Moods in conversation

Question from Conrad Cook:

I’m wondering how you mesh variable tracking with conversation.
You’ve mentioned _Alabaster_ tracks a lot of variables, and I can
conceptualize how that would be reflected in, for example, the
artwork. But I’ve been wrestling for a while with how to use the
conversation to move the NPC’s variables, and how to have those
variables be reflected in the course of the conversation, and so far
I’m not winning that wrestling match.

Alabaster’s source is available, so it’s possible just to look at what’s going on there — but possibly more difficult to suss out exactly what the plan is throughout the source. A technical discussion follows.

Continue reading “Moods in conversation”

Walker & Silhouette

Latest playing: CEJ Pacian’s brand-new game about an unlikely crime-fighting duo. It’s keyword-driven, a la Blue Lacuna but more so; that means it’s easy, but not so easy that there aren’t any puzzles at all. I think it took me 30-45 minutes to play, but I could be misestimating that. There’s mystery, there’s wacky setting, there’s light romance. Looking back over the experience, I think it’s best if you don’t know very much about what to expect (like I didn’t), so I won’t give much more detail than that. I liked it.

Train

Here’s an interesting post about a tabletop game, Train, that explores some of the complicity issues we talk about in regard to Rameses and (especially) Rendition. I share some of the reservations of the post’s author: is a game whose chief gimmick is to make you not want to play really a game? How much depth can be wrung out of such a construction?

But I find it really interesting to see this same idea being played out in the realm of the physical board game, even if it is (as in this case) a single-edition Art board game that will never be widely distributed.

(Edited to add: the linked page has a chat app in the sidebar that seems to crash Firefox for some people. Sorry about that. Safari appears to view it safely.)

More on Boston PAX

As zarf notes over here, we’ve submitted some panel suggestions to PAX East (and other people are welcome to do more). That’s Boston, March 26-28, 2010. Definitely planning to be there, besides me: J. Robinson Wheeler, Robb Sherwin, Aaron Reed, Andrew Plotkin, Mark Musante, Jeremy Freese, Juhana Leinonen, Jonathan Blask, Sam Kabo Ashwell, Jacqueline Lott Ashwell, Dave Cornelson, John Cater, David Welbourn, Iain Merrick, Jesse McGrew, Christopher Armstrong, Nick Montfort (part of the weekend); possibly Stephen Granade, Mike Rubin, and Jim Munroe; Jason Scott, almost certainly premiering Get Lamp.

Latest iPhone Playing

Jigami is a puzzle game a little bit reminiscent of Reversi. You and your opponent (either the computer or another human) take turns laying down four-sided tiles, which have to fit into the adjacent tiles or they can’t be placed. In addition, each side of the tile bears a symbol — a circle, triangle, square, etc. — and if you place your tile so that it matches the symbol next to it, both the new tile and the old tile turn your color. Furthermore, if that tile also connects with other tiles via the same symbol — such that there is a whole line of squares (say) running through the tiles — you convert the whole set of tiles at once.

That makes for tactically enjoyable puzzle play, since sometimes it’s worth blocking off a particularly valuable vein of symbols just to ensure that your enemy won’t be able to flip them all back to his color in a single move. Then again… sometimes it’s just not possible to play defensively, if you haven’t happened to draw the right tileset or you can’t move fast enough. That means endgame play can be surprisingly volatile, with the apparent winner suddenly losing at the last minute. In some ways it’s more satisfying (and effective, at least for me at this point) to analyze moment-to-moment play rather than craft a long-term play strategy for the whole game.

Jigami allows you always to see your opponent’s pieces as well as your own. I’m not sure whether or not I like that: at first I spent a lot of time trying to think ahead, based on my and my opponent’s pieces. The thing is, though, that you can’t plan completely safely around your opponent’s slate, because it’s always possible to trade in the current slate of pieces for a random new set. So you can’t reliably box your opponent out of making a move, and that makes lookahead thinking based on his tiles a lot less useful — so I’d almost rather not see them at all, because it just complicates my decision-making process.

Still: entertaining, though I will probably like it even more if I come up with play strategies, rather than just short-term tactics. I’m not yet certain whether this will prove possible.

(Disclosure: I received a free review copy of this game.)

So I ragged on I Dig It in a past review, and someone suggested I give it another try, and I did, whereupon I played the whole thing through. So when I Dig It Expeditions came out, it was more or less guaranteed that I’d try it. Expeditions continues the same excellent production values with new things to find and new digger devices and dangers. I’m not nearly done with it yet, but it’s a worthy addition if you liked the first one.

And they’ve made a tweak that resolves my greatest frustration with the original game: you can roll right over holes at ground level if you want to (as though you were driving around them in three dimensions), so you don’t have to fly around too much once you’ve emerged from your digging.

(Disclosure: I paid full price for this game and have no affiliations with the authors.)