Topic: [Here Be Dragons!] Ronnies feedback
Started by: Ron Edwards
Started on: 12/31/2005
Board: Indie Game Design
On 12/31/2005 at 9:07pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
[Here Be Dragons!] Ronnies feedback
Here Be Dragons! by Iain McAllister hits very high in the rankings of the Great Non-RPG category. I think it makes a nice partner to City of Brass, and should be like it in format/approach as well. Here are my comments more-or-less straight from my notes.
1. The widespread, long-standing distinction in RPG design between opposed and unopposed is an abomination. Your solution (one of many) is to make all rolls contested, in the sense that anything "trying to kill" characters is effectively an active agent in play. A leopard, a savage tribesman, a rushing river, an infection, whatever - all conflicts, all opposed, all using the opposition rules. Much simpler, much clearer, much more sensible.
2. There's a bit of "writer as fearful GM" polluting the text here and there. Why, for instance, does the Guide get his oar in during character creation? Similarly, and in line with my point #1 above, the whole "Guide determines difficulty" for resolution needs to disappear. Fix oppositional scores as a part of the system.
3. Couple of little points are next. (a) Explanatory point: the rules say a roll is successful "under value," but examples seem to be "equal to or under." (b) Organizational point: the reader doesn't find out what to roll against to hit the leopard until the last couple of pages.
4. I like the traits, quite a lot. Jealousy's awesome, and I think it works best if the rule flat-out says it cannot be directly applied against its target. In other words, if you're jealous of Robert Galsworthy, and you up and shoot him, that can't use jealousy. But if you murmur in a native bearer's ear that Sahib Robert really needs a dose of poppy poison in his tea, that does. Think in terms of the Master in My Life with Master - he cannot act directly toward his needs.
5. The "curse of jealousy" confuses me - does it reduce the jealousy score? How? (By the way, I think you can tell by now that "gun" is way too weak in the game for Ronnies purposes; clearly jealousy is the central feature. No biggie for present purposes.)
6. Awww, Endgame is disappointing ... think more in terms of the screwdown during a card game as the hands or deck is used up.
That's it! Questions, comments, thoughts?
Best,
Ron
On 1/3/2006 at 12:51am, iain wrote:
Re: [Here Be Dragons!] Ronnies feedback
Ron wrote:
1. The widespread, long-standing distinction in RPG design between opposed and unopposed is an abomination. Your solution (one of many) is to make all rolls contested, in the sense that anything "trying to kill" characters is effectively an active agent in play. A leopard, a savage tribesman, a rushing river, an infection, whatever - all conflicts, all opposed, all using the opposition rules. Much simpler, much clearer, much more sensible.
I was wondering what else you liked about the mechanics of the game, so I can concentrate on those elements in a rewrite? I also think the opposed, unopposed malarky is rubbish. In 'Mob Justice', which i will be posting about soon, I realised that conflicts, skirmishes, whatever you call them, only occur when the characters are opposed. If the character is unopposed let him do it, any other distinction is needless and overly mechanical.
Ron wrote:
2. There's a bit of "writer as fearful GM" polluting the text here and there. Why, for instance, does the Guide get his oar in during character creation? Similarly, and in line with my point #1 above, the whole "Guide determines difficulty" for resolution needs to disappear. Fix oppositional scores as a part of the system.
These are both fair points on a reread. I went through a bad point a couple of months ago where my GMing led to the breakdown of a game and I have been thinking a lot about what I did wrong, which i think influenced my writing a bit here. Diffculties should be set, especially if i translate it into the card/board game arena. Characters should also have been allowed to play any character they want, with little GM interference. I though introducing archetypes, like COB, may help this situation and provide the players with more structure and something to hold on to. What do you think?
Ron wrote:
3. Couple of little points are next. (a) Explanatory point: the rules say a roll is successful "under value," but examples seem to be "equal to or under." (b) Organizational point: the reader doesn't find out what to roll against to hit the leopard until the last couple of pages.
It should be equal to or under to, and the second one is a definite DOH! on my part. Cheers for the catch.
Ron wrote:
4. I like the traits, quite a lot. Jealousy's awesome, and I think it works best if the rule flat-out says it cannot be directly applied against its target. In other words, if you're jealous of Robert Galsworthy, and you up and shoot him, that can't use jealousy. But if you murmur in a native bearer's ear that Sahib Robert really needs a dose of poppy poison in his tea, that does. Think in terms of the Master in My Life with Master - he cannot act directly toward his needs.
That is exactly what it should be used for. I just thought the game should have a little something more to it than being manly in the jungle and jealousy was the obvious one to go for when testosterone is involved. You are right that it needs a tighter definition, it should be used for manipulation not action. What do you think of Chap, does it work for women as well?
Ron wrote:
5. The "curse of jealousy" confuses me - does it reduce the jealousy score? How? (By the way, I think you can tell by now that "gun" is way too weak in the game for Ronnies purposes; clearly jealousy is the central feature. No biggie for present purposes.)
