Hello,

Thomas E.Robertson's The Suburban Crucible wins a Ronny, and it's the only game to do so that treats women protagonists as human beings, without satire (good, just different) or with the author being craven about being male (bad). I was hoping for more winners like it, but only Darling Grove and January's Frost came close. It's also the single entry in the entire contest which used the terms "suburb" and "girlfriend."

As the text states in the notes at the end, the game is weak regarding the archetypes, and the archetypes are central for play. I'll start my discussion of them a little counter-intuitively, regarding their use at the end of play. Take a look at those endgame epilogues ...

... and you'll see that all of them miss the point. They all make sense as the relevant characters' immediate reactions, not long-term outcomes over the years. Why is this? Ah ha! Because at the moment, you are dealing with Archetypes as a concept in your head, not with the developed characters that real people would be dealing with after hours of intense play.

So that's important: the character "Harry Barton," the father in (let's say) our game of The Surburban Crucible, was constructed from the Father Archetype, but he is Harry, a character - not just the chassis on which he was built. He is certainly fulfilling the Archetype role to our protagonist, structurally and emotionally, but Harry (our character) is also a WWII veteran, a borderline alcoholic, and (unusually for the fifties) a bit of a Lefty, when his boss isn't listening.

See? This is all about the Traits!! Each character has five, and that's a lot - as long as we keep those broad Archetypes intact emotionally, then the traits will also let us know how the family member/friend is a person, not just an Archetype. That will permit play and the endgames to become meaningful, rather than cookie-cutter. (Oh, and five traits is too many, too much opportunity for meaningless or silly stuff - make it three.)

In line with the importance the traits have, the current rules that consensus determines which traits are is allowed during resolution or not is weak. I suggest a resource mechanic, perhaps along the excellent lines laid down by Secrets in Suburbia (via Full Light Full Steam) regarding usage and recharge of traits.

I think that the points tracking Antagonism/Relationship tracking will work well. However, I question whether every damn conflict needs to have every single Antagonist involved as opposition. That seems very forced and boring to me - I like the idea that a given Antagonist may decide to "give" if they want, or perhaps have some other "by" option.

Finally, Endgame should be triggered more interestingly. Instead of just grinding down the points, Antagonist by Antagonist, I suggest that a "make or break" moment can emerge unexpectedly, possibly due to certain dice outcomes, possibly mixed with certain options taken at that moment.

Overall, great game! Count me first in line to try it out. Also, what sort of physical format do you see this getting published in? I strongly suggest that we are not talking about a standard-sized RPG with standard RPG illustrations.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Thanks for the feedback, I'm going to take your points in reverse order.

First, the physical object.  Traditional RPG with traditional art?  Already on it!  A few days after I finished this one I realized that I want every single piece of art in this game to be an honest-to-God photograph.  Not sure if I want them in black and white, color, or some interesting combination (i.e. the girlfriend is in color while the rest of the family is black and white).  I'm not yet sure about further formatting plans, but the photograph thing really is important to me...

Surprise endgame.  I can see that as being valuable, but I'm not sure about it at the moment.  On the one hand it does get rid of the grind, allowing players to have some large scale uncertainty (instead of the current small-scale uncertainty of not losing a die roll or something).  On the other hand, it gets rid of the grind, that sense of toil is lessened (though, quite possibly, there's enough left that it's still powerful).  If there is such a surprise endgame, do you see things being such that Antagonists have both Antagonism and Relationship values remaining at the end?  Some sort of adjusted/expanded endgame conditions?

Also, the pivotal endgame scene works for (for example) My Life with Master because there is a single central antagonist.  This is precisely inversed in The Suburban Crucible so I have to ask how you see that working out?  A separate attempt for each Antagonist, or one that goes after them all, or something in between?

On forced antagonism, you say:

However, I question whether every damn conflict needs to have every single Antagonist involved as opposition. That seems very forced and boring to me - I like the idea that a given Antagonist may decide to "give" if they want, or perhaps have some other "by" option.

Oh, one other thing...

He is certainly fulfilling the Archetype role to our protagonist, structurally and emotionally, but Harry (our character) is also a WWII veteran, a borderline alcoholic, and (unusually for the fifties) a bit of a Lefty, when his boss isn't listening.

