[3:16] the betrayal of planet Girlfriend
Tomas HVM:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 22, 2008, 07:25:55 AM
My take on Paul's play-experience, keeping in mind I wasn't there and am only going by this thread's content, is that he did learn important lessons as he summarized himself, above, and needs no further advice. No first-play effort is perfect in my experience.
You may have the experience that every first-play effort is flawed. My experience is different. Intelligent appliance of the game method and your own experience will give you a high chance of success even with new games. Strive for excellence!
You state that Paul need no further advice. My take is that he may say so himself, if and when he is satisfied. How can you tell what kind of meaningful advice may surface here?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 22, 2008, 07:25:55 AM
My take is also that no further advice will be meaningful, especially when phrased in terms of a guarantee as Tomas did, ...
I gave no "guarantee". I predict a scenario if he follows up on my advice, but he is still responsible for his own game-sessions as a GM. There is no guarantee.
Sorry if I came out as dismissive towards your post, Ron, but I answered in kind.
Paul Czege:
Hey Tomas,
I can say with confidence that I didn't expect the players to be the motor of the game. Matt Snyder's style of running Dust Devils and Nine Worlds at conventions puts the players as the motor. I tried this with Nine Worlds at Origins this year and realized it doesn't suit me. In Nicotine Girls, My Life with Master, and Acts of Evil, the GM is an active force relative to the players. In Bacchanal, the system delivers the adversity. I don't design games where the GM can be merely a facilitator of player energy. And after trying it with Nine Worlds I wouldn't have gone that route with 3:16. It doesn't suit me.
And I didn't go into the game with a slackness of attitude. I prepped the hell out of the game. What I did expect was that the players would more naturally play into the military context than me, and that this would help me get into the mindset and render up the antagonism I planned to own and deliver.
I have two further thoughts on this:
1. I prepped and ran Lacuna last year, a single session consisting of two missions. I think it has similar challenges for me as 3:16. Both games are mission based, and in both the players start with sketchy characters programmed by our mass media with a cool lack of human empathy. So as GM in both I found myself working very hard to overcome player immersion in that lack of human empathy, to get the players to take a partisan interest in some of the NPCs. Ultimately, in Lacuna, I was successful near the end of the second mission. The players were clearly taking an interest in Senior Instructor Snyder, who I'd had blackmail their characters into going under on a secret mission in Blue City for his own personal political gain in the real world.
Upon reflection, I didn't really do much differently in prepping and running 3:16 than I did with Lacuna. Except somehow with Lacuna I was more successful at provoking player interest in the NPCs. What I'm not sure about is why.
2. Starship Troopers (the book), depicts a very internally benevolent military structure, in dramatic contrast to the sensibilities of most of the advice for depicting the military on this thread, and most of the Actual Play I've seen. If I'm right that shared defining of the military context is an important part of 3:16, then is it possible that play can actually define a benevolent military structure, and for the ultimate "hatred for home" to be other than sympathy for the bugs, but perhaps the rage of the Vietnam Vet who did everything his country asked of him, only to be vilified for it?
Paul
Ron Edwards:
Tomas, your posting is now that of an asshole. Since I know you are not in fact an asshole, I am formally moderating to oblige you not to post in that way.
I did not dismiss your post. I pleaded to aid my understanding. To "respond in kind" in a dismissive way, as you describe it, is astonishingly rude - bordering on vicious, even.
Absolutely nothing in your response helped me understand you better. Instead, you nitpicked to invent points of contention, as well as patronized.
You are an adult, dealing with other intellectually active adults here. I refuse to believe you would post to your academic colleagues in this way, for instance. Alter your posting and communication at this website or your posts will be routinely placed in the Inactive File.
Do not reply to this post in any fashion. The discussion will continue solely regarding 3:16.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Hi Paul,
Your #2 is interesting, but I think it's a stretch. I suppose if interaction with the public were part of things ... although that's definitely not featured in the text the way that fucked-up military interactions (not to mention surreally vicious policy) are featured.
