[The Dragon vs. the Gun] Ronnies feedback

[Ron Edwards]

The Dragon vs. the Gun by Joe J. Prince got itself a Runner-Up. For those who haven't followed the august participation of Mr. Prince in the Ronnies, well, do yourself a favor.

I will begin with jargon. Joe? "Narr-Gam-Sim," my pink ass. This is raw Gamism. Embrace it.
Real issue for me is that Dragon and Gun are, ultimately, Color - no consequence of winning which means anything to anyone. So that throws the Narr right out the window.

The initial buy-in seems a little high to me. There are lots and lots of player-characters, more than one per player, and the traits seem like they would entail a whole lot of brain-work, with all that broad/narrow stuff. That stuff is too easy to game, and I suggest a quick look at The Mountain Witch for a useful contrast.

During play, I'm not at all sure the "set your own difficulty, roll against it" idea works, unless others are permitted to diddle with it along the lines of The Great Ork Gods. Did I miss the opportunity to do this in my reading of the text, or is it not there?

I love, love, love the concept of Audience, which permits the emergent Audience Master, and then permits the possible addition of more Audience Masters. This is one of the most interesting features of any Ronnies entry to date.

And then, sigh, the stench of White Wolf arises* with this business of unprovoked physical attacks among player-characters, and the trial and the penalty ... I'm not seeing any of this as anything except a fix for a non-existent problem. This is a game of confrontation, so let'em confront. The Highlander thing is key, so if they want to get right to it, fine! All it does is set a bunch of Audience Masters against the  character, which is OK! This issue is the main reason why you got a Runner-Up, Joe. You gotta stop trying to heal White Wolf ...*

One resolution question: gambled dice can be considered 12's after nudging, right? One system notion: I really like that healing is costly.

I'm thinking that the whole thing is begging for a boxed set of cards. Not in the sense of "not an RPG," but rather in the sense of useful and enjoyable game components.

Best,
Ron

* Are these subtle, snide, sidelong jabs at White Wolf? No, it's a broadside assault. Deal with it.

[Sydney Freedberg]

A merrily over-the-top approach to Armageddon -- I'm pleased.

I'd suggest (agreeing with Ron, I think) that the whole business of the stats -- body/mind and broad/narrow/specialist -- is lots of complexity for very little return, especially since the interpretation of when a "narrow" or "specialist" ability is applicable is completely subjective. I believe it was Matt Wilson who said, either everything on the character sheet should come into play in unequivocally specified circumstances, or it should come into play whenever the player wants, with no fuzzy middle ground.

I'd also suggest that in the final apocalyptic ending, instead of having the avatars of Gun and Dragon appear from offstage, that player characters become the avatars: Say, the player who bids the most Gun Points for avatar status gets to be the Avatar of the Gun, defining and describing it, and the player who bids the most Dragon Points get to be, and define, the Avatar of the Dragon. Other players on the same side (Dragon / Gun) should then have the choice of falling loyally into line, defecting, or backstabbing the rightful Avatar and trying to usurp his place.

[Callan S.]

Big points from me for clarity! I just seem to have trouble understanding many of the PDF's here, but the rules text here is very clear (I got through all 18 pages - I usually screech to a halt at page three for most other PDF's!). I like the use of capitalised words, when the text refers to terms it's created. It adds a further emphasis that helps you memorise the material and get what it's trying to say.

I don't think the game contains a nar component (I mean, if at least ten cute little puppies die every time you use a dragon point, there might be some moral weight there. But as it, their just neutral resources). And I don't think a gamist component is there either - it's the same old problem of an observer/audience deciding to give a reward after the fact. Say in real life I declare "I can climb to the very top of that 10 meter tall tree!". I'm out and out stating that doing so is a worthy accomplishment, which is a great declaration. But say I climb it, and the other person now decides whether they give me the reward. See, they don't have to agree with me that climbing the tree is an accomplishment - they could decide to give me a reward because I climbed it fast, or I climbed it in a cool way, or I climbed it without breaking branches, or I climbed it in a way that correctly emulated late 17th century peasants way of climbing a tree. What I said was an accomplishment falls to the wayside, because this person who is giving the reward is mechanically empowered to decide what was important about climbing the tree.

