[Beloved] [Solo RPG] In a dream ...

[lumpley]

I beat my three monsters!

I expected to settle down happily too, but damned if it's working out that way. I'm in the difficult process right now of trying to settle down with a person who is pretty great, but not who I thought she was. That's being the troublesome part for me, not that these women are unlike my beloved in any particular way, but that they aren't her. Settling down means either deciding that she doesn't really exist in the game world, or else leaving her unfound out there somewhere.

Oh crap. Crap crap crappity crap crap. I just realized that there is a way I can find her by the rules. SHIT. Jesus Christ, Ben.

-Vincent

[David Berg]

That's being the troublesome part for me, not that these women are unlike my beloved in any particular way, but that they aren't her. Settling down means either deciding that she doesn't really exist in the game world, or else leaving her unfound out there somewhere.

Huh!  Neat.  I wouldn't expect that to happen to me, but now I'm tempted to play it just to find out for sure.  Cool!

I just realized that there is a way I can find her by the rules.

Hahaha!  Okay, I don't know what you're thinking, but must share what I came up with: make her one of the monsters!

I'm not sure if invincibility is compatible with my dream girl, though. 

[Ben Lehman]

Dave: Just as a note: Not invincible. Undefeatable. Invincible, if present, is a typo.

There's a subtle distinction: things which are invincible are a particular subclass of undefeatable, but monsters can be undefeatable for reasons other than invincibility.

yrs--
--Ben

[jrs]

Julie: Are you going to play?

I have played one round. It took a surprising amount of discipline to play by rules in my own head. I was also very disappointed that the imprisoned wasn't actually my beloved. I immediately wanted a do-over, and spent no effort in the "take time to know" phase. I do not know when I will play round two.

Julie

[lumpley]

David: it sounds to me like (a) you're under-knowing your beloved, and then (b) pre-planning the way that the person you rescue is going to be like her. I suggest, instead, that you (a) take some time to get to know your beloved as a person, and then (b) let yourself discover how the person you rescue is like her, instead of thinking about it beforehand.

-Vincent

[Gregor Hutton]

Hey, I defeated the monster but it's been brutal! I'm currently being tended by the not-Beloved, so she's caring.

When I feel I'm healed up enough I plan to head off rescuing again. We'll see if that plan happens.

[lumpley]

I lost part of my hand last time. If I leave this person I have to fight four monsters, and it may be even worse than that. I still haven't decided.

-Vincent

[Baxil]

Clearly something is going off the rails here. Can you elucidate how you got that idea, and what maybe I could have said to stop you from doing it that way?

I'd like to come back to this, having slept on it, and expand on what I previously said.

It's becoming more obvious that the key here is in humanizing (well ... making concrete, regardless of humanity) your beloved.

She is, to you, perfect in every way.

May I suggest "She is everything that you have ever wanted"?  I still cannot make her "perfect" without making her abstract (and thus breaking my approach to the game).

May I further suggest defining a short introductory scene with her, one that is specified as unreal in the game narrative (a dream sequence or some such), but that allows for actual interaction during gameplay? 

... Actually, on second thought, I guess that's already legal under "know her," so I'm empowered to do it.  Never mind.

It's just frustrating that I've had to take such a roundabout approach to understanding the text.  It's been a week and I'm just now coming around to where I even understand it enough to prep for play (modulo initial hangups, still working on those).  I'd have given up long ago if it weren't for the enthusiasm of everyone posting cryptic notes on their playtests here.

[Ben Lehman]

It's frustrating to me, too. I'm definitely looking at ways of revising / expanding the text so it's more clear what to do.

yrs--
--Ben

[Altaem]

I wasn't sure what to make of this game.  I almost thought it was a joke.
My brain simply doesn't accept the idea of absolutes.
Therefore there can be no perfect Beloved, no unbeatable monsters.

I explained the game to my wife. 

For every impossible to beat monster she rapidly came up with a solution.
This prompted the idea that the monster would be the same each time.  But it would evolve each time becoming immune to the method which defeated it before.

Alternatively; If my beloved is as perfect as I imagine, then no prison could hold her.  I'll just wait outside for 2 minutes while she frees herself.

[jburneko]

Ben,

I've been trying to play your game for a week or so now and it hasn't been working.  I just can't get in the head space.  I was wondering what was wrong.  Then I read this:

Alternatively; If my beloved is as perfect as I imagine, then no prison could hold her.  I'll just wait outside for 2 minutes while she frees herself.

And at first I thought, oh hey, that's clever.  Then I tried thinking "outside the box" as well and I found my problem.

My "perfect" beloved saves me from monsters.  Not the other way around.

Just a data point.

Jesse

[David Berg]

Vincent, good call, that sounds like a more rewarding way to play.  But as I ponder it, this:

take some time to get to know your beloved as a person

actually does start to feel like I'd be cheating on my girlfriend! 

Weird.  I didn't have that reaction at all upon reading the text.  Maybe I initially envisioned play the way I did because that was the only way I'd feel okay playing it.

Separately: reading all the different responses in this thread is really interesting!  If I was introducing this game to friends, I'd want to make that comparison a feature.  Seriously, Jesse's response just made me appreciate this a lot more.

Ps,
-Dave