Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ron Edwards, October 06, 2005, 01:33:13 PM
QuoteHowever, I question whether every damn conflict needs to have every single Antagonist involved as opposition. That seems very forced and boring to me - I like the idea that a given Antagonist may decide to "give" if they want, or perhaps have some other "by" option.
QuoteHe is certainly fulfilling the Archetype role to our protagonist, structurally and emotionally, but Harry (our character) is also a WWII veteran, a borderline alcoholic, and (unusually for the fifties) a bit of a Lefty, when his boss isn't listening.
QuoteSurprise endgame. I can see that as being valuable, but I'm not sure about it at the moment. On the one hand it does get rid of the grind, allowing players to have some large scale uncertainty (instead of the current small-scale uncertainty of not losing a die roll or something). On the other hand, it gets rid of the grind, that sense of toil is lessened (though, quite possibly, there's enough left that it's still powerful). If there is such a surprise endgame, do you see things being such that Antagonists have both Antagonism and Relationship values remaining at the end? Some sort of adjusted/expanded endgame conditions?
QuoteAlso, the pivotal endgame scene works for (for example) My Life with Master because there is a single central antagonist. This is precisely inversed in The Suburban Crucible so I have to ask how you see that working out? A separate attempt for each Antagonist, or one that goes after them all, or something in between?
QuoteOn archetypes -> characters. I don't think I entirely get what you're getting at. I can see your main point, I've got to start understanding archetypes as characters-in-play, but I'm not sure what youre specific suggestion is (unless that's it, that I just need the right perspective). So, what exactly are you suggesting, if anything, regarding endgame? Sorry if I'm a bit dense here...
QuoteOne final note, and this is somewhat personal and (I think) really interesting: I'm not sure if I'll play this game with my local group. I have this intention with the game that play is serious and digs down deep, and while I have good friends, and I have friends that I roleplay with, I don't know if the group that I roleplay with (or at least all of them) are good enough friends for me to ask them to do this kind of thing with me. This may be exacerbated by the fact that I'm pretty sure that we'd all kind of look to our attractive black female friend to play the girlfriend, and I'm not sure I have the right to say "Hey, deal with this issue with me!" to her.
QuoteDo you see The Suburban Crucible as a game set in the 50's/60's? Because I see it as a game set right in the modern suburban reality. It's just interesting to me that there may be these assumptions about when in time the game is set (because, really, both positions are entirely valid)...
Quote from: LordSmerf on October 09, 2005, 09:33:49 PMSo, what makes you suggest including that element to the big brother?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on October 07, 2005, 12:46:26 PMRegarding the time-setting of play, I wasn't clear about that - I would be most interested in a 50s setting, because I am totally immersed in Cold War stuff at the present
Quote from: LordSmerf on October 11, 2005, 01:29:21 AMThe issues of racism (especially the more subtle form in The Suburban Crucible) are often very closely tied to tradtional gender roles.