[FreeMarket] Trouble with something
Courage75:
Thanks Ron, that explains the diagram, although I am not familiar with the three sources. Would you be able to give a specific example of how this diagram influenced the game? I mean, would it be used to add particular colour to a scene, or as motivation for an NPC?
David Berg:
Hi Ron,
I recently asked Jared about being superuser in challenges, and he told me to that I should play to win, and, if that's not possible, play to maximize Hazard.
Not sure if any of that's news to you, but I don't remember Hazard coming up in this thread, so I figured I'd pass it along.
Ps,
-Dave
Vox:
Alright kids, everyone relax. It's all going to be ok. Peter is here ;)
But seriously, I'm here so Ron doesn't have to try and explain me anymore. Here's my issues with Freemarket.
mechanics of conflict resolution.
Now having read the thread, and Erik's post that ranked the mechanics of conflict resolution as being pretty much the least important thing I'm not surprised. I think that if the focus of the game is on settiing up challenges and exchanges of flow then... ok that seems fine. I also think if it's emphasized that the acquisition of tech and things that you can burn is supposed to be trivial then... fine. But then why bother with conflict resolution at all... and why bother with such a complex system at all?
Let's assume for a moment that there's a reason for the system and that it's a good one. I want there to be one because I like systems. I like mechanics. I like figuring them out. What don't I like about the system?
I don't like the "oops, I got two cards, you got one, I win because I can just end it" thing. If that's the case then just make it a flip of two cards. It's not any different than rolling a D20. Random resolution system is random resolution system, modify to fit the bell curve you want.
I really don't like the Gene vs. skill mechanic. I'm a brilliant neuroscientist, who happens to be descended from the most steady-handed artists and craftspeople of all time. I call upon my genetic lineage to assist me in performing neuroscience.... but wait.... unless I skip drawing cards in order to recall how to perform neurosurgery I don't benefit from any skill cards I draw.... At least that's what I recall of the system.
Anyway. Having read the replies that indicated emphasis on the flow and less on the conflict... I might consider playing again. Frankly though, if the mechanical system isn't terribly important I'd rather flip coins, or play Gin (Dr. Chaos), or draw a fistful of cards a la contenders. The cards were pretty, but the choices you had seemed formulaic and intended to entice people to make what I would call stupid decisions (gambling on better cards).
Just to be clear. No one is fellating Rush Limbaugh, except possibly Ron because he came up with it. And I *REALLY* liked the world, character creation, concepts of flow, and what little I understood of how the superuser is supposed to mix things up for everyone. There is a *TON* of game here that I like. It's just the mechanics of conflict resolution that I thought sucked.
Vox
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
In this case, the diagram was a device for myself. I frequently make them as group devices and this one was intended to become one after I became more confident about how the game is played. Since I think a fair amount of further play is necessary before I'm that confident with FreeMarket, I'll hold off on using it as a group device. I wouldn't mind finding some graphics from the sources that show more overlap; unfortunately, at the moment the images highlight the stuff that is not shared in the "Freemarket space."
For myself or among a group, such things have been useful to me in lots of ways. I'm not sure it can be pinpointed to specific points on a picture or list affecting specific moments in play, so much as a way to get the Color and sense of priorities onto the same page for everyone.
In fact, I probably should have paid more attention to it just as such a GMing device, because I found myself gravitating toward Post Bros territory which was not in the blue boxes, specifically butchery and a certain what-the-fuck?! quality found in sudden conflicts.
Hi Peter!
Great to see you here; welcome!
Those two specific points about the system got up my nose too. At present I'm casting about for a way to make those features workable, and not being too successful yet.
Best, Ron
P.S. I wouldn't do it either.
Luke:
Hi all,
I'm not certain exactly what went wrong with your session -- and I'm very sorry you didn't have fun -- I hope you don't mind if I offer a few comments.
I'd like to encourage you and all players of this game to engage the full breadth of the challenge mechanics. Be sure to use the Support, Engage, Recalibrate and Burn actions -- not just Go For It and Call. Just using two actions out of six will result in a very frustrating experience indeed.
In regard to being "better" at something on FreeMarket, there are a number of ways. Having a higher-rated ability -- 3 to 1 -- is useful. With an ability of 3, you have the potential to score eight points to an ability of 1's four points. But to be truly good at something on the station, you need a triumvirate of experience/geneline, interface and technology. If you're just relying on one particular aspect of the system, you're missing out.
And it's true, a freemer with an ability of 1 can stop the bleeding and call off a challenge he's losing. Anyone can do that. The rule is in place because Freemers are all smart, capable people. Noone is THAT much better than another -- those some have certain edges. Consider, though, a situation in which a user with an experience of 1 targets a freemer with an experience 3. With an ability of 1, you're going to have to muster all of your resources (or just get very lucky) against a freemer who is that competent. He can counter your attacks with his experience alone -- let alone his interface and technology.
And if you don't have tech or interface for a challenge, create or bargain for some. It's part of the game. Very little on your character is fixed. Transforming yourself is part of life.
When superusing a session of FreeMarket, it's also vital to abide by the core tenets on page 101: Nothing Is as It Seems, Circular Logic and Personal Transformation. The first is perhaps the most important. That stinky death artist really just needs to ask you a question about horticulture. That art/cult MRCZ wants to prevent you from being rejuved so they can use your corpse in one of their performances. The Excramax APs on RPG.net are excellent examples of how this should play out on FreeMarket.
It's also vital that when the superuser play to the utmost when he does engage in a challenge. It's okay to win! The more you win, the more bugs the users receive and the greater the chance they have to come back later. And as superuser be sure that the users have the chance to initiate and be targets of challenges. It doesn't quite work if you only ever assume one role.
Narration is noted on page 30 -- you must describe what you're doing as a component of your action. Each action on pages 27-29 has a few cues for how it can be used. Narration and description is intended to be simple and, well, traditional. You tell the other users what your character is doing -- a simple, discrete action like "I shoot him; I introduce hormonal algorithms; I mount a laser on its head." Each player takes into account what you said and incorporates your details into his narration. This seems self-evident to me, given the nature of the game, but I freely admit that I'm too close to the issue. The player who calls should tell the other users how and why the challenge ends, sort of summing up everything that's happened and putting a point on it.
I hope that's helpful. Again, sorry you had a bad time.
-L
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page