Topic: [Fink] Ronnies feedback
Started by: Ron Edwards
Started on: 10/7/2005
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/7/2005 at 4:07pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
[Fink] Ronnies feedback
Hello,
J. Tuomas Harviainen's Fink is a strong partner for Secrets in Suburbia, and as I mention in that thread, I had to read the two games side by side, or risk getting confused about which rules went with which game.
I really like the strong, basic statements about what the setting is like, and what might be going on in it, and how that relates to the choices and focus of the game. I also like the fact that the suburb itself is invulnerable during play.
Boy, there is a whole lot of "timid virgin" talk marring the introduction, centered around a bit of confusion over the players enjoying one another's input with the characters being hypocrtical about their cruelties to one another. The phrasing here and elsewhere set off my alarm bells, indicating to me that the author is not confident about others' ability or willingness to play. For example, I'd suggest that "experienced players," whether LARP or table-top, would be the least likely candidates to play this game well, and that non-gamer people would be much more likely to understand characters' fictional priorities vs. their own as contributors.
Mechanically, this game is very much like The World Class Rats Handbook - effectively a GM-overseen improvisational drama, in which players get to spend points for their input to have more weight. As with most such games, there's a contradiction buried in it: you can do stuff as long as you entertain the GM, you can propose stuff with points as a guide for how much you can propose ... see the problem? The obvious solution is to be as funny for or as complicit with the GM as possible, and then you can ignore the constraint of the points. All mentions of stuff like "best explanation" and "entertaining" illustrate this issue. These concepts are simply poor resolution mechanics.
I am certain I can hear, from here, the outraged cries from Finland about this issue. Yes, I realize that it works for some approaches to LARPs, where the goal is to "be" in the overall story and to entertain one another with histrionics, as benevolent overseers act as editors and correction-factors throughout play. For table-top role-playing, it is boring and exhausting. Not just "for me," either - as a generalized creative and social principle.
I need to clarify that I am a big advocate of constant talking during play, of fun description, and even of extensive Drama resolution ... but if it's not formalized into interactive and occasionally unpredictable form, then there is no "springboard" to generate significant, group-level turning points during play.
Now, I do like a lot of things about the Complication points, and if they were privileged as the sole means of input, then the game would do better, perhaps on the Universalis model. However, as written, I think that the points come in much too slowly, and to work, would need a faster pace of award & spend, like PTA's fanmail or the various points in Capes. I also suggest that Engle Matrix Games should be your next stop in checking out the approaches that work within the priorities and aesthetics that seem to be informing this game.
Best,
Ron
On 10/7/2005 at 5:00pm, J. Tuomas Harviainen wrote:
Re: [Fink] Ronnies feedback
Ron wrote:
Boy, there is a whole lot of "timid virgin" talk marring the introduction, centered around a bit of confusion over the players enjoying one another's input with the characters being hypocrtical about their cruelties to one another.
I considered it more a "clash of cultures issue, which I (rather unsuccessfully) tried to take into account. I'm not exactly a timid virgin on game design, but rather someone very used to working in a highly specialized medium with extremely experienced and adaptive players. In the games I normally make, inexperience is the enemy causing confusion between character success and player enjoyment, and that background carried over to this project as well. I'm quite sure your assessment is correct, if one considers the typical audience over there, but would be dead wrong as far as my normal player base is concerned.
All mentions of stuff like "best explanation" and "entertaining" illustrate this issue. These concepts are simply poor resolution mechanics.
There was actually an error in the text. I originally wanted the players not involved in the conflict to judge it, with the GM having a final say in case of a tie. I do not know how it ended as it did. Neither do I know if that other resolution would have worked either.
I am certain I can hear, from here, the outraged cries from Finland about this issue. Yes, I realize that it works for some approaches to LARPs, where the goal is to "be" in the overall story and to entertain one another with histrionics, as benevolent overseers act as editors and correction-factors throughout play. For table-top role-playing, it is boring and exhausting. Not just "for me," either - as a generalized creative and social principle.
Sorry to disappoint you, Ron. No cries of outrage. The mechanics were actually based on the way me and my friends tend to play rpg's and some boardgames, though, not on larp. For us it works marvelously. But I suspect you are right in that it would not be a sufficiently functional rules system for most other players, and that's what counts when designing a tabletop rpg. (Side note: I never, ever create the kind of larps you describe above. My live-action games are anti-entertainment, high-intensity, to the point of being very unpleasant for both characters and players. A nearly direct opposite of our tabletop style which Fink follows.)
Now, I do like a lot of things about the Complication points, and if they were privileged as the sole means of input, then the game would do better, perhaps on the Universalis model. However, as written, I think that the points come in much too slowly, and to work, would need a faster pace of award & spend
They were supposed to be the only way to directly /force/ one's will upon the game's reality, at a cost, something that would not be subject to the normal arbitration. And the slow speed was intended to provide a longer, multi-session game, but I've since come to suspect what you're saying here is very true. If the game would work, it would do so at a much faster pace.
Under other circumstances I might develop the game further, but since there are far superior suburb entries that will be developed here, I won't be doing so. I therefore declare the game's contents public domain for anyone developing one of the other suburban Ronnie rpgs. If there's something in it that you like, or Ron liked, feel free to use that part. You don't even have to credit me for what you take, if you do not want to do so. The point of making this game was to contribute to the project, not to create a product for myself. If even one piece of Fink, or even just something inspired by it, finds its way to a game that's published, I'll be a very happy man.
-Jiituomas