[The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Ronnies feedback
tzirtzi:
Likewise, I've found this a very interesting read - both the game itself and the discussion.
On the central debate, I'd come down on the "it's a matter of taste" side. It seems to me that the issue is, indeed, whether this is a game. What distinguishes a game from reality is merely the fact that the players know that they are playing a game. In this case, all of the players do indeed know that they are playing a game - so, if their expectations/understanding of what playing a game means includes the possibility of being not fully in the know, then fine, everyone is playing a game and there is no problem. If their understanding of what playing a game means doesn't include the possibility of being in the dark about some elements, then for them this isn't a game and so risks being offensive/upsetting/a meaningful breach of trust.
The problem is then that for this game to fully work, the "victim" mustn't be completely expecting the twist - not expecting to be in the dark about anything. The best subject is someone (in a given social context) who doesn't really include lack of knowledge (at least in the form it takes in this game) in their definition of "game", but who would nevertheless not be offended or upset by it. For the unsuspecting victim, the point of the game is that it challenges their own definition of what a game is. Responsible other players will have to judge whether a given victim will respond positively or negatively to this challenge.
But that was probably all just rewording points that have already been made :P.
To focus a little more closely on the game itself, I'd like to raise a point made by Devon much earlier in this thread. It seems to me that Sunshine Boulevard is a little too naive/happy/simplistic. I realise that this is great because it makes such a huge contrast with The Secret Lives of Serial Killers when the twist is revealed, but I think there might be a problem with a) believability (i.e. players may suspect the twist before it actually happens), and b) actually getting players to play. Whilst obviously Devon did manage to get a player who wanted to play SB as written, I think I would have troublem finding anyone - I have few opportunities to play RPGs, so when I get together with people to play, we're really looking for games that are immediately very appealing! And SB on its own seems a little bland. The two things that occur to me that might improve it on this point are more character development mechanics and a risk of not succeeding. What do you (Willow, that is :) ) think about this point?
Willow:
It's a little amazing that I've gone so far through the looking glass: after exposure to Shooting the Moon, Under my Skin, It Was a Mutual Decision, and Blazing Rose, I figured *of course* people would recognize Sunshine Boulevard as a real game. Or at least a weird, jeepy-thing worth playing. But then I remember that most people only play D&D, and even the narrativistically-inclined players are playing sword wielding ronin, demon wielding sorcerers, and gun wielding teenage mormon paladins. (and gun lugging gun luggers)
Again, this is a matter of taste, and play experience.
When I say in the rules that the game should not be played; that is not a rule, it is a statement of moral assessment of my own work. On the other hand, I believe that games are meant to be played, which creates a contradiction, which is part of why I find this concept so fascinating.
I've said I intend to playtest SB straight far more than I intend to playtest SL- I actually plan on only playing the full game once, but the metagame many times.
I'm not sure that more mechanics are necessarily needed for the 'straight' game- it's modeled on the Jeepform paradigm, where rules inform the structure of play. (Note that Jeepform/structured freeform lacks what I would traditionally call a 'resolution mechanic'- the closest thing SB has is the anti-fiat of the Sunshine, where the other players are encouraged to step on their suggestions to deprotagonize them- everything that happens is organically "resolved" through play.)
tzirtzi:
Just to quickly reply to only a part of your post - it wasn't the lack of violence/magic/etc that made SB feel lacking to me, but simply that it was missing... oh, drive, bite, tension, something like that. One of Ron's criteria for Ronnies is there being a clear reason why you'd want to play the game - I personally don't find that in SB. Blazing Rose, Under My Skin and Shooting the Moon all involve significant narrative tensions (which then create drive for character development), and even if It was a Mutual Decision has less in the way of obvious narrative tension per se, it still (to me) creates more of a compelling and complicated situation to drive character development. It's exactly to these sort of games that I'm comparing it and thinking: well, wouldn't I (putting myself in my "victim"'s shoes) rather play one of those, if I'm going for a relationship rpg?
Of course, perhaps if SB was more immediately three-dimensional and compelling, it would render SLSK that much less playable? :P
Anyway, I may be quite wrong here - these are just my impressions.
tzirtzi:
(Damn not being able to edit! I'm not used it :P)
I just wanted to add that I really very much like the overall game - the comparison of and relationship between the two component games is very interesting, and very well done. The whole thing was a very enjoyable read - so much so that I felt immediately compelled to email it to friends (an urge I should have resisted, so as to keep more potential players, but hey ho :P).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page