[The Drifter's Escape] Ronnies feedback

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm liking this game. It is really strong, with brilliant GM distribution, including prep and Director Stance from players.

The terms are very weak - I'm not seeing Fighting, nor even Defiance, and Pain doesn't do much. I found myself reaching for the "Runner-Up" sticker, then thought, hey, fixing that would be easy enough ... all you need to do is specify a setting and rack up the political content a notch: 1930s IWW, especially, or 1960s beat/drifter both jumped to mind. So a fatal flaw turns out just to be a needed tweak, although a significant one.

The game has already seen extensive discussion in [The Drifter's Escape] What's missing?, so I'll comment only briefly on those points.

Unlike most of the posters there, I see no problem at all with scene construction, and no problem at all with how Drives will and won't be involved. Note that the two GMs will try to make scenarios which don't involve the Drives, and the Drifter will spend Dream to introduce decent folk, who do provide opportunities to satisfy Drives. It seems so obvious and easy to me.

It also seems clear to me that the terms of a Deal can never resolve a Drive.

I think Favors/Demands will be called for once Drifters start taking Raw Deals with Dream to back them up - that disadvantages the others' hands, so they have to call in Deals as end-runs. However, that does invoke the biggest issue, brought up by Joshua (Joshua BishopRoby).

Thematically, it seems to me that Favors and Debt work backwards. Why do Drifters lose Dream when they avoid Favors and Demands? It seems to me that accepting Favors and Demands would be what saps men of their Dreams. Similarily, it seems that the Man and the Devil should gain Debt if a Drifter accedes to a Favor or Demand, rather than spend Debt (assuming 'Debt' is individualized to the Drifter and his relationship with the Man and/or Devil). That's certainly how the Deal works.

Ben, you've apparently fixed that one without too much agony. Here's my biggest call for the remaining fixes: get rid of Pain. It's totally a minor modifier, playing no important role in the diagram I drew about based on the mechanics. That way, you have losing Drives and failed Dreams ... leading to Pain as a fruitful void, very powerfully given the setting.

I'm not sure a game with this many holes or almosts will ever get a Ronny again, but try as I might, in this case I couldn't see any of it that couldn't be fixed with a pencil slash. So, $25 means some beer for you.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

Unlike most of the posters there, I see no problem at all with scene construction, and no problem at all with how Drives will and won't be involved. Note that the two GMs will try to make scenarios which don't involve the Drives, and the Drifter will spend Dream to introduce decent folk, who do provide opportunities to satisfy Drives. It seems so obvious and easy to me.

It also seems clear to me that the terms of a Deal can never resolve a Drive.

this brings up the point I raised: Drifters will never gain Dream, which means they will be unwilling to spend it on Decent Folk. if you spend your two chips on two separate occasions to introduce Decent Folk (or to run from a Favor or Demand,) your character is essentially finished, because neither the Devil nor the Man will include one of your Drives in the scene, under your analysis. something's got to be done to make Dream flow a little more smoothly, although it should certainly remain a scarce resource.

I also notice that, aside from vying for the Drifter's acceptance of their Deal, the Devil and the Man don't interact much. perhaps this can be used to solve the Dream issue: if the Man sets up a scene, the Devil could offer to involve a Drive as part of a Deal, and vice versa. this sets up more tension: do I kill that cat, like the Devil asks, so that I can get closer to fulfilling my Drive (and gaining Dream)?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

John, my impression is that the Devil and the Man are in constant communication, and collaborate intensively when setting up the scenes.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

John, my impression is that the Devil and the Man are in constant communication, and collaborate intensively when setting up the scenes.

I see them as communicating, but I don't see them as being as adversarial to each other as the names of their roles imply. maybe that's just me, but I'd like to see the Devil tempt the Drifter by offering to stand with him against the Man, or the Man offering redemption/protection from the Devil.

[Ben Lehman]

Thanks, Ron!  The new revision has Pain is a slightly more central role -- essentially providing modifiers to whatever -- we'll see how I feel about that after playtest (Now pain makes favors harder to buy off, demands repeatable, and drives stronger.)  Are you suggesting they I have "what's your pain" on the sheet without mechanical effect (like RoS's philosophy) or that I just get rid of it entirely?

Three bits:

1) You're in good company for missing this, but: note that the Drifter can change Drives *at any time* thus providing a great source of Dream by engaging with the situation composed by the Man and the Devil.  Complete theft from Riddle of Steel there.  (Likewise, the Drifter is only effective, long term, if they're hitting at least three drives per deal.)  Essentially the Drifter comes into a situation in which the Devil and the Man have tried to make some wretchedly unsympathetic characters, and either finds humanity in them and fights to save them or just shrugs his shoulders and moves on.  (There are other scenario design strategies -- target one weak Drive at the expense of others, for instance, but wretched people is a good place to start.)

2) 1930's, 1960s, 1860s and right now are all feasible times, politically, I think...  I'll write more about that in the revision, I think.

3) This one's for John -- Are The Devil and The Man are working in cahoots?  Check the source material.  (Yes, the goal is for them to be constantly talking to each other and scheming.)


yrs--
--Ben

[Kirk Mitchell]

If it is not considered to be too presumptuous to butt in at this point, but Ben, what I think Ron means is remove Pain in its entirety and have it as the Fruitful Void, as the central theme or motif around which play revolves, pointed at by the other mechanics you have installed already. The pain of unfulfilled dreams as constructed by losing Drives and Failed dreams, and the attempts to transcend that. At least, that's what I think Ron means.

Luck,
Kik

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

1. I suggest removing Pain entirely.

2. I did catch the redefinition of Drives, actually. I like it. It also makes the Decent Folk option far more powerful, as the Devil and the Man frame you into a trouble-filled fucked-up situation, and wham, now there's someone decent there after all, and golly, it looks as if you now have a Drive that concerns them, fancy that.

3. John, we must be talking about different games, or something, because I don't see how your statements about the Man and the Devil make any sense at all. Maybe we should agree not to discuss the game, or agree to play it with our respective groups before doing so, or something similar.

Best,
Ron

[Ben Lehman]

Ron:  Cool.  It seems like we're mostly on the same page about the game.  Once I have the new text worked out and posted I'm going to hit you up for more comments, under the aegis of the "mentorship" aspect of the Ronnies.  (I have some new redraw rules which I'm very fond of, want to get your opinion.)  I'm also trying to figure out better ways to integrating the fiction with the text, which is right now a little disjointed, and I'd be interested in your opinions on that.

About the Man and the Devil: The misunderstanding here is absolutely rooted in the fact that this is a 24-hour game text, and thus I didn't have time to elaborate on how the rules should be interpreted in play.  I think that what Ron is saying is closer to my vision of the game -- but there are discrete points (The DEAL) when The Man and The Devil are absolutely at odds.  John, does it help if you stop looking at the endgame conditions as "winning" conditions?  They aren't, any more than zero hit points is a winning condition in D&D.  Indeed, I'm considering taking them out entirely, with something else in their place.

yrs--
--Ben