QuoteInevitably, players tell each other stories about their gameplay experiences. But some games inspire more, like . .

[example 1 - stories told by Dwarf Fortress players, "fan art and narrativized play"]
[example 2 - Blaseball stuff, "collaborative worldbuilding", "shared canon"]
[example 3 - WoW pandemic, a "community legend"]
[q - do these examples present bias towards one sort of story? is it close to or far from what i'm seeing and what i'm interested in? investigate.]

What can we do as designers to encourage and support community storytelling?

We can start with the hands-off approach . . .
make a good game with compelling dynamics . . .
Perhaps we can do one better:
make a good game and [emphasis mine]
provide some social scaffolding -- say, a community space like a Discord server -- for players to share their experiences and tell their stories.
[q - will there be anything about the design of such community spaces or players' engagement with them? a Discord server has a considerable amount of 'design' that goes into it, as does the Discord platform itself]

But we wish to go deeper [q - deeper how?]: through the lens of tellability [q - what is tellability, how important is it? investigate this link then come back], we can . . . take a close look at each moment of phase change in the process of player story formation. From when a player first encounters a game (and even before then, in design and development) to when they relay a noteworthy experience to other members of their community, we can identify points of intervention for us as designers to catalyze the process.

I'd like to make sure I don't forget to chase down these questions I noted.

Also, my lens right now is thinking about my droqevers, the games I keep releasing for a week at a time... They contain secrets (sometimes) and meanings (questionable), and I wonder if the way I'm releasing them could be 'better' for the things I'm after. What am I after? There's a kind of social fabric which definitely bubbles up around individual games, but mostly in private places. I really enjoyed the discourse and community events that Cruel World inspired, for instance.

I want to use the contents of this report to analyze the small play-worlds that I've been designing and the kind of player engagement that I'm enjoying. People posting pics of places they made it to, talking about secrets they've found. Sharing, showing off, whatever.

[AB]

As phrased, the creative  process  gives way to the  fictional narrative frictionlessly, without notice... without acknowledgement, perhaps? Well, I'm running in circles now. Maybe I'll AB this.

Why the hell does this matter? I think it's applicable to a larger dissatisfaction I have with mechanically-inspired player narratives. "The mechanics said X, and we interpreted it as interesting event Y!" — only, that would be fine actually!? I like the dialogue that might inspire about creativity and creative decisions.

"I bought a sandwich, and I ate it, and dude... the sandwich tasted good."

But, what's given is too little of both worlds. The writer (the player) describes no compelling narrative, just celebrates their friends and a story they told which in the moment was compelling.

Yeah, that "mixing" as I call it is what's bothering me. The cause and effect is obscured. I want to know what happened in each of the worlds presented. What happened between the players, whose idea was it, how did the creative process unfold? And, likewise, what in the story precipitated this event, what kind of character tried to pull a dangerous stunt, why did they do it, what transpired as a result?

It's not wrong, it's potentially indicative of a powerful/good suspension of disbelief, the sort of thing that actually... helps, when telling a story? But the D20 part hurts my brain. How do I feel about it? It's out-of-fiction. It's mixed...

It's a story. So the storyteller said, that almost kills X. Right?

This rubbed me the wrong way. "Someone in my D&D group" refers to the player, but the player—that is, the player's action—surely did not do the "almost killing."

"LOL, someone in my D&D group last night tried a stunt check on a soul coin powered motorcycle and rolled a nat 1, eating shit and almost killing a new player character that had literally appeared 30 seconds earlier." — https://x.com/thetrin/status/1822298892953596346

[AB]

But what I don't agree with is the conclusion (not explicitly stated but which I infer from Melos' actions) that I should therefore implore others to take actions in order to support my perspective.

I completely agree with Melos' perspective on games and game design as far as I understand it: game design isn't understandable through watching 5 YouTube videos or while optimizing your game for TikTokability. It's a lifelong skill built up through practice, experience, study, mentorship, friendship

You are talking to people who have bought into numbers-first systems.
Maybe they were born into these systems but regardless asking them to go against the grain of why they are doing what they're doing and how they got there in the first place is kind of unreasonable.

Heads of profitable studios are stuck heading profitable studios. YouTubers have built up a practice of covering games using a specific medium and are stuck covering games in streams (and videos); obviously they are going to cover the games that are friendly for them to cover in their medium. What do players want out of their games? They are... probably getting it already. Why would they stop spending their time doing something that enjoy?

I think Melos' writing does not center enough on the recipient of the message for me.

"How can you, the person I'm talking to change your way of being inand moving through this world in order to benefit me, and my field, and my perspective on my field?" Like, who are you to say that to people?

First a sort of summary o what I'm seeing, in terms of Melos' perspective:

"1. Youtubers: Need to figure out some way of . .  covering non-stream-friendly games"

"2. VTubers/Streamers: . . taking advantage of parasociality dynamics to encourage viewers to be more open to a wider range of coverage. . . . More introspection on the role you may play in many's lives . . ."

"3. Designers: . . . game design isn't understandable through watching 5 YouTube videos or while optimizing your game for TikTokability."

". . . a game that becomes rich often managed to snag all the built up desire for a certain vibe! And that vibe often is built up by freeware devs or hobbyists. So it's necessary to pay it back, not sit on it."

"4. Publishers: . . . start funding some games for the sake of funding them . . . publishers should pay designers to act as mentors in these situations if needed! I think there's endless potential in funded mentor-mentee relationships."

"5. Storefronts: . . . push for curation initiatives that can get more money into the pockets of more games without the unstated requirements of high-polish. . . . merely . . . e.g. sacrificing one company's $1m profit for an $50k investment in 20 small games' futures."

. . .

"8. Players: How do games fit into your lives? How do games fit into your friends' lives? Are there little ways of shifting playing habits away from games that compel us and take up time and money?"

"9. Heads of profitable mobile/aaa studios: You need to be thinking about all of this and ways to give back to games. . . . no longer does it make sense for a mobile game company to make millions and do nothing with it but fund more mobile games."