Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Primetime Adventures: Epidemonology

Started by lumpley, October 03, 2004, 05:49:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Joshua A.C. Newman

Quote from: MegueyOk, the game is great, and I'm thrilled to be playing with Carrie &  everyone else. But especially Carrie, since she's been a huge 'potential gamer' in my head for a year.

I'm happy about that, too.

QuoteI love the fan-mail economy, because it really rewards good play, good ideas, and nurtures good agreement between players, and that's cool. The scene-setting was great for me, because I often feel a bit like I'm in a black-box stage when playing, because the setting has not been set.

I hadn't thought about the issue like that, but you're totally right. You can look around and see your setting.

QuoteI got very little screen-time, but felt like I had pivitally important sceens.

Yeah, I want to see what you're going to do with Frank. I'd really like to see him onscreen more. I'd particularly like to see him bring something to the long-term plot that no one else can. He's such a humble character compared to the others, but I'd like to see what his hook is.

QuoteI even got fan-mail for my timing on saying "Then who's blood is it?"

In most games I've played, this would have been the line of the year. Because of PTA's dramatic setup, there were line-of-the-year-grade lines constantly.

QuoteI do have to respond to Joshua though:
QuoteHow's about this: with three Protagonists being played by women and one by a man, the three women all see the available powerful roles (given the 1940s environment) as being in the hands of men. I wanted to play Vicky because she's a journalistic Rosie the Riveter and First-Wave Feminist.

Um, I looked for what character I wanted to play, and then what gender it was. I wanted to play someone that would be tied into the political situation at the time, to increase the feeling of setting, and being a part of 'the good war' seemed perfect. Yet I wanted to be around, so I couldn't be on active duty. Being injured in duty and ok with that seemed especially cool, and when I put all the pieces together, that character was male.

Yeah, that's what I'm at here: in order to play someone in the segment of history, and segment of society, you're talking about, you had to play a man. I'm not assuming any sort of nefariousness on your part.

Emily originally envisioned a Sherlock Holmes guy, and the character was male from the begining. I don't know what Carrie's process was. I don't think I was at all looking at the power positions and going for the male ones.[/quote]

OK. It was just a hypothesis.

QuoteAnother strong possibility for me was the Black woman blues/torch singer, with interesting connections that would have included some clan stuff and some early civil rights stuff. But that's a different show;

... and that's too bad. You're right, of course, but that's a neat character. Maybe we'll do some sort of Prohibition-era thing (which I lovity love) and you'll get to play her.

QuoteNoone's playing a closeted homosexual (that we know of) or a political activist or a migrant farm worker, either.

I keep thinking about something Carrie brought up at one point: the story of Unions around this time is rife with drama, villains, politics, and drama.

QuoteAnd J, that photo's not exactly a candidate for reduction surgery.

Yeah, that comment actually came from a less relevant, but boobier, picture from>this page of comic illustrations. I changed my mind about the illo, but not the caption.

QuoteRemember the clothes of the era, the tailoring, and the way underwear was built, and rethink that angle. Or, just be really clear that Vickie being really painfully chesty is part of the character, and not just a stereotype you're falling into.

No, I'm actually thinking of her at this point as being pretty athletic. I was thinking about the nominal beauties of the day (which she is), and was thinking about airplane nose art and Varga pinups, but I think it's more interesting if her sexuality is frank but non-sex kitten.

Anyway, I was deliberately using a stereotype, but it got less fun, as you'd expect. Not much there.
the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

I design books like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch.


Quote from: lumpley
QuoteB) when is the right moment in the scene to call for a conflict. B is the thing that takes me a couple episodes to feel solid about. It's different with every group.
Yes! Several times I had to stop myself from rolling like you would in Dogs - the very instant that something might even possibly be at stake. I was like, "okay, let's roll dice! Yet there's not enough information yet! Vincent to brain. Brain? Come in brain..."

My players willing, I think we'll try d6s next time. We'll still do odds-evens but we can just look for that center pip.


You could try getting some d6s and using white out to remove all but the middle pip. That way you end up with a die that has 3 sides for 1 and 3 sides for 0.

Joshua A.C. Newman

Reducing the number of sides on the dice means that you'll get more ties on who calls the resolution of the scene. But I don't think that really matters all that much. Most of the time, everyone chips in anyway.

So you could use d4s (oh, how I love its tetrahedral perfection) and color two of the points. If a colored point faces up, it's a success.

You could use any dice and color half the sides one color, half the sides another.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Whoever gets the highest dice wins works, too, except that whoever succeeds in the conflict automatically says how it ends.
the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

I design books like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch.