[It's Complicated] Relationship-map Twister

[Elizabeth]

So I've been writing/re-writing/tweaking this game for a couple weeks; it's called "It's Complicated." (Those rules aren't precisely current; I'll be updating them this weekend.) JasonP, Scurve, stryck, and Adrienne from #indierpgs participated in the third playtest last night, and I think we're on to something.

In the first playtest-- a game about assassins whose union was on strike-- the senes were pretty slow initially, because you couldn't establish an Oddity or Dysfunction until your turn. Since Oddities and Dysfunctions are the only attributes in the game, this made it hard for players to really have a handle on their character before it was their turn to own a scene. On the other hand, the slow build made for some great reveals and misunderstandings-- the session ended with Alfred, the secretly-recovering alcoholic, revealing that the neurotic southern belle who thought he was trying to kill her was, in fact, HIS DAUGHTER!

The ending board is here: http://www.catharsismagazine.com/playtest.jpg
(Brief summary: you play by connecting outward personality quirks to internal secrets and issues, and when you cross someone's line, you have to declare your side of your relationship to that person.)

In the second playtest-- a game about dysfunctional elves in a toy factory-- we tried to bypass the slowness of the first game by doing a round of connection before scenes actually started. Everyone felt like it was easier to play their characters, however, by the end of the game it was almost impossible to move without having to declare relationships with every other player.

The ending board for that playtest is here: http://www.catharsismagazine.com/playtest2.jpg

Last night we tried something new. (This game was about people spending the night in a haunted house in order to get inheritance from a deceased rich guy.) Everyone declared a Dysfunction before play started, but they did not declare an Oddity-- and therefore, make a line-- until it was their turn. This seemed to be a pretty happy medium, and the game went really well; it's fun to have certain targets to hit in every scene, with everyone working together to make it happen. I also tried changing the shape of the map (more on this in a bit), which you can see here:

http://www.catharsismagazine.com/newplaytest.jpg


After playing these games, there are two big issues that I'm not sure how to deal with.

-In the first session, Alfred's player expressed concern that having to declare the nature of your relationship with someone before the scene started took the fun out of it. He wanted the reveal of Ainsley being his illegitimate daughter to be a surprise to the rest of the players; the scene was still cool, but he felt it would have been cooler with the element of surprise. As a result, for the ensuing playtests, we changed the rule-- declare your Oddity/Dysfunction, but only reveal your relationship through play. That way there's still a small element of mystery.

Last night, however, JasonP said that he feels the game is better when you declare everything up front-- that additional structure gives you a better idea of where the scene is headed, and you don't lose anything by giving up the element of surprise; you just make it easier for the other players to aid your fun. I'm not sure who I agree with, and I'd love thoughts either way.

-The board gets pretty crowded. I've been experimenting with different shapes (as you can see above), and I'm not sure what would give players a bit more breathing room. Any suggestions there would be DEEPLY appreciated.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Elizabeth,

I think that's a phenomenal example of thoughtful playtesting.

I don't know if this works by the rules, but if possible, could play proceed if one declared either an Oddity or a Dysfunction, but not both? If I understand correctly, that would mean that lines would still be drawn during play itself. I like the way you guys did it (starting with the Dysfunction), but I also like the idea of starting with "my guy is Odd like this" and letting the revelation of how that causes problems arrive during the scene. I don't see the downside of permitting it to occur either way.

I also think that instead of merely declaring the Oddity/Dysfunction to start the scene, that a brief introduction to the character to establish that phenomenon - but not a full-on hard-core role-playing bit, not quite - might work well. In the great alpha-game Criminal Element, each player begins with an in-character anecdote (kind of a Tarantino thing); in the excellent game Grey Ranks, the first chapter of 10 is mechanically handled a little differently and more simply than the rest of the game, and character creation is actually completed between the first and second chapters.