Hi Thomas!

Surprise endgame. I can see that as being valuable, but I'm not sure about it at the moment. On the one hand it does get rid of the grind, allowing players to have some large scale uncertainty (instead of the current small-scale uncertainty of not losing a die roll or something). On the other hand, it gets rid of the grind, that sense of toil is lessened (though, quite possibly, there's enough left that it's still powerful). If there is such a surprise endgame, do you see things being such that Antagonists have both Antagonism and Relationship values remaining at the end? Some sort of adjusted/expanded endgame conditions?

Also, the pivotal endgame scene works for (for example) My Life with Master because there is a single central antagonist. This is precisely inversed in The Suburban Crucible so I have to ask how you see that working out? A separate attempt for each Antagonist, or one that goes after them all, or something in between?

On archetypes -> characters. I don't think I entirely get what you're getting at. I can see your main point, I've got to start understanding archetypes as characters-in-play, but I'm not sure what youre specific suggestion is (unless that's it, that I just need the right perspective). So, what exactly are you suggesting, if anything, regarding endgame? Sorry if I'm a bit dense here...

One final note, and this is somewhat personal and (I think) really interesting: I'm not sure if I'll play this game with my local group. I have this intention with the game that play is serious and digs down deep, and while I have good friends, and I have friends that I roleplay with, I don't know if the group that I roleplay with (or at least all of them) are good enough friends for me to ask them to do this kind of thing with me. This may be exacerbated by the fact that I'm pretty sure that we'd all kind of look to our attractive black female friend to play the girlfriend, and I'm not sure I have the right to say "Hey, deal with this issue with me!" to her.

Do you see The Suburban Crucible as a game set in the 50's/60's? Because I see it as a game set right in the modern suburban reality. It's just interesting to me that there may be these assumptions about when in time the game is set (because, really, both positions are entirely valid)...

Ron,

Okay, I'm with you on Endgame now.  Yeah, I think you're probably right, good call.  Do you have any sort of thoughts on how that could be executed mechanically, or just a suggestion that I figure something out?  That is, does some obvious solution pop into your head because now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not quite sure how to set it up.

I'm still not clear on the rest of your feedback...

Specifically: What do you mean by

However, I question whether every damn conflict needs to have every single Antagonist involved as opposition. That seems very forced and boring to me - I like the idea that a given Antagonist may decide to "give" if they want, or perhaps have some other "by" option.

Hi Thomas,

OK, first point: maybe I'm just wrong about this to start. If so, let's fix that. At the moment, I am under the impression that given a situation/confrontation/scene, every Antagonist gets to put his or her oar in the water and get a result regarding Relationship and Antagonism. If that's wrong, then well and good. If it's right, however, then I am suggesting that it's too dense. A given conflict or situation should concern one or more Antagonists, but not necessarily all of them.

Second point: I think this will become clearer with playtesting. If a group sets to making up the Antagonists with the right attitude, and if they are really intent on making them people instead of cookie-cutter, Saturday-afternoon-special foils, then all is well. Your Archetype descriptions merely establish the chassis for this process, not the final result or nuanced-character that we see in play.

Since the final scenes (Epilogues really) concern the characters, there's no real way to write them or provide examples for them from the standpoint of the mere Archetypes. Does that make more sense? I think that's why you had trouble with the example epilogues, and I'm saying that's OK.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

On your first point.  I hadn't intended for all present Antagonists to be required to participate mechanically, but looking back over the text it seems pretty clear that I wrote that they do.  Definitely a good call on this one, that kind of density is, as you say, probably detrimental.

Second point.  Aha!  Now I see what you're saying.  That actually makes a lot of sense.  I hadn't really considered it that way, but it would be like trying to provide example epilogues for MLwM characters.  Sure you could do it, but they probably wouldn't be terribly useful at informing the players what's going on.

Oh, and semi-related.  I had a comment (it's marked in red on my first circulated draft) that re-rolling on ties robs those rolls of some of their *oomph*.  It was suggested that ties go to the Antagonists.  My knee-jerk reaction was "But statistically ties should be very rare!" (Yeah, I know, not really much of a defense), but I've come around to think that it's true: in this instance re-rolling ties seems to be a negative thing.