Without any gamist encouragement, I think the audience falls back to simulationism like a movie audience member who yawns at a ten meter tree and expects a character to climb a fifty meter tall tree because of the causal element "That's what heroes do!". While if the audience member actually had his own resources on the line, rather than thinking of what makes a nifty world/story, he might think of what would be risking his own neck. And base his decision about what's an accomplishment, on that instead.


Hi Sydney,

Do you have a link to where Matt Wilson said that - it's a really good quote and I'm keeping a cutting of it and would like to keep a direct link as well.

[Joe J Prince]

Happy New Year everyone!

Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated.

I somehow ended up playing The Dragon vs The Gun with my family on Christmas Day, it was lots of fun! The game didn't quite work though, mainly because no-one wanted to step on up and preferred for all their PCs to just get along. So I ended up playing the dark characters burning down villages and starting fights...

During play, I'm not at all sure the "set your own difficulty, roll against it" idea works, unless others are permitted to diddle with it along the lines of The Great Ork Gods. Did I miss the opportunity to do this in my reading of the text, or is it not there?

Oops, yes there is the option per player to pay a power point to raise the difficulty by one. Its mentioned on pg 7 but it should have been mentioned under open conflicts too.

One resolution question: gambled dice can be considered 12's after nudging, right?

Yes, that's right so you have to choose whether its worth spending extra nudges on those dice.

I really like Sydney's idea for PCs becoming avatars, definitely going to work that in!

On the Trait system - it's not perfect granted but I think I've come up with a mechanical fix which should balance the three levels of traits. When a Specialist or Narrow trait is used in a conflict a counter is put on it. A Trait cannot be used while it has a counter. Counters on Narrow Traits disappear when the PC uses a Broad Trait in a conflict. Counters on specialist Traits disappear when a narrow trait is used.
As for when Traits can be used in a conflict, it's ultimately up to group negotiation (like every other RP mechanic).

You gotta stop trying to heal White Wolf ...

This made me lol, it hadn't occurred to me that was what the trial mechanics did! I wanted some way of making verbal attacks more useful, but yeah the current rules don't add anything to the game. Consider the trial and social penalties dumped.
White Wolf's been downhill all the way since Streetfighter...

On Narrative
I agree that the current incarnation of the game doesn't fully support narrative oriented play, however I think there's scope for developing a blood opera. 
The Dragon and The Gun are intentionally morally balanced - both are capable of great good or great evil. The idea was that the PC (and players hopefully) would have to decide whether a world with magic or a world of reason will be the least evil/best for them. The Gun will destroy all magical races but The Dragon may lead to the destruction of humanity by demonic foes. You could even agree to use the world created at the end of the game to serve as the groups next campaign setting.

Co-incidentally, I just got The Mountain Witch for X-mas and I really like the fate cards, I'm thinking of something along similar lines, perhaps target cards to help get the kills going!

Special thank-you again to Ron - I'm amazed at the amount of time and genuine enthusiasm that's gone into the Ronnies and its great to see so many new indie game ideas, my new years resolution is to play more of them.

Cheers,
Joe

[Sydney Freedberg]

On the Trait system - it's not perfect granted but I think I've come up with a mechanical fix which should balance the three levels of traits. When a Specialist or Narrow trait is used in a conflict a counter is put on it. A Trait cannot be used while it has a counter. Counters on Narrow Traits disappear when the PC uses a Broad Trait in a conflict. Counters on specialist Traits disappear when a narrow trait is used.

Oooh. That's brilliant. Must steal it!

[Callan S.]

Hey again, Joe,

Do you see the audience role as forfilling gamist support, or is it another part of the game? Do you think the audience defines what was important* about other players actions, as I've suggested?

* Important as in what deserves a mechanical reward and the social reward of that being given.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joe,

I suggest that your fix for the traits is like ... well, OK, a guy says, "That's too complicated," and your response is, "No problem! I'll put red and green blinking lights on it, and tie down one end so it can't fly away!"

I'm saying get rid of it and have traits, if any, do one thing per trait per character, and for the scale/concept of the "one thing" to be the same for every character and every trait. The whole broad/narrow distinction seems like an exercise in pre-play pseudoplay to me, because that's what it seems to become in my experience with such game designs.

Best,
Ron

[Joe J Prince]

Hi again

I'll try and address Callan's point about the Audience first-

Basically the Audience rewards are lifted from the Fan-Mail mechanic in Matt Wilson's Prime-Time Adventures. If a player does something and you think 'Wow, cool that's why I'm playing this game!' then you can reward them for it - no matter what type of fun it promotes. That's why I described this game as a hybrid - players reward whatever floats their boat be it gaming, narrative, exploratory, immersive or comedic oriented play.
So yes the Audience defines what was important to them about another players action.

As for Traits, it's mathematically important for the game (especially given its gamist leanings) to limit the amount of Nudges a player can get per conflict from their character Traits - otherwise you get the vague Trait & stacking Traits arms-race!

Ok I'm a: Viking, Berserker, Warrior, Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Martial Artist with Ferocious Strength. In the current rules this character is perfectly viable and balanced, but is a Warrior Trait really equivalent to a Butterfly Collecter Trait?

Donjon has broad and narrow Traits and seems to play fine.
I don't really like the Moutain Witch/PTA Trait approach, it's not crunchy enough for me!

I've run a couple of quick playtests, in both cases character creation seemed fine.

Sydney liked my Traits idea anyway!

Although, when I get round to tidying up this system there will certainly be a lot more information for players about how Traits are supposed to operate and examples.

I'm not quite sure what pre-play pseudoplay is - is it trying to maximise a PC's effectiveness?

Thanks for the feedback,
Joe

[Sydney Freedberg]

I'm not quite sure what pre-play pseudoplay is - is it trying to maximise a PC's effectiveness?

As I understand it: Lots of systems allow you to muck about endlessly with generating characters, buying equipment, designing spaceships/cars with machineguns/giant robots, rolling lifepaths, designing dungeons, etc. etc. without ever actually playing the game with another human being: The prep becomes the point, and actual play if it happens at all is an exercise in "see this neat thing I made? Don't touch it! Just look!"

Sydney liked my Traits idea anyway!

Yup.

Personally, I've always found the "all traits are mechanically identical" solution to be unsatisfying myself. One thing I love about Dogs in the Vineyard is the difference between, say, "I'm a good shot 2d10" and "I'm a good shot 2d4" is immediate and obvious in both the mechanics and the meaning in a mutually reinforcing way: You look at either on the sheet and go "uh oh" but for very different reasons. My own apocalypse girl is likewise driven by a desire to allow player-defined "traits" that are nonetheless mechanical distinct. And I'm always looking for ways to make the difference between "this trait comes up a lot" and "this trait comes up in special, rare conditions, but when it does, it's cool" into more than judgment call (i.e. to make it Karma or Fortune rather than Drama), which your idea might just do.

As with any great teacher, you should always listen to Ron, even (especially) when you don't understand what he's on about; always think seriously about what he's saying, even (especially?) if he's not being serious; always treat it as raw material for you to build with according to your own design rather than as a ready-made blueprint to accept or reject as a piece.

[Joe J Prince]

Cheers Sydney

Sorry its taken a while to reply, I'm safely back in the old world now with my trusty PC.

I always listen to what Ron says, since he's the rpg theorist I rate highest - and I worry incessently when I don't agree!

However, if it aint broke don't fix it. During my first playtest the issue of 11s not being worth anything seemed far more complicated than character creation, which was completed by 4 very drunk people in under half an hour.
If my Dad can make a PC it's not too complex!

Anyway I've far more interesting developments to talk about here.

Factions
Each PC will belong to one of four factions:

• Dragon-Kin, magical races whose survival depends upon the Dragon. "Death to the Gun!"
• Slayers, devoted to the eradication of demons and witches. "Death to the Dragon!"
• Reconcillers, advocating harmony between chaos and order. "Can't we all just get along?"
• Nihilists. "Dragon? Gun? Do I look like I give a fuck? I'm gonna kill ya anyway."

After the intro scenes, each player chooses a Motive card for each PC (vengeance, envy, duty...etc) and selects another players PC as their target. Target cards are hidden to begin with, but can be revealed with a spotlight soliliquy - which then has bonuses and penalties.
Alongside this there is the option for PCs to co-operate for some sort of noble goal which allows them to abstain from the final battle - or pick their side last. How's that for meaningful moral choices?

Also I'll be ditching escalation since verbal attacks are pointless without the trial and social penalties.

peas y'all
Joe

[Sydney Freedberg]

Motive cards, I like a lot: They force players to get their characters' stories intertangled, but they give the players choices about how and whom.

