[Death's Head] Ronnies feedback
FetusCommander:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 08, 2011, 07:35:19 PM
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.
This is something that until now, I was figuring would just be "up to the player." It didn't strike me as particularly wrong that some people would play very strategically and some would not and you could have both at the same table. What the text maybe should have said is "try to play with people of the same skill level," but that doesn't really seem right either. I'll need to think on this some more, but as it stands, I don't feel that winning the chess game should be a high priority. It's something that's there more to reflect on your situation and build tension than it is as a strategy-fest.
Quote
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.
Thanks for this, I'll be picking through the text and doing a lot of fiddling to make sure it's more readable, and this will help.
Quote
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?
My thoughts were that it could activate either, but early in the game the King may be unable to move, which gets into your next question:
Quote
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?
You aren't barred from narrating actions, no. That only happens if the piece is gone.
Quote
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?
It doesn't mean you can't use the traits. What it means is that when you do an action in-game that invokes such a trait, you have to "ask" the GM what the outcome of it is; you lose the ability to just straight narrate any outcome you please. This applies to all players.
Quote
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?
This is again something I'm going to have to think about. On one hand, I sort of wanted the possibility of a "mundane ending" to be there. On the other, I can see that it does obviously undercut the real meat of the game as you've said. I'm really not sure what's gained, as far as reflection, from "winning" in the Camp phase without experiencing any of the Hordes.
To respond to Troy's point:
Quote
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?
For me, some of the tension of the board switcheroo comes from the fact that you might accidentally bring yourself closer to checkmate, and the checkmate mechanic is something that I'd like to see preserved if possible. That said, I think the way that you mentioned could still provide some of that tension. It will require some significant reworking of the "Winning and Losing" section, but Ron's concerns have made me think that may be necessary anyway. I might give it a shot in playtest and see how it runs.
contracycle:
I thought this was very interesting indeed. On the chess thing, first let me say that the skill level thing seems of low relevance becuase the board gets reversed, so in fact the weaker side will end up benefitting from the stronger sides position at the point of reversal. also, with a random time limit, I'm not sure how likely it is that a game will complete at all.
On the issue of soundtracks etc, my experience is that if play is engaging, we have had zero awareness of soundtrack, to the point that it exists only as noise and gets turned off. So possibly this device is not goint to work well from some groups; I feel I would be unlikely to notice the key track, and would have to be half-disengaged to keep listening for it.
Lastly, I really really like the idea of constraining possible movers by the logic of the chess game. All too often with recent designs I'm left with no real idea of what I would want to do, or how I would select from the various possible things that could be done. To have the logic of the chess game provide this framework seems like genius to me, although with some caveats. Id almost rather draw from a random deck than have to deal with actually or partially nature of chess as such. But I love the idea of possible actions being prompted and limited by some sort of external device.
Bret Gillan:
I can't add a lot to the praise of the game. The premise makes me uncomfortable in a way that means I'm engaged and drawn in. Interrogation as character creation is fantastic. I love the way other players generate my character for me. Chess as a resolution mechanic made me first roll me eyes, but then grin as I read more. I really think it works. The only obstacle to play for me is the music. Perhaps in a playtest it wouldn't be as unwieldy as I imagine, but I'm thinking of bathroom breaks, out of character kibitzing, and answering the door when the pizza arrives - do I have to pause the music each time? Do I really have to dig out a boom box or whatever to play the game? etc.
Ron Edwards:
Regarding the music, I remain on the fence about it as a formal technique in role-playing. I am a lot like Gareth; music fails to bug me during play insofar as I'm not paying attention to it. I can think of a few times when this was not the case and I really enjoyed the music and it played a big role for all of us. My recent playtest of Skull Full of Bong Hits is an example (actual play posting is still in the shop). The question is whether and how this can be made a reliable rules feature and not a happy accident. I have not yet played Ribbon Drive, although I want to. Whatever happens with that will probably help shape my views.
For Death's Head, perhaps the stopping point for the phases might come when the GM notices the stop-song is in progress, rather than being concerned with catching it right as it starts. Just in case that minor distinction turns out to be important.
Best, Ron
FetusCommander:
Quote from: Bret Gillan on January 10, 2011, 08:32:15 PM
The only obstacle to play for me is the music. Perhaps in a playtest it wouldn't be as unwieldy as I imagine, but I'm thinking of bathroom breaks, out of character kibitzing, and answering the door when the pizza arrives - do I have to pause the music each time? Do I really have to dig out a boom box or whatever to play the game? etc.
I would think that bathroom breaks would warrant a pause in the music, as well as a significant interruption like answering the door (out of character chatter maybe not so much). I can understand your concern about the extra equipment required though, and that's something I'll have to consider during playtests (and possibly find an alternative for).
I do like Ron's suggestion about the GM noticing the stop song though.
One thing William suggested today was to use a deck of cards instead of music. Basically, you turn over a card with every move on the chess board, and if it's the joker, you flip the board. I like that idea, and think that worst comes to worst, it could be used as a good alternative.
At any rate, thanks for all the feedback guys. This is proving very useful.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page