[Best Friends] Ronnies feedback

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Gregor Hutton's Best Friends makes a nice partner with SleepOver, so I'm posting their results as twin threads. Here are the comments that apply to both.

These games feature great player-character creation, including incredible opportunities for conflict, and then they sprawl into a mess. The conflict doesn't become anything interesting in play. "Let's put girls with issues into play and then, I dunno, situations will arise somehow." I like to talk about how character creation is the first step in a reward system, and as I see it, we're looking here at engines without wheels.

It's especially jarring because I think the conflicts that are usually dramatized in films and novels through a set of female family members and friends and acquaintances are really really powerful, and could very well be the core of many possible excellent role-playing games. With each of these games, I said, "Ooh, neat engine!", sat in the seat, and then found no gas pedal, no axles, no wheels ... When given all the examples in literature, film, and folklore, it seems like it'd be quite easy.

I absolutely adore character creation in Best Friends, which reminds me greatly of Sketch but is much harsher and about more stuff. I think it needs to lose the pre-assigned input, though, and just proceed from the inter-player assignments. It doesn't matter if that creates contradictions, either! Betty might be perceived as prettier than Jane by Jane, Jane might be perceived as prettier than Tracy by Tracy, but Tracy might be perceived as prettier than Betty by Betty. No big deal. Of such stuff are girlfriendy-interactions born ...

You can bet I'd insist that everyone draw his or her character using the same triangle + circle style depicted in the game. The fun tone at this point, and the illustrations themselves, raised my hopes for a real savage game that could get somewhere.

However, I became suspicious when the text veered into a totally unnecessary point-by-point descriptive breakdown of every attribute level - almost always a sure sign of an author who isn't sure what to do, or how to visualize how things go in play. That suspicion was quickly confirmed. Everything up to page 9 is brilliant; everything after that is a flailing mess.

I'm not even sure what to isolate: resolution, scene framing, and the GM-set difficulty fiat are all interrelated as non-functional elements. The play example utterly falls apart - why in the world are we talking about car accidents and damage? This is like being told that a role-playing game is about the horror within the human heart as you struggle with becoming a monster, and then having the examples all be about two-sword attacks and what sorts of damage your guy can ignore. Focus instead on conflicts of interest among the women, and you're good.

Wait a minute ... I am starting to be unpleasant about it, and that's not fair. For example, I really like the friend-chips. Looking at them, and positing that a given conflict can be broken down into one or more one-on-one girlfriend conflicts, this is what springs to mind - let's say that every other player has to give a friend-chip to one but not both of the two in that conflict! You have to take sides!

I like this. Even if every girlfriend is in a scene and engaged in a big conflict, then break it down into every pair which represents conflict of interest, and proceed with comparisons and friend-chips from there. Now, as for conflicts with other, non-girlfriendy stuff, like boyfriends or car accidents or charging rhinos, it's easy - nothing. At most, modifiers to the real conflicts.

To develop Best Friends, and I really think you ought to, you have to turn your attention to Situation. Basically, these women are in crisis. They are not running their lives well. Situations during play must reveal and highlight every detail about that, and develop them further into consequences - whether funny and satirical, or dramatic and gripping, that's up to you.

Best,
Ron

[Gregor Hutton]

Thanks for the feedback Ron. I'll chew it over and see what I come up with. I feel there are bits missing from the text that would make the stuff already there make more sense. On the other hand you might see these missing bits as equally superfluous?

Some initial thoughts:

I'm totally blown away that you like the first 9 pages. Especially the character creation.

Sketch! Yup, I figured that a couple of days later (Jonathan Tweet pick of GenCon 2000). It's not entirely the same but it has the same element of others giving you your character in some way.

I'm with you on the pre-assigned input being dropped. I've since had feedback from players that they want more control over their own "stats" (uh, NO!) or be able to move their "stat points" (uh, NO, NO!). I guess that little para was a half-way house to somehow pacify these players. But I should go with my heart, which says they need to get hatreds like everyone else. It'll do them good to get their hatreds doled out blind. The abstraction from real-life that inspired it is that you really cannot control how other people perceive you.

