Look, first of all, it is fair use. The cover art is original art, distinct enough from the source of inspiration to constitute transformative change. The references in the text are homage.
The Jam
For this ongoing series on OMGAM2019, we are looking at March's game. This coincided with the #CozyGameJam hosted by Riverhouse Games.
Cozy games are a really interesting niche. Most of them aren't particularly ludographic (by which I mean that they tend to lack the sort of mechanisms associated with gamification: quantification, scores, or any sort of strict resolution system). They tend to be conversations, journaling exercises, or crafty sorts of things.
I wasn't really sure if or how I could approach or engage with the concept, but I did really admire what was being done in the space.
Subversion
That is, I wasn't sure until I read the article defining parameters for what cozy games were.
I really couldn't resist this. Nothing about Maslow and the specific criteria of the jam seemed in any way cozy to me. In no small part because Maslow was a horrific ablest and supremacist, but moreover because his cold, calculating methods can be felt when you read his work.
So I decided to make something that was suitably cold and calculating. A gamified conversation about needs in Maslow's exact language. I couldn't bear to send something so cynical to the cozy jam though, so I dressed it up in warm colours and added in context and flavour text that represented the coziest things that I could think of.
Sandahl Bergman
The absolute best part of John Milius' 1982 treatment of Conan the Barbarian is Sandahl Bergman's portrayal of Valeria. Valeria is something of a composite character, combining the pirate queen Bêlit with Valeria of the Red Brotherhood.. but you're not here for Robert E. Howard analysis.
Bergman's monologue, from which my game takes its title, is what I always associate with coziness. This desire to come in from the cold, to stop living out of a duffel bag, to relax the constant drive to create value.
I'm not sure that I've ever managed it. Tried once when I got married, got out of consulting and took a desk job. Took out a mortgage. But five years into it we packed everything up and spent the next two years living out of our luggage. It has been another five years since the last time we settled down, we'll see if it sticks.
Homo Economicus in Grandma's Clothing
I'm not sure how all this congealed into a game, but what I ended up with was a simulation of a conversation. This could be Valeria's conversation with Conan. Odysseus and Calypso. Siduri and Gilgamesh.
Each of the two players has a set of values, an incentive based model that governs the marginal utility the will derive from various courses of behaviour.
Through structured, gamified conversation, they have the opportunity to emphasize the importance of their own values, or to change their partner's perception of their own priorities.
The only immutable parameters are that they prefer to be together, and that their other priorities are mutually exclusive.
The Nash Equilibrium is unstated, but is pretty simple: the players dump their negative dice devaluing the road that won't be taken, and use their positive dice to pump the other option. One player takes a small hit for not following their default preference, but it is offset by the bonus for being together and also offset by all the positive dice being spent.
In the end, I don't exactly instruct the players as to what their scores mean. I wrote something vague about considering total points as well as individual ones, but don't offer any advice or default preference. That was intentional, and it would make a lame board game that way, but I was trying to fit in with the
I suppose the cozy part is the conversation its self, and it might be more interesting if players make a real case for their diverging interests rather than playing to score.
Ultimately though, it is just The Prisoners' Dilemma in a housecoat and Little Red Riding Hood should have eaten those cookies herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment