[Dreamation 2008] WGP... The Monster Squad
Ron Edwards:
Hello,
I've been thinking about this thread a lot, because I have been prepping some With Great Power for purposes of Go Play Peoria and/or Forge Midwest. What I'm deciding is that, like some other games well-known to both us, Mike, WGP is built to be organized, prepped, and put into action by people who meet socially on a regular basis. It simply might not be fully-realizable as a convention game. It can be played for fun at conventions, but only pieces and parts can be perceived and enjoyed, or at best, a rushed version can be squished together. Really playing it may not be something one merely tastes.
So here are some thoughts on the points made so far and what they have to do with my prep and vice versa. The first one has to do with adversity.
I cannot say for sure of course, but it seems to me as if you are investing a bit too much in their hero-stories, as a participant, and not enough as the adversity which makes their hero-stories work. Thinking back on our WGP game from GenCon last year, one of the most productive elements of play for me was that I, as GM, had absolutely no investment at all in protecting any particular one of the heroes' Aspects. Is it possible that you were hopping into a player's seat with him, once in a while, and rooting for a hero (e.g. Debris reconciles with her brother, et cetera)?
It's hard to explain this, actually, because rooting for a hero* is indeed something I did while playing Dark Omen. I think it's the "getting into the chair" with the player that's the problem, and having that affect my choice of cards. Since the game really shows its brilliant colors after a few Aspects are Devastated - well, then, devastate them! I understand hosing oneself as a player but choosing a sub-optimal card, sure; I don't see a productive point in softballing player-characters as a GM, at all. Not in this game.
You and I have played tons and tons of My Life with Master. We both know that if the GM gets soft-hearted about the player-characters, it only dilutes the productive power-structure of the rules and hurts the game experience. Same goes for the demons in Sorcerer, as we both know as well.
I thought about why you, of all people, are doing this - the guy who really knows that a Marvel-ish superhero operates in a kind of Vietnam War of the mind,** in which nothing about his starting point is sacred. I also thought a bit about what you wrote in our thread, that you were a bit surprised to find yourself fighting so hard to win a conflict at one point.
Then I thought about my current prepping. I came up with a Struggle and decided to Scratch-Pad everything - Struggle, heroes, Rogues Gallery - but not make the actual sheets or the Plan yet. I'd have the players choose which Aspects they'd put on the sheets, which side of the Struggle they're on, and which Aspects are "strifed." I'm working toward my strengths as a GM, which is to say, solid and relevant villain-motivation very fast. I am confident I can choose one of the villains and outline a Plan based on the player-chosen Strife Aspects in the space of ten minutes at most.
And you know what? I'm already rooting for the characters I made up. I'm already looking at their aspects and fantasizing how they might end up based on Strife and Suffering status. I'm already speculating ahead, after some Aspect gets Transformed by a villain, and what might come of that. I'm on their damned side already! I made them up, after all. I can easily imagine what effects that might have on my card-play choices, as GM, when someone else is playing them ... and I can imagine further how that might turn into a habit after so many years of doing it.
Is it possible that you like these characters too much? That having invented most or all of them, that they are a bit too much yours, in play? Maybe it's time to retire Debris and the other much-loved, much-exampled, and much-played characters you've been using for nigh on five years now.
The second thought concerns Conflicts. I kind of squinted when I read about the fight with the Utopian, and went back to the book. Surely conflicts don't have to be fisticuffs, necessarily? And yup, the rules are clear that a conflict doesn't have to be a fight, and that seems mighty applicable to the Utopian.
I don't really know how to ask it politely ... given what had happened already in play via Enrichment and table-talk, what led you to pick a fight by, well, having a fight? Would not a press conference be just the thing? Or perhaps, frame directly to a scene right after the heroes have defeated some generic villain (i.e. let that be total inter-scene Color), and have the Utopian show up to take the credit with reporters crowding 'round? Or maybe the Utopian tries to recruit them to a fine new super-group he is sponsoring, for which they might be the "lucky" subs if someone has a cold? Those all sound like conflict scenes to me without a punch thrown or an eyebeam blasted.
Again, speculation: maybe it's the demo or con-play context. Perhaps showcasing that WGP can do "real super-fights" is a bit of a priority then, especially because people might be skeptical that these hippy-softy games can do "real" combat. Is it possible that you shifted to a fight out of long habit, rather than working from what had happened during Enrichments?
I recognize that none of the above might be accurate. It''s probably better to regard it as what's going on in my mind between reading the thread and working on my prep. But if any of it fits to whatever extent, I'd be interested to know.
Best, Ron
* To any Australians reading this, yeah, yeah, I know. Get over it.
** I am not kidding. This is probably only meaningful, though, to people who were reading Marvel comics before the mid-late 1980s, after which the effect I'm talking about was scrubbed clean from the company, from the comics, and from the characters. And from our culture, but never mind that ...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page