My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

[deidzoeb]

My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

This started as a joke, sort of a "What's Wrong With This Picture?" game design.  If designers can embed Premise or setting or other details, why not embed characters, situations, actions, micromanaging the whole thing?

But after putting some time and effort into it, I got carried away and tried to make a system that would almost function, in case someone plays it more than once.  I'm not sure it's still a role-playing game.  More like a board game that yells at you to stay in character.

See what you think.  Tell me "What's wrong with this picture?"

In this "game," you play out the last day of Bob's clumsy advances towards his co-worker Imelda at the bomb shelter sales office where they work. Not even advances really, just attempts to catch her attention. It's the last day because Bob is going to die.

http://evilbobdayjob.tripod.com/ml4u/

Thanks,
Deidzoeb

[Paganini]

Great stuff! Absolutely hillarious. Sublime Pointlessness at it's best.

Reading the rest of your site now.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Interesting idea, but you may wish to refine it a bit because it sounds like the only person who has anything to really do is Bob's player. What you need is maybe a couple such not-necessarily opposing goals to work with and to build off of. And it may be worthwhile to figure out some way to not have a Gorm player so that it can be GM-less and then everyone has something to do.

Or such is my initial impression. I'll have to read a lot more closely to give you more than this.

Edit: Just a suggestion, but maybe you should have ALL of the characters after another character for romantic interest. This may mean you'll either have to rethink the death thing or something. I mean, if Bob is after Imelda and she's after Frank and she makes her final roll before Bob, then what's Bob's player going to do? Go after Frank?

Just my lousy ideas.

[xiombarg]

I don't think you need Gorm at all... why not have Imelda secretly record the results of Bob's attempts? I also like the solo variation.

I also read "You Stupid Bitch". Very good, very bitter, very clever. One question, tho: Shouldn't the roll for Baggage be 1d20 rather than 3d6? There's no reason for that stat to be on a bell curve that I can think of.

[deidzoeb]

Hi Jack,

I half agree about Gorm and even Imelda being unnecessary, or having no real goals that the game affects.  As it stands, it's almost a way for one player (Bob) to mess around with Gamist-leaning mechanics while the other two (Imelda and Gorm) will only enjoy the game if they like acting their parts.  (What would that be?  Not necessarily Narrativist, more like improvised Simulationist?)

But Gorm is not a GM.  She can't rule on any outcomes, any more than John Madden gets to be a ref when he's doing play-by-play of a football game.  At worst, Gorm is more like the Banker in Monopoly, holding on to a few physical resources, but not necessarily controlling the game.  Yes, she could be removed.  I should mention in the "solitaire" variation that Bob is the solo player, no Imelda or Gorm.

Most people wouldn't enjoy playing Gorm, and Imelda worries me even more, because I really didn't want to allow for Imelda to dislike Bob or fight against him.  Maybe I'm making it into more of a story than a game?

This is the same reason that I wouldn't want to give Gorm or Imelda or the bullmastiff the same goal that Bob has, like a love triangle between three players.  It might make a better game, but it would lose the messages: that some people have no control over things that are important to them (Gorm), and that some people are oblivious to a big, secret drama happening all around them (Imelda).

It makes a less enjoyable game, but it gets across the point.  I figure if people are willing to watch two clowns Waiting for Godot, and the bastard never shows up, then people might play a game that's similarly confusing and pointless.

Or maybe not.

...then what's Bob's player going to do? Go after Frank?

Thanks for reminding me!  I meant to add a note at the end that the genders should be flexible if players want to reassign any of them.  Maybe it would be fun or frightening or poignant to have Bob clumsily making advances to Frank (in place of Imelda), and Frank freaking out when he realizes what's going on.  "I love you, man." -- only Bob doesn't mean it like the old Budweiser commercial.

[deidzoeb]

I don't think you need Gorm at all... why not have Imelda secretly record the results of Bob's attempts? I also like the solo variation.

Yep, I need to mention in the solo variation that Gorm can be left out too.

I also read "You Stupid Bitch". Very good, very bitter, very clever. One question, tho: Shouldn't the roll for Baggage be 1d20 rather than 3d6? There's no reason for that stat to be on a bell curve that I can think of.

