[Secrets in Suburbia] Ronnies feedback

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Warren Merrifield's Secrets in Surburbia makes such a strong pair with Fink, that I had to read the games side by side in order not to get mixed up between them.

I like defining the situation of play through a recent scandal at the outset, but I think the whole game is marred, at multiple points, by placing the point of play into discovering what really happened for that scandal. The how-to-play comments aren't bad, but still, that Secret plays a problematic role. Basically, the Situations of play are boring. They will lack inspirational punch - "let's guess the GM's back-story," basically. This is a disastrous context for role-playing.

Is there a solution, working with the existing elements? I think so. Let's run down what defines a player-character. They are laden with stresses/Pressure: Burden with Secret, Suspicion, Hatred, three Traits, and Complications dice pool (unlike Fink, Complications work against the character).

The play-mechanisms seem to me like an interesting, derived form of Primetime Adventures, using "reverse fanmail," with more dice meaning more difficult; plus, play ends with My Life With Master style epilogues. Not a bad pair of games to use as templates. Also, the new mechanic, the usage and recharge of Traits, looks awesome. I'm tempted to fold that right into Primetime Adventures as a welcome addition. The description mechanic is good too - using one pressure means increasing another. These features are what hopped this game into the runner-up category.

So play looks fun. However, the example is awful! Ninja computer hacking? What's this doing in my secrets/suburbia experience? The answer is, it's that goddam Secret again. If the point of play is to ferret out what the scandal is about, basically by lurking and poking about until the GM coughs it up, then that's the kind of play you're gonna get.

The solution is now glaringly obvious. Keep everything just the way it is ... but it's the characters' secrets which are premium. Never mind the Scandal, in terms of goals of play. It's only important because it puts the important secrets at risk. If someone "figures it out," well and good, and if not, well and good. And in fact, maybe it's just plain straightforward and what everyone knows is exactly what happened; also, well and good. Again, focus on the characters' secrets, use them as derived, in-play conflicts, and drive play toward their resolutions.

I'll end with a point about the Lumpley Principle which I think is getting missed by many, many people who quote it. They read it as saying, "System is the means by which people agree about what happens in play." The emphasis on "agree" makes them reverse the Principle to say, "Therefore, as long as we agree, then no other System is necessary."

That is a very mistaken reading and revision. It is flatly wrong, a recipe for disaster.

Here's how to read the Lumpley Principle correctly: "System is the means by which people agree about what happens in play." Here, the agreement is not taken as an easy given. The point is that such agreement is not automatic; in order to get it, we have to have means which are fun, self-reinforcing, sensible, and clear. In other words, System Does Matter. And it cannot be "just agreement." There must be routines, procedures, rituals, whatever you wanna call them, and they have to make sense and be fun.

With that in mind, Secrets in Suburbia has a lot of potential. But to work, it can't be about trying to guess what someone else is (a) hiding and (b) offering for you to find out.

Best,
Ron

[Warren]

Thanks Ron, this whole contest was a great exercise, and I'm glad I made it into the runner-up category. But I think I may not have made myself clear with how the Scandal works. The idea was stolen from InSpectres (well, my understanding of it -- I don't own it yet) and it's idea of Job Dice, and the person who 'discovers' something gets to define it. You seem to think that the GM has this lavish backstory that he reveals to the player, but in fact the GM will define nothing about what happened here, and no NPC can 'discover' anything. Not in the (admittedly poor) example, it is the player of Abbie who describes (and hence defines through play) what happened. 

Anyway, I would have liked to focus more on the characters Secrets. Indeed, my original draft didn't have any Scandal at all, and it was all PvP to uncover the other player's Secrets, but I felt that lacked a central focus for driving play and pressuring the players externally.

Finally, I can't take real credit for the using/charging Traits idea -- that's a shameless lift from Full Light Full Steam by Joshua BishopRoby. I liked it so much that I had to use it.

Thanks,
Warren

[Warren]

Not in the (admittedly poor) example, it is the player of Abbie who describes (and hence defines through play) what happened.

'Note', not 'Not'. Sorry.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Warren,

That doesn't really change my analysis much, though - although certainly it requires less of a turnaround to correct, fortunately.

Just as in InSpectres, the "mission" is secondary to the interplay of Stress, Cool, and the company funds, so should the Scandal be secondary to player-characters' Secrets and their consequences. In reading and playing InSpectres, I can see how the "real" variables interact. What I'm not seeing is how the "real" variables interact and are used in play in Secrets in Suburbia - Situation must be established, for the characters, beyond the overarching Scandal.

How would that go? What would the group do? As with many of the entries, I could provide functional answers pretty easily. What I'm interested in, though, are your answers.

Best,
Ron

[Warren]

Hmmm, well after buying InSpectres and giving a read, I see what you are asking, but I'm not sure if I know how to answer. I think that whenever a Complication is played on a character it should be in some way a reflection of that character's Secret. That should certainly be more clear in the text.

Other mechanical ways of throwing the Situation onto the character's Secrets? I'm not too sure, other than reinforcing that two out of the three types of scene (Avert Suspicion and Release Tension) are about the Secret (or the Pressures created by it), and not the Scandal itself.

Could anybody help me with this? I seem to have hit a blind spot.