[Deathbird Black] Ronnies feedback
Ron Edwards:
Deathbird Black by Baxil is priceless! Ever since reading [Middle Earth - home brew] 1st day in July 4 week of play, I've wanted to see a frenzied and fun group-hollerin' game without it being so ... well, here's my take on that: [Middle Earth - home brew] 2nd day in July 4th '06 week of play, fair or unfar as God above may judge. Here, I may have found the functional version I've been looking for, or at least its first draft.
In fact, 90% of the reason this gets a Ronny is because I said, "I have got to try this," and then finding there weren't any actual roadblocks in the explanations toward that end. The other 10% is that the terms fit like a glove. Mephiscawpheles cracked me up, with the direct result that I am already shopping for a fun stuffed bird toy and racking my brain to come up with a pun even half as clever.
Thinking about that older thread helps me clue into what matters most in this design to me. First, in playing, people will know that they're spoofing rather than infantilized nipple-sucking, and so it'll be fun to dance between being ridiculous but also staying with the genre enough to be a genuine spoof. Second, throwing the dice around like that openly flies in the face of * a common gamer mindset which I myself struggle against hopelessly, the fetishizing of dice and carefully keeping every last personal die separate and sacred from every die of different type and color during play, let alone (horrors) touching someone else's die. Throw it? You mean, like, through the air? And finally, most importantly,
Now for the issues. ("Issues, issues, I'm sick of issues!" "Gesundheit.")** Plus my completely unsolicited suggestions.
1. I think the GM's social and creative identity bears deep reconsideration. As I see it, the role is strictly logistic, not overseeing the narrative at all. As GM, I would merely monitor what happens, shift spotlight to keep everyone in it fairly, scene-frame to cut to the interaction and decision points of interest based on what was just stated, and play NPCs with fervor and fun. And bring in the Deathbird. I'd have no responsibility re: outcomes whatsoever! And in line with that, I think all the GM's story nanny rules need to get junked, fast.
- get rid of the GM veto regarding the contribution of the player to one's right
- get rid of judging shifting blame - if the person does it with a straight face, they shift it, period
- get rid of the extra point for most awesome finale
2. There is way too much prep and depth, in story-character terms - let stuff be organic. For instance, get rid of the complication aspect of the goal and let your flaw complicate things. And yeah, I understand how you explain that they're supposed to be different, but I don't buy it. A person I pick to play this game with me will happily integrate his or her character's flaw and goal with at least one other player-character without fail, without the GM having to keep track of who's stated a plan or done whatever for every single other person playing. The characters are potato chips, and the game is for people who get it, so there's no need to lay out formal place settings and light the candles like that.
Remove the hardboiled private eye character! Play already features one, and he does up the Guy Noir Private Eye thing quite brown as it is, even if he is a cop rather than a P.I.
3. The "make the GM laugh" thing for the extra dice AND the voting for best contribution at the end - I hated both of these on reading and still do. However, considering that I laughed out loud reading the rest of the rules, I reconsidered on the former, and I'm willing to see the latter in action before considering it an actual flaw. So they're both issues, but whether for me alone, or on the basis of actual function, is unknown. I can talk more about why I dislike such things so strongly if you're interested, and I'm definitely interested in any practical experience of yours which indicates these techniques might be successful.
Looking this post over, it seems so terse. I'd like to write more. Baxil, let me know if there's anything you want to see discussed.
Best, Ron
* I am funny! Caw, caw!
** Alison Bechdel, Dykes to Watch Out For
whduryea:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 06:40:50 PM
3. The "make the GM laugh" thing for the extra dice AND the voting for best contribution at the end - I hated both of these on reading and still do.
This game was full of so many different mechanical bits and pieces, enough for maybe five or ten different games, so it's pretty amazing that there was only one that I didn't like: the endgame voting mechanic. There were two main reasons I'm not digging this mechanic:
1. It seems totally superfluous. The game already has a natural, intuitive means to determine a winner: the points accumulated during play. Turning those points into a voting currency seems to be unnecessary at best, and at worst it undermines the drive to accumulate points during the game.
2. I've seen "vote on who offered the best contribution and they get a reward" mechanics used in games before, and the results in play have been awful. These mechanics can turn a lighthearted, fun game into a desperate grab for personal affirmation or at least it creates the possibility for hurt feelings. Goofy fun and role-playing assessment just don't seem to go hand in hand.
I've also seen laughter based mechanics, and those have actually been a lot of fun, particularly in hectic slapstick games like this one. (I would give examples, but neither of the two games that I've seen use laughter mechanics are available as published games. Both were silly parody games masquerading as serious topical RPGs where staying in character and forcing back laughter were objectives.)
Ron Edwards:
Oh, how ridiculous! I totally forgot to complete this sentence:
Quote
And finally, most importantly,
... talk about your psych-out moment. Sorry about that, Baxil.
"And finally, most importantly, a functional but not parental or patronizing role for the GM, which also rotates among the group."
Best, Ron
David Berg:
On the "reward laughter" issue, Super Action Now! is a good test case, as that's it's primary reward mechanism. In my playtest thread, one player summed up our experience:
"The best parts weren't when we specifically tried to make each other laugh. The funniest stuff just happened . . . when we just played the characters and used the stuff on our sheets . . . and it was funny in the situation at that moment."
With something riding on deliberate attempts at hilarity, it felt awkward to laugh, and awkward not to. Other SAN! play reports mentioned no such problems, though, so there must be ways around this.
Nathan P.:
A counter to Ron's point 1: Does there need to be a formal GM? I'm envisioning a setup where anyone can bring in the Deathbird whenever they think it's appropriate (perhaps with some kind of hard limit, like each person can only do it once until everyone has done it), and then the player of the murdered character plays the detective in the ensuing scene. Bonus dice could come from making the table as a whole laugh. Simple scene rotation around the table could share the spotlight roughly equally (and if you don't feel like you're getting enough time, bring in the Deathbird!), and so on.
I agree that the GM's role seems largely logistic, so my reaction to that is to recommend abandoning it entirely!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page