Thanks for reading "You Stupid Bitch."  I wrote that a year or two ago, another joke that got carried away, resulting in what Ron would rightly call "baroque" game mechanics.  I haven't looked at the game in a while.  Maybe I'll polish it up, make a version 2.0 and ask for comments on The Forge.  You're probably right about Baggage.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

At worst, Gorm is more like the Banker in Monopoly, holding on to a few physical resources, but not necessarily controlling the game.  Yes, she could be removed.  

Hmmm.. Then maybe it should be handled like the banker in Monopoly. One player gets the job of managing the resources and that's it?

This is the same reason that I wouldn't want to give Gorm or Imelda or the bullmastiff the same goal that Bob has, like a love triangle between three players.  It might make a better game, but it would lose the messages: that some people have no control over things that are important to them (Gorm), and that some people are oblivious to a big, secret drama happening all around them (Imelda).

It makes a less enjoyable game, but it gets across the point.  I figure if people are willing to watch two clowns Waiting for Godot, and the bastard never shows up, then people might play a game that's similarly confusing and pointless.

Well, maybe. This kind of goes along the lines of something in Understanding Comics

Scott McCloud wrote:

The "fine artist"--the pure artist[/i]--say to the world: "I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art![/b]
In other words: "My art has no practical value whatsoever!"
"but it's important!"

I'm all for artistic expression and all of that, but what separates a game that's got a profound message to it but is unfun to play and a just plain bad game?  With that in mind, I'll try to give you ideas and maybe you can somehow keep the message while making it a fun game at the same time. Hopefully.

Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do, how about doing this: give everyone two character. One id a Bob, the other is an Imelda, although you'd probably use different names. I see using the chess pieces to this end, which would allow for up to five player (king, queen, bishop, knight, rook) with the black being "bob and the white being "imelda." Everyone has someon else's imelda, to keep things interesting.

Since we're using a chess set, I was thinking of having the pawns be NPCs of some kind. The exact purpose and means to use them are unclear, but these could replace Gorm in the "unable to do anything" space.

Or such is my take, anyway.

[deidzoeb]

Scott McCloud wrote:

The "fine artist"--the pure artist[/i]--say to the world: "I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art![/b]
In other words: "My art has no practical value whatsoever!"
"but it's important!"

I'm all for artistic expression and all of that, but what separates a game that's got a profound message to it but is unfun to play and a just plain bad game?  With that in mind, I'll try to give you ideas and maybe you can somehow keep the message while making it a fun game at the same time. Hopefully.

I know what you mean about artists with "important" messages who don't care if anyone sees the message.  Who was that damned poet from the 30s or 40s who started writing in Mandarin Chinese or something just to make his poetry more inaccessible to his English audience?

Let me put it another way.  As a game, I don't think this one is worth playing more than once or twice, if that.  As a story in the form of game rules, I think it gets a point across.  It has practical value as a story, and I don't mind if it fails as a game.  (Guess that means I shouldn't submit it on The Forge to ask opinions of how the game works.)

Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do, how about doing this: give everyone two character. One is a Bob, the other is an Imelda, although you'd probably use different names. I see using the chess pieces to this end, which would allow for up to five player (king, queen, bishop, knight, rook) with the black being "bob and the white being "imelda." Everyone has someone else's imelda, to keep things interesting.

Since we're using a chess set, I was thinking of having the pawns be NPCs of some kind. The exact purpose and means to use them are unclear, but these could replace Gorm in the "unable to do anything" space.

Multiple players in Bob-like situations might be an interesting variation.  (Would be a crowded board pretty quickly, but maybe that would make things interesting.)  But it doesn't need to use the full chess set.  I picked those because they're available to most people, and I liked the symbols of a squat, dark rook pining over the tall, sleek, deadly queen.  A full chess variation might be interesting, but I don't think the fact of other chess pieces already existing is a powerful reason to use all of them.

[Eugene Zee]

deidzoeb,

This game is really funny and original.  I don't think you need to add more player possibilities.  Just increase the opportunities to act that the Gorm and Imelda character have.  Overall keep the game simple and lighthearted.  The game is so funny because it is so real in a simple way.  Easy to get.

Have you played it with anyone yet?

