[Death's Head] Ronnies feedback
Ron Edwards:
Rudy Johnson's Death’s Head is all kinds of ballsy. I started reading it, was excited to find it to be a particular kind of scary, then found it switched to another kind, and then realized it had turned into both. If you haven't read it yet, please do. I don't know how to describe the actual topic except for what the text says. Fuck. Ing. Metal. But yet genuinely open, "soft" in the good sense, and deeply personal. Tough love with the second word just as strong as the first.
There are some really cool, intriguing features to note right off: the excellent introduction which oriented me perfectly concerning history, psychology, and horror/fantasy, the epilogue rules which tied right into that exact point, the guidelines for interrogation questions, and that whack-me instruction about turning the chess board around. I call attention to these because any of them could have been present but either caricatured into utterly boring over-fantastic forms or done in a ham-handed and unconsidered way. Whereas the way they are done and presented is just spot-on.
I also found myself littering the text with exclamation points in the margins. I'll list the stuff I did that for.
! Player-characters are the SS-TV guys (I was expecting them to be the camp prisoners)
! Zombies without being merely more fuckin' zombies (I mean, concentration camp prisoners are physically too much like zombies for comfort already; I'm pretty sure no film director has dared go with this)
! Did that say chess board?
! Beginning with post-defeat military tribunal interrogationsm (brilliant blend of character creation + scenario preparation)
! Dude, when you lose a pawn or rook or whatever, it affects everyone’s traits associated with that piece (I did not see that coming)
On to system talk. This is quite likely the perviest system I’ve ever seen in a contest submission, and I am deeply suspicious of cute, funky mechanics which wow the reader and then turn out to be inconsequential poncing around. But as it stands now, it looks like it could work, and I can see nothing which is obviously removable. It all seems to be there for a reason, and what's more, I see no extraneous parts either. Just about ever common assumption about how role-playing works seems to have been stripped away, and the game was then written from the ground up. So all I can say is that freaky as it may be, it's ready for playtesting, and since the text does in fact tell me how to play, I can only try it out.
Um, one thing
The text says you don’t have to be good at chess. Rudy, are you sure? Why not? 'Cause as far as I can tell you are in fact trying for checkmate.
Let me develop that a little more. I'm curious as to whether the strategic element of which piece to move operates (i) as a fruitful motor for the aesthetic element of what you'd very much like your character to do, or (ii) at cross-purposes to it. What do you do if the best chess move immediately available and the action you are simply dying to take do not match? I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that one's goal as a player is not first and foremost to beat the GM at the chess game - but it does enter into the picture. The issue is whether it's a supportive entry in terms of the stated (and otherwise gorgeously supported) goals of play.
Minor points
I suggest that you provide a more specific playlist or genre recommendation for the music. It’s an important part of the design and for once I don’t think it should be too customizable. And as a related point, I say go for using a real concentration camp as much as possible, with the GM doing the necessary research as pre-game prep. I guess it's gotta be fictional so that the camp's liquidation by the SS-TV can be included, but otherwise, it's way too late for distancing, man; that horse left the barn two-thirds down the first page.
I suggest revisiting and renaming the steps of play. Although it's true that the first looks like character creation and the last looks like epilogue, I kept getting tripped up about the phases. I suggest that it's all "play," and that the interrogation is phase 1, the pre-horde part is phase 2, the horde part is phase 3, and the Epilogue is phase 4. A minor thing perhaps, but I really didn't grasp the rules until I went back and wrote these in on the text.
Minor procedures questions
Why doesn’t the shooting in the example activate the King instead? Does the player have a choice of which pieces to move, if an action seems to activate multiple traits?
What if the piece your action activates is unable to move (e.g. the King or a Rook in the first move of the game)? Are you barred from narrating such actions?
That business about “lose narrative control” regarding the King and Queen – does this mean you cannot use those traits? How does that relate to what you can and cannot announce as an action? Does that loss apply to all players the way that losses of other pieces apparently do?
Is there some way to avoid the checkmate rules from undercutting the established content? I guess I'm saying that I don't see any reason for a given play-experience to end without the hordes step. If we have all this great input during the interrogation scene, in which the claim that the prisoners turned into zombies is most likely met with baffled outrage by the interrogators, and we have that shocking and wonderful final question waiting for us in the epilogue ... then what do we do with a checkmate before the hordes get going? A totally mundane story now? Wait a minute, isn't that totally obviating not only the utterly disturbing and engaging horror that brought us here, but also the most important question of the whole game?
Whew - I'll say it again. This is the utterly ballsiest RPG I have ever seen. Rudy, playtest it, develop it, publish it.
Best, Ron
Abkajud:
This game is intriguing, although I am squicking at the stuff about "blood libel rumors" and the flesh-eating.
Ron, I agree that the chess element in the game is actually highly skill-based: even if you have five different players and they're all reasonably good at chess (so, five good heads are better than one, and all that), having to make a chess move that's either fictionally random and tactically sound or vice-versa sounds a little strange. I'm really, really intrigued by the use of a chess board, but I think the GM needs to be constrained, forced to make random moves like the players are, for this to be fair.