Regarding secrets, that is a topic which ties people into knots constantly. I tend toward the view that surprise among players cannot be equated to surprise among characters, i.e., let the surprise hit the players at its own rate and let it hit the characters in its own way. Doesn't matter which comes first and doesn't matter if they're not simultaneous. I tend not to be sympathetic to the view that the players' surprise must arise from and be synonymous with the character's surprise. I present these views not to convert you or to argue with your fellow player, but only to lay them out as one way to look at the issue. You'll have to arrive at some such view in order to make a decision about the game - the point is not to please everyone, but to find the way that works best given the game's goals and fun-factors.

Looking over the examples, it may be possible to let this feature (revelation of secrets as a function of "declare relationship") also be opened up to individual usage. Let's say another player has a Line drawn from "Nose detaches and does things on its own" to "Can't get over mom's death." I have declared my Dysfunction ("Wingnut political obsession") and am now drawing a Line to my Oddity, whatever it may be, and it crosses the first player's Line. So now, perhaps, I have three choices:
- declare the relationship up-front, among us players, in front of God and everybody
- hold off on the relationship and let its announcement arise from interactions during play
- declare the relationship just like the first option, but at the end of the scene (this is helpful because you can try to be doing the second option and it might not work out organically; this keeps the player from being forced into stupid play)

Nifty game! Have you considered putting the diagram into a circle, with Oddities facing Dysfunctions in two semi-circles? I'm not sure whether it will work, without sketching it and trying it, but see what you think.

Best, Ron

[David Artman]

First, the easy one: there is no topological difference between two rows of boxes, two semi-circles, or anything in between, so long as you don't introduce an acute angle in either row, which could make for "uncrossable lines". But even considering that, there's nothing mechanical that I can see which *forces* line-crossing anyway, other than looping through enough scenes to eventually force cross-overs (the tenth scene and beyond will have at least Touching and probably cross-overs) . But, heck, a group could draw upwards of 20 lines with *no* cross-over relationships--each one connecting same value box (1-9) between Dys and Odd and then Touching only neighboring boxes--or a group could have relationships increase at an exponential rate--connect 4 Dys to 5 Odd, then 5 Dys to 4 Odd, then 3 Dys to 6 Odd, then 6 Dys to 3 Odd, etc....

Second, the timing of Dys or Odd or Relationship revelations could, I think, be more fun if it's always the player's choice. Basically, to start a scene, you draw a line: if it makes relationships, you needn't reveal anything about Dys or Odd because you have to assert your side of the relationships. But if you don't cross a line, you must declare one half of the Dys/Odd paring, to begin the scene... which could easily be done in scene framing and opening "fade in," not necessarily as a pre-scene statement or negotiation. To end the scene, all aspects (Odd, Dys, and relationships) must be defined.

Third, I am not sure I like the fact that the other impacted character(s)'s player(s) can't reciprocate on the relationship declaration, if in the scene. Does that get you extra tension in the scenes, somehow; or does it help drive the narrative arc? If that doesn't "buy" you anything, then it's merely a limiter; it restricts the net amount of narrative Facts, which (to me) flies in the face of creativity. I would, instead, give any character in a scene the right to present its relationship to the one who crossed its line to start the scene. You can even make it a convenient notation on the chart, if you spread out the rows a bit: using one's colored pen, write that character's feelings/relationship to the character whose line you crossed above the intersection; the other character writes his/her below the intersection (when they reveal it, of course)--this even keeps a record of who crossed whom (the color above was the crossing-line drawer). Heck, you can even use the "tightness" or "openness" of triangular formations to inspire tight or loose three-way situations. For example, the pink, blue, and purple intersection below "Naive" in the second chart would suggest to me that Sparkles, Snowdrift, and Icicle are in a seriously conflicted triangle (and Fluffymittens seems to be off in a world of his/her own, only being drawn into the narrative because of entanglement with Sparkles).

