[arg_discuss] Is it important for designers to play?

[Michael Andersen]

Brian:  the article comes from a confluence of factors.  In part, it comes
from anecdotal/circumstantial evidence that designers aren't playing as much
by observing discussion groups.  When I first started up a few years back, I
remember seeing more designers actively discussing games by offering
comments, weighing in on especially difficult puzzles that stymied players,
puzzling through in the IRC channels for games, and even making
the occasional wiki edit.  This is paired with what has admittedly been a
steady influx of people new to the genre seeking advice or jumping into game
design without seeming to take a lay of the land first.

It also comes from a design flaw that I feel is, on the whole, getting worse
with time: and that's my usual soapbox, accessibility.  Over the last two
years in particular, players seem to have shifted away from relying on wikis
to maintain concise game summaries (although Geoff is still making a valiant
effort over at Wikibruce), and this has shifted some of the playability
burden back on designers.  Like many of you, my available time for playing
ARGs is quite limited, especially now that I'm studying for the Bar exam
while dealing with the administrative side of ARGNet.  What I've noticed is
that, with a few notable exceptions, the first few hours of getting into a
new ARG generally isn't fun. And if a few hours is all the time people have
to spend, it's not going to seem like a very fun task in general.  This
means that it's getting harder for people to be casual players, in large
part because the focus is shifting further towards players willing to
dedicate large blocks of time to a single game.  And I don't see that as a
sustainable trend for the industry.

Now, there are some exceptions to this rule, as you guys are experimenting
with workarounds:  I really like what Bluebird
AR<http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/bluebird/>has done with getting
new players up to speed (although giving players
updated information on what they can do to help [more than just following
twitter accounts] right off the bat might make it even better).  As I
recall, the 2012 game also had some great resources for catching players up.
 What works (and doesn't work) in that realm of game design is what I would
love to see improved the most: and I think struggling through the process
yourself is the best way to pick out best practices.  Since that's what
designers will most likely be exposed to as they play, I thought it was
worth reiterating.

Now, I know I'm essentially asking for the invention of a way to make
in-game tutorials fun (with the added challenge that you don't want to
provide TOO much guidance because that's part of the fun of ARGs) -- but I
think that especially in ARGs, that should be possible.  What if that
process of discovery was utilized as a game mechanic itself?


As an aside, Gary Hayes' recent article What Makes the Perfect Transmedia
Producer<http://www.personalizemedia.com/what-makes-the-perfect-transmedia-producer/#more-2224>
is
well worth reading if you haven't yet had the chance.