[Wings of Blood] Belt of children heads
Baxil:
Paolo,
Great to see this playtested. :)
Quote from: Paolo D. on March 06, 2011, 06:28:51 AM
However, I noticed a certain tendency to go with a comedy style. The saurids should be strange or weird, but they shouldn't be humorous. I think that at least one or two of the players decided to take a “comedy stance” to their characters because of the weirdness that they rolled the first time on the tables, before the re-rolling refinements. In particular, Nicola came out with a pair of “butterfly-like wings” that are really ugly (or humorous) if you look at them with his “sawed sheds”.
I think that I should state clearly in the game text that this game is not about funny monsters, and charge the GM to enforce it at the table during chargen (through dialogue only, like “Hey, butterfly wings? Guys, are you sure that this is ok with the mood of the game?”) – the “democracy at the table” rule should do the rest.
I think what's happening here is that your players might be intimidated by the new game. I often see from my roleplaying group - especially the new players, and the players who are first starting to GM - that same comic tone. It is a LOT easier to approach an RPG in a silly fashion than it is to play it straight. If you "do it wrong", or if you are out of ideas, then at least you are being entertaining and having fun.
It might also be a social contract issue. If they're there to play a lighthearted game, that will come through no matter what the rules say. I notice that they're also adding whorehouses and discussing dragon boobs, so it might help to ask up front what they want out of the game they're helping you play.
Speaking of which:
Quote
What about (saurid) boobs?
This is a question with precedent! ;)
But I think you have it exactly right in Realism vs. Color.
Consider this a vote for Color. So much of the fun of a character is coming up with appearances, and you should accommodate that! (This doesn't mean a vote for "boobs=yes" -- it means that if it's important to your players, run with it.)
The actual question "Reptile boobs?" probably has the potential to derail this thread, so I'll only say: that argument has been circulating for literally decades in the furry circles I frequent, and I could talk your ear off about it.
(... "Reptile ears?" GO.)
- Bax
Paolo D.:
Thanks Devon and Baxil! :-)
About the comic tone issue:
Quote
I think what's happening here is that your players might be intimidated by the new game. I often see from my roleplaying group - especially the new players, and the players who are first starting to GM - that same comic tone. It is a LOT easier to approach an RPG in a silly fashion than it is to play it straight. If you "do it wrong", or if you are out of ideas, then at least you are being entertaining and having fun.
This one.
Wings of Blood is definitely a scaring game, in terms of emotive content. It's an adventurous game, but it involves strong emotions like rage, guilt and grief.
At least one of the players admitted that this game scares him (however, he's the only one of us who haven't tried yet games with a strong "guilt" component, like DitV, so this could be because he's new to them, too).
I also think that a lot of this comic attitude could have been induced by our initial approach with the random generation tables (for the physical features and for the names - the least only to search for some inspiration): it's easy to take a laugh after you see what you just rolled, and I'm ok with it, it's good to relieve from some tension after the writing of the Death Oaths.
But, after this, the game has to stay on a more serious mood to provide the game experience I want to deliver through it.
I know that "social level" - trumps - "procedures" in every kind of game experience... However I'm very worried about this issue in this game because it has a strong potential for comic derailment (caused by the weird physical features, mostly) so maybe some procedural precaution could be needed, a sort of safety net.
Maybe, something like a "peer review" phase after the whole chargen. Each player could take a look on other characters, and say "Hmm, butterfly wings? Really dude?" and, if at least another person at the table (GM included) thinks that a given feature is not coherent with the rest of that character's concept, his player has to change it with another one more suited, at his choice.
It could be a good way to help all the people in staying on the same page, too.
About saurid boobs:
In this game, Color trumps Realism, definitely. Still, my issue is not about "realism" (which, by the way, is a word that I hate in rpg discussions: each single gamer seems to have his own personal definition for it*) but is about plausibility: to give a coherent and credible explanation, mostly through the Setting, for some of my Color choices.
I think that the "platypus solution" could work as a credible explanation for saurid's brest, we'll see how it works with my first female saurid npc in our next playtesting session.
Thanks,
Paolo
* Baxil: I don't want to "hammer" you for this, you are giving me a really good feedback and I really appreciate your presence in this topic... Still, please, no "realism" in my topic :-)
Baxil:
Then let us speak no more of so-called "realism"! :)
For chargen, I doubt peer review would help. It does nothing if your players "get" the game, and it won't solve tone problems if they don't "get" it.* If the group playing the game is not looking for a strong game about rage, guilt and grief, then Wings Of Blood will fall flat no matter how much the rules try to force it.
I like the way that Ben Lehman solves this for Polaris. He has a section for "Why you should play this game" and "Why you SHOULDN'T play this game" right on the Polaris home page (and, if I remember correctly, in the game as well).
Quote
Why you shouldn’t play this game
In Polaris, your knight will betray his people and die forgotten and alone. If you don’t like losing you won’t like Polaris.
Polaris is powerful. In Polaris, you will wield the greatest powers of the cosmos against the greatest powers of hell. If you don’t like powerful protagonists, you won’t like Polaris.
Polaris is deadly. If you don’t like games where a favorite character can be killed with a dependent clause and the flick of a sword, don’t play Polaris.
In Polaris, a player who can improvise well will have an advantage over a player who does not like to improvise (although you are never required to improvise). If you don’t like games that reward snap creative thinking, you won’t like Polaris.
However, this still leaves you with the problem of helping your playtesting group get into a game that they normally would not play. I hope other people here can offer some insights on that, because I would like to know the answer to that myself.
--
* Thanks to Ron for clarifying this in the Deathbird Black Ronnies thread.
Paolo D.:
Quote
I like the way that Ben Lehman solves this for Polaris. He has a section for "Why you should play this game" and "Why you SHOULDN'T play this game" right on the Polaris home page (and, if I remember correctly, in the game as well).
Peer review or not, a thing like this is definitely worth of being included in my game text, it could be very useful (and I don't know why I forgot it by the way, it's part of many games I read and I like, for example DitV and, well, Polaris).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page