[Six Bullets for Vengeance] Spodley Grange playtest

[andrew_kenrick]

url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23238.0]Conception playtest[/url].

Setup in the morning it became obvious that I needed a bit more structure in the setup, perhaps with some questions to get the juices flowing and give everybody a strong premise to begin the game withConception playtest[/url].

Setup<Everlasting Empire in the morning it became obvious that I needed a bit more structure in the setup, perhaps with some questions to get the juices flowing and give everybody a strong premise to begin the game with.

[andrew_kenrick]

Epilogue<Chapter 5<Questions and comments

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Andrew,

Actually, my concern is different from those questions.

With all the narration and setup and agreements and contracts in the beginning, it seems to me as if the whole point of your original inspiration is lost. As I remember, we start with "bang! bang! bang!" and one man dies. We don't know why. We don't know where, except for maybe a bit of descriptive narration during play. With every scene, more and more is created, more and more is known, until by the the final scene played (the first one chronologically), what gets played makes perfect sense and practically has to go that way given what is to come. The fun lies in actually generating the story through play.

(For people who are interested, please see the section "going over the edge" in Chapter 7 of Sorcerer. You'll see why I've been specially supportive of Six Bullets.)

What you're describing here is that we agree on so many things and pre-set so much (who the villain is? Geez!) that basically we're just playing a script, with the minor gimmick of going backwards. It sounds incredibly boring.

Best, Ron

[andrew_kenrick]

Hi Ron - thanks for the reply, although I don't think you need to have concerns.

I think the problem lies with my actual play write up than with the game itself. The game remains true to its original inspiration. It's still very much a blank page game, and almost everything is revealed as the game progresses until, as you say, it all makes perfect sense by the time you hit the prologue, right at the end.

I've toyed with varying degrees of setup for the game, but the current setup is minimal at best. The group picks a genre, and then bounces around a few ideas for the sort of setting, buildings and people who might appear in it, just so everyone is on the same page and you don't get robots when you were expecting a western. Then you decide who is the protagonist - everyone else are the antagonists. Finally you can pick names and a brief concept, if you want, or you can let that emerge during play. The protagonist then sets the scene for the epilogue, which is the final scene of the game in which the final villain dies.

The rest of the setting and characters, not to mention the situation, is determined during play. This is definitely where the fun lies, and I'd hate to see that removed. Is even this too much setup?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Andrew,

The rest of the setting and characters, not to mention the situation, is determined during play. This is definitely where the fun lies, and I'd hate to see that removed.

We're in agreement on this one. I'm lobbying for less setup, not more. What you're calling minimal, I'm calling too much.

For instance, why not choose who's the protagonist after that initial (in real-time) scene is played? Why not let the setting occur as a steady addition of details per scene? As long as the rule says "respect what's been narrated," then you won't get some crazy shit like hopping from the Civil War back to the Gold Rush or anything like that.

Or to get a little more extreme, perhaps the process of determining protagonism is itself part of play? That's what I'd really like to see, but if it's too open/free, I can see being cautious about it. The stuff in the previous paragraph, though, deserves a second look though.

As for not getting robots, it needs no rules-step. That's something that can be settled instantly as part of the entire framework of the game, as a starting rule, period. "This is a classic western with no fantasy elements." Non-negotiable. People will drift it if they want, which is no big deal. What is a big deal is that putting it up for negotiation, which you have now, is tantamount to saying, "Hey, if you want robots, you can have them." I think you'd do better to leave all that to Drift.

Best, Ron

[Graham W]

Andrew, actually, Ron's got a point.

Six Bullets is one of the few games that would work very well with no set-up. You could choose a protagonist player at random - no character generation, even for the protagonist - and he narrates the final murder ("Bang!"). Then go backwards from there.

As I remember, Six Bullets has the possibility of that happening. It'd be interesting to actually hardwire it into the game: to make it a matter of pride that everything is established during the game, as with Reel Adventures. That would fit well with the "Memento" idea: at the start, you know nothing, just what's happening in front of you.

(Having said that, I'm mindful that your decision to do a Western worked quite well for you. So perhaps, if people really want something particular, they could say so. But I like the idea that it starts from nothing.)

