Started by Ron Edwards, February 12, 2011, 09:40:50 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 09:40:50 PM3. 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.
QuoteAnd finally, most importantly,
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 09:40:50 PMA 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
Quote from: Elizabeth on February 12, 2011, 11:21:23 PMThe rule was that the scene wasn't over until it was funny enough to make someone laugh.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 09:40:50 PM1. 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
Quote from: Nathan P. on February 12, 2011, 11:16:12 PMA counter to Ron's point 1: Does there need to be a formal GM?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 12, 2011, 09:40:50 PM2. 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.
QuoteAnd 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?