Finally, I'd like to see your example of play (end of book) be more drawn-out and explicit, maybe even use a transcript of a great actual play scene. I am having trouble imagining the negotiation and actual progression of declarations. I would appreciate such an example of play even if you freed up the sequencing as I suggest above, so that we could see examples of how scenes work in all permutations: the Dys v Odd v Relationship opening declaration; other characters' responses to said declarations, reveals of remaining aspects (Odd, Dys, or both), and scene resolution (if all characters' relationships are declared) or suspension (if not... or to transition to a new line drawing).

As Ron said: very nifty game! I'm already thinking about laminating the chart and using dry erase markers... hmmm, or maybe it's better if one can keep a chart after play (I'd then use my laptop and a drawing program).

David

[Elizabeth]

Oh wow, thank you both for the fantastic insight. I feel like I've struck gold here!

Ron:

Thanks for the positive words and encouragement! You're right-- after the second playtest, I decided to go with only declaring an Oddity OR a Dysfunction per turn, instead of declaring both initially. The idea of an anecdote or other type of character introduction is really compelling to me; I'm thinking something like a voiceover introduction, the way the weirdness of the cast is recapped during every episode of Pushing Daisies-- but I don't want to make this game TOO television-dependent; we've got PTA for that. A flashback or a little story or something.. hmmm.

The idea of letting a player choose what to reveal when, relationship-wise, is elegant and seemingly obvious, and I'm kicking myself for not seeing it before.

As to the semi-circle idea: I posted this as the less complicated of two new layouts I was considering. The more I think about it, the more I think that this is going to be the sheet we use at the next playtest.



David: I'm not sure if I parse you clearly. When you say "there's nothing mechanical that I can see which *forces* line crossing," do you mean the crossing specifically? Part of the reason everything becomes a jumbled mess is the fact that, every turn, you HAVE to cross or touch another person. It's interesting, because in all three playtests so far, everyone is far more interested in crossing than they are in touching. I'm not sure why! Anyway, what do you think of the diagram I linked above? I'd love to get your input.

Hmmm. The idea of doing a Dysfunction or Oddity declaration as part of "fade in" kind of dovetails with the idea of a brief character intro.. I've got to chew on that some more, but I like it.

I actually think that the fact that only one character can declare a relationship during a scene is an important part of the genre I'm trying to emulate. I think it does provide tension; it's sort of like reading a book in third-person limited omniscient. You know the guy loves the girl, but how does she feel? Are they going to kiss? When? She's flirting, but she hasn't said anything. That's also the reason that you're given the chance to declare a reciprocal relationship with someone as your scene instead of making a line-- however, you don't HAVE to do that; you can let the tension build as long as you like. Plus, it's really interesting when a character declares a relationship to someone.. and the person is not in the scene. I think Alfred's a really strong example of that; WE know Ainsley is his daughter, but SHE does not. So it's not really necessary for her to declare a relationship to him yet.

I'll see what I can do about a transcript! If we can get the people together tonight, I think we're going to do another playtest. I've been thinking about laminated charts and dry-erase too-- but for multiple rounds, you'd need multiple boards, so in my mind's eye is a binder full of three-hole-punched charts. You can use your thumb to flip through them really fast and have a little cartoon of weirdness and emotional instability!

[David Artman]

When you say "there's nothing mechanical that I can see which *forces* line crossing," do you mean the crossing specifically? Part of the reason everything becomes a jumbled mess is the fact that, every turn, you HAVE to cross or touch another person.

OOPS! That's what I get for reading too fast--I missed that rule in the PDF (or your post or wherever I should have read it). Sorry.

Ok, ignore all that stuff about number of crossings... though I would at least try out a game without that rule in effect: it gives the players more freedom to "lone wolf" for a while before crossing or touching--maybe a character is "on the way home" or whatever and not logically able/ready to start framing scenes with other characters?--or it lets players get cross-happy ASAP. Hey, it's playtesting stage, yah?

Anyway, what do you think of the diagram I linked above? I'd love to get your input.

