Show066: Begging and Defining the Problem

Show066: Begging and Defining the ProblemĀ  This episode I do some begging. I put out my virtual wooden bowl in hopes of attending Gen Con. I also begin design of an unnamed game, by taking the first step; defining the problem. Show Notes This Just in From Gen Con This Just in From Gen Con's Indie Go Go page That's How We Roll The Yellow Menace The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses

3 Responses to “Show066: Begging and Defining the Problem”

  1. Tim Jensen says:

    Hey Clyde, if you need transportation to and from Gen Con we’ll save you a seat in the van. Also, Willow and I are ready, willing and hopefully able to help you develop whatever games you want to make. Send us a messagre via G+, email or Xbox.

  2. Marco says:

    I was very happy to see theory back on the air. I didn’t notice as I stopped checking since last episode sounded so final. I cand seem to find the link to the wooden bowl, I’d like to contribute if that will help enable you to keep mking shows.

  3. Paul Lyons says:

    Not having read Jesse Schell’s game design book, I don’t know how he structures problems when designing a game, but when I hear your stated design goal, I wonder if it’s enough of a “problem.” And if it does conform to his intention and how he structures problems, I wonder if you would benefit at all from making it into MORE of a problem.

    “I want to design a game that focuses on where society and the individual meet, in fantastic worlds, with easily hackable mechanics.” To me, that’s a dandy goal, but it reads like a solution as much as it does a problem. A problem, to me, is more like, “Explore or convey situations of alienation and conformity.” How you explore or convey is unspecified. You might choose to focus on the individual or groups, fantastic or realistic worlds, and any sort of mechanics – those are your solutions to the problem.

    It seems like the point of phrasing it as a problem is to cast off the unnecessary. The example problem I tossed out doesn’t necessarily require a special focus on the individual or groups. It’s possible that just means it’s not the right problem for you, but it could mean that you’re making your problem too specific. By making the problem conceptual rather than specific/practical, you free yourself up to solve it in the best way rather than the most comfortable or automatic way.

    It’s late and I don’t think I’m getting across my full intent, but, hopefully, that makes enough sense to fuel some productive thoughts for you.

Leave a Reply