[In a Wicked Age] Setting and events...
John Harper:
Disappointment is too strong a word. I wouldn't say I found anything about Wicked disappointing. I have nothing but love for this little jewel of a game, my friend. I want you to know that.
My post sounds pretty critical because I spend all day doing art direction and sometimes I can't turn that part of me off. You didn't ask for criticism, but I just waded on in. When you asked the question about that essay, it struck something for me. Like, yeah... there was something in there that isn't in the book now. I'm curious to hear what you think.
DainXB:
For the sake of adding yet another point of view:
I've been anxious for IAWA to come out since I first read a link on Mighty Atom talking about 'making Oracle entries' for fun, and followed the trail of breadcrumbs back to the Art, Grace & Guts wiki. I tracked down Actual Plays of playtest sessions, and so on, but I never ran across the essay in question, for some reason. (I have no explanation for that. I just missed it I guess. :( )
Therefore, I read the book the morning of the 12th without knowing about the essay; and the book, for me at least, explains not only how to do this thing, but why this thing is ultimately so cool. So the book is successful as a text, have no fear on that score.
Then, reading this thread, I followed the link above and read the essay. The one thing that the essay has that really elaborates beyond what can be understood from the book is the difference between 'static' and 'dynamic' situations. It explains the contrast, and names the concepts. IAWA gives you 'dynamic', but never names it, or contrasts that with it's alternative. Quoting: "At the end, you should have a situation not easily untangled and about to to turn really bad." That's 'dynamic' defined, but not named -- and not contrasted with 'static' to show why 'static' doesn't make for a good game.
The essay gives me names for the concepts, so that I can discuss them more easily, instead of waving my hands in the air and saying "Doing it this way makes it work every time, doing it some other way may not, and I'm not sure why." Armed with those terms, I can talk to other gamers about why IAWA works, and why it gives you cool situations.
That naming and contrast is something that I could wistfully wish was in the IAWA book...
Now I'm going to go off on a tangent. This is not intended as a threadjack, but it's something that just hit me: Maybe my inability to at first put my finger on what made 'static situation' and 'dynamic situation' different in the first place is symptomatic of the 'brain damage' Ron Edwards talks about. (I hate the term; because it's not organic damage -- but I recognize the situation: It's a learned habit of thinking uncritically about certain things.) As a 30-year veteran Sim GM, struggling toward Nar, I find myself habitually doing things that I see all the splat-book authors doing: Creating a wonderful, detailed, flavorful setting -- and making damned sure that it's 'static' -- because making it 'static' makes it resilient enough that the actions of the PCs can't completely topple all my towers and wreck the beauty of my creation. (Ranting now: Even the metaplot-driven setting-books are 'static' because the 'dynamism' of the metaplot moves at the glacial rate of the publishing house.)
Judd, in 'Dictionary of Mu', said "Rock this setting through your play." and "Kick this setting in the teeth." Scott Knipe said of 'Charnel Gods', "Charnel Gods takes an unusual approach to it's setting. It wants you to destroy it." Those were eye-opening statements to me when I read them, but they didn't tell me how to do it. Just giving up my sense of 'ownership' of my created settings and empowering PC authorship wasn't enough.
Now that I have a word for what I see, I can talk about it: 'Mu', especially, is a dynamic situation: Those example PCs have interests that run counter to one another and counter to the interests of their own demons. Marr'd is about to tear itself apart, and we are going along for the ride. IAWA gives that kind of dynamic situation every time, and it does so in a step-by-step method that lets me see how the magic is being done.
Some people just get this concept innately, I guess. Others (like me) have to be taught. Thank you, Vincent, for being a great teacher.
--
DainXB
Dain Lybarger
lumpley:
Oh, John, none taken either. It's cool.
I think it was Joshua BishopRoby who said it about Poison'd, something like "the game just presents these rules for you to follow, providing no reason why you would want to. You have to take it on faith and Vincent's pretty cocksure to expect you to." (I'm reading "cocksure" in, he was diplomatic.)
Dogs in the Vineyard is not that way, at all, it's expansive. But as I've been writing shorter games, I've been chucking stuff out the window, and maybe I should keep some instead.
That's what I'm thinking about. No conclusions yet.
Dain: thank you!
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page