undyingking: (Default)
I seem to dream far more games than I design (or even play) in real life these days. Not sure if this is good or bad?

Anyway, this one is a social game for a large group of people (at least 20 or so), so maybe an icebreaker or at a conference or something.

First you decide upon three topics of factionalism, and four permitted values for each. So eg.
  • Favourite colour – red, yellow, green, purple;
  • Most inspiring Wizard of Oz character – Tin Woodman, Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion, Wizard;
  • Best housebuilding material – timber, brick, concrete, steel frame.
Obviously, steer clear of any topic that might be controversial. Try and have a bit of variety. And choose topics that all your players will be able to talk about, ie. nothing too obscure if it's a general audience. (But as obscure if you like if they're a bunch of geeks…)

Assign each player a random value from each category. So player A might be assigned Red, Scarecrow and Concrete; player B gets Purple, Wizard and Concrete; etc. Player A is then considered to be in the Red Faction, the Scarecrow Faction and the Concrete Faction, and so on.

Each player knows what Factions they are in (and has some sort of card or something on which they're recorded), but they aren't publicly visible. (They aren't secret, just not obvious.)

The game proceeds by the players mingling and chatting with one another in one-on-ones. In one such interaction, Player A approaches player B, they introduce themselves, and player A chooses one of their three Faction allegiances to enthuse about (eg. what a wonderful character the Scarecrow is, triumphing over his lack of brain). Player B listens respectfully but begs to differ, suggesting that the Wizard's ingenuity is truly admirable. Having established that they disagree, B chooses another Faction allegiance to raise, arguing that Purple is a colour of marked superiority. But A prefers Red.

A and B can now, if they both want to, agree to convince each other – ie. A will change from Red Faction to Purple Faction, and in return B will change from Wizard Faction to Scarecrow Faction. Or vice versa – as they mutually prefer. They mark these new values on their cards, and from now on must believe and argue them as vigorously as they did their initial positions.

A and B now separate, and each moves away to start a new conversation with other players (who meanwhile have been doing the same sort of thing, all over the room). As people convince and are convinced by each other, the number in each Faction will rise and fall. If it was purely random, it would stay fairly even, but my suspicion is that topics will usually tend to congregate towards one Faction or another.

The game continues with these free-flowing exchanges, until a predefined time limit has passed: then the organizers tot up how many members there now are of each Faction, and announce the results.

(Note that if you find yourself talking to someone who is already in your Faction for all three topics, or for two of the three, then you might as well bid them a cheery farewell and move on to someone else.)
undyingking: (Default)
I seem to dream far more games than I design (or even play) in real life these days. Not sure if this is good or bad?

Anyway, this one is a social game for a large group of people (at least 20 or so), so maybe an icebreaker or at a conference or something.

First you decide upon three topics of factionalism, and four permitted values for each. So eg.
  • Favourite colour – red, yellow, green, purple;
  • Most inspiring Wizard of Oz character – Tin Woodman, Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion, Wizard;
  • Best housebuilding material – timber, brick, concrete, steel frame.
Obviously, steer clear of any topic that might be controversial. Try and have a bit of variety. And choose topics that all your players will be able to talk about, ie. nothing too obscure if it's a general audience. (But as obscure if you like if they're a bunch of geeks…)

Assign each player a random value from each category. So player A might be assigned Red, Scarecrow and Concrete; player B gets Purple, Wizard and Concrete; etc. Player A is then considered to be in the Red Faction, the Scarecrow Faction and the Concrete Faction, and so on.

Each player knows what Factions they are in (and has some sort of card or something on which they're recorded), but they aren't publicly visible. (They aren't secret, just not obvious.)

The game proceeds by the players mingling and chatting with one another in one-on-ones. In one such interaction, Player A approaches player B, they introduce themselves, and player A chooses one of their three Faction allegiances to enthuse about (eg. what a wonderful character the Scarecrow is, triumphing over his lack of brain). Player B listens respectfully but begs to differ, suggesting that the Wizard's ingenuity is truly admirable. Having established that they disagree, B chooses another Faction allegiance to raise, arguing that Purple is a colour of marked superiority. But A prefers Red.

A and B can now, if they both want to, agree to convince each other – ie. A will change from Red Faction to Purple Faction, and in return B will change from Wizard Faction to Scarecrow Faction. Or vice versa – as they mutually prefer. They mark these new values on their cards, and from now on must believe and argue them as vigorously as they did their initial positions.

A and B now separate, and each moves away to start a new conversation with other players (who meanwhile have been doing the same sort of thing, all over the room). As people convince and are convinced by each other, the number in each Faction will rise and fall. If it was purely random, it would stay fairly even, but my suspicion is that topics will usually tend to congregate towards one Faction or another.

The game continues with these free-flowing exchanges, until a predefined time limit has passed: then the organizers tot up how many members there now are of each Faction, and announce the results.