We could try it like that, next time we meet, if you like.

Graham

[andrew_kenrick]

We're in agreement on this one. I'm lobbying for less setup, not more. What you're calling minimal, I'm calling too much.

So would you say that the ideal setup is to literally sit down and start playing?

I can see that working some of the time, but I worry that if things like genre and setting are left to emerge in play, they'll either wind up being chosen by whoever shouts the loudest or speaks up first in game, or it'll end up muddled as everyone throws their ideas into the pot.

At least with everyone saying upfront "I fancy a classic western" or "shall we try something set in feudal Japan" you get that out of the way and everyone is at least clear on the same page to start with.

For instance, why not choose who's the protagonist after that initial (in real-time) scene is played?

Or to get a little more extreme, perhaps the process of determining protagonism is itself part of play? That's what I'd really like to see, but if it's too open/free, I can see being cautious about it.

The very first draft had protagonism determined during play. Two players stepped forward and one of them framed the epilogue. Details were narrated, a conflict was set and dice were rolled. Whoever won the conflict killed the other and ipso facto must have been the protagonist. Then we rolled it back as normal. To be honest it all felt a bit quirky, a bit too random. It's an idea that might be worth a second look, although nowadays the protag and the antag are handled by subtly different rules.

As for not getting robots, it needs no rules-step. That's something that can be settled instantly as part of the entire framework of the game, as a starting rule, period. "This is a classic western with no fantasy elements." Non-negotiable.

But isn't any sort of starting rule back to the original question of no-setup? How is sitting down and stating "this is a western with no fantasy elements" any different from picking the genre upfront? Or do you mean hardwire that rule into the text itself?

People will drift it if they want, which is no big deal. What is a big deal is that putting it up for negotiation, which you have now, is tantamount to saying, "Hey, if you want robots, you can have them." I think you'd do better to leave all that to Drift.

I'm not sure I understand this, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. So by making it explicit that the game is a straight-revenge movie (be it a western or a samurai or a 60s gangster setting) and letting players respond and react to that is less likely to cause problems than saying "it can be what you want it to be, so long as you decide it now"?

[andrew_kenrick]

As I remember, Six Bullets has the possibility of that happening. It'd be interesting to actually hardwire it into the game: to make it a matter of pride that everything is established during the game, as with Reel Adventures. That would fit well with the "Memento" idea: at the start, you know nothing, just what's happening in front of you.

My only concern here is that this would turn from the group deciding on the setting to one player deciding the setting - whichever player gets to narrate first. Is that a valid concern, or am I worrying needlessly?

(Having said that, I'm mindful that your decision to do a Western worked quite well for you. So perhaps, if people really want something particular, they could say so. But I like the idea that it starts from nothing.)

We could try it like that, next time we meet, if you like.

It did, and it's worked well in the past too. But I'm always keen to try out every possibility, so next time I play I'll make a point of going in completely blind!

[Ron Edwards]

Andrew, Andrew ...

You're not distinguishing between "genre and setting" and specific setting and specific spin on genre.

I'm saying, fix the basic genre & setting at the outset: "classic western," for all games, ever, of Six Bullets. I am not saying sit down and free-form from a foundation of absolutely nothing. So your talk of "completely blind" is also misplaced. You seem fixated on a dichotomous choice between (a) an empty basin and (b) a basin with two babies, bathwater, rubber ducky, and jacuzzi jets. I am saying, do start with the baby and bathwater (last bullet! classic western!) and nothing else.

Yes, lots will be added during play. Nevada vs. Missouri? Corrupt ranching magnate vs. attacking Indians? Beautiful snobby eastern lady vs. beautiful hot-tempered Mexican dancer? X vs. Y? A vs. B? All of this can be accumulated and settled very easily as play progresses. You must trust your vision of how cool the fun part of Six Bullets is and quit getting distracted by imagining how "average players" will disrupt it.

And yes, whoever narrates X (say, Utah) first makes Y (Arizona, Wyoming, California, et cetera) go away. So what? The next time you play, someone else gets that particular privilege. Consensus is over-rated.

