Bedlam review is up

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

The subject line says it all!

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

On the subject of Voting mentioned in the review.  I would have the vote stand as is.  Then if the use is vetoed the user can "appeal" to the dictionary.  

If the dictionary upholds the use meaning the Veto was "incorrect" then everyone who voted in favor of the Veto draws a new Keyword.  If the dictionary does not, then the user draws another Keyword.

Basically, the two in combination.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

Yeah, I'm liking that idea more, the more I think about it. I wonder if there's a good way to handle ties, so the group isn't constrained to including only an odd number of players?

Also, this might be as good a time as any to mention all the stuff in the Forge Resource Library. Seems to me as if we all might (a) submit more links into it and (b) browse it more actively, to find games and play them and discuss them.

Best,
Ron

[Dav]

All;

One of the chief concerns I have regarding Bedlam and the voting tweaks is regarding the fine art of bullshitting.

For instance, I used the term "Alioth" (properly defined as "a star of he second magnitude in the handle of the Big Dipper") in the game to decribe some Lovecraftian horror that emerged from the depths to swallow my sainted mother.  While everyone understood that this was NOT going to be the accurate definition of the word, we decided to let it fly (no one challenged).

This is great, and tends to work better within a Narrativist group (vs. Gamist)... however, to satisfy my Gamist lean, I was thinking of having the term "Alioth", as it stands within the context of the game's narrative, now be able to effectively function as "Lovecraftian horror with a decided taste for sainted mothers" in addition to dictionary-stated terms.  the result, then, would be if someone drew Alioth, it could be used as eiher a star, or as chimeric beast, without fear of the voting panel.

All-in-all, however, the game was much fun.  Very much fun.

Dav

[Mike Holmes]

For instance, I used the term "Alioth" (properly defined as "a star of he second magnitude in the handle of the Big Dipper") in the game to decribe some Lovecraftian horror that emerged from the depths to swallow my sainted mother.  While everyone understood that this was NOT going to be the accurate definition of the word, we decided to let it fly (no one challenged).

Huh. It could be an accurate description, actually. I think that quite possibly Alioth is the inspiration for Azathoth who is a star. Consider the importance of Aldebaran in the Lovecraftian Mythos.

The problem I have with the dictionary definition is borderline cases. What if I know of a ship that is named Valkyrie (a fact that is unlikely to be in the dictionary), but don't know the traditional definition. Do I still lose out for using the term Valkyrie in my narration to indicate a ship? Or do I have to try and hit the dictionary definition, somehow? What about getting close? For example, I know an adze is a tool, but I can't for the life of me remember what its for. Is that good enough or not? Seems very subjective.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Dav's point is a good one. When a Keyword is used, it gets put into the basket, hence may well be re-drawn. Say that Player A uses "alioth" as the Lovecraftian Thing and it was not challenged. Then, much later, Player B has drawn "alioth" from the basket and uses it too ....

1) What if Player B uses "alioth" correctly and is challenged? I presume that his correct use will stand (let's say that it's his last keyword and we're going to the dictionary, because everyone is voting against him).

2) What if Player B uses "alioth" as the Lovecraftian Thing and this time someone challenges him? I dislike the idea of letting the fact that Player A's non-challenged use somehow "validate" the incorrect use of the word. I'm tempted to go for the rule that every use of a given Keyword is de novo; failing to be challenged the first time means, basically, nothing. I can also see how this might lead to some damn funny dialogue too, considering that the characters are all at least one brick shy of a loader.

Mike's point about the limits of dictionaries is a good one, but I'm not sure how to get around it. Part of the problem is obviated because the Keywords are (by the rules) originally drawn from a dictionary anyway ...

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

2) What if Player B uses "alioth" as the Lovecraftian Thing and this time someone challenges him? I dislike the idea of letting the fact that Player A's non-challenged use somehow "validate" the incorrect use of the word. I'm tempted to go for the rule that every use of a given Keyword is de novo; failing to be challenged the first time means, basically, nothing. I can also see how this might lead to some damn funny dialogue too, considering that the characters are all at least one brick shy of a loader.

Actually theres a term in contract law that says basically this, though I forget now what it is.  Its included it most contracts and leases.  It basically says that failure to pursue a breach of contract on one occassion does not limit their ability to pursue a breach on a future occassion.

Which is basically what you are saying above.

Point being that, IMO, when in doubt, draw upon established principles.

[Matt Machell]

Just to let interested parties know, I've put up a slightly revised version of Bedlam. It mainly clarifies some aspects that Ron noted in the review and gives an amusing optional rule idea.

As to voting, I think too much dictionary referal in play can slow the game somewhat. The revised voting system has been weighted somewhat (doctor and person who originally chose the word get additional votes), which adds a certain tactical element, without disrupting flow too much.

Opinions on this most welcome.

Matt