[deidzoeb]

Thanks, Eugene.  This is horrible to admit, and I know budding game designers are scolded to playtest the game before thinking they're done, but I haven't played it yet.  My usual Star Wars and D&D gaming group probably wouldn't find this game to their liking.  But I might be able to play this with my wife and our cat.  (I'll play the sponge and the cat can play Imelda.  We just lay the slips of paper on the floor with Imelda's actions, and wait for the cat to roll over on one of them.  Works best with a cat in heat.)

[Eugene Zee]

Let me know what happens when you play.  Why not let the cat be the dog and allow it to spontaneously end the game by knocking down your pieces.  Then again might make for a really short game.  :)

Thanks for the laugh!

[deidzoeb]

Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do...

Sorry I got defensive earlier, Jack.  It would be interesting to attach a page at the end of the game showing how this game illustrates game design errors.

So what could I add to a list of "What's Wrong With this Picture? [this game design]"

1. Gorm has no apparent goals and can't influence anything in the game, can't be influenced by anything in the game.  Very few people would enjoy watching a game played by others and calling the color commentary.

2. Imelda has no apparent goal.  She could be avoiding Bob's advances, or helping Bob's advances, but the game doesn't allow her to intentionally influence things either way.

3. There's no incentive to use the full game board.  If Bob is smart, he won't go near the bathroom or the other offices.  He'll spend his time bouncing around those Emboldening Spaces.  Why bother having any of those other spaces available during the game?

4. More background info than necessary.  Do we need to know that Imelda's husband was killed by a defective rowing machine?

5. "Universal" vs. quite specific.  Is a game less playable because it limits you to one or two characters, a specific physical location, specific relationships between the characters built into the game?  Is a game more playable if it leaves all of these open for the players to choose?  Is there a happy middle-ground?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Oh. That's what you mean by "What's wrong with this picture?" Definately add a page of the problems with the game. This makes it more something to be read rather than actually play, though. But that appears to be the point.

[Henry Fitch]

Personally, I think playing the sponge sounds like great fun. Probably not Imelda, though.

I really like the idea of an RPG that comes with preset characters, background, and situation.

The background info is great, rowing machine and everything. Definitely adds to the game as story, and I should think it would add to the play itself as well. Sort of like the ridiculous backstories of Cheapass board games; they're fairly irrelevant, but they greatly enhance the fun.

[Jasper]

I'd say that for it to be a good and playable game, you definitely need the other players to actually be able to do something in game terms.

Gorm's purpose of providing commentary isn't really supported by any mechanics... it's just stated.  So while some people might enjoy it, it's not really participation -- I mean, not beyond what you could theoretically do with any game.  At the very least, I think you need some kind of points or reward scheme to motivate the Gorm player.  Awards for good commentary would be a start, but there's still not much of a motivator on it's own.  Gorm is sympathetic to Bob (is that his name?  I forget): that's a good start.  Maybe with good commentary, he could try to make the bullmastiff sympathetic as well, thus staving off Bob's death for a time and giving him more of a chance to get sparks.

The bullmastiff is not, of course, a viable character at all now, but I don't think you meant her to be.

As for Imelda, she definately has to either want a relationship, or want to avoid Bob at all costs... or something.  I guess her goals could be to get sparks IF bob seems compatable and to discourage his "moves" if not.  Maybe she can learn her spark sheet slowly, as Bob keeps trying things and can then try to pass clues on to Bob.  I'm not sure exactly how that would work.  If she were to have a definite goal (get sparks) you'd need to limit her actions based on present spark score or something.  

It's a fun concept in any case, and well written, but I can't think I could convince anyone else to play any position other than Bob right now... assuming I could get them to play at all -- it's a little off the beaten track :)  

On the Art issue: I don't think that this is a concern for My Love, but I have some concern that games which deal with "darker" or more complex/realistic emotional relationships may get labeled as "Art games" and hence be put outside the realm of normal criticism. I haven't really seen it happen yet, happily, and some people have even reacted against the idea, but it could happen if we're not careful.  This goes back to the old entertainment vs. art argument I suppose, but my concern is that if some games claim goals loftier than "simple" entertainment, they'll become immune to criticism fom that front: "Well, my game isn't SUPPOSED to be playable... it has a message."  Again, I haven't seen this here yet, but it's happened elewhere before....