Traditional Call For Commentry

[KAR 120 C]

This is incomplete, and I seem to be having difficulty updating the damn thing atm, but I'm looking for commentry on a game I'm kicking around ideas for atm.

It's called "fairytale" and it's at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wadh1149/fairytale.html

I've already posted this one to RPG.net, but fresh ideas are always welcome.

[contracycle]

I think the Party Structure paragraph arouses some suspicions - do you have a vision for what actual play would look like?

It would seem at first glance intended be played heavily conversationally rather than action resolution - is that right?  This on the basis that exploiting virtues and vices is rather prominent.

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

I love it. The rules for characters exploiting each other seem pretty damn inspired. The Sympathy and Undoing stuff has enormous potential.

I do think you do your presentation a disservice with the "Why is it different" text. I'd recommend ditching it, as well as the first sentence of the next section, and any other stuff where you talk about the failings of other games. It may seem like a fine distinction, but I think text about frustrations you've had as a gamer with rules that emphasize causality over narrative, and systems that suggest story is possible without genre reinforcing mechanics is as direct as you should ever be in saying what you've tried to do with Fairytale. And I'm not sure personally that I'd even go that far. Even so, text that disses other games and mentions other designers by name is bad form. Drawing explicit comparisons only makes people mad. If you're truly different, people will figure it out. And so my personal inclination is to carefully avoid delineating my gaming frustrations in game text at all. Your game design itself will speak louder than any words you might write about your objectives, frustrations, and dislikes.

I'm not worried about the game's lack of providing for party structure play. I've played too many games with geographically separate but thematically linked player characters to have any concerns about the viability of non-party play. But again, I'm not sure you should describe it the way you do. You say what the game doesn't do, without providing any text about how a group of player characters might be geographically separate but still contribute to the story output of the same scenario. This is the explanation that Gareth (contracycle) is asking for. And if it so happens that you're struggling with envisioning it yourself, search The Forge for discussions of "scene framing."

Seriously, though, I think you're ready to playtest it.

Paul

[KAR 120 C]

I think the Party Structure paragraph arouses some suspicions - do you have a vision for what actual play would look like?

Yeah, the Party structure section isn't actually finished, I got started on that particular bit and found that my computer had stopped responding properly.

There'll be more on actual party structure going up soon(ish)

"I do think you do your presentation a disservice with the "Why is it different" text."

How so? I've gone back and amended it somewhat anyway.

"Even so, text that disses other games and mentions other designers by name is bad form"

I know, I'm just overly fond of a good rant. I had a similar problem with my MPhys writeup, my supervisor didnt take kindly to the suggestion that his reseach was irrelevant to ordinary people....