My own capabilities
- i can make a game in a day every day many days in a row
- i know multiple languages and am comfortable moving between them
- i like a blank slate, i like opt-in tools and modules
- i enjoy working in other mediums for effect. the impact of music, of art, of word, of... well what else? there are many effects.

Technologies and complaints

- i use a tablet instead of a mouse
- phone games are highly accessible
- web games are highly accessible
- we are all connected by the internet, it's a breeze
- i want to spend less time staring at my screen
- i want to spend more time with myself, with other real people
- people don't want to pay money for things???
- mutual aid
- social business
- keyboards are passable
- game controllers are much too bespoke and weird, there is no way they are going to be around like this forever, right???
- loved the DS, loved drawing maps
- low system requirements is relative to the day and age but is always always a benefit

> detangle input from game state. Starseed Pilgrim was a platformer but the core interesting puzzle game and revelations were more eternal than that, they did not rely on being a platformer

- significant authorial intent in individual scenarios, taking advantage of the human drive to create, i want to use my brain to create things directly

"<actions and decisions> like this [*static, predictable, uninteresting] may be found [in reality], but . . . <actions and decisions> each deserve rugged individuality"

Some requirements or complaints. All of them, supposedly -- but realistically just the ones I can remember at the moment:

- more reading/writing, more human stories
- less complex coding, less reliance on gamefeel; more modularity in the design so that parallel authors can each be individually creative
- fewer twitchy singular/simple actions, more time spent thinking and arranging
- (im old, my hands get tired)
- expression, arrangement, composition
- expressive as designer, quick material to work with, haiku material
- comprehension problems, comprehension puzzles
- less focus on crunching in-game 'rules' and 'models' ; more focus on developing 'beliefs' ; more focus on emersion (understanding or learning things which are not modeled)

I am also, btw, using this technique... "get connect"... it is not too well described yet by this kinopio, but here I am in the get phase. Getting, gathering.

I have been making platformers for a damn long time and I have the feeling that I'm going to break out of that space but it's not easy to do so. Here are some games that I'm looking at for inspiration.

- Roadwarden
- Slay the Princess
- La-Mulana
- Uurnog Uurnlimited
- Starseed Pilgrim
- Databug (droqever.com)
- GEOMOTH: Boot Sequence (unreleased)
- Crossing Flowers (droqen.itch.io)
- tabletop roleplaying games, esp. Grandline (one-off year-long campaign, unreleased)
- The Quiet Sleep
- Kingdom of Loathing
- Etrian Odyssey (series)
- Fire Emblem (series)
- Disgaea (series)
- Secrets of Asherah (decades old. defunct.)

Quote                           [..] 1. LEVELS OF
SCALE,  2.  STRONG CENTERS,  3.  BOUNDARIES,
4.   ALTERNATING  REPETITION,   5.  POSITIVE
SPACE, 6.  GOOD SHAPE, 7. LOCAL  SYMMETRIES,
8.  DEEP INTERLOCK  AND  AMBIGUITY, 9.  CON-
TRAST,   10.   GRADIENTS,   11.   ROUGHNESS,
12. ECHOES, 13. THE VOID, 14. SIMPLICITY AND
INNER CALM, 15. NOT-SEPARATENESS.

~ fifteen properties

Actually, the disagreement is so fundamental that I don't know if I have anything left to say... anyway, I'm going to start with it, because I don't suppose that I've felt anything in particular about the rest of Taylor's interpretive work, except my stark reaction to this poor summary of living structure:

"The quintessential dead structure is a monument. . . . Maintaining the monument is a sunk cost. Take away that support and the monument will crumble to dust. Living structure, by contrast, is lived in. It is continually being revised and expanded. . . . Much like living structure in the ordinary sense as Alexander meant it, it's what the code does--its effect on the world and the people around it--that attracts the resources and attention that keeps it alive."

On the face of it this deeply misunderstands the geometric, static nature of life. Many, many times, Alexander plainly describes aliveness in terms that are misunderstood as something much smaller in this section.

Taylor writes, "This description of living structure sounds a lot like software. Software with any kind of currency is constantly being revised and expanded", and I can understand his perspective; he is trying to apply this grand theory to a very narrow domain. However, in doing the work of application, he incompletely portrays the concept of life.

If a sheet of paper with a line drawn on it may be more or less alive, then we cannot understand life by summarizing it at only one simple level of scale.

