I’m not making any claims about the logic or organization by this point in our talks, rather, I’m hoping Justin isn’t thinking that I’m totally making it up as I go. It's certainly been helpful to me to recognize what pieces I need to pull into their own how we play discussion so they can be treated as understood for a how we design presentation.
At least, however, we have ventured into such things as how initiative works and whether damage effects are encapsulated in resolution or kept separate.
To summarize a bit, consider these:
- The inspiration cycle diagram, particularly the role of system (procedures, outcomes, changes)
- The game structure chart
- The system diagrams
- The distribution of authorities, especially in light of actionable knowledge
- IIEE, with or without ordering
If I had to pinpoint the single feature of game play/experience links each one, it’d be the role of procedural outcomes on irrevocable change. That’s a lot of fancy syllables to say, merely, “what happens.”
This talk addresses the system diagrams and IIEE, and I think it’s pretty good in terms of precisely what they are. The question is whether and how it makes sense in terms of design specifically, because, during consulting, I let the client’s own senses of purpose and perplexity raise the right questions at the right time, or expose them to me as specially necessary at the right time. So there’s no designated moment of the design process for any of these things; it’s a function of that person with that game.
So, the video presented below is part 1, and then we've also got: