After reading Matt Snyder's post
about his latest thoughts on the "Indigo" project, I have to agree that for his particular game design goals, he's making the right decision to make it a solo project rather than an open-group one. I think he has gained a pretty clear vision of what he wants from this game and really he's the only one who can work out the questions and problems involved in that -- others can provide as much input as he might ask for, but it's really his car to drive any direction he wants. I can't wait to see the results!
That said, however, I'm curious to hear what others think about the possibility of a democratically designed game. What if, instead of having a leader figure who took in input and then made his or her own decisions, you had a moderator sort of figure who tried to synthesize what different people were saying, find the common points, and help guide the group to a unified way of thinking about the game. I'm not sure votes would necessarily be needed, but I suppose if there were a clear disagreement about the game, then a vote could be called to resolve it, or else the group could split, to go ahead and take the game in those two different directions. Here are some questions:
- Would the end result be hopelessly fragmented?
- Or would it be an awesome sandbox of different but related tools that lots of people could both enjoy playing with and tinkering with as well?
- Would the need for consensus stifle innovation?
- Would players be interested in such a game, or would it seem kind of gimmicky?