[The Pool] Update: essay available
Ron Edwards:
Thanks! I spent some time today re-organizing my website and didn't follow up here. The new link is Other Essays; it's at the bottom.
Best, Ron
Paolo D.:
Hi Ron! :-)
I read your essay about The Pool, and I enjoyed it a lot. Especially where you try to "fill the gaps" in the procedures... Now I really want to play the game again ;-)
A question, maybe a dumb one... How much of this essay does apply to The Questing Beast too? Here in Italy, we still play often TQB, so I'm very interested about it.
And another question: do you think that your essay could qualify as a "guide" about The Pool for newbie indie gamers?
Thanks! Hope to see you soon! (at the next INC, I hope ;-)
Ron Edwards:
Hi Paolo,
After InterNosCon, where I observed people playing The Questing Beast, I decided to re-read the rules. I was quite shocked. I think that they are extremely inferior to The Pool and arguably, bad.
I should clarify what I think is good. The dice mechanics are different from those of The Pool and have some fun, different effects during play. The instructions for constructing the group's unique Arthurian setting are excellent, at the very top of the range for explaining how to use a customizable, thematic game - much better than my efforts along those lines for the core book of Sorcerer, for instance.
The problem is found in the instructions about how to talk and how to roll dice. They are all about stating the outcomes of the rolls, in detail, before the dice are rolled. They are practically a textbook for the problems I've been describing across many independent RPG designs, draining all the drama and inspiration right out of the place they belong.
I will be a little bit harsh here and point out that James was not an experienced user of his own systems. My reading of this part of TQB is that neither he, nor the people closest to him, had any reason to think that people could really play The Pool. Perhaps in writing TQB, with all best intentions, he was writing his "how to play" instructions to make sure the rules could not be applied in unpredicted ways. My view is that this was a fear-response, unfortunately kicking the riskiest (and best) part of play into a pre-roll "negotiation phase."
My apologies to James in advance for psychologizing him, and I do not claim to be correct regarding that; these are all speculations, which I tried to emphasize with my phrasing in the above paragraph.
I stress that without this feature, I think TQB is one of the finest games around. I have had incredible fun with it - but although I was using the QB dice mechanics, I was not following those particular rules about describing the action.
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
I forgot to answer your last question. I hope my essay is potentially helpful to anyone who'd like to play The Pool, regardless of their experience with independent RPGs, or with any RPGs. I'm sure there are people who don't need the essay at all, too, but I hope they enjoy reading it.
Best, Ron
Paolo D.:
Ron,
thanks a lot for the extensive answer. :-) Very interesting:
Just a clarification about this:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 30, 2010, 08:24:45 AM
The problem is found in the instructions about how to talk and how to roll dice. They are all about stating the outcomes of the rolls, in detail, before the dice are rolled. They are practically a textbook for the problems I've been describing across many independent RPG designs, draining all the drama and inspiration right out of the place they belong.
Which procedure are you exactly talking about? Maybe all the "Intent" thing (page 20 and below)?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page