I'm interested in the Starship Troopers connection, and I suppose it applies both to the original jingoistic novel and the different-but-same film. Ralph and I once discussed the difference between Starship Troopers and The Forever War - each of us thought one was boring (and stupid and politically naive) and the other fantastic, but not the same ones. I'm not saying this is some sort of alignment indicator; I know that Ralph doesn't play 3:16 in the reflexive kill-clear-butcher fashion either. What I'm saying is that our discussion highlighted differences within, for lack of a better word, American mythology concerning American military policy and experiences. (I should also stress that we were talking about our reactions upon reading the books as teenagers.)
So ... umm, to disentangle myself from what might have been an unhelpful paragraph, I was saying let's look at Starship Troopers. Is it really a good tag-line or introductory reference for 3:16 players? My thinking is not. I would instead choose The Forever War, Catch-22, and the original late-1940s G.I. Joe cartoons.
I recommend Bill Mauldin's book Up Front, written just after WWII. Mauldin was the cartoonist who invented G.I. Willie and G.I. Joe for the then-independent, even underground serviceman's newspaper, Stars and Stripes. According to the Spartacus website, "In 1945 General George Patton wrote a letter to the Stars and Stripes and threatened to ban the newspaper from his Third Army if it did not stop carrying 'Mauldin's scurrilous attempts to undermine military discipline.'" (Fascinating! The G.I. Joe material at Wikipedia does not reference Mauldin or the pre-1964 character at all! Also, most of the pics I've found on-line are pretty mild compared to the harsher ones in Up Front.)
Best, Ron
Tomas HVM:
Quote from: Paul Czege on December 22, 2008, 12:08:15 PM
I can say with confidence that I didn't expect the players to be the motor of the game. ... And I didn't go into the game with a slackness of attitude. I prepped the hell out of the game. What I did expect was that the players would more naturally play into the military context than me, and that this would help me get into the mindset and render up the antagonism I planned to own and deliver.
I read you as such, Paul. Sorry if I misunderstood! It may sound harsh, the way I put it, but in my experience it is very common for GMs to lead games with a slackness of attitude. I've been a pro GM for 13 years now, and still I do it. The "slackness" I point at in the actual play report of yours, is the illusory idea that your players will own the game from the start.
In spite of your preparations, and in spite of the good design of 3:16 (yes, I consider it very good), you had a bad game-session. To me that underlines the importance of initiating the game with the right GM-stance. Be active, lead, include, ally and make use of every scrap of energy coming from the players (in this instance: the joking).
Most players are slow on the uptake, especially if the GM is vague or withdrawn in the initial stages of the game. When initiating a game-session, at least the first session with a group, you have to CREATE the field for them first, and then OPEN it up for their interactivity. This may be done very effectively, within the first 5 or 10 minutes, but with some themes and player-groups it may take longer.
Of course there may be other forces at play in the session you described, that makes my musings on this quite off the mark. But from what you write a flawed GM-stance seems the most obvious explanation.
Quote from: Paul Czege on December 22, 2008, 12:08:15 PM
Starship Troopers (the book), depicts a very internally benevolent military structure, in dramatic contrast to the sensibilities of most of the advice for depicting the military on this thread, and most of the Actual Play I've seen. If I'm right that shared defining of the military context is an important part of 3:16, then is it possible that play can actually define a benevolent military structure, and for the ultimate "hatred for home" to be other than sympathy for the bugs, but perhaps the rage of the Vietnam Vet who did everything his country asked of him, only to be vilified for it?
To be open of mind when working with a theme is essential. Most people tend to go for the popular charicature, and goes no further. The fact that you are mindful of distinctive approaches to this theme tells me you have what it takes to go longer and reach deeper in your games, Paul.
I have played you game "My Life With Master" and found that to be a very strong design. Pure in method and challenging in theme. Very nice gameplay!
The designers and GMs who dares to go further are the ones developing rpg's into something more than it already is. You are clearly amongst them, Paul.
This concludes it from me. Hope it illuminated something for you. Have a nice day!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page