Thomas

Thomas --

For what it's worth, I got from the text as it stands that you're only supposed to roll for each antagonist present in a scene, seperately, as if there were two consecutive scenes.

In terms of recommendations for further design, I would seriously consider discussing the Older Brother in terms of competition / legitimacy / status within the family.  The parents should constantly be saying "well, your older brother ... " and so on.

I think you really got the little sister perfect.

In terms of playtest -- have you considered having your friend play the Father, rather than the Girlfriend?

yrs--
--Ben

Ben,

Thanks for the feedback.  A comment and a question and then another comment.

The sister, yeah.  I've got a real solid grasp on the sister because, well, I have them.  Being an older brother in actuality gives me (or so I like to think) a pretty solid perspective on how that dynamic can be utilized in play.  Glad you liked it too.

What do you think is added to the game by making the older brother a kind of role-model figure?  I'm a bit hesitant to include such a thing because it seems that that would include another major conflict.  I'm sort of hoping that all the conflict will center around the girlfriend rather than having conflicts springing up all over the place.  That said, there may be something interesting if the girlfriend is merely the catalyst for all sorts of buried issues to rise to the surface.  So, what makes you suggest including that element to the big brother?

For playtesting, I hadn't really thought much about it at all.  I'll probably bring it up eventually and see what everyone thinks...

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote:
So, what makes you suggest including that element to the big brother?

Ben,

I was actually trying to capture something of the role-model/friendly competition thing, so I can definitely see that.  It's good to know that it either wasn't coming across, or that it was coming across as too weak.  Definitely something to look at in the revision.

Thomas

Ron wrote:
Regarding the time-setting of play, I wasn't clear about that - I would be most interested in a 50s setting, because I am totally immersed in Cold War stuff at the present

I totally agree about the modern setting really resonating, especially with me.

As to the switcheroo thing.  Well, I'm not sure, and here's why:

The issues of racism (especially the more subtle form in The Suburban Crucible) are often very closely tied to tradtional gender roles.  Simply stated: the black boyfriend meeting the white girlfriend's family is a totally different story, and it's not one that I know how to work with.  This goes double for the white girlfriend meeting the black boyfriend's family because that's a sub-culture that I just don't have enough experience with.  If people want to play those stories, great!  I just don't know how to make the game support them.  (Suggestions on that would be great, by the way.)

One, other, interesting note, and one that I think is important enough that it's going in the text on this next revision: The Suburban Crucible isn't actually rigged to play homosexual relationships.  The reason for this is that with racism you're dealing with a rejection of the partner by the family, while with homosexuality you're dealing with a rejection of the family member.  That is, with racism it isn't that the son of the family chose a black girl to date, it's that she's black.  With homosexuality it isn't that the partner is male, but that the son of the family chose such a partner.

I know that's not precisely related because I think that mechanically the system that runs The Suburban Crucible will handle any of the combinations of racial tension, but what I'm not sure of is if I'm up to actually writing the supporting material for that or not.

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote:
The issues of racism (especially the more subtle form in The Suburban Crucible) are often very closely tied to tradtional gender roles.

Racism is definitely closely tied to socioeconomics, but I think it's actually more complex than just that.  I think there's also a sense of alien-ness.  That cross-cultural thing where they're just not like you (this is true even of people from the same race who are, for example, from vastly different religious backgrounds).

It's that alien-ness that I really, really want to deal with in The Suburban Crucible.  It's not any sort of real concern that the girlfriend is a gold-digger, or anything like that.  It's the discomfort of being around someone who is not like you.  The reason I want to deal with that here is that it's subtle and insidious.  The family doesn't have a problem with black people, they don't even have a problem with inter-racial relationships.  At least not as ideas.  The tension is all generated when events conspire to make them put their money where their mouths are.

That's what I want to deal with.  Anyone can (and many people do) say that racism is a terrible thing (or poverty, or any other number of social problems), but it's easy to say things.  For me, the tension in The Suburban Crucible comes from the fact that the family says they believe one thing, and even think that it's the right thing to believe, but their actions don't bear that out...

Thomas