It is essential what I would call a 'mechanical wedge', a device to prevent the potential abuse of a basically flavour orientated bit of design. It reduces jealousy score towards the person using the 'curse of jealousy' preventing people from building up too much of an advantage towards other players. I don't know if I agree with the second part. The theme of the game is hunting big, unidentified creatures, and although jealousy is a big part of the game, the hunting provides the reason for there to be jealousy. I though that if it was a part of the central theme then it was ok in terms of the rules for the Ronnies. Could you please clarify?
Ron wrote:
6. Awww, Endgame is disappointing ... think more in terms of the screwdown during a card game as the hands or deck is used up.
I agree. In terms of a larger RPG there is not necessarily a need for an endgame, but I should have made it more specific in such a short focus project. I think maybe a final hunt would do the trick, where the alliances and jealousies you built up during the game would come truly to the fore. Thoughts?
All in all thanks for the feedback Ron, and I look forward to chatting with you more as the project develops, which I hope it will because i love the idea. I am also wishing to post about 'narration control and influence' as i touched on in the gangster RPG thread about a month ago. Is the design forum the best place to post this now the theory forum is no more? Also if it becomes more like COB, i.e. more board gamey, then is it alright to talk about it on the Forge.
Cheers
Iain McAllister
On 1/4/2006 at 5:26pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: [Here Be Dragons!] Ronnies feedback
Hello,
That's a lot of questions. Let's see ...
1. I can't speak to resolution mechanics at this time. They look functional enough for a playtest, and I'd rather do that than speculate more about how they "would" work and how to change that.
2. I think character creation will work very well. Just remove the business about GM's approval, because, given the rules, what could he or she possibly find to disapprove of, anyway? It's not as if "party compatibility" is a high priority, after all - far from it!
3. I absolutely love the Chap score, and I think your gender-comments for it are also reasonable and easy. I think playing a male character with either a high or low Chap value would be fun, and I think playing a female character with either a high or low Chap score would be fun. Four excellent options - no downside!
4. I am still completely confused about actually applying the rules for the Curse of Jealousy. Can you explain it in very small, one-two-three, procedural steps for me?
5.
I don't know if I agree with the second part. The theme of the game is hunting big, unidentified creatures, and although jealousy is a big part of the game, the hunting provides the reason for there to be jealousy. I though that if it was a part of the central theme then it was ok in terms of the rules for the Ronnies. Could you please clarify?
You and I are using "theme" for very different things. You are referring to some repeated visual or contextual element during play, in the sense of "motif." Beethoven's Fifth Symphony includes a repeated four-note motif. I am referring to a point or moral that's implicit or explicit in how fictional conflicts arise and get resolved, in a way that is often presented (well or badly, mostly badly) in literature classes. The story Pulp Fiction strongly supports the theme, "it is dishonorable to serve an evil man, regardless of your loyalty and integrity while doing so."
I think that clears it up. No real need for a debate, I think.
6. A final hunt is a nice simple Endgame concept, and might do well for playtesting purposes. It's also possible that during playtesting, you'll observe certain dynamics or numbers of play that are very predictable, and can then use them as the foundation for the Endgame.
Best,
Ron
On 1/6/2006 at 11:55pm, iain wrote:
RE: Re: [Here Be Dragons!] Ronnies feedback
Ron wrote:
4. I am still completely confused about actually applying the rules for the Curse of Jealousy. Can you explain it in very small, one-two-three, procedural steps for me?
I think I didn't make it very clear in the rules looking over it. the intention was as someone built up jealousy if their overall jealousy reached 4 or more, then any player round the table may reduce the jealousy score, of the jealous character, to wards them, in order to inconvenience that character in some way. It was a bit of a wedge to stop people building up too much jealousy, but could have been done more elegantly. I will think about this and get back to you.
5.
I don't know if I agree with the second part. The theme of the game is hunting big, unidentified creatures, and although jealousy is a big part of the game, the hunting provides the reason for there to be jealousy. I though that if it was a part of the central theme then it was ok in terms of the rules for the Ronnies. Could you please clarify?
Ron wrote:
You and I are using "theme" for very different things. You are referring to some repeated visual or contextual element during play, in the sense of "motif." Beethoven's Fifth Symphony includes a repeated four-note motif. I am referring to a point or moral that's implicit or explicit in how fictional conflicts arise and get resolved, in a way that is often presented (well or badly, mostly badly) in literature classes. The story Pulp Fiction strongly supports the theme, "it is dishonorable to serve an evil man, regardless of your loyalty and integrity while doing so."
I think that clears it up. No real need for a debate, I think.
Agreed, thanks for the clarfication
Ron wrote:
6. A final hunt is a nice simple Endgame concept, and might do well for playtesting purposes. It's also possible that during playtesting, you'll observe certain dynamics or numbers of play that are very predictable, and can then use them as the foundation for the Endgame.
I will look at developing this idea further, probably in some form of card game at the moment, with RPG elements. Is that ok to continue getting feedback in the design forums?
Cheers again Ron
Iain