Fuck feudal Japan in the ear. Fuck 60s revenge flick in the ear. Fuck anything else in the ear. Learn the 100% valid lesson from Paul Czege that My Life with Master is set in a central European mountain village in the early 19th century, period. Will people Drift it elsewhere and elsewhen for fun? Sure they will. But they won't do it well unless you make the game work perfectly and clearly for fun play in the setting/context in which you present it.

The urge to "try it in space! with cat-women!" is a player urge. For many games, it is a terrible, awful, rotten, and game-destroying thing to mistake that for a design urge. (Unless your goal is to generate a system with customized applications as the entire and focused point, as in Universalis - but that is a totally different thing and does not apply to Six Bullets.)

Now, by the way, if you want the basic setting of the game's presentation to be feudal Japan or 60s revenge flick, then fuck the classic western in the ear. See what I mean? Pick the right setting and context that speaks to you and absolutely exemplifies the fun thing about play that inspired you in the first place. Present that and do it right for that. "You can do it with anything! It's universal!" is not a feature. It's an opening for madness and distraction. There's a reason I no longer respond to threads in the Adept Press column which breathlessly present yet another "hey! you could do it with big worms and spice!" idea.

Best, Ron

[andrew_kenrick]

Andrew, Andrew ...

You're not distinguishing between "genre and setting" and specific setting and specific spin on genre.

You're quite right there, and I was missing your point after all. There is an absolute difference between sitting down and saying "this is a classic Western" to saying "this is a classic Western, but set in winter, and with no evil sherrifs." Those are the details that should emerge over the course of the game, naturally.

Fuck feudal Japan in the ear. Fuck 60s revenge flick in the ear. Fuck anything else in the ear. Learn the 100% valid lesson from Paul Czege that My Life with Master is set in a central European mountain village in the early 19th century, period. Will people Drift it elsewhere and elsewhen for fun? Sure they will. But they won't do it well unless you make the game work perfectly and clearly for fun play in the setting/context in which you present it.

Here's where I'm struggling! People keep saying "i don't like westerns" or "why do i need another western" and all my design impulses are screaming "LOOK! Samurai! Gangsters! Not just Westerns!" and I'm trying desperately not to throw it all into the pot. Is it enough to say "it's a game about revenge set in the West" and leave it to them to get over the hurdle and discover its really about the revenge part, not the West part?

[Ron Edwards]

Well, it's really not about what they say, is it?

Do you want it to be a western? My impression from previous threads is yes. If I'm right, then do it as a western, and when "people" (who I think are probably a very few persons in reality) say "why a western," say "because I want it to be, go write your own fucking game."

Look at it this way: did the RPG world really need another horror game? I mean, I can count western-RPGs with just over one hand's worth of fingers, but to count horror-RPGs, I'd need a roomful of friends and we'd need to include our feet. Did the RPG world really need another horror game?

The answer is, no, it didn't need yet another Call of Cthulhu or Vampire rip-off. But it sure as fuck needed Dead of Night.

So yeah, the RPG world needs Six Bullets. "Another" western is a red herring. Maybe what you need is different people to be listening to.

Best, Ron

[andrew_kenrick]

What I want is a game about revenge, that just happens to be set in the West. Is that me dancing around the question of whether its a Western, or is it a useful distinction?

And thanks for the kick up the butt - design the game I want to design, not the game other people want me to design.

[Ron Edwards]

It means you want it set in the West. Trust your vision and quit waffling.

Best, Ron

[GreatWolf]

It means you want it set in the West. Trust your vision and quit waffling.

I'm going to use my one "me too" post for the year on this.

Actually, I dealt with this at one point during Dirty Secrets design.  The game's setting is "your town, last week".  That's it.  Now, at one point, I was going to talk about how that was the default setting and how you could change it to something else if you want....  Ralph talked me out of it, using Ron's logic.  People will hack your game.  That's fine.  But, stick to your vision of the game, and let them worry about hacking it.

So yeah.  Your vision is a Western.  So do a Western, without apologies.

[andrew_kenrick]

People will hack your game.  That's fine.  But, stick to your vision of the game, and let them worry about hacking it.

Quoted for truth. Thanks Seth. I think the message here is "people will hack your game regardless, but by trying to hack it for them you might make it so messy they won't bother at all."