To some degree I understand that practical considerations mean it is easier or even better to look at this concept through a smaller viewpoint. But I take offense at the suggestion that this is a good way "to understand living structure".

Forwarded to me by Alex.Fyve

QuoteThis series is going to take a personal view on Alexander's magnum opus, The Nature of Order.

I took interest in this because I have read three out of four books of The Nature of Order and I was interested in some of the premise, but what really made me start this thread was noticing some things that I really disagree with.

EXPECTATIONS

Some of these I'd like to point out as particularly relevant to keep an eye on.

"Only do work that matches our shared vision and goals."
"Celebrate all work."

^ For me, it is important to define shared vision and goals in a way that allows me to celebrate all work. I wonder what Marie would say to this.

"Say no to growth when we are low on energy or time."

^ Yes yes yes

"KNOW WHY YOU WANT HELP
Why do you want helpers? Do you need specific labour and skills? Or are you interested in the excitement, diverse skills, and community growth that can come with a team? What do you need help with? [Then follows a list of specific tasks that A MAZE required help with]"

Yes, this is very very important. I am not so good with needing specific labour and skills, but I've never organized or been part of organizing a team or event at such scale as something like A MAZE which has significant requirements of physical assistance. I strongly value autonomous helpers who are motivated to do work, and whose work inspires me. I don't really need help "making games"... Sometimes there is a game that I cannot make, but it is usually a conceptual problem. Maybe I actually do value working with a designer or designers.

"TAKE TIME TO UNDERSTAND MOTIVATIONS AND SKILLS"
"BE MINDFUL OF HOW THE WORK IS BEING DONE"
"TALK ABOUT [various] EXPECTATIONS"

I do these a lot, in part because these wear on me very quickly when they are not 'correct' and I assume the same of others too. But...

"WHO IS HELPING WHO?
Consider organizing . . . so that everyone is a helper. The model where hundreds of uncredited and undervalued underlings support one charismatic artist or curator is hopefully dying out."

It's interesting, I think I'm strangely moving back towards this model, or else working alone. I am totally OK with working alone. I am a terrible helper on a group project, although I love to help others on individual projects. Well, maybe I'm not a bad helper, but I don't really believe in a model where people are helping a group or collective action. I believe in individual action, with one person at the helm, receiving help from their friends and allies, who are in turn being helped with their individual actions.

I've met people who don't mind being underlings, who are happy to fade into the background. I can't relate to them but supposing my attitude and their attitude are seen as legitimate, does that not suggest the 'hundreds of uncredited underlings' model as in fact suitable for certain interpersonal dynamics?

"MAKE A PLAN FOR TRAINING NEW HELPERS

Don't let the glorious new energy fizzle away. Make a plan for how you will welcome and train new helpers. For example:

- After a helper reaches out, meet them quickly while energy is high.
- Warmly welcome them, and tell them about the community and expectations. Learn about their motivations and skills and assign them an easy task with a short deadline. For example: write a two-sentence description about a game by Monday.
- A few days later, do a punctual check-in: how are they doing? If their first task is complete, thank them and get their feedback before assigning another task.
- Cycle through a few small tasks . . escalating autonomy and difficulty. If the helper has misestimated their capacity, it's best to know quickly. If all goes well, they easily become integrated with the team."

Part of my interest in this section, TEAMS, is that I'm not very good at working with teams over a long period of time. Reading this, I think it has been attempted with me, and I haven't really taken to this process of being slowly introduced with small tasks... Another part of my interest is wondering, 'Could I lead a team?', and I really don't know the answer to that one. Could I get the necessary experience? I guess I have made things by leading (small) teams before (i.e. I have made games with others doing music, or sound, or art).

Teams (p53-)

"HOW TO FIND VOLUNTEERS OR PAID HELPERS

- Put out an open call. Share your vision, the available work, and details about duration and money. Use visuals and lead back to a short form.
- Send your call directly to people you'd love to work with. It's scary, but it's worth it.
- Look for help in the right places. [..]
- Choose your team carefully. [..] Your team will shape the experience of every visitor to your exhibition. If your curatorial team is diverse, your exhibition will reflect that diversity. If anyone on your team is abusive or toxic, that rot will eat away at your team and be reflected everywhere, including on the exhibition floor."

OK the last section I'm going to take a look at seriously is TEAMS.