I'm really glad you like the triangle-circle pics. They were done very quickly as I didn't have much time and I think I lucked on a happy accident there. They fitted what I wanted perfectly but were a spur of the moment thing.

Friendchips – y'know that seemed such a goofy name when I put it in, but everyone seems to say it without batting an eyelid.

The "totally unnecessary point-by-point descriptive breakdown of every attribute level" is something I've actually found useful for prepping players about their characters. While at a push you could get a feel for these levels from page 9, I figured that it was an easy one for me to put in given the time I had left (i.e. not much). I tried to give a feel for what your character could do. The bit that is missing here IMO is a page facing each one brimming with examples of conflicts for each hatred. Real examples of using the permission afforded you by the other players (heh, they all hate you for being... whatever ... so you can use that permission to narrate from a position of strength), and examples of tripping up and pushing.

The whole "let's sit down and prep what we actually want to play" bit is missing. Big hole I think. Do you think it's worth adding that in? I've had real fun with the sessions I've run by getting everyone to create characters, and then create a shared imaginary space. Who are we? Where are we? What stuff do we have? What's our nonsense? What are we doing? What do we care about? And what's the rub? And then we've set the scenario from that. The bottom line is that party harmony is enforced (along with disharmony of course).

Conflicts are missing too. I figured the following but didn't get time to write it out. Note that you can't push more than once in a conflict.
• The higher hatred wins with no pushing. A lower hatred can push level, and the higher level can push back over.
• Ties are tied unless someone pushes over, the loser at that point can push back to tie again.
• Players are limited to 5 friendchips maximum. Any more pushed on to them have to be narrated and pushed on to someone else. This stops hoarding and keeps the chips moving.

The scenarios on page 19 are all a bit weak, but they've been useful for a few people that have run the game. I figure that a strong many-page example of play might make them more relevant? But I don't know.

The names on page 20 were a cheap score (internet - check; girls you like - check) and maybe it's a con putting them in, after all if we can't think of a girl's name then what in the hell are we doing playing this game? However, much to my surprise I've had a number of players reach for the list.

The example of play is shoddy and unclear. I guess my point was to show that Kathleen wanted to trip up Steve and Dave for their friendchips. Pretty much that can go, but I'd maybe put a more succint interpretation as an example of narrating a "Tough" example to shake some friendchips out of the other players.

The tone was deliberately left open to interpretation. One friend ran it like Heathers and it was quite dark (someone tied a friend up and drowned her in the school swimming pool!?). I tend to run it like a John Hughes movie or something - light and breezy. Another pal wants to use it for running a Cthulhu scenario (!). You can run it pretty much how you like I guess. It's been interesting seeing how different people see it, for sure.

Hmm, maybe I should have sent in pages 1-9 and claimed "out of time". :-)

[tygertyger]

I absolutely adore character creation in Best Friends, which reminds me greatly of Sketch but is much harsher and about more stuff.

Indeed.  I found the character creation system to be the strongest feature of this game.  The cooperative (and potentially competitive) nature of it is sheer brilliance.  At first reading, the control freak in me stood up and said, "I would never play this."  On further reflection, I modified that to, "I'd only play this with people I really trusted."  OT1H I rather like being in control of what kind of character I play.  OTOH I can see how having influence over what kind of characters the other players have can be a strategic element.  And being forced into an unaccustomed mold can be a spur to player creativity.

[Gregor Hutton]

At first reading, the control freak in me stood up and said, "I would never play this."  On further reflection, I modified that to, "I'd only play this with people I really trusted."  OT1H I rather like being in control of what kind of character I play.  OTOH I can see how having influence over what kind of characters the other players have can be a strategic element.  And being forced into an unaccustomed mold can be a spur to player creativity.

I understand your point. Not every player has been reluctant to let go of their own character creation, but I would say that it's been a common feature in players. For me, the big shift from conventional character creation thinking is that in Best Friends (a) your own character's default permissions are defined by the other players, but conversely (b) you are taking part in defining those permissions for every other player, and they don't get a say in that. Who do you want to push chips to if it is a Pretty thing, or a Rich thing, etc.