(Note that if you find yourself talking to someone who is already in your Faction for all three topics, or for two of the three, then you might as well bid them a cheery farewell and move on to someone else.)

Food!

Aug. 24th, 2011 10:49 am
undyingking: (Default)
The other day I made a roasted shallot risotto, which was dead simple and extremely nice (TISIAS).

This was for a moderate-sized for two, so adjust accordingly. Peel about 200g of shallots. Halve or quarter any larger ones – basically you don't want any of the pieces to be bigger than a cm or so in any dimension. Put them in a roasting dish with a good slug of olive oil – enough to cover them liberally and still slosh around the bottom a bit. The roasting dish should be of a size that they're in one layer but not too spaced-out. Grind salt and pepper over them, add a few drops of balsamic vinegar, and mix. Put in a 160C oven (fan-assisted – I guess 180 if not?) for 10 mins, shake and mix, then 10 mins more. When done, the larger bits should be very soft, the smaller bits somewhat crispy.

In the meantime, melt 30g or so of butter, get it gently foaming, and add 150g of risotto rice. Stir it around in the butter for a few minutes until transparent round the edge. (Don't let the butter go brown.) Add a litre of veg stock – a spoonful at a time if you're a purist, or all at once if you're lazy like me. You could also add a pinch of saffron at this point if you like it and have some; likewise a chunk of parmesan rind. Put the lid on and let it cook down to your preferred risotto texture, stirring frequently.

Mix the shallots into the risotto (including any delicious oil that's clinging to the bottom of the roasting dish) and serve with a mix of undressed salad leaves – preferably including some sharpish stuff like sorrel and wild mustard, and maybe some basil and oregano leaves too.

Peeling the shallots is the only fiddly bit, but really this ends up good enough to dish up to anyone.

Food!

Aug. 24th, 2011 10:49 am
undyingking: (Default)
The other day I made a roasted shallot risotto, which was dead simple and extremely nice (TISIAS).

This was for a moderate-sized for two, so adjust accordingly. Peel about 200g of shallots. Halve or quarter any larger ones – basically you don't want any of the pieces to be bigger than a cm or so in any dimension. Put them in a roasting dish with a good slug of olive oil – enough to cover them liberally and still slosh around the bottom a bit. The roasting dish should be of a size that they're in one layer but not too spaced-out. Grind salt and pepper over them, add a few drops of balsamic vinegar, and mix. Put in a 160C oven (fan-assisted – I guess 180 if not?) for 10 mins, shake and mix, then 10 mins more. When done, the larger bits should be very soft, the smaller bits somewhat crispy.

In the meantime, melt 30g or so of butter, get it gently foaming, and add 150g of risotto rice. Stir it around in the butter for a few minutes until transparent round the edge. (Don't let the butter go brown.) Add a litre of veg stock – a spoonful at a time if you're a purist, or all at once if you're lazy like me. You could also add a pinch of saffron at this point if you like it and have some; likewise a chunk of parmesan rind. Put the lid on and let it cook down to your preferred risotto texture, stirring frequently.

Mix the shallots into the risotto (including any delicious oil that's clinging to the bottom of the roasting dish) and serve with a mix of undressed salad leaves – preferably including some sharpish stuff like sorrel and wild mustard, and maybe some basil and oregano leaves too.

Peeling the shallots is the only fiddly bit, but really this ends up good enough to dish up to anyone.
undyingking: (Default)
Last night in a dream I was playing an interesting (possibly) RPG. Again it was one of these modern-style restrictive one-off systems, designed solely for whodunnits, for a GM and one or two players. The general idea was that the players (who are detectives along the lines of Poirot etc) advance through various predefined scenes and encounters, gathering information and impressions, and then at the end they are given a multiple-choice sheet in which they have to tick the box of the NPC who they think was the culprit.

In the dream it was quite fun, although I dare say in real life it would be quite hard for the GM to generate scenarios. But that is true of any 'solving mystery' type of game, and at least this one, because of the restrictions on what the PCs can do, you know that you don't have to cover too much ground outside of the main plot.

But really first I should do a proper test of the Haunted House game, as my migraine rather knackered the first one.
undyingking: (Default)
Last night in a dream I was playing an interesting (possibly) RPG. Again it was one of these modern-style restrictive one-off systems, designed solely for whodunnits, for a GM and one or two players. The general idea was that the players (who are detectives along the lines of Poirot etc) advance through various predefined scenes and encounters, gathering information and impressions, and then at the end they are given a multiple-choice sheet in which they have to tick the box of the NPC who they think was the culprit.

In the dream it was quite fun, although I dare say in real life it would be quite hard for the GM to generate scenarios. But that is true of any 'solving mystery' type of game, and at least this one, because of the restrictions on what the PCs can do, you know that you don't have to cover too much ground outside of the main plot.

