091001 Brainstorming 1 "Back To The Future"
Notes from our Octber 1, 2009 Brainstorming Session In Which We Watched "Back To The Future"
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [1] On Behalf Of Allen Cohn Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 5:57 PM To: Doctor When @ Google Subject: Movie Notes From "Back To The Future"
Here's some trivia to let ferment in your fertile minds:
Film opens with iconic scene of lots and lots of clocks--maybe we can use that somewhere. A failed Rube Goldberg device puzzle? Plutonium! Two key lines are "Heavy..." and "Great Scott!" The principal also calls Marty a "slacker" with regularity. Biff keeps saying, "Think, McFly!" and "Don't be so gullible." Doc Brown calls Marty, "Future Boy." Huey Lewis lives in Marin...can we get him to participate? (Or maybe just record something for us?) The name of the town is "Hill Valley"...which is an oxymoron! The 1995 movie theater is showing "Orgy American Style" The time machine leaves on Oct. 26, 1985 at 1:18 AM He travels to Nov. 5, 1955 Lightning strikes the clock tower at 10:04 PM We need a flux capacitor! We need 1.21 gigawatts. We need a "Mr. Fusion" generator Mayors are Red Thomas and Goldie Wilson "Rhythmic ceremonial ritual"/"Enchantment Under The Sea" dance "Twin Pines Mall" becomes "Lone Pine Mall" 88 mph! "Make like a tree and get out of here." "I'm your density." We all loved Doc Brown's "demo from hell" with the burning model car. Perhaps we should also lift from the TV show "Quantum Leap" We should consider modifying our standard legal waiver to include weird time travel language, such as "hold harmless against all heirs, descendents, as well as predecessors and grand parents," etc. Maybe we should list other potential dangers such as temporal vortices, quantum singularities, chronaton radiation, etc. George's book was "A Match Made In Space." The license plate "OUTATIME" could be a puzzle if you rotate the letters.
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [2] On Behalf Of Sean Gugler Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 1:46 AM To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com Subject: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
Six of us gathered tonight at Allen's place, watched Back To The Future (Alexandra had never seen it before!), and held some open discussion on the Dr. When project.
For the benefit of those who weren't there, and as a recorded memory aid for those who were, I'm passing along some notes about the topics that came up tonight. (Allen separately took notes on elements of the film that could be good in-jokes or prove inspirational.) I'm counting on my fellows to correct me where I've misspoken.
Date: Thurs, 2009-Oct-01
Attendees: Allen Cohn, Alexandra Dixon, Erik Stuart, Jesse Morris, Sean Gugler, Wei-Hwa Huang
TOPICS
Story
o Allen wants Dr. When to be heavily story-based, perhaps more-so even than Hogwarts. (All members present but Allen had experienced Hogwarts, he knows of it only by reputation.)
o Erik has spoken at length with Allen in private on this topic, he shares this drive.
o Sean voiced that he likes the notion.
o Nobody objected.
o Erik worried that drawing from too many films would make a mess of our plot.
o General agreement that we should concoct our own story, with liberal cultural references and homages to those films.
Who is the game for? Us, or the players?
o This one was divisive, and engendered some heavy but respectful debate.
o Alexandra, Wei-Hwa, Jesse, and Sean are fairly strongly of the opinion that the game is for the players, period.
o Erik dissented with the point that GC invests the most into the experience, so we should do it for us; that is, to worry more about what we want than diluting our vision to cater to the players.
o General agreement that we shouldn't be afraid to experiment.
o Wei-Hwa observed that we will naturally bias our efforts towards experiences we personally enjoy, anyway. He also noted that he will be consciously stepping outside his comfort zone for this project, since he has little personal interest in non-puzzle aspects of these events.
o Sean said that when a cherished puzzle isn't resonating during test, he'd opt to alter or scrap the puzzle rather than be the auteur whose audience just doesn't appreciate him.
o Jesse concurs that you have to know when to let something go, despite your investment in it.
o Erik suspects the practical results of our individual efforts will be generally aligned, that our philosophical disagreement may not matter in the end.
o Wei-Hwa shared one final anecdote, that he constructed The Griffiths Game entirely to suit his personal taste as a game he'd like to play himself. And regretted it, as his players were solving behind schedule, some dropped out, and their dissatisfaction made him dissatisfied, too.
Competition
o Allen dearly wants this event to be equally accessible to all players, regardless of skill levels, and to drastically reduce if not eliminate the competitive aspect. He ideally wants a below-average solver to get as much out of Dr. When as the top champs.
o He also wants to require, or at least encourage, cross-team collaboration.
o Sean said the fundamental problem is trying to fit fast teams and slow teams in the same time frame.
o Allen suggested we not think in those terms, but that we want to deliver a certain number of hours of entertainment value. Some of the time could be passive entertainment, like the film was fun, wasn't it?
o Wei-Hwa, as a player, would hate or skip non-interactive bits, he's there for puzzles only. Thinks other competitive players would have a simliar mindset.
o Allen: with careful public language, we can discourage the competitive spirit and draw people who want something a bit different. (Hogwarts considered that approach also, says Sean)
o Alexandra: You can't, they'll play anyway. (Hogwarts arrived at the same conclusion.)
o Sean advised that even with managed expectations, we still end up having to do the planning and crafting work to compensate for the spread.
o Jesse claimed it's unavoidable to have extra puzzles. His fellows at Ghost Patrol GC claimed it's better on player morale to consider them "bonuses" than to speak of slower teams "skipping" them.
o Erik disputed the unavoidableness. There may be unexplored alternatives, we should keep our minds open.
Length
o Alexandra and Jesse noted that we're likely to have more than enough material for a full-length, overnight game.
o Allen acknowledged, but he really dislikes losing sleep and is inclined to pack it into one day.
o Erik wished we really did have time travel, it would solve the whole timing problem. Quipped we could instruct players, "Use this bed to travel 8 hours into the future."
o Alexandra recalled a successful sleep segment in a recent game. [was it Pirate's BATH?]
o Jesse bemoaned that he didn't get much sleep on that event regardless.
o Jesse and Erik thought we should wait and see how much game time our ideas yield, rather than try to force them into 12 or 36 hour frames in advance.
Skill Engagement
o Allen proposed one way to avoid the boredom factor and tighten the spread by letting each team play to their strengths: give them a choice of puzzles, e.g. music, trivia, or math.
o Jesse: bad idea! Team will argue, and only one member gets to "win" while the others suffer a puzzle they don't enjoy.
o Wei-Hwa asserted it's better to broaden each puzzle's appeal. Most CD puzzles leave him dry, he usually doesn't know the music, so he built one with music familiar to him (video games). Ian loved it in test, but on game day too few players got it, so he'd avoid such esoteric appeal in the future.
o Erik: Why not split up the teams? Pull the music experts from each to collaborate, while the math experts go elsewhere, etc.
o Allen: or even just open the game only to individuals, not teams!
o Sean was intrigued, thinks it's definitely worth mulling. Cautioned that a big part of the fun factor is playing with friends, you really don't want to spend the whole game with strangers. (Didn't we have this discussion for Hogwarts, too?)
Parting Thoughts
o Allen was excited to see so much engagement, and reminded us that there'll be plenty more discussion before any hard decisions need to be made.
o Sean observed that once we're generally on the same page for goals, we'll naturally start to divide and conquer the rest according to who's passionate about what.
o Jesse cautioned that Ghost Patrol never achieved such a consensus. They "shipped" in disagreement, yet the project held together anyway.
o Sean really wants our new GC team to be called The Time Lords. Allen disfavors it, preferring Dr. When to be the dominant identity. Sean said the event is Dr. When, it can be presented to the community by The Time Lords. Allen conceded it might be better than trying to combine the names of all the teams we represent; though we should still give them each prominent credit. "Yeah, as proof on Red's next application," added Erik, met by nods of agreement.
Cheers,
- Sean
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [3] On Behalf Of Wei-Hwa Huang
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:35 AM
To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
I agree with most of the recap, except for this point:
"o Wei-Hwa asserted it's better to broaden each puzzle's appeal. Most CD puzzles leave him dry, he usually doesn't know the music, so he built one with music familiar to him (video games). Ian loved it in test, but on game day too few players got it, so he'd avoid such esoteric appeal in the future."
That is definitely not what I believe. I feel that the video game puzzle was presented as best as it could be and were I to do it again I would definitely run it again.
The point I was trying to make is that there are puzzles that have a broader appeal that everyone will enjoy, and there are puzzles that have an esoteric appeal that most players will find subpar but a few players will find WONDERFUL. Most puzzles fall somewhere in between. This is a little bit analogous to using spice in food. If you don't spice your food, everyone will be willing to eat it, whereas adding spice will turn off some people but really improve the taste for others.
It is important for GCs to be aware that puzzles do fall on this scale, and be aware what one is "serving" the end players. Too many of the "vanilla" puzzles and your hunt becomes un-memorable. Too many of the "spicy" puzzles and a lot of negative experience comes out (especially if your hunt is designed to force all teams to solve all puzzles in order).
In the case of the video game puzzle, we made the puzzle not essential to solving the hunt, gave lots of liberal help towards teams that didn't have anyone who could solve it, and put it near the end so only the advanced teams will see it. I think that's the best way to treat a "spicy" puzzle.
One more thing, which I'll represent with a riddle: What's worse than getting stuck solving a "spicy" puzzle that nobody on your team likes, resulting in everybody being unhappy solving an un-fun puzzle?
Answer: Getting a "spicy" puzzle that only one person on your team likes, and not being aware of it because said person was asleep or working on another puzzle, resulting in one person being unhappy he didn't get to see the perfect puzzle for him, and the rest of the people being unhappy solving an un-fun puzzle!
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [4] On Behalf Of Melissa Wilson Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:43 AM To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
I wasn't in the discussion last night so these are thoughts without strong context. And, I play mostly for social reasons and for the occasional artistic (visual, sound, language, physical) clue:
I strongly prefer playing as a team. These are the people you can deal with many hours at a time with no sleep. Even if a team is not talented (I am thinking of, oh, my team), they (I) still have fun because of the shared experience and then reliving it later through our "battle" stories.
I do think providing a choice of the kind of puzzle you solve here and there is cool. But it blows out the "competition" that the super-competitive teams want (i.e. the scoreboard).
I like seeing the progress of other teams (being at a place all at once) as part of the comraderie so moving in order is good to me (but I guess not needed to still have fun). I am just a super-curious person.
I like games that go longer. It feels triumphant and courageous to take it on. That being said, I can not play these longer games fully because I need sleep due to medical stuff (dad picks me up to get home) so I would be curious if a Pirates Bath thing would work and avoid grouchiness, up safety, and improve socialization within the game community. (I wouldn't recommend providing tents. Sleeping in your own personal tent makes for better sleep.) I like Erik's 8 hour time travel comment.
A puzzle that used different historic references and then solved by date, letters, whatever could be cool. Esp. if not google-able, but required old fashioned research in a library (I miss the old days before technology when you packed your van with encyclopedias, ladders, swimsuits, fancy clothes, etc.) My first game play was Stanford 1990 and it had this feeling. Could we do a game without technology for puzzles that reference the past but use it for the futuristic puzzles. This paragraph is muddled, but I throw it out there supressing my linguistic vanity.
What if teams didn't really know the start time/location until they receive a pre-recorded, dramatic, Vincent Price call that day with an easy puzzle that gets them to the right location at the right time. The heart starts beating and you haven't even started. Maybe this is lame. I am throwing it out there anyway.