Factions, I'm not so thrilled. When do you choose them, exactly? Because if you choose them in character generation, or even after chargen but fairly early in the game, the whole "choose your side" thing goes away: You're locked in. Of course the Dragon-Kin will fight for the Dragon; if it goes, they go -- where's the choice in that?

I much prefer the idea that all the player-characters are free agents, wandering the world adventuring, but they are so powerful that the opposing principles in the cosmic war wish to enlist them, so they get intertangled in the apocalyptic battle willingly or otherwise. I'd much prefer giving players the chance to choose, or change, allegiance right up to the last moment: "okay, it's the end of the world, where do you stand?"

Since this game is, as Ron puts it, "raw gamism," you could get away with locking down what side each character is on fairly early, to let folks get on with the killin': The big point isn't "what moral choice do I make" but "how cool am I kickin' ass in the name of [whatever]." Even so, I'd think that the "I am so cool" factor would be enhanced by making the PCs free agents, so that instead of being merely soldiers in one army or another, they are able to change sides and tip the balance at will.

[Joe J Prince]

You nearly had me ditching Factions there but I'm gonna keep them for at least a couple of playtests!
The main reason for them is that they present more player choice. And the sanctioned adversity helps get things rolling.

Factions, I'm not so thrilled...You're locked in. Of course the Dragon-Kin will fight for the Dragon; if it goes, they go -- where's the choice in that?

Well, you don't have to play a Dragon-Kin there are 3 other Factions. Also you have more than one PC, and an individual Dragon-Kin can fight for The Gun in the end - perhaps sacrificing themself for higher principles and living on as a human story or symbol.

I much prefer the idea that all the player-characters are free agents, wandering the world adventuring, but they are so powerful that the opposing principles in the cosmic war wish to enlist them, so they get intertangled in the apocalyptic battle willingly or otherwise. I'd much prefer giving players the chance to choose, or change, allegiance right up to the last moment: "okay, it's the end of the world, where do you stand?"

Yeah totally! You can do this with a game with all PCs as Nihilists or Reconcilers - number of PCs and faction choice is completely down to the players.

Since this game is, as Ron puts it, "raw gamism," you could get away with locking down what side each character is on fairly early, to let folks get on with the killin': The big point isn't "what moral choice do I make" but "how cool am I kickin' ass in the name of [whatever]." Even so, I'd think that the "I am so cool" factor would be enhanced by making the PCs free agents, so that instead of being merely soldiers in one army or another, they are able to change sides and tip the balance at will.

They always can do this - but it helps to have some sides to tip in the first place!
Incidentally "what moral choice do I make" can be more important than "how cool am I kickin' ass" depending upon the group preference. If the group prefer stories focussing on moral choices then the Audience are more likely to reward PCs involved in these tales. In order to attain your gamist peak, you have to keep the group happy. Unless the Audience pool is dry...

cheers
Joe

[Sydney Freedberg]

Factions do have the value of making explicit and obvious the 2x2 combinatorics of "Dragon? Yes/No" and "Gun? Yes/No." So it's not terrible to have them in the game at all. I'd just like to see them as groups of NPCs which the characters do not start aligned with.

In a just and beautiful world, your "Dragon-Kin" player will understand that s/he can, indeed sometimes must, betray the Dragon and change sides to make the most exciting story. But in the existing world, people have played lots and lots and lots of Dungeons & Dragons (or White Wolf Storyteller, even) which means they're used to thinking of such factional loyalties I.e. "alignments") as fixed foundations that the GM will punish, punish, punish them for violating.

[Joe J Prince]

I see what you mean by factional loyalties.
That's why I always play chaotic-neutral!

Maybe Faction is the wrong word - can't think of a better word tho!

I'll have to try and make it clear in the game text that Factions are intended to make characters more interesting by providing certain bonuses, but are not straitjackets and that there is no GM to punish them for un-factional behaviour, because all behaviours are up to the players.
- There's nothing to stop Dragon-Kin from killing other Dragon-Kin for example. In fact it may be advantageous...

Also, during a bout of amnesia I came up with an alternative mechanical system using tarot cards (or playing cards for a duller version). what are people's thoughts on having two systems for one game?

Hopefully I should be able to get some playtesting done this weekend so I'll have some DvG actual play goodness to post.

peas
JoE