But really first I should do a proper test of the Haunted House game, as my migraine rather knackered the first one.

Induction

Jul. 27th, 2011 10:23 am
undyingking: (Default)
Anyone out there got an induction hob? Be interested to know what you think about it, etc.

Induction

Jul. 27th, 2011 10:23 am
undyingking: (Default)
Anyone out there got an induction hob? Be interested to know what you think about it, etc.
undyingking: (Default)

08:37:50: RT @TimHarford: RT @stevesilberman: Lovely: High-speed video of gelatin cubes dropped onto solid surface.http://bit.ly/kfKlz0
10:55:00: Excellent Selvey article about facing Holding: http://is.gd/BlnC8W
12:52:50: My Top 3 #lastfm Artists: シートベルツ (32), Carpenters (23) & of Montreal (18) #music http://bit.ly/hbHcw3
13:42:23: Nice simple 3D text CSS effect: http://is.gd/wjxs2D HT @ilovetypography

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

08:37:50: RT @TimHarford: RT @stevesilberman: Lovely: High-speed video of gelatin cubes dropped onto solid surface.http://bit.ly/kfKlz0
10:55:00: Excellent Selvey article about facing Holding: http://is.gd/BlnC8W
12:52:50: My Top 3 #lastfm Artists: シートベルツ (32), Carpenters (23) & of Montreal (18) #music http://bit.ly/hbHcw3
13:42:23: Nice simple 3D text CSS effect: http://is.gd/wjxs2D HT @ilovetypography

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

10:59:11: RT @guardianstyle: Both correct and appear to mean the same, but we can't see any reason to say "unseasonable" when "-al" is more economical
13:13:42: RT @IpswichLabour: Poll on Library incompetence. followers may like to write-in a vote for Judy Terry (Suffolk)... http://twtpoll.com/6r94zf
14:50:43: RT @alexiskennedy: Possibly the most preposterous bit of gamification puffery yet. Bar high on that one, I know, but: http://bit.ly/j1JrR0

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

10:59:11: RT @guardianstyle: Both correct and appear to mean the same, but we can't see any reason to say "unseasonable" when "-al" is more economical
13:13:42: RT @IpswichLabour: Poll on Library incompetence. followers may like to write-in a vote for Judy Terry (Suffolk)... http://twtpoll.com/6r94zf
14:50:43: RT @alexiskennedy: Possibly the most preposterous bit of gamification puffery yet. Bar high on that one, I know, but: http://bit.ly/j1JrR0

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

17:05:52: Sculptures made out of Scotch tape! (Yes, this is publicity for them, But also: brilliant.) http://is.gd/1Mgoff

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

17:05:52: Sculptures made out of Scotch tape! (Yes, this is publicity for them, But also: brilliant.) http://is.gd/1Mgoff

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

10:34:18: Anyone out there playing SpaceChem? http://is.gd/FnaCgU http://youtu.be/tUGUfq8_nbA http://is.gd/eEJNeX Looks highly addictive!

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

10:34:18: Anyone out there playing SpaceChem? http://is.gd/FnaCgU http://youtu.be/tUGUfq8_nbA http://is.gd/eEJNeX Looks highly addictive!

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

14:22:34: Labour take Ipswich council from Tory/LDs -- excellent news! http://is.gd/CvE44t
16:43:02: I love these monuments in former Yugoslavia: http://is.gd/502kRv

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

14:22:34: Labour take Ipswich council from Tory/LDs -- excellent news! http://is.gd/CvE44t
16:43:02: I love these monuments in former Yugoslavia: http://is.gd/502kRv

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

11:20:28: Daniel Bejar's fun Googleganger project http://is.gd/zPMHGu http://is.gd/Oumn5A
14:29:54: Astonishing NASA expt supports general relativity predictions: http://is.gd/yJZDBc
15:43:11: EARIOT NSLCUD is the new ETAOIN SHRDLU: http://is.gd/oO4UaB RT @OxfordWords
19:46:06: My Top 3 #lastfm Artists: Carpenters (16), of Montreal (15) & シートベルツ (14) #music http://bit.ly/hbHcw3

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

undyingking: (Default)

11:20:28: Daniel Bejar's fun Googleganger project http://is.gd/zPMHGu http://is.gd/Oumn5A
14:29:54: Astonishing NASA expt supports general relativity predictions: http://is.gd/yJZDBc
15:43:11: EARIOT NSLCUD is the new ETAOIN SHRDLU: http://is.gd/oO4UaB RT @OxfordWords
19:46:06: My Top 3 #lastfm Artists: Carpenters (16), of Montreal (15) & シートベルツ (14) #music http://bit.ly/hbHcw3

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

Profile

undyingking: (Default)
undyingking

March 2012

S M T W T F S
     123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 04:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios