[Deathbird Black] Ronnies feedback
Elizabeth:
Joshua Newman and I once playtested a mechanic in a (meant to be) humorous game. The rule was that the scene wasn't over until it was funny enough to make someone laugh.
That was years ago, and remains in my top three most painful RPG experiences of my life.
whduryea:
I wonder if part of the reason why I enjoyed laughter-based mechanics while others found them excruciating is that I was playing games with mechanics about trying not to laugh while others were playing games about trying to make others laugh. The latter does seem like it has the potential to be very awkward, since nothing kills a joke like self-consciousness and an audience that is actively analyzing it to determine whether it is funny or not.
That said, I think Deathbird Black might sidestep this problem, if only because it is such a busy game. There is so much going on at any given moment that the GM is unlikely to be thinking about whether or not (s)he should be laughing, which in turn makes spontaneous laughter possible.
Baxil:
Wow! A lot of great discussion already. I'm going to beg for a little patience on everyone's part; my wife's laptop motherboard just melted down, so we're sharing a computer for the foreseeable future. And tomorrow is gaming night, which means playtesting opportunities but less Internet time.
Before I start responding to any of the points brought up ... I feel like I should start with the gaming background that informs DBB's design. It turned into an essay and I moved it into Actual Play.
It's kind of necessary, because I read lines like,
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 06:40:50 PM
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
and I'm all "wow, you get to pick who to game with?" I feel a bit like the guy who's all proud of the fact his first cell phone sends text messages, and you're showing me your iPad.
So I'm really looking forward to other people's playtesting, because I have absolutely no idea how a game like mine would run if five or six of me were to sit down with it.
I'll have to directly respond to the posts here later - it's late o'clock.
Baxil:
I'll start with Ron's point 3, re the "reward laughter" and "vote for winner" mechanics, because that's where most discussion seems to be happening.
For over a decade now, my TOON game has had a house rule of, "If stating an action makes the GM laugh, it succeeds." My (subjective) experience with this has been uniformly positive across three cities and 15+ PCs.* On reflection, I think whduryea's point is illuminating. The audience (the other players) does not need to analyze or be self-conscious, because their reaction doesn't produce in-game rewards. The target (the GM) is playing an adversarial role - laughing hamstrings the GM's narrative response, so analysis needs to go no deeper than "don't laugh unless they break you".
I think that for someone to have that adversarial (instead of analytic) role, they have to be disconnected from the reward cycle. Which makes the GM a natural arbiter. Incidentally, that disconnection drove my decision to rotate GMing duties - and because of that rotation, Deathbird Black is more of an edge case here. I think it will still work, though, and I eagerly await other groups' playtest feedback here.**
It's telling that nobody had the same knee-jerk reaction to Shifting the Blame, which is the same "reward laughter" mechanic flipped on its head.
Quote from: Elizabeth on February 12, 2011, 08:21:23 PM
The rule was that the scene wasn't over until it was funny enough to make someone laugh.
(wince)
To my credit, I specifically mention that Deathbirding should be used to mercy-kill painful scenes. So, yes, general agreement: forced laughter is bad. Like, scarring-level bad. I'm going to file that one under "abusive game design", and hope that - like with Gamism and the worse Hardcore behaviors - people can acknowledge the line between that and its less harmful cousin.
* * *
As for the voting mechanism ...
That was stolen straight from Baron Munchhausen. I'll note that its inclusion is a very personal thing based on my gaming history and personality; I dig Gamism (as Deathbird Black will show) but am painfully avoidant of people and games who crank up the Step On Up dial. Nothing kills a game faster for me than turning the results into a statement on player value. I've got weird boundaries here - I can't stand chess but love Go, for example; and the difference is entirely that Go provides a handicap which allows two people of different skill levels to have an even game. (Therefore, your metagame is playing against yourself to increase your handicap, instead of getting better than your opponents. Withholding rant on this now.)
When I've seen voting in operation in Munchhausen, it has been casual and positive - I like that it provides a specific callback to the awesome moments of the game, as everyone lists their favorite memories, and that it forces everyone to say something nice about another player's contributions. A lot of deserving people get passed over, because you're constrained to giving your votes to a single player, but even that helps reduce hard feelings, because it seems like everyone understands that the rules force all-at-once allocation, so "zero votes" merely means "not first place". Routinely, players will call out a few people they wish they could have recognized, or highlight the best moments from a player that was otherwise mediocre. In hindsight, this sounds like good Social Contract to me, and I could see how this might turn sour with a bad Social Contract, so I'm curious for what has happened to others.
