The Dragon vs. the Gun by Joe J. Prince got itself a Runner-Up. For those who haven't followed the august participation of Mr. Prince in the Ronnies, well, do yourself a favor.

I will begin with jargon. Joe? "Narr-Gam-Sim," my pink ass. This is raw Gamism. Embrace it.
Real issue for me is that Dragon and Gun are, ultimately, Color - no consequence of winning which means anything to anyone. So that throws the Narr right out the window.

The initial buy-in seems a little high to me. There are lots and lots of player-characters, more than one per player, and the traits seem like they would entail a whole lot of brain-work, with all that broad/narrow stuff. That stuff is too easy to game, and I suggest a quick look at The Mountain Witch for a useful contrast.

During play, I'm not at all sure the "set your own difficulty, roll against it" idea works, unless others are permitted to diddle with it along the lines of The Great Ork Gods. Did I miss the opportunity to do this in my reading of the text, or is it not there?

I love, love, love the concept of Audience, which permits the emergent Audience Master, and then permits the possible addition of more Audience Masters. This is one of the most interesting features of any Ronnies entry to date.

And then, sigh, the stench of White Wolf arises* with this business of unprovoked physical attacks among player-characters, and the trial and the penalty ... I'm not seeing any of this as anything except a fix for a non-existent problem. This is a game of confrontation, so let'em confront. The Highlander thing is key, so if they want to get right to it, fine! All it does is set a bunch of Audience Masters against the  character, which is OK! This issue is the main reason why you got a Runner-Up, Joe. You gotta stop trying to heal White Wolf ...*

One resolution question: gambled dice can be considered 12's after nudging, right? One system notion: I really like that healing is costly.

I'm thinking that the whole thing is begging for a boxed set of cards. Not in the sense of "not an RPG," but rather in the sense of useful and enjoyable game components.

Best,
Ron

* Are these subtle, snide, sidelong jabs at White Wolf? No, it's a broadside assault. Deal with it.

A merrily over-the-top approach to Armageddon -- I'm pleased.

I'd suggest (agreeing with Ron, I think) that the whole business of the stats -- body/mind and broad/narrow/specialist -- is lots of complexity for very little return, especially since the interpretation of when a "narrow" or "specialist" ability is applicable is completely subjective. I believe it was Matt Wilson who said, either everything on the character sheet should come into play in unequivocally specified circumstances, or it should come into play whenever the player wants, with no fuzzy middle ground.

I'd also suggest that in the final apocalyptic ending, instead of having the avatars of Gun and Dragon appear from offstage, that player characters become the avatars: Say, the player who bids the most Gun Points for avatar status gets to be the Avatar of the Gun, defining and describing it, and the player who bids the most Dragon Points get to be, and define, the Avatar of the Dragon. Other players on the same side (Dragon / Gun) should then have the choice of falling loyally into line, defecting, or backstabbing the rightful Avatar and trying to usurp his place.

Big points from me for clarity! I just seem to have trouble understanding many of the PDF's here, but the rules text here is very clear (I got through all 18 pages - I usually screech to a halt at page three for most other PDF's!). I like the use of capitalised words, when the text refers to terms it's created. It adds a further emphasis that helps you memorise the material and get what it's trying to say.

I don't think the game contains a nar component (I mean, if at least ten cute little puppies die every time you use a dragon point, there might be some moral weight there. But as it, their just neutral resources). And I don't think a gamist component is there either - it's the same old problem of an observer/audience deciding to give a reward after the fact. Say in real life I declare "I can climb to the very top of that 10 meter tall tree!". I'm out and out stating that doing so is a worthy accomplishment, which is a great declaration. But say I climb it, and the other person now decides whether they give me the reward. See, they don't have to agree with me that climbing the tree is an accomplishment - they could decide to give me a reward because I climbed it fast, or I climbed it in a cool way, or I climbed it without breaking branches, or I climbed it in a way that correctly emulated late 17th century peasants way of climbing a tree. What I said was an accomplishment falls to the wayside, because this person who is giving the reward is mechanically empowered to decide what was important about climbing the tree.

Without any gamist encouragement, I think the audience falls back to simulationism like a movie audience member who yawns at a ten meter tree and expects a character to climb a fifty meter tall tree because of the causal element "That's what heroes do!". While if the audience member actually had his own resources on the line, rather than thinking of what makes a nifty world/story, he might think of what would be risking his own neck. And base his decision about what's an accomplishment, on that instead.

Hi Sydney,

Do you have a link to where Matt Wilson said that - it's a really good quote and I'm keeping a cutting of it and would like to keep a direct link as well.

Happy New Year everyone!

Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated.

I somehow ended up playing The Dragon vs The Gun with my family on Christmas Day, it was lots of fun! The game didn't quite work though, mainly because no-one wanted to step on up and preferred for all their PCs to just get along. So I ended up playing the dark characters burning down villages and starting fights...

Ron wrote:
During play, I'm not at all sure the "set your own difficulty, roll against it" idea works, unless others are permitted to diddle with it along the lines of The Great Ork Gods. Did I miss the opportunity to do this in my reading of the text, or is it not there?

Ron wrote:
One resolution question: gambled dice can be considered 12's after nudging, right?

Ron wrote:
You gotta stop trying to heal White Wolf ...

Joe wrote: On the Trait system - it's not perfect granted but I think I've come up with a mechanical fix which should balance the three levels of traits. When a Specialist or Narrow trait is used in a conflict a counter is put on it. A Trait cannot be used while it has a counter. Counters on Narrow Traits disappear when the PC uses a Broad Trait in a conflict. Counters on specialist Traits disappear when a narrow trait is used.

Hey again, Joe,

Do you see the audience role as forfilling gamist support, or is it another part of the game? Do you think the audience defines what was important* about other players actions, as I've suggested?

