perryjon.bsky.social
Game designer on UFO 50, Air Land & Sea, Spots, Scape Goat, Time Barons. Comic author on Let Go, Constellation.
242 posts
1,149 followers
323 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Two words: hit points
comment in response to
post
Love to hear how much you've been enjoying UFO 50. Thanks for sharing!
comment in response to
post
I actually build a fair number of simulations for my games these days, yes!
comment in response to
post
I like it so much because it takes the tension I love of trying to hit my bid in a tricktaker, and makes it way more *granular*. I'm not trying to win say, 3 tricks. I'm trying to get as close to a total of 25 as possible. So now the tension feels like it's in 4K.
comment in response to
post
👀
comment in response to
post
Ah, very cool! I love that!
comment in response to
post
This is exactly my point -- I want to move the design conversation a way from this dead end where "it's not possible to fully balance" something. Instead, ask What are the specific dynamics I want? Can I shift the game closer to those by tweaking numbers or not?
comment in response to
post
For sure. And in a many contexts, there's no need to worry about word precision like I'm talking about. It's really only when you're actively trying to hold heady conversations with other designers that it becomes important.
comment in response to
post
It seems to me that a good exercise in a game design class (and maybe this already exists, I wouldn't know) would be to hand students an intentionally broken game and then say you have to fix it, but you can't change any rules, you can only change numbers.
comment in response to
post
That's all correct, but I have even had designs where I am actively trying to tune for less equilibrium or trying to make certain aspects too strong on purpose. Which is why the word tuning works better for what I'm talking about.
comment in response to
post
I think for some it's a tedious part of the process, but I love it -- I will happily spend a very long time tuning things. And I don't think it's wasted time. Maybe on the margin, you can spend too much time there -- certainly if it keeps you from finishing, that's bad. But mostly I embrace it.
comment in response to
post
Furthermore, tuning is the part of the process that really gives way to effort and practice. Compared to say, building a core system, it doesn't rely as much on luck & flashes of insight. So it's a really good thing to work on as a designer. It's a skill you can get better at quickly.
comment in response to
post
To me, "tuning" describes the tweaking of numbers and other design dials to create the desired game dynamics. And it feels like fully 50% of my job as a game designer. It just feels so critical. I've had prototypes where the system itself appeared to be a failure but the issue was actually tuning.
comment in response to
post
Oh yeah, I figured you didn't mean it too literally -- like obviously there were other styles people were remixing back then, like shooters to name an obvious one.
comment in response to
post
I feel like a PacSnake game jam would lead to some cool entries.
comment in response to
post
Will do, thanks for the tip!
comment in response to
post
Whoops, I meant "the *chance* to step away."
Maybe a freudian slip there, heh..
*Attempting* to step away from the computer and failing is a big part of my life now.
comment in response to
post
Here's a link to the physical book version as well, in case you'd appreciate the attempt to step away from your computer for a while. www.blazgracar.com/lok
comment in response to
post
Partly vibes but also:
--1st number divisible by 2 & 3
--Miller's Law says the avg person holds 7 things comfortably in their head, so 6 errs on the side of more comfortable & accessible.
--D6s & hexes are cool
--6 elements feels like when combinatorics really take off & start to create variety
comment in response to
post
Ah, gotcha. I guess it's all in how you frame it. I see a 'round' in Quacks as much more equivalent to a single longish turn in Dominion where you draw several cards and perform several actions that may affect & build off cards you played earlier.
comment in response to
post
Interesting take! I haven't played all of these. I remember this being the case in Orleans, but Quacks tokens only last for one turn right?
comment in response to
post
Now *that's* news
comment in response to
post
It's a GDC talk, which doesn't make it that accessible, so I'll probably record a mirror version as a podcast at some point after the conference and post it on here.
comment in response to
post
Quite possibly this is as good as modular rules, though I'm not sure it beats it. And unfortunately I don't think I can say "distributed games" since that sound like it could be describing an ARG or something like that.
comment in response to
post
I like that framing! Though not sure about those specific names. Also TBC it's not necessarily the case that the rules change during play, they might be fixed for the course of the game and simply change in between games, as with Cosmic Encounter.
comment in response to
post
Very cool! I read a bit about it just now. That sounds like a fun subcategory of the kind of game I'm talking about.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, cards is just the most prevalent way to deliver modular rules -- so it's a bit too specific, especially in a digital context. Ideally, I want a term that will open up people to thinking about this for more than just card games.
comment in response to
post
Also if it isn't totally clear what games I mean: CCGs, deckbuilders, many engine builders, legacy games, etc. Lots of today's most popular games fall into this category.
comment in response to
post
Modular rules system is not bad, and for some reason sounds better than modular rules game.
In answer to your question, talking about systems instead of games might be viable for my use case.
comment in response to
post
In this case I'm trying to talk broadly about game design (for a talk) so there's no specific theme I can tie it to. But love those brainstormed ideas!
comment in response to
post
Embedded is pretty interesting!
comment in response to
post
Worth considering! Ease of shuffling is the main advantage with bag builders.
comment in response to
post
The speed of reshuffling & frequent lack of a discard pile combine to make bagbuilders function more like randomness with replacement (ie more like dice).
comment in response to
post
Taking all those considerations into account, I'd say Party House leans bagbuilder.