Hello Ben,

I've just read your first draft of "On the Ecology of the Mud Dragon". Seeing as there are no threads yet, I'll open one.

Title & Introduction:

I found the title intriguing enough to click on the link in your blog and I really like the introduction: You go for that old gamer standby - taking a critical look at the patently illogical nature of ... huge, fire-breathing fantasy dragons! -, but then wisely shift focus. Rather than methodically taking the mythos apart (Yawn!), you offer us the mud dragons without further ado. I get sort of a Donal Duck vibe from them - they're incompetent, petty and doomed to loose, in other words: endearingly pathetic. =)

The Writing

Ack! It's nifty to say that, in order to achieve anything, you have to fail your roll against stupidity (i.e., a negatively defined attribute).

However, I found that this got old really fast and just makes me wring my brain in circles or somesuch.

The Rules

The scenario generator sounds interesting, but I have no idea of how that stuff is to come about. I can see the rationale behind the "What you can get" table, but what about "Your plan involves"? Shouldn't that be improvised in play? Or is this a tool to cut to the chase quickly, i.e. start the players in the middle of a whacky plot which involves X? I don't see much besides handwaving here -- so what's my incentive, as a player, to have my plan involve "indigestion"? (Besides getting to make fart-jokes, which is a definite plus, but won't automatically carry the game.)

Regards,

Hal

I had a little trouble reading the font; it reminded me of the handwritten style in the Faeries book. I'd suggest parodying that book in illustrations and using the font for extensive captions, titles and marginalia, but selecting a more basic readable font for the main text.

I also got briefly confused by a couple minor rules points, but worked it out on a second read-through. I had no problem with the backwards description of attribute rolls, because it's entirely necessary to the design, which sets up a dilemma in the players; you need to succeed at some actions in order to have the option to turn success into failure and thus earn tokens, and you need to fail at other actions in order to have the option to spend a token and convert failure to success (and earn an extra experience point in the process.) there's an extra bit of cleverness in that experience point can be used to improve *or* weaken a character, and players will need to do both, since attributes at either extreme trigger the end of your character. it looks like it's a game about charactersengaging in petty struggles and having their fortunes shift constantly.

I like this.

as for the scenario generator, I'm wondering if there needs to be some kind of penalty to experience earned if the players fail to include the rolled scheme as part of their actions. it's probably not too important, though.

Hal and John -- Thanks for starting the thread.  I hadn't intended to think about this game at all until after the Ronnies are over, but I always like to talk about my designs.

The Mud Dragons are absolutely Donald Duck, or more accurately part of the "stupid monster hijinks" genre of fantasy cartooning (how's that for an obscure topic?)  I'm glad you got that from the text.

I'm going to propose, and I want to see how you feel about this, that the reason why the attribute rolls are confusing is that I didn't write them very clearly in the 24 hour game text.  I think I used the terms success and failure a little loosely -- next draft will hopefully be painfully clear about the attribute's success and failure (determined by die roll) vs. the players success and failure (determined by token expenditure or lack thereof, together with the die roll.)  Once those terms are used more clearly, do you think you'll have an easier time with the concepts?

I had considered using an experience penalty or similar incentive to get the "your plan involves" part of the scenario generation motivated, but in the end I decided not to.  Why?  Because, just as the "what opposes you" table *requires* the GM to give that opposition, and the "what can you get" table *requires* the GM to give that opportunity, the "your plan involves" table simply *requires* the players to use those two elements.  The incentive for doing so is no more or less than the GM's incentive for doing the other things.

To put it another way, if I had a rule like "if you don't use your plan elements, you lose two experience" then that would give the players a choice about whether or not to use their elements.  It would put the decision in the realm of tactics.  I don't want that decision in the realm of tactics.  I want that decision to be in the realm of "we're playing this game."

Am I being stupid about this?

yrs--
--Ben

Ben wrote: Once those terms are used more clearly, do you think you'll have an easier time with the concepts?

To put it another way, if I had a rule like "if you don't use your plan elements, you lose two experience" then that would give the players a choice about whether or not to use their elements.  It would put the decision in the realm of tactics.

I've been plugging away at this for a while, but I thought I'd post to the thread to ask for some feedback on some changes I made.

1) Starting loot items now have a "suggested use," but no dictated systematic effects, essentially bringing them into synch with the way that other items are used in the game.

2) Tests are now universally described as either succeeding or failing in "overcoming your attribute."  High roll -> Overcoming.  Low roll -> Not overcoming.  Is this more intuitive than the mess I had before?

3) I'm thinking about revising the effect that attributes have on starting tokens -- particularly giving two extra starting tokens for the negative attributes.

4) I'm thinking about expanding the character generation / name table to 20 entries -- essentially just to put more names in.  I can't really see a downside, here.

5) I've come to the conclusion that Petty Greed, as it stands, sucks.  I'd be open to any suggestions for improving or eliminating it.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben wrote:
1) Starting loot items now have a "suggested use," but no dictated systematic effects, essentially bringing them into synch with the way that other items are used in the game.

2) Tests are now universally described as either succeeding or failing in "overcoming your attribute."  High roll -> Overcoming.  Low roll -> Not overcoming.  Is this more intuitive than the mess I had before?

5) I've come to the conclusion that Petty Greed, as it stands, sucks.  I'd be open to any suggestions for improving or eliminating it.

Halzebier wrote:
I know that it's only a "suggested" use, but I feel a strong impulse to (a) equate the item to that fat modifier and (b) go after it for that reason alone (rather than find a creative use for it).

Also, I was surprised to find "You look sorta human" as the suggested use for a Hawaiian shirt. Do you envision the mud dragons as walking around among humans normally (sort of like Donald Duck, who moves around non-animal characters all the time)?

Ben wrote:
The new "suggested use" does not give modifiers at all.  So, for instance, the pointed stick has suggested use of "combat" and the magnifying glass has a suggested use of "looking smart."

Mud Dragons live in the swamp.  Humans live in the towns and cities.  However, sometimes humans need to go into the swamp, and mud dragons need to go into towns and cities.  As evidenced by the situation generator.  At those times, it can be useful for a mud dragon to try to pass themselves off as human.

Uhm -- this isn't obvious from the text?