BTW, because of my sleep issues I can't make it to meetings that run past 9 or so. Given that I am married to Erik and he is a fanatic and will stay to the end, you may not see me. I am like the opposite of a vampire!
Love to you all,
Melissa
P.S. I lived with Red at Stanford. Dude.
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [5] On Behalf Of David Shukan Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:15 AM To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
Thanks for the recap. My quick thoughts are:
(1) Seems to me like one of the first things to be sorted out is the degree to which the event will be competitive and/or have scoring -- that is, will this be a one-track game where all teams are scored against each other, a multi-track game (such as competitive/noncompetitive, or even scored/nonscored) where only teams in the same track are scored against each other (or in the case of a nonscored track, not scored at all), entirely nonscored, or something else? I believe a number of the decisions raised in the other emails will flow from this. For example, in my opinion (others may differ), fully cooperative puzzles don't work as well in competitive events (absent certain circumstances, such as helping to stagger things slightly at the beginning), but work fine in noncompetitive events. Similarly, if there are different tracks or flights (many road rallyes use this mechanism, and the National Puzzlers League's yearly Extravaganza uses a single track but divides teams into self-selected "Racers" and "Strollers"), then it will be easier to incorporate different puzzles or options or hint structures without the competitive teams feeling like they got jobbed or that the scoring system was too fuzzy.
(2) I am firmly in the "we do this for the players" camp. Puzzles that don't quite work should not be shoehorned in or glossed over, they should either be made to work or used elsewhere (or discussed on your blog -- "I had this absolutely brilliant grid, but the only way I could make it work was to use FLIPPER twice, which was too inelegant, but let me show it to you here."). In the 2008 Mystery Hunt, I had to throw out, or repurpose for later events, over 100 hours of work that simply ended up not being right for that event (about half of that was the view of the editors, not me, but oh well -- see item #7, below). Similarly, if it does not testsolve correctly, there's no reason to believe that teams, as a whole, will do better with it than the testsolvers.
(3) Regarding passive entertainment and the like -- I'm all for that as a concept, but to the extent it deviates from lots of puzzles fast and furious, there is (I believe) an obligation to be very up front about it to solvers, who may be travelling great distances to get there. Not all entertainment is equally entertaining to all people. And that's not at all to say that one form is better than another -- certainly some people will prefer one type of event to another -- all I'm saying is that people should have a general idea of what type of entertainment they are going to be getting so they can make intelligent choices when allocating their (finite) budget of money and time.
(4) The idea of "bonus" puzzles does seem to work well to keep teams on the same general pace while still allowing stronger teams to "do better" in a competitive sense (to the extent that's important). There are at least 2 ways of doing this -- giving bonus puzzles only to teams that are far enough ahead at certain points (to "slow them down"), or give all the bonus puzzles to all teams at the beginning (or maybe a bunch of bonuses at the beginning, middle, and end, etc.), that teams can work on if they have time. In the latter case, the value of the bonus puzzles should be calibrated so that they do not become more important than the main puzzles of the event. Bonus puzzles can also keep some players in the game if/when there is a main puzzle that does not play to their strength (though I grant not everyone likes the idea of a team not all working on the main puzzle together).
(5) Long games and shorter games both have their place (OK, that's pretty obvious). I love marathon games, but they are definitely hellish to write while keeping up quality throughout. I'd love to put on a great marathon game, but as between a great mid-range game or a good marathon game, I'd prefer the great mid-range game.
(6) I prefer "Dr. When" to "The Time Lords". And I was going to save this for later, but here it is anyway: I believe we should have some significant entity (organization, location, corporation, etc.) partway through the event that is named Trenchwood. It will be a cool insider reference for those who know of the series Torchwood that was spun off from Doctor Who. ("Torchwood" is an anagram of "Doctor Who" in the same way that ... well, you get it.)