Ummm... well, personally, I think it's overly complicated, even to the point of potentially being detrimental to play. What is gained by splitting up the Oddity row, anyway, other than affording more opportunity to avoid crossing (presuming you adopt my "don't force them" suggestion above)? Actually... with the "forced to cross or touch" rule in effect, wouldn't the first player to draw a line "trap" all other players on the upper or lower half of the board? Ex: I draw from Odd 1 to Dys 5; next player must cross that line; next player must cross one or both lines, etc... how would anyone every put a line from, say, Odd 10 to Odd 4. Oh, wait... they could touch at Dys 5, to get to the lower half of the chart.... So then, have you split-up Odd to encourage touching, once the crossing on one half becomes too convoluted?

Also, the change of angle--square to diamond--might make it a bit wonky to draw touching, but that's my personal preference. Really, I think two straight rows--one at the top of the page and one at the bottom--is best: it uses most of a full sheet of Letter paper, there's a lot more room to write the nature of a relationship above and below a crossing, and it keep multi-line-crossings from becoming a rat's nest (i.e. you will better be able to see the "tight" triangles versus the "loose" triangles, with more overall area for drawing lines).

Hmmm. The idea of doing a Dysfunction or Oddity declaration as part of "fade in" kind of dovetails with the idea of a brief character intro.. I've got to chew on that some more, but I like it.

I was imagining scene like in Tanenbaums when only one character is in-frame at the scene start, and he (or she) is doing something Odd or Dys. That's the "fade in" portion--the initial declaration trough narration--and what follows would involve narrating other characters into the scene (i.e. they walk into frame) or dialog to establish a crossing relationship, and revelation of the remaining aspects (again, all via narration or character dialog, not player declaration).

I actually think that the fact that only one character can declare a relationship during a scene is an important part of the genre I'm trying to emulate. I think it does provide tension; it's sort of like reading a book in third-person limited omniscient. You know the guy loves the girl, but how does she feel? Are they going to kiss? When? She's flirting, but she hasn't said anything. That's also the reason that you're given the chance to declare a reciprocal relationship with someone as your scene instead of making a line-- however, you don't HAVE to do that; you can let the tension build as long as you like. Plus, it's really interesting when a character declares a relationship to someone.. and the person is not in the scene. I think Alfred's a really strong example of that; WE know Ainsley is his daughter, but SHE does not. So it's not really necessary for her to declare a relationship to him yet.

Fair enough--a more complete transcript of play would probably clarify how to actually manage that sort of suspension/tension without generating incoherence of narrative (or "blah" reactions, or complete confusion).

Glad to help!
David

[Elizabeth]

Hi David!

Ok, ignore all that stuff about number of crossings... though I would at least try out a game without that rule in effect: it gives the players more freedom to "lone wolf" for a while before crossing or touching--maybe a character is "on the way home" or whatever and not logically able/ready to start framing scenes with other characters?--or it lets players get cross-happy ASAP. Hey, it's playtesting stage, yah?

We tried it last night without mandatory crossing and touching, as per your suggestion. It, um, didn't really work. One of the playtesters, who hadn't participated in any of the previous games, put it best: "There's not enough game here. This feels like freeform with a game board." The fact that this is SUCH a rules-light game seems to mean that, if you get rid of any part of what's there, a lot of the friction and structure tend to disappear. Once one of the players sends me the log, I'll post it, along with a transcript of our postmortem.

Anyway, what do you think of the diagram I linked above? I'd love to get your input.

Ummm... well, personally, I think it's overly complicated, even to the point of potentially being detrimental to play. What is gained by splitting up the Oddity row, anyway, other than affording more opportunity to avoid crossing (presuming you adopt my "don't force them" suggestion above)?

You were spot on about the diagram being detrimental to play. I'm going back to the drawing board this weekend; I've got some ideas--  I'm thinking a circle with alternating squares for Dysfunction and Oddity.

I was imagining scene like in Tanenbaums when only one character is in-frame at the scene start, and he (or she) is doing something Odd or Dys. That's the "fade in" portion--the initial declaration trough narration--and what follows would involve narrating other characters into the scene (i.e. they walk into frame) or dialog to establish a crossing relationship, and revelation of the remaining aspects (again, all via narration or character dialog, not player declaration).