You've empowered the target of your hatred, and in return they've empowered you too.

In a conventional game I think we construct our own characters with our own perceived areas of empowerment: I want my character to be strong, quick, or clever, skilled with a bow, can drive a car, etc. But sometimes the other players don't buy in to your characters areas of empowerment.

In Best Friends the other players are the ones that gave you that permission to lay claim to being Richer or Smarter than them, etc.

But still, it is a big leap to let go of your own character's creation. That was why I'd put the bit in about tipping other players off (heh, I'd like a pretty character today). I don't think it's necessary though, I might rip it out altogether or put it in the notes at the end (for the dedicated reader).

In the game there are two ways you can narrate things:
(1) with the default permission given you in character creation - you all said I was the pretty one, so I am using that to create an outcome using that permission, or
(2) you didn't give me permission in character creation to do this, but I am pushing the point.

The other players then have the option of intervening or pushing back if they disagree.

A general question too: did you find it easy to read? Were there any bits that were confusing or heavy going?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My responses are different from Michael's. I don't see any potential problems arising from the group character-creation. It may seem like a big leap from over there, but once you're past it, you say, "That little step? What was I worried about?"

Gregor, you wrote,

I've had real fun with the sessions I've run by getting everyone to create characters, and then create a shared imaginary space. Who are we? Where are we? What stuff do we have? What's our nonsense? What are we doing? What do we care about? And what's the rub? And then we've set the scenario from that. The bottom line is that party harmony is enforced (along with disharmony of course).

That's exactly the text the game needs.

Conflicts are missing too. I figured the following but didn't get time to write it out. Note that you can't push more than once in a conflict.
• The higher hatred wins with no pushing. A lower hatred can push level, and the higher level can push back over.
• Ties are tied unless someone pushes over, the loser at that point can push back to tie again.
• Players are limited to 5 friendchips maximum. Any more pushed on to them have to be narrated and pushed on to someone else. This stops hoarding and keeps the chips moving.

Gorgeous, excellent. With that in there, and with material like you quoted above, this game could well have been a winner.

Best,
Ron

[Malcolm Craig]

As a friend of Gregors who's both played in and run Best Friends, I thought I would just throw in a few comments of my own.

As others have commented, the character creation mechanic is a very strong element. When running the game (mine was the one that turned into 'Heathers', as mentioned by Gregor in his initial post), the players instantly keyed into the way character creation worked and even loved the process of finding out exactly what their characters would be like. For that group, character creation was the thing that really drew them into the concept of the game. However, I must admit to being slightly confused by some of the 'pushing' elements (and discussed this with Gregor afterwards). That having been said, I think the 'push vs push' element has now been clarified and the text itself would greatly benefit from its inclusion.

As a player, the ease with which we all dropped into our characters and a community story developed was remarkable. Conflicts were, by the very nature of the game, instant and enjoyable. Pretty, cool but very stupid girl vs smart, tough girl vs moderately pretty, moderately smart, very rich girl. And out of this rose great amusement and player enjoyment. Even 'nonsense' provided a great amount of character drive (mainly in the form of teenage crushes on Mr Schweitzer the German teacher) and resulted in 'envy' between characters.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Gregor Hutton]

Thanks for the feedback again, Ron. I feel the next step for me is to head to "actual play". I'll start noting/taping/transcribing game sessions I run and then post thread(s) about them and give them some critical analysis.

And another step I really want to make is to take the following advice on board.

Focus instead on conflicts of interest among the women, and you're good.
...
To develop Best Friends, and I really think you ought to, you have to turn your attention to Situation. Basically, these women are in crisis. They are not running their lives well. Situations during play must reveal and highlight every detail about that, and develop them further into consequences - whether funny and satirical, or dramatic and gripping, that's up to you.

I've not yet run a game of Best Friends about "women ... in crisis." My feeling is that it could be very rewarding and powerful, and maybe a bit traumatic(?!). I''ll give it a try and see how it turns out.

Thanks again for your commitment to (a) running this contest and (b) taking the time to give advice and feedback. It is very much appreciated.

Cheers
Gregor