[FreeMarket] Trouble with something
David Berg:
Hi Ron,
I can't tell from your account how much of the dissatisfaction was related to handling time or to the fictional color issues Erik describes. Personally, I've found both of these to be hugely important to my enjoyment of challenges. I also think group energy is consistently better when challenges are about the progress of the MRCZ, not just about an individual character (Jim's ex is part of a political thin-slicing MRCZ with some messages to support!).
As for "being good just lets you drag it out", I agree, but this also lets you accrue more victory points, so it's rewarding in that respect. As for the Superuser calling it early, again, I agree, but I'm not sure why you would do that. Does the book tell you to try to minimize player victory points? Jared didn't run it that way the one time I played with him...
A bad draw totally fucks you on a solo challenge. With a full group, I've seen some bad draws recovered from.
Finally, I found a full understanding of what "efficiency" means in context to be key to my relating the mechanical actions to the fiction. But that may just be a personal hang-up.
Ps,
-David
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Erik Weissengruber on October 29, 2010, 01:17:53 PM
Castle Ravenstein
I meant "Ravenloft" the D&D 4E boardgame
Ron Edwards:
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the replies. You may believe me as you wish, but I want to stress that we made no mis-plays, nor was any player or me having any trouble with simply applying the mechanics. When I say "learning curve," I mean "having fun with them and grasping second-order consequences," not, "how do I do this thing." Timo and I had been studying the book for months. The others playing are system jocks with very diverse experiences and a lot of flexible, enthusiastic habits about RPG design. So none of us wondered "what does this do," or similar. We got the rules, understood Effects and other details, and played cards reasonably quickly and quite logically. A few things did get Burned along the way too.
Also, Erik, I may not have been clear about our issues with narration. It's not that we struggled to produce long monologues with every card draw. The issue is that I might narrate (to stay with a very straightforward example) "I stab you through the body," without knowing whether it's the last sword-stroke in the combat or not. That totally depends on the next player Calling or not. This created a kind of slippery feeling to talking, not knowing whether we were describing something consequential or not. Again, I am willing to discover that this is a feature and that all that's needed is to tell one's fellow players that this is how it's like, but it caught us by surprise.
David, your questions are on target - it's not handling time at all; it's fun with the mechanics and their relationship to what's going on. Also, as I see it, the book advises flexibility about how hard to knee the player-characters in the groin, which is what Calling early would be doing. (Then again, considering the consequences of a bad early draw, Calling early is the only reasonable choice, so there ya go ...) Flexibility is good, but I don't think it's a good principle to rely on GM telepathy to know whether tactic A is more fun in a given instance. I'd rather go with my own thoughts on playing this particular character and how hard & nasty they want what they want, as I see it through their eyes in a creative fugue. How this preference works with FreeMarket fun is a good question. (For instance, I'm still dubious about the Superuser making Jared's character's pumpkin hallucinogenic in the example. I like it in some ways, not in others.)
As it happened, your parenthetical description of what would be a compelling conflict was exactly what was going on. In that Gordon was there to get these very interesting drugs from Fine Swine, but was also all wrapped up with the Reader MRCZ and a female character hooked into two of the other player-characters' memories. The problem was my failure to communicate it, and also that I might have done better to have Gordon contract the Pac-Men to make something they might not want to make. Which seems so obvious now of course.
I definitely think my screwup with the kill/not-obviously-relevant combat choice contributed to that sequence being less compelling, but the problems or problematic responses showed up throughout, including in conflicts whose fictional content was exciting.
Again, thanks for all the comments. Although most of this post bitched about how some of them didn't apply, a lot did. I'll be mining the posts for specific points to carry into prep and play when I try the game again.
Best, Ron
edited to fix italics format
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on October 29, 2010, 08:28:28 PM
... Erik, I may not have been clear about our issues with narration. It's not that we struggled to produce long monologues with every card draw. The issue is that I might narrate (to stay with a very straightforward example) "I stab you through the body," without knowing whether it's the last sword-stroke in the combat or not. That totally depends on the next player Calling or not. This created a kind of slippery feeling to talking, not knowing whether we were describing something consequential or not. Again, I am willing to discover that this is a feature and that all that's needed is to tell one's fellow players that this is how it's like, but it caught us by surprise. ...
Well your reply clarified how to narrate the game. I can narrate my "I lunge at you with a classic Iaijutsu thrust." It's up to the target to say "I can't go on with this fight, you hit me" or "Watch my Samurai geneline save my bacon." And then finally I (or my opponent or the super user) says something like "The katana comes out, the body crumples to the floor." I don't know who is supposed to say what and when but by default it goes to the Superuser, I guess.
So there is a lot of "I do this" and "Yeah, I do that" but no defining of the exact parameters of the action-effect-reaction-effect cycles until we divvy up flow and rebate.
And that is kinda weird.
But is that different from other games where we enter a conflict after having set stakes, determine who won the stakes, then provide some justification as to how in detail the conflict worked out? I haven't worked that out for myself yet.
Doesn't the resolution of the conflict matter more than the detailed resolution of each task within the conflict? If it does then why bother with multiple fiddly steps towards the resolution? Why not pull one card and have done with it?
Just when I thought I figured how to run this game new questions are popping up.
David Berg:
Hi Ron,
My first instinct is usually for character advocacy too. I hope you find a way that works! Just to throw out an alternative, though:
I've played mostly challenges where there was no NPC antagonism. A lot of Printing. In these, the superuser has seemed (to me) to be pushing "What else could go wrong?" to the extent that some good plays could reduce Victory points, thus introducing more compromises. Primed by playing this way, I imagine that, as superuser, I wouldn't be advocating for NPCs in challenges; rather, I'd be pushing the task of "how much can you customize your outcome and minimize your resource-hogging (as reflected by efficiency-rewarding Flow rebate)" as far as that was reasonably in the balance. (Or, yeah, I'll admit, as far as my GM telepathy told me the players were enjoying it.)
Part of what I love about FreeMarket's fictional concept is the drive to add value. Accordingly, zero-sum interactions seem like something of a waste. As superuser, I'm not Calling to minimize my guy's losses; I'm playing on to explore possible collective benefits. Basically, I think it's possible to play as an advocate for the station.
I want my FreeMarket games to be about the MRCZ and the larger society. I don't really give a fuck about any NPCs.
I have no idea if I'm reflecting the game's actual intent here. Just throwing another POV into the arena. Hope something in here was useful!
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page