That's great!

Fair enough--a more complete transcript of play would probably clarify how to actually manage that sort of suspension/tension without generating incoherence of narrative (or "blah" reactions, or complete confusion).

Right! Like I said, I'll get a log up as soon as I've got one. The playtest last night kind of dragged in places, but everyone had a really good time. It went well enough that we're probably going to extend this one into a second session; I can't wait to fiddle with it more based on this critique.

[David Artman]

One of the playtesters, who hadn't participated in any of the previous games, put it best: "There's not enough game here. This feels like freeform with a game board." The fact that this is SUCH a rules-light game seems to mean that, if you get rid of any part of what's there, a lot of the friction and structure tend to disappear.

Glad you tested, sorry it didn't work for you.

You were spot on about the diagram being detrimental to play.

Batting about .400, then, am I? better than usual.

Like I said, I'll get a log up as soon as I've got one.

That will be the single best tool for presenting techniques to players AND for building excitement around the game, approaching release. Looking forward to it.
David

[Elizabeth]

David, I've got a friend coming into town and therefore a ton of cleaning to do, so I didn't have the chance to mesh the IC and OOC chatlogs into a legible, coherent thing; at least, not all of them. I did manage to get through the gamegen and first three scenes though.

http://dissolutegames.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/its-complicated-log-for-playtest-4-pregen-and-scenes-1-3/#more-63

Hopefully I'll be able to post the second half of the game soon.

[Elizabeth]

Oh, one other thing:

One of the playtesters, who hadn't participated in any of the previous games, put it best: "There's not enough game here. This feels like freeform with a game board." The fact that this is SUCH a rules-light game seems to mean that, if you get rid of any part of what's there, a lot of the friction and structure tend to disappear.

Glad you tested, sorry it didn't work for you.

Of course I tested! How else would I know if it would work? I feel in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention this is the first game I ever finished writing, and only my second attempt at writing a game, period. I've never played a single published indie game (other than 1001 Nights) and only realized they exist a few months ago. You can see my post count here.

To wit: my designs do not have sacred cows because I'm such a neophyte that I'm not sure I could pick a cow out of  barnyard lineup.

[David Artman]

Don't take my "glad you tested" as an assumption that you wouldn't... uh, even though it implies as much. :}

Thoughts on transcript, in order of reading (LONG):
* Why dictate what is declared--Odd or Dys--regardless of genre or tone? Suppose that the Fade In is narrated by a player as "Clark Kent is walking down the street, eyes firmly focussed on the ground before him" and then write a Dys of "won't look at people's bodies" and connects to an undeclared Odd box. He bumps into Lois Lane and, as they chat, his eyes either are locked on hers or are fitfully scanning the building facades and sides, to her confusion. By scene's end, his player writes "X-Ray Vision" for his Oddity... and the group realizes that he's such a goodie-goodie that he doesn't trust himself not to ogle people (though John Byrne had him do the opposite). Just an quick example of how Fading In with a Dys is "better" for the scene than Fading In with the Oddity, which (seems to me) would make the Dys reveal kind of flat or not suspenseful. With the point being that dictating the sequence is going to undermine the impact of some Odd-Dys-Rel reveals (see more below).

* I also didn't much like that all declared an Oddity without ever entering a scene. Remember that Tanenbaum's solo scene I mentioned above? Why not do it that way? Even if you want the "strategic" aspect of an early round of Odd positioning without line drawing or Dys/Rel revelation, I'd still require or at least encourage a narrative Fade In framing (maybe can't introduce other PCs into the scene, though, fine).

* "Dysfunctions are supposed to to be social" - Really? Can you explain that further, if it is in fact a rule? I would allow any sort of Dys, and the social repercussions would naturally evolve in the narrative. For instance, the "wear iPod all the time" thing is a Dys which has physical repercussions (might not hear the bus about to hit him), mental repercussions (very distracting, during times where concentration is required), social (rude to ignore folks talking to you), or even emotional (damn! that heart-wrenching break-up song has me bummed out, now...).

