[The Secret Lives of Serial Killers] Rational musings (split)
Ron Edwards:
Here's another thing I was thinking about. In other media, late-stage information that forces the reader/viewer to fully recast all that has gone before into a new mold is an acknowledged technique. It's definitely not the default way to tell or experience a story, and some people absolutely despise it, but it is doable, many people like it if the "new" (i.e. revised) story is good, and some people absolutely love it and even crave the more arcane and misleading forms. None of which, in my opinion, has anything to do with abuse of the reader or viewer.
Furthermore, there is a difference between the reality that some audience members simply don't like such things, and the reality that some who do, or might, don't like bad implementations of it.
What I'm saying is that it is possible that a person might play the Sunshine and be totally engaged in the Sunshine Boulevard "thing" going on, get caught totally flat-footed by the final phase, but the revelations and events of that phase make everything that has gone before make more sense, and furthermore, upon full reflection, are actually a much better story than the original or as-experienced one. This is absolutely nothing more than what movies like The Sixth Sense do. The questions are only (i) whether the new understanding utilizes the existing information more completely than the previous understanding and (ii) whether the resulting story as it's now understood is more engaging, has a more relevant theme, than the story as it was previously understood would have had.
It's true that the Sunshine Boulevard / TSLOSKs transition is far more radical in terms of content, and that is a legitimate concern for discussion. But a good deal of the reaction I've been seeing seems to be based on the idea that role-playing is only functional insofar as everyone is fully informed about all the content ... and we know that's not true, on the basis of GM-only backstory, player-owned secrets, and other similar things. I'm saying that the bait-and-switch is a version of such things, and in terms of pure content it is not itself, as a technique, automatically abominable.
Best, Ron
Devon Oratz:
Quote
Roger thought of "Inception*" and adding layers but I think of "Shutter Island" or "A Scanner Darkly" by Philip K. Dick and turning the tables on the player. A mystery game with the deception of the PC is a killer and he is ultimately searching for himself could meet this criteria, I think. A sudden, shocking twist certainly fits in murder mystery fiction. As a game it would be limited; good for a single good shock and then toothless as a repeat for the same audience. It would also be a bit of a one-trick pony without significant fleshing out from this simple idea.
This reminds me that I think I forgot to state the most obvious and important feedback of all here.
SLoSK is ENTIRELY a one-trick pony.
I mean it is a game it is almost literally only possible to play once (unless you want to look outside your usual gaming group to find another victim, you sadist you) ever.
The problem with building a longer and more elaborate game around a similar deception is that that game would too, by necessity, be a one-trick pony. Perhaps even more importantly, even that one reveal would be entirely predicated on what amounts to a very fragile deception. All it takes is one player getting curious and reading the forbidden sections of the rulebook, or an online review, or a playtest report at the Forge, to ruin the big reveal forever. So I'm not sure this sort of model is tenable for any game that isn't textually and mentally bite-sized.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page