[Deathbird Black] The Roof, The Roof, The Roof Is On Fire
Ron Edwards:
Hi David,
There are a number of games for which explicit points and win conditions turn out to be secondary features, reinforcing a more important focus for fun without ultimately being goals by themselves. The Shab al-Hiri Roach is one of them, and so was the brilliant The Great Ork Gods, which is unfortunately not available at present.* In games of this sort, the pseudo-winning is a perfectly useful component of play but it is not the point.
Whether Deathbird Black turns out to be like that, or whether the points and winning do turn out to be important in some way (and thus need some redesigning to be less locked down in the last round), is still an open question, at least for me.
Best, Ron
* Another example which is possibly problematic to discuss on-line is the distinction between certain functional versions of D&D play, one of which strongly emphasizes leveling-up and character survival as winning criteria, and one of which uses these mechanics only as framing devices for other priorities. However, since dysfunctional versions of both ways to play exist and tend to take over conversations about it, I'll keep this as a footnote.
David Shockley:
In case its not clear, I wasn't asking rhetorically. I'm assuming they serve some sort of purpose here, and I just don't understand it. (I probably made this more confusing by asserting that the 'points don't matter' in my question. But thats because I have Drew Carey from 'Whose Line Is It Anyway?' stuck in my head.)
I think I see your point with D&D, both about the multiple functions of levels, and about the potential to derail the thread :)
Moreno R.:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 05, 2011, 02:28:28 PM
and so was the brilliant The Great Ork Gods, which is unfortunately not available at present.
The latest Beta, as far as I know, can be found att this page:
http://www.greatorkgods.co.uk/
Baxil:
First of all, a shout out to the Mom's Basement podcast - I'd like to thank them for also playtesting Deathbird Black, and discussing it in Episode 24 (along with some thoughts on playtesting in general, and the controversy over Secret Lives of Serial Killers).
Paolo, you'll be interested that they recommended expanding the character tables (to 26 or 52, instead of 13). This seems like a good idea to me.
David:
Quote from: David Shockley on March 05, 2011, 01:28:48 PM
If the points don't matter, why have them at all?
Well ... points do matter. I said I want them to be meaningless. I hope this doesn't sound like semantic quibbling. Let me take a stab at explaining it.
Essentially, what I'm trying to do is to pull a fast one on Deathbird Black players to guide them into playing the game in a fun way. Everyone's familiar with the idea of a "score", and I'm using "points" in an intuitive sense: you earn them by succeeding at things (Goals, dice-flinging, lying to the detective). The gamer brain is hard-wired to look at a mechanic like that and assume that's the game's big reward cycle. So what are you going to do? Accomplish Goals, fling dice, and lie to the detective. As you do this, there are other mechanics that push you toward the "have fun during gameplay" reward cycle: make the GM laugh for bonus dice, etc. But your focus is going to be on things that move the game forward.
In that sense my scoring is the reverse of Marks from Diary of a Skull Soldier, I think. Rather than assigning values to gameplay actions to get people to reflect on the numbers, I want to use people's intuitive assumptions of the numbers to push gameplay actions.
But why have points at all if the real reward is the comedy? Because I don't think the mechanics can directly push toward that reward. In both this thread and the Ronnies thread, it has repeatedly come up that forcing comedy is awkward and unfunny. Comedy is what happens along the way toward something else, and the score cycle is the "something else" I've chosen. (This is also why I don't want laughter to directly award points. That makes it harder for point whoring to foul up the real reward cycle.)
... That's my theory, anyway.
Quote
When I read the rules I had assumed that Shifting Blame would be the default. I think it would be for me, and at least a couple people I've played with in the past.
I was rather surprised that Shifting Blame was not more popular. I think it was due to the relative inexperience of my playtest group; I'll keep an eye on it as other people and groups play.
Baxil:
Ron,
Thanks for the comments on the Deathbird - it's interesting how a force of nature like that lends itself to interpretation. ;) I think it helps the cathartic nature of the scenes to have the Deathbird be so narratively vague.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on March 03, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
1. Let's start with the biggest issue, which I think you may have resolved partly or entirely, but I'll toss my dice at that container anyway:
How about ... the GM sets a single goal as part of the scenario, which everyone wants, announcing it exactly one second before play proper begins?
Honestly, I'm not seeing it ... a noir game where everyone's cooperating is falling down somewhere, and turning up the competition with a shared goal means getting truly vicious about points, which I don't think works here (see previous post). The chaotic collision of individual goals is working thematically, and is okay (if shaky) on the practical level; let me see how the revisions work out before even considering anything this drastic.
I think I see what you're saying with Complications and Flaws being able to help the reward cycles. If the rule is "involve someone else," you have one or two spiffy character elements that suggest a way to do that, but don't constrain. I'll give that a shot.
Quote
3. Little things ...
i) I'm thinkin' that once your character achieves a goal, and if that character survives the scene, then in later scenes, he or she is restricted to only one die, period. This might be over-correcting what isn't even a problem, but who knows, keep it in mind if the "done" character issue crops up again.
ii) I not likin' the idea of naming/using known characters or real people as characters in the game. It seems lazy to me at best. Apparently you played Angelina. Was this in response to another player naming Brad, in that scene? And I'm really gonna guess here, and ask, is that player also the same one who played Barry Bonds in the previous scene? Annnnnnd ... is that player one of the two final GMs who stonewalled?
i) Noted for later, I'm not at the point where I'm tuning that yet.
ii) I did play Angelina in response to Brad, after drawing the "Spouse of another PC" card. Low-hanging fruit. And, man, your guesses were 3 for 3 ... gold star. (I'm going to guess, for my own part, you've dealt with that sort of neo-grognard in game demos and such?)
In this case I agree with you about the laziness ... but, in the general case, I think there's a strong case to be made for that sort of theft in the comedy genre. In our last game of Toon, the Minecraft creeper and the Old Spice Guy stole the show; in the past, one of my PCs has had some crazy memorable moments playing the character of Fighter from the webcomic 8-Bit Theater.
I think what makes it laziness here is that you already have a character ... Deathbird Black specifically hands you an archetype, and by grounding that in a specific known person, you're not letting yourself explore it and own it. Toon doesn't suffer that grounding problem because the game is so nonsensical in the first place.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page