* "dysfunctions are not /settled/ until the end of the first scene <Echo> Yeah, one of the guys at the Forge suggested that too" Heh... but to clarify, I wouldn't say *has* to be at the end--the Dys needn't be some kind of punctuation mark that makes the scene end like a soap opera scene. In fact, I'd think almost the opposite: the Dys suffuses the scene (if not the Fade In, in which case it foreshadows the Odd, or something) and the Relationship "zing" would be the scene close or cliff-hanger... but not by requirement or rule (just in that case). I remember your "everything removed reduces the 'game'" but flexibility of reveals is going to BE half the 'game' in my opinion. Otherwise, you might end up with a more formulaic feel, after a session or two; might even evolve a sort of beat or rhythm that harms the theme development.

Perhaps a good thing to do would be to look at all the permutations of Fade In, Reveal, Relate and consider how they shape the narrative, if even only as an exercise in theory (i.e. a "Designer's Notes" sidebar or a "Pacing a Scene" section in the rules):
-- Odd fade in -> Dys reveal -> Rel impact = my Dys harms my Rel to the other(s)
-- Odd fade in -> Rel impact -> Dys reveal = the Rel I have with the other(s) makes me Dys
-- Dys fade in -> Rel impact -> Odd reveal = ...? (tough one to summarize!)
-- Dys fade in -> Odd reveal -> Rel impact = I am Dys, but this Odd is why, and my Rel with other(s) recognizes both
-- Rel fade in -> Dys reveal -> Odd reveal = my Rel with other(s) impacts my Dys, which is mitigated by my Odd
-- Rel fade in -> Odd reveal -> Dys reveal = my Rel with other(s) lets me show my Odd, which also means showing my Dys
...So the point here is that, rather than think "if I let players do whatever, whenever, in the scene framing and execution, it's a freeform" instead write from the perspective of "the sequence of your fade in, reveal(s), and impact(s) has a significant effect on the feel of a scene." Put another way, give the players that freedom--mayhap at the cost of 'game' in the system--but help them to understand why they might choose one sequence over another.

* Scene cutting - I'd also make it explicit in the rules that, when a player calls "scene" to end her reveals and impacts, the next player could say "continue" or "same" and keep the ball rolling, while taking overall charge of the narrative flow during HIS reveals and impacts (note: this would mean that the Fade In just becomes a immediate Reveal: a "spotlight shift" or a momentary "camera zoom" or brief "internal monologue" or any number of succinct reveal metaphors from other media). I figure you do this already (some scenes continue, others are complete shifts), but I'm just trying to be sure it's addressed in rules. Basically, this sort of stuff is why I wanted to see actual play: it shows where you can speak to readers about techniques which you might not even know that you're using (or which you might be failing to use, as demonstrated by their absence in actual play transcripts, though it IS harder to spot an omission than a commission).

* [Brief Aside: Consider using NetMeeting next time, or find a web site that has "whiteboard" functionality onto which you can all log. I imagine that it was a big pain in the tuckas to have to keep re-uploading the map every scene, eh?]

* Rel: wants to be Media... cool! And, of course, it means I have to revise my above chart of permutations to say "Rel Reveal/Impact". After all, for at least a few of the initial scenes, it will all be Rel Reveals, and I'd imagine later scenes would *have* to result in Rel Impacts--how many discrete relationship elements can one really *have* with one given individual or even a set of individuals, and how can such Rels remain sttatic in the face of all the mounting Dys, Odd, and line-crossing ("Entanglements")? In fact, that's another thing for "Designer's Note" or "Pacing a Scene": when to Reveal a Rel and when to allow it to be Impacted or changed. (By the way, I use Capital Letters to indicate things I believe are mechanical terms which make useful shorthand; I wouldn't necessarily capitalize such in the rules--might make them read as too stentorian.)

All-in-all, it looks like a good session so far, though a bit... uh, diffuse? ...due to the OOC stuff, for my personal tastes. I tend to prefer more direct focus on play and less out-of-play negotiation (or, put another way, negotiation through the scene and dialog, not OOC to "prep" the scene). But, hey, that's just me; and I am sure it would totally vary from session to session, genre to genre, and tone to tone (an in IRC versus face-to-face).

I tell you what: you get this thing hammered out, including some of the above advice sections and more overall explication of the mechanics of the chart, the choices of Reveal Sequence, and the way that they drive the narrative structure of a scene... you'll have a very nice "generic" game, here. Allow me to offer any editing or layout assistance that I can (10 years as professional technical writer and book production specialist)--in particular, I'd like to see the overall page structure of your rule book be a bit airier, artier, and "chunked" more for fast reference (basically, page flow control to make significant rules and explanation pop out, page to page).

I think you could get this thing up to around 20 or 30 full-color pages, which at Avalon makes for a $6.00 cost to you... you could list for at least $12 to $15, for an artfully done book... and note that you don't really need illustrations, that I can see... or could REALLY leverage older public domain images, like woodcuts. Basically, I think this is a solid game which, if well produced, could stand tall at a POD provider.

Anyhow... time enough for that later, if you wish. I am willing to do everything from initial full layout , editing, and print proofing to just editorial review or just impromptu feedback (like now). Lemme know....
David

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa.

Dave, this is Elizabeth's game. You can't invite yourself on-board as co-creator and publishing partner.

Let's all step back a ways and let the creator re-assert her primary position over her work. I recognize that all that's going on is enthusiasm, and it's clear that the game-in-design is attracting a lot of attention. It looks hell of fun to play, period. I blame no one for their reactions along these lines.

But step back, everyone.

Elizabeth, it's up to you whether to continue the thread. Based on my experience here, I suggest that it might be a good time to let this one end, and carry on with further playtesting in light of the comments and thoughts so far. Let us know what you'd prefer.

Best, Ron
(moderator hat is seriously ON)

[Elizabeth]

Hi guys!

David, I've been chewing over your feedback for the last couple of days. It's pretty dense, and it's given me a lot to think about, I just haven't had time to sit down with Complicated in the last couple days and hash it out. There are a couple new sections I need to write too, based on feedback from playtesting (framing scenes with multiple relationships, scene framing in general, more about Dysfunctions and Oddities) and I think there might be some influence from your ideas in those things. I tend to disagree with you on the Dysfunction front-- the example I use in the rules to demonstrate the relationship between the two traits is "Due to [Oddity], I [Dysfunction]"-- but hey, that's what house rules are for, right?

I'm totally flattered by and grateful for your interest in my game, and yeah, I'm totally receptive to feedback in the future (and hey, once I get things settled, if you think you can get a group to playtest maybe? I'm interested in how it would go without me playing). I'm not totally sure I need the help with layout and editing, since I do the editing and graphic design for a quarterly art magazine, but the enthusiasm means a lot. And a fresh pair of eyes is welcome, since I'm always catching typos MONTHS after something's been released!

Ron, thanks for the well-wishes. I think this thread has served its purpose for me for the time being. I'll probably make a new thread in a while if more stuff comes up in ensuing playtests, if that's cool?

Thanks again. I'm really grateful that The Forge exists for this stuff!

[David Artman]

My apologies to Elizabeth if she perceived my enthusiasm and desire to volunteer free help as somehow "Invit[ing] myself... as co-creator and publishing partner." Should you feel so beset, please let me know here or in PM, and I'll desist future posting in later threads. I will, of course, make this my last post to this thread, per your request; but I felt obliged to apologize, if I had somehow let my advice and offers turn into imperatives and usurpation.
David

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Elizabeth,

I'll probably make a new thread in a while if more stuff comes up in ensuing playtests, if that's cool?

Not only cool, but strongly encouraged.

Let's close the thread now.

Best, Ron