And it has to be said, you can then look at say Love and Thunder and it becomes immediately noticeable just how unseriously everyone involved was taking the movie, even as a comedy; comedies don't typically get away with that kind of irreverence unless you go all the way and break the 4th Wall, which is why the joke a minute Deadpool movies work but Love and Thunder didn't.
I mean if, in the interest of artistic vision, you don't give a crap about the people playing your game, and you don't give a crap about how many people end up playing it, then by all means, go for it. Maybe someday someone will see the brilliance. Maybe your idea will be brilliant, and you'll be Apple. But many people design things to actually be used. I'm not saying don't push the envelope, don't throw away your vision, but it's not wrong to understand what people are looking for in games. The arrogance of thinking you know what is good for other people without actually, you know, understanding what's wrong with them, is the kind of condescension in the hobby folks are talking about.
Well, creators tend to be people themselves. Some of them have more kindred spirits or shared interests than others, but in the end, something created with a personal vision is likely to have a few other people interested in it. Something created with a personal vision that also considers others' potential interest is likely to have more people interested in it. Something created with a focus on appealing to the most people possible may or may not manage it—people are fickle creatures—but plenty of such products have succeeded in being appealing to a lot of people. It gets fun when products become appealing for things they weren't intended to be appealing for.
The other thing to keep in mind is that often what people think they want, isn't necessarily what they want. People often aren't good at expressing what is really bothering them, and that's where good design comes in. They may say, "I'm feeling left out of my game" when what's really happened is that their character class isn't designed to give them agency. It could also mean they have a toxic table. The expression of "feeling left out" is still valuable, and it's up to the designer to understand what that actually means.
Steve Jobs talked about that quite a lot, with regard to computers of course. Even so, now look where we are.
Anyhow, as for feeling left out, first you have to realize something's even up, then you have to get that person to admit it, before you can begin analyzing the problem.
What I am saying, though, is it's still valuable to know "I'm feeling left out of my game" or "I want a faster horse." Interpreting what that means is the designer's job. What Ford is saying is when people say they want a faster horse, they mean they want a faster mode of transportation, or even that they want to be able to travel further. It's the designer's job to find the real need underneath the expressed need.
In the software business, this is often presented as, "When you ask someone what their problem is, they usually instead give you their preferred solution." It is the job of the team to actually determine the problem, and solve that.
Anyhow, as for feeling left out, first you have to realize something's even up, then you have to get that person to admit it, before you can begin analyzing the problem.
One thing that would be interesting to understand is, for those who are unhappy at their tables, what they have to say about it. As in, how are they feeling about their ruleset and the table they play at, and the overall satisfaction of play? Then maybe probe a bit deeper. Maybe a survey? Hmmm.
An anonymous survey could be interesting, yeah. But I think it would have to have longer questions than the typical survey does; as also mentioned, folks don't know what they're missing, or what they want, etc. An interviewer can ask clarifying questions and such. A survey is limited to the multiple choice answers, or to free-form responses that may well wind up requiring more time to interpret than live interviews.
An anonymous survey could be interesting, yeah. But I think it would have to have longer questions than the typical survey does; as also mentioned, folks don't know what they're missing, or what they want, etc. An interviewer can ask clarifying questions and such. A survey is limited to the multiple choice answers, or to free-form responses that may well wind up requiring more time to interpret than live interviews.
I think I may just do a series of one-question surveys that start wide and narrow things down a bit. We can do them here on the forums -- it'll be an interesting exercise, though probably won't be that scientific.