(7) There's *always* more than one way to skin a cat, and often several people will strongly feel that their way is the best. I've found that it's usually best for one person (or a small group) to just make those final decisions (after appropriate discussion and consultation, of course). The primary alternative way -- putting virtually everything up for a vote -- I find to be less efficient and more muddled. I assume that Allen will be such person here (or one of the small group), but I do think that some formalizing of the general decision mechanism early on is a useful thing. I'm not at all suggesting a vote on this, and Heaven knows I'm not lobbying to become one of the deciders -- I'd be happy if someone would just declare "this is how it's gonna be" -- but having everyone on the same page early as to how decisions will be made will, I am confident, be a Good Thing. (Example: We could all probably talk for months about the level of competitiveness and scoring that should be involved in the event, but at some point early on, someone's gotta just say: "Here's how it's going to be" in a way that has some degree of finality and acceptance to it.)
Onward,
Dave/Tin
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [6] On Behalf Of Wei-Hwa Huang Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:50 AM To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
Some more thoughts:
Perhaps the philosophical divide between "we do it for the players" and "we do it to fulfill our vision" actually is a difference between what we mean by "it". Looks to me like for those of us on the "for the players" side, "it" means "puzzles and clues", and for those of us on the "fulfill our vision" side, "it" means "story and competitive level".
In other words, when Allen is saying "I think we should go with this vision of having a game rich in story and cooperation, even if the players are used to a game that is puzzle-heavy and has competition," and I say "I think that just because we really like a puzzle, we shouldn't use it if players aren't going to find it fun"... well, we're not really having opposite arguments here.
From: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com [7] On Behalf Of Allen Cohn Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 5:27 PM To: DoctorWhen@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Meeting minutes for 2009-Oct-01
Hi everyone,
Great discussion! Sean totally nailed my first and foremost reaction when he recorded, "Allen was excited to see so much engagement."
A few other thoughts:
- Are we investing so much of our creative energies to make something that primarily pleases us or pleases the players? I think that at this early, early stage of the project we can justifiably aspire to do *both* (echoing Wei-Hwa's last email).
This isn't to say that *some* of our creation might be a bit different than what players are used to (in fact, I hope some parts are!). But "different" can still be very satisfying to the bulk of our community. Especially if we set players' expectations to encourage just a bit of open mindedness.
- Yes, we will have to wrestle with the competitiveness between teams issue. But I suspect we will be better able to address it just a bit further into development after we've brainstormed more ideas and nailed down the key plot elements.
- That being said, I realize that no matter how we promote our game all the usual suspects will want to play, including those who thrive on competition. I mean, how can they not when our creation will be so stinkin' cool? :-) But, just as Sean wrote for me, I am still optimistic that with clever promotion and game design we can encourage the bulk of our community to open their minds to appreciating all aspects of our creation--the artistry, immersion in the plot (pseudo role-playing), and intellectual content.
- Nope, I wasn't the one who thought up the idea of having folks register individually. I love how out-of-the-box that is! However, I think that in the long run even I would prefer to have registration by team.
Which is not to say that I don't think it might be devilishly cool to have an occasion where the team concept is messed with (I
- love* surprising players!). And if we do such a thing, it might be most useful to us to do so early in the event because that might discourage a "competition among teams" perspective and encourage a "we're all collectively trying to accomplish a goal" perspective.
- And one last little tiny item: as I recall, the Doctor Who TV show always writes it "Doctor Who" instead of "Dr. Who." In honor of that, I've always been writing "Doctor When."
Going forward, I think it's great that we're discussing these structural issues. However, we're still in the brainstorming phase of our project and so I recommend we have patience and refrain from making final decisions until we develop a bit more.
Speaking of brainstorming, I hope we also bounce around some non-structural ideas...what fun/clever/funny ideas did "Back To The Future" inspire in us? I'll write up my notes from the movie and post them on here and on the wiki to encourage that thinking. I'll also copy and paste this discussion into the section for "Brainstorming Session 1" just so they're all in one place.
Yours in flux capacitors, Allen
