Since I got feedback on my game, I wanted to pass the favour on. So here's some quick feedback on Owen Anderson's Cosmos, which was one of my personal favourites.

Cosmos was, in many ways, the Ronnies game that I wanted to play the most. Mostly because of the setting. There's a distinct sub-genre of movies involving mathematics and some underlying cosmic reality (including Pi, Cube, and possibly Donnie Darko and The Matrix). It's a fantastic setting for a game.

I like the idea of using a similar card system to the game Cluedo (which Americans call "Clue"). Three Meme cards are hidden at the start of the game and are The Answer. Then the game involves trying to see all the other Meme cards and, by process of elimination, working out what the Memes in The Answer are.

Now, I'd actually like to see this game borrow more from Cluedo. The nice thing about Cluedo is this: let's say you've know the Murder Weapon, you know the Room and you have two suspects for the Murderer. You then have a dilemma: do you guess the solution to the murder now? If you do, you've got a one-in-two chance of getting it right, but if you're wrong, you're out of the game. In a game with three or more people, it's a genuine dilemma.

You don't get that dilemma in this game so much. That's because, if you've eliminated all but four Memes, you've only got a one-in-four chance of being able to guess which three Memes are The Answer. So there's only an incentive to guess The Answer if there's five or more players. In a sense, I think I'd like to see the Memes categorised in a similar way to Cluedo.

My other slight worry is the narration. The idea is that you have to narrate how your character has a nightmare (or similar) leading to discovery of a new Meme. So I can see narration going something like this:

Yeah, so as I'm walking through the park, my character starts counting things. And everywhere he looks he sees the number 216. The trees have 216 leaves, the dog barks 216 times. And he starts scribbling equations and realises that the number 216 is at the bottom of everything. Suddenly, everything closes in on him, and he screams and faints.

...which is all very well, but, really, the narration's just a stepping stone. Although I'm trying to make the story sound interesting, I'm just trying to fit the number 216 into a story, because I just drew the "216" card. I'd be telling a similar story if I'd drawn the "Particles" or "God" cards.

I'm not quite sure how to fix this and I'm sure others have better ideas than me.

It might help if the Memes that each player knows about lead on to new Memes. So...if the players already has the Waves meme, I'd like to see him draw another similar Meme: Pi or Particles or Spiral. Perhaps categorising Memes might help (so a player can use two Mathematics Memes to draw another Mathematics Meme)? Or something like that.

But it's a fascinating game with a great setting. It's also very well-written: I understand the game after a single read through and, thank God, it's only 7 pages long. An interesting game in seven pages. It doesn't get better than that.

Thanks, Owen, and I hope those comments are of some help. I'm sure Ron will be along shortly with better feedback (probably a complimentary introductory paragraph, followed by a numbered list of criticisms, if it's anything like the last round).

Thanks for the suggestions, Graham.

I struggled with a lot of the same issues you mentioned when I was writing it initially, and I'm still not convinced I have a solution to them.  The relationship to Cluedo (Clue) just seemed like a good match to me, but I had trouble working out how to make it more role-playing ish and less boardgame-ish.

I do like your idea about categorizing the Memes.  I hadn't thought of that earlier, and now I wonder why.  I'll have to ponder some more...

Hello,

Now the official Ronnies Feedback thread!

This one went into the Parlor Narration group, and I said "Damn it!" when I realized. I've been wanting a Pi game for a while now, and besides, I couldn't possibly ask for a better use of the two terms. (I'm sure you can think up a better title, though.)

I was reading along, and realized that the rounds contained no SIS whatsoever. No Situation, no SIS!

At the moment, this would make a really fun Cheapass card game, because it's just a race. You can choose between lots of Sanity loss, get Meme card for elimination purposes; and show your Memes to other players; and take a break to build up (recover) Sanity. It's colored highly by the imaginative Meme-stuff, and I think a spiffy design would make neat package.

But boy is there a lot of potential here! It's just begging for a more Contenders-like context for characters and play. Owen, if you get interested in developing the game in that fashion, count me in on playtesting and support.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Thanks for the feedback!  I knew even as I was submitting it that it was only borderline an RPG, but I thought I'd go ahead with it anyways.  Also, I'm glad you liked the use of the terms.  I was initially afraid that the use of Pain might be a little too weak.

At any rate, could you give me some pointers on where I could read more about Situation development?  I've read about in a few discussions and in some of the articles, but it still seems very ... abstract too me.  Basically, I'm aware of the problems with it, and I'd like to fix them, but I'm not well versed enough in the terminology (yet) to make good use of the information you've given me.

At any rate, thanks a ton for the feedback!

-Owen

Hi Owen,

Actually, Situation development is the easiest part of successful role-playing, as long as one stops thinking like a gamer.

Gamer-think: my character is so cool looking, in his or her static-looking little portrait, that obviously someone will write/create the perfect situation in which the big payoff will come.

GM looks at player, provides obligatory fight, obligatory mission, obligatory NPC. Player looks at GM, provides posturing, obedience toward cues, and tracking little points on the sheet.

"Someone" never provides what both are looking for.

The reason the stuff you've been reading seems abstract is that it is abstract, in those articles. I've provided as much concrete advice and specific techniques as I can through game design, not through essays. That means, though, that each detail I'm talking about or suggest is specific to that particular game, and therefore has to be understood as not universal, merely right for the here and now, with this game. If you keep that in mind, and check out the Sorcerer series of books (for instance), you'll find a wealth of totally practical Situation-creating techniques, discussed at the group level rather than what a GM is supposed to do "for" the group, or a designer is supposed to do "for" the players in general.

In the interest of avoiding turning this post into a total advertisement for my stuff, I also suggest checking out games by most publishers who have forums here at the Forge. Concrete situations with concrete techniques for making your own are central to most of these games.

Best,
Ron

Owen,

Could I suggest you read Jason's game, The Shab al-Hiri Roach? That game also has cards and points and so on, and a big "gamey" aspect to it. But it's all integrated into the story, so all the card-playing and point-scoring fuels the narrative.

Graham