Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Mike Holmes, September 01, 2005, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Gordon C. Landis on September 03, 2005, 03:37:02 PM" . . . when it's your turn, you can say that your Toy, the Child, or some combination of both are acting." (pg. 7-8)
Quote from: Valley Advocate, Monday, Sept. 5, 2005Graphic Designer Joshua Newman was found dead today in the house where he had been babysitting the children of fellow game designer Vincent Baker. "It looks like he was attacked by some animal, maybe a racoon or something... but what we don't understand is why there are Lego bricks embedded in his head." The Baker children are now missing, along with two broom sticks, handkerchiefs, a jar of peanut butter, and an assortment of favorite toys.
Quote from: Mike HolmesA similar problem had to do with what was decided along with activations of traits. That is we seemed to fumble a lot trying to understand what it was we were supposed to decide when activating traits (and the adversity dice pools). There seemed to be a lot of "planning" like, if this works, then this is what'll happen. And then you win and narrate what you'd planned. That seemed odd to me. Were we playing that right?
Quote from: Mike Holmes on September 06, 2005, 10:44:44 AMI think that I have a better handle on it now. That is, the rule does seem to be explicit in the book as to allowing the player some variation in what they can narrate. And I understand, I think, the aesthetic behind this choice. That is I don't believe you when you say "I don't care," I think you're going for something very specific by leaving things ambiguous (and you're just being kind sneaky about it). Or, at least I hope that the idea is that the ambiguity has some meaning itself.
QuoteBecause otherwise, I worry that play will seem disjointed. That is, had I understood better that you were explicitly allowed to narrate any of the three ways, I think I could have played into that. As it was, I felt like there were expectations about the choice of the three types of narration possible that were being established that I was lagging behind. Things seemed somewhat disjointed because my aesthetic choices kept changing to try and match the rest of the group's expectations (or my flawed perception of them). I think that what happened in terms of "planning" was that there was this validation process going on where somebody would say something like, "What about Trait X?" and people would suggest what sorts of narrations might happen as a result of using such a trait to validate the use of the trait. Which has the odd effect of often causing the player, on success of their side, to narrate something like the validation statement. In fact, what often happens is that they try to make the narration different, but really don't have a different idea, and then you get an uncomfortable moment where basically you feel like the player is saying, "What he said, but different." The player in question not wanting to simply parrot the suggestion of the other player. This can be very hard, however, because if the player didn't have enough of an idea of how to use the trait in narration that they had to ask for validation, they probably don't have anything else in mind other than the validation statement. Not to mention that I think that when somebody makes such a suggestion that it can tend to shove other thoughts out of your head. If you know what I mean. I'm not sure that the game can or should do anything about any of this. Just noting it. Generally, however, who has final say on when a trait can or cannot be used? I think this is key to the problem. That is, there's a notion in play that you can't simply activate all traits, they have to seem appropriate somehow. And that you may have to make some statements to back that up (or get help from other players to do so). Well, when the chips are down, who has final say on what they can or cannot use? Is it the player making the call? Or can other players veto somehow?
Quote from: Mike Holmes on September 06, 2005, 05:26:45 PMWell...if it always hashes itself out, then why didn't it in the game I was playing? Because it was a demo? If I don't need you to tell me how to play, then why do I need to buy the book? Isn't that the point?
QuoteIn any case, I'm glad to hear that the traits stuff is covered in the rules. I don't have anyone nearby with the rules to peruse, so I may just buy it anyhow. It was worth it just from what fun I did have in the demo.
Quote from: Mike Holmes on September 07, 2005, 12:31:58 PMAs I mentioned above, it was you, me, Emily and another fellow. The game was about a kid who was up against a social worker who turned out to be a witch who was going to cook her in the microwave. And her foster family who didn't love her.