Incidentally, five BAD chess players, working together, are still no match for one really good chess player. Any fellow chess fans out there may agree: the famous Morphy/Brunswick game had a, what, 20-year-old Louisiana man up against a duke and a fucking count of France, and he beat them even though they got to confer on every move together. Not that you should think they're good 'cause they're noblemen. That's what they probably thought (so the legend is usually framed), but you shouldn't think that ^__^
Being significantly better at chess will likely win the game for you every time, and having to make random moves is one hell of a handicap.
Still, it sounds like things improve as you lose pawns and pieces that come in groups of 2+ per side, as they force the GM to move the type of piece that made *story* sense, not tactical sense.
THAT ASIDE
Rudy, man, this is a very cool, unusual, exciting format to check out - narration as interrogation/testimony? Rad. And, shit, man, this is kind of a World War Z: Circa 1945 Edition, yeah? Brilliant.
Only thing I'd add is: so, why did they become zombies? That is, establish that in play. If you hand American RP'ers some elements like Nazis, zombies, and concentration camp victims, they will likely concoct a rather fanciful tale of Nazi necromancy and devil worship, a la Hellboy, The Life Eaters (bad comic, good premise), and so on. RUN THAT SHIT, SON.
Well done! I'm a chess teacher for a living, and I'm getting a little jammed up on/eager to help playtest the chess elements of your game, but I really really want to make it work so I can unleash the Blond Beast.
Shit, now I've squicked myself out. :)
Ron Edwards:
Hi Norm,
This post is to present points of contrast with yours, rather than arguing with you. Different takes for Rudy to consider.
1. I see the content as confrontational - facing the issues of the Holocaust, and most especially, getting past the long-held stereotype of the pathological German to ask how it is that humans, who could very well be ourselves, do these things. Therefore I don't see any hint in the game either that blood libels "might be true" or that there's some kind of visceral joy to be found in playing an SS-TV guy mowing down hordes of Jews, plus communists, gypsies, et cetera.
It's very likely that these references in your post are strictly humor-horror on your part, and if so, I get that. My point is that I was not squicked so much as awed. Again, this is presented for Rudy to observe different responses and we don't have to debate or justify those reponses to each other.
2. I prefer that the reason-for-zombies be left to the individual play experience. One reason is that I think that all such explanations in the source material is flat-out fluff; zombie stories are essentially about the people in crisis and the only important thing about zombification is that it be irreversible and due in part to human agency or ignorance. The other reason is that the game's scorpion-sting lies in the possibility that none of the zombie experience was true, but wholly in the minds of the player-characters. A canonical reason for the zombies seems to remove that aspect of play.
3 Regarding chess, I'm more and more coming to think that winning the chess game cannot be a first priority of using the mechanics. My big question remains for Rudy, but that's the way I'm leaning at the moment. If that's the way to go, then the question concerns what value is added by trying to win the chess game at all, and to see whether that can be a fruitful, reinforcing part of the system.
For example, Dust Devils uses poker hand comparison very effectively and totally in line with the priorities of the game as a whole. But you don't play poker as a subset feature of playing Dust Devils. Poker is invoked - and again, very well, specifically in contrast to the wretched and distorted attempt to do the same thing in Deadlands - but it is not employed. A person who loves playing poker will not like playing Dust Devils, or rather, will find that his or her expertise and sophistication with poker is not relevant to enjoying Dust Devils. I'm thinking that something like this may do well for Death's Head.
Best, Ron
Troy_Costisick:
Heya,
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 09, 2011, 04:50:56 AM
3 Regarding chess, I'm more and more coming to think that winning the chess game cannot be a first priority of using the mechanics. My big question remains for Rudy, but that's the way I'm leaning at the moment. If that's the way to go, then the question concerns what value is added by trying to win the chess game at all, and to see whether that can be a fruitful, reinforcing part of the system.
For example, Dust Devils uses poker hand comparison very effectively and totally in line with the priorities of the game as a whole. But you don't play poker as a subset feature of playing Dust Devils. Poker is invoked - and again, very well, specifically in contrast to the wretched and distorted attempt to do the same thing in Deadlands - but it is not employed. A person who loves playing poker will not like playing Dust Devils, or rather, will find that his or her expertise and sophistication with poker is not relevant to enjoying Dust Devils. I'm thinking that something like this may do well for Death's Head.
Best, Ron
Just to toss an idea out, why not examine the number of pieces taken during the chess game rather than examining whether or not one player has achieved checkmate. I.E., rather than playing for checkmate you're just playing for strait-up kills. All the normal rules of movement would apply (perhaps except those involving the King's movents while in check/check-mate). This way, you could still advance the game but not be so focussed on winning the chess portion. Do you think that might be workable?
Peace,
-Troy
Abkajud:
Hey Ron,
I think we may have been saying the same thing about "what ARE the zombies?" content; I may just not have expressed myself very clearly. What I was driving at, what I think would be best, is if the players figure out the "zombies" as they go, as they play. Sounds like what you're saying, and I think that's way more interesting than telling people what's going on via the text. Cool.
As for blood libel and so on, I suppose I was just being a nervous nelly and unnecessarily fretting over what people might do with the game. But it occurs to me that the only people who would "go there" with it are probably already anti-Semites. And we cannot be asked to account for the predilections of racists in our design. ^_^
As for chess, I submitted something for Game Chef '10 that used "win at mancala" to resolve conflict, and that was too distracting for a lot of people who heard the idea. Winning a skill-based game in the *middle* of narrative play could be pretty distracting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page