Collaborative Game Design subject - EUREKA

Haha, wow this is an awesome "self-referencing" idea for a game. I absolutely love it. Also it have a lot of flavor which is good for a collaborative project (everyone can have his share of contribution).

As for the name, I would prefer something like what's in your thread title : "Eureka!".

Another concept idea :
Let's say the game is about Designing a perfect game for Spiel and during the game, everyone is helping design that same game, but the game we are designing in the game itself become the game we are playing! So you end up trying to have mechanics added to the game that will benefit you the most.

Folks,

If I understand the proposed concept, then hasn't it already been done more or less in the form of the card game fluxx (link)?

It is my suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) that we do something simple like a card game or a simple board game. Even if just for the initial project. The reason being we can hammer out the details of how the project works. Once that is done, with 'known good' procedures in hand, we could move on to a bigger, more complex project.

Anyone agree / disagree?

-Darke

Sorry, I've been away for awhile. My first child was born on July 11 (a girl), and I'm in the process of moving to a new house.

So, I checked my email and found I've been included in the CGDP. While an interesting concept, I really think it will completely fail if everyone has an equal say, primarily because everyone has different goals and objectives as to what makes a fun game.

In every collabrative project I've worked on, there ABSOLUTELY needs to be one (or at most, two) game 'daddy'(ies). This person sets the direction of the project, and decides on the use of the various suggestions of the other members. Without a daddy, the project will most likely quickly come to halt.

Of course, I could be wrong.

If the consensus is that hpox's expanded idea would be too much, Seth's original idea wouldn't be nearly as complex and seems like it could be done by the group.

Other nominations are welcome too, of course. I know Darke suggested a good dungeon-crawl type of game (I believe). Any other thoughts?

I agree with darke in that the initial idea should be kept to something quite simple. The very nature of the fact that there will be a lot of "cooks" working on this stew will cause it to grow into something more complex anyway -- it's a common characteristic of committee-based work. So, start with a very simple core ... a single intention or mechanic ... then evolve it from there -- more will get tacked-on where seems a good fit.

I also agree with Krosse in that the initial project could be run as a test of true collaboration without a specified lead designer. However, it would probably be best to elect someone as the "nag", whose responsibilities would simply be to continue driving the project forward, without having to be the one to make the creative/administrative decisions. A "facilitator" if you will. (Brings to mind a Dilbert 'toon I once saw ... ;) ).

-Bryk

I don't think it's so much "Democrazy" as "Nomic" (as I say elsewhere).
Democrazy simply has some meta-rules that are implemented according to votes. Nomic allows even the basic rules to be changed depending upon circumstance.

I would envisage the "game of game design" as lying somewhere between the two. I would also imagine it working better with a smaller number; where Democrazy and Nomic both really want 6 or more to make them work effectively, I would expect this to work for 3 - 6 instead. But who knows? :)