In Munchhausen, voting was a necessary component to turn the currency system (coins) into a viable reward mechanic (votes); without it, there was an incentive against engaging in the coin spending that drives play. In Deathbird, the game functions without it - but at a very different level.
I drew up a chart of the reward system ... please correct me if I got anything wrong, and tell me if there's anything in the design (or the wording of the voting mechanism) that undercuts it.
http://tomorrowlands.org/gaming/deathbird-rewards.gif
Being funny might not be the only influence on receiving votes - but the voting mechanism brings comedy into the reward cycle, rather than having it be a byproduct of play.
I'm open to arguments that this is a bad thing***, but my instinct is that in a comedy game, that's appropriate.
- Bax
--
* Here's a specific recent example (and for once, I wasn't GMing). Our TOON characters were fighting a giant robotic space pig. J., who was playing the Old Spice Guy, invoked a custom Shtick based on his character's concept: "Look down at the ground. Now back at me. Now down to the ground. Now back to me. I'm piloting a Hyperion-class battlecruiser." M. cracked up amid cries of "DAMN YOU, J.!", and seeing him laugh, everyone began cheering madly. That was a crowning Gamism moment in terms of coolness value (and scene Color), but didn't have an outsized impact on character effectiveness (if you haven't played TOON, trust me on this, a bucket of chocolate sauce can have a bigger gameplay effect than a space warship). Actually, that brings up another point: Maybe laughter mechanics only work when the stakes are small. In Deathbird's case, having a one-die throwing bonus once per scene seems to me just big enough to make it worth attempting, while not making it so integral that everyone feels compelled to force it.
** Due to various issues, I've had to push back my own testing, but I have a game scheduled Thursday.
*** From anyone, especially Ron, who has already offered.
Baxil:
Regarding GM identity and necessity (Ron's point 1):
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 06:40:50 PM
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
This is fantastic feedback, because my vision all along has been to have the GM be an impartial arbiter and coordinator with a few light Color duties (scene framing, NPCs). Very similar to what you describe! The "story nanny" roles that you point out are a product of 24-hour design and vision creep. Now that you point it out, I agree that "judge Shifting Blame" and "award point for finale" don't fit that vision and I'll be writing them out.
(I'm toying with the idea of awarding points to all survivors of the finale, as a reverse incentive to encourage killing each other. But the scene would work without it, so, KISS.)
I am not sure I'm ready to let go of the Complication veto, but I need to drastically restate the rule in line with what I meant it to be. My goal with that rule is, if the Player To Right says "Complication X!" and Original Player says "That sucks!" then the GM plays tie-breaker. They should not get to overrule PTR (or anyone's creativity) except to resolve disputes. Is that in line with the GM role you pictured, or do you still think I should remove their judicial powers?
Quote from: Nathan P. on February 12, 2011, 08:16:12 PM
A counter to Ron's point 1: Does there need to be a formal GM?
Nathan, you raise a good point, and given the rules you state, it sounds plausible. I'm going to take a guess and say that most people on this board could play Deathbird Black GM-less. But to me it would be tough.
... Actually, the main objection to GM-less play was covered in my comment above - how do you measure "make the GM laugh" for bonus dice? If everyone's got a character in play, and there's nobody impartial to target with that rule, then everyone's laughter becomes tactical. My instinct is that that detracts.
If you think there's a way around that, or don't think it's going to make a difference, I'd love to hear about it. There's certainly room to put an optional GM-less conversion in the back of the rules.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 06:40:50 PM
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.
I hear what you're saying ... ugh. I'm on the fence. I'm going to see how Complications work out in tomorrow's playtest. The more detail you have to collaborate on, the more play slows down. But Complications provide a useful option. In the current rules, in order to roll, you can EITHER team up with someone to get past your Flaw, OR backstab someone to get past your Complication. (The other one is narrated past when your roll succeeds.) Without that, if nobody wants to help you, you're in a corner.
And I keep coming back to the "the game is for people who get it" line ... is it really? That's an honest question and I'd like some feedback. One of the great strengths of a comedy game should be its accessibility - no commitment, easy rules, sit down and laugh, you don't have to be an expert gamer to contribute. On the other hand, I'm clueless here - has its existence as an indie RPG already preselected its target market? Is there anything about it that will keep novices away?
P.S.:
Ron, you'd also asked if there was anything else I wanted to see discussed - I do have another few questions (like the potential comedy/noir mood whiplash, and whether that might be a factor of abashed design), but I know there are a number of other Ronnies threads that still need to be started, so I'll sit on them for now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page