* Important as in what deserves a mechanical reward and the social reward of that being given.

Hi Joe,

I suggest that your fix for the traits is like ... well, OK, a guy says, "That's too complicated," and your response is, "No problem! I'll put red and green blinking lights on it, and tie down one end so it can't fly away!"

I'm saying get rid of it and have traits, if any, do one thing per trait per character, and for the scale/concept of the "one thing" to be the same for every character and every trait. The whole broad/narrow distinction seems like an exercise in pre-play pseudoplay to me, because that's what it seems to become in my experience with such game designs.

Best,
Ron

Hi again

I'll try and address Callan's point about the Audience first-

Basically the Audience rewards are lifted from the Fan-Mail mechanic in Matt Wilson's Prime-Time Adventures. If a player does something and you think 'Wow, cool that's why I'm playing this game!' then you can reward them for it - no matter what type of fun it promotes. That's why I described this game as a hybrid - players reward whatever floats their boat be it gaming, narrative, exploratory, immersive or comedic oriented play.
So yes the Audience defines what was important to them about another players action.

As for Traits, it's mathematically important for the game (especially given its gamist leanings) to limit the amount of Nudges a player can get per conflict from their character Traits - otherwise you get the vague Trait & stacking Traits arms-race!

Ok I'm a: Viking, Berserker, Warrior, Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Martial Artist with Ferocious Strength. In the current rules this character is perfectly viable and balanced, but is a Warrior Trait really equivalent to a Butterfly Collecter Trait?

Donjon has broad and narrow Traits and seems to play fine.
I don't really like the Moutain Witch/PTA Trait approach, it's not crunchy enough for me!

I've run a couple of quick playtests, in both cases character creation seemed fine.

Sydney liked my Traits idea anyway!

Although, when I get round to tidying up this system there will certainly be a lot more information for players about how Traits are supposed to operate and examples.

I'm not quite sure what pre-play pseudoplay is - is it trying to maximise a PC's effectiveness?

Thanks for the feedback,
Joe

Joe wrote: I'm not quite sure what pre-play pseudoplay is - is it trying to maximise a PC's effectiveness?

Joe wrote: Sydney liked my Traits idea anyway!

Cheers Sydney

Sorry its taken a while to reply, I'm safely back in the old world now with my trusty PC.

I always listen to what Ron says, since he's the rpg theorist I rate highest - and I worry incessently when I don't agree!

However, if it aint broke don't fix it. During my first playtest the issue of 11s not being worth anything seemed far more complicated than character creation, which was completed by 4 very drunk people in under half an hour.
If my Dad can make a PC it's not too complex!

Anyway I've far more interesting developments to talk about here.

Factions
Each PC will belong to one of four factions:

• Dragon-Kin, magical races whose survival depends upon the Dragon. "Death to the Gun!"
• Slayers, devoted to the eradication of demons and witches. "Death to the Dragon!"
• Reconcillers, advocating harmony between chaos and order. "Can't we all just get along?"
• Nihilists. "Dragon? Gun? Do I look like I give a fuck? I'm gonna kill ya anyway."

After the intro scenes, each player chooses a Motive card for each PC (vengeance, envy, duty...etc) and selects another players PC as their target. Target cards are hidden to begin with, but can be revealed with a spotlight soliliquy - which then has bonuses and penalties.
Alongside this there is the option for PCs to co-operate for some sort of noble goal which allows them to abstain from the final battle - or pick their side last. How's that for meaningful moral choices?

Also I'll be ditching escalation since verbal attacks are pointless without the trial and social penalties.

peas y'all
Joe

Motive cards, I like a lot: They force players to get their characters' stories intertangled, but they give the players choices about how and whom.

Factions, I'm not so thrilled. When do you choose them, exactly? Because if you choose them in character generation, or even after chargen but fairly early in the game, the whole "choose your side" thing goes away: You're locked in. Of course the Dragon-Kin will fight for the Dragon; if it goes, they go -- where's the choice in that?

I much prefer the idea that all the player-characters are free agents, wandering the world adventuring, but they are so powerful that the opposing principles in the cosmic war wish to enlist them, so they get intertangled in the apocalyptic battle willingly or otherwise. I'd much prefer giving players the chance to choose, or change, allegiance right up to the last moment: "okay, it's the end of the world, where do you stand?"

Since this game is, as Ron puts it, "raw gamism," you could get away with locking down what side each character is on fairly early, to let folks get on with the killin': The big point isn't "what moral choice do I make" but "how cool am I kickin' ass in the name of [whatever]." Even so, I'd think that the "I am so cool" factor would be enhanced by making the PCs free agents, so that instead of being merely soldiers in one army or another, they are able to change sides and tip the balance at will.

You nearly had me ditching Factions there but I'm gonna keep them for at least a couple of playtests!
The main reason for them is that they present more player choice. And the sanctioned adversity helps get things rolling.

Sydney wrote:
Factions, I'm not so thrilled...You're locked in. Of course the Dragon-Kin will fight for the Dragon; if it goes, they go -- where's the choice in that?

Sydney wrote:
I much prefer the idea that all the player-characters are free agents, wandering the world adventuring, but they are so powerful that the opposing principles in the cosmic war wish to enlist them, so they get intertangled in the apocalyptic battle willingly or otherwise. I'd much prefer giving players the chance to choose, or change, allegiance right up to the last moment: "okay, it's the end of the world, where do you stand?"

Sydney wrote:
Since this game is, as Ron puts it, "raw gamism," you could get away with locking down what side each character is on fairly early, to let folks get on with the killin': The big point isn't "what moral choice do I make" but "how cool am I kickin' ass in the name of [whatever]." Even so, I'd think that the "I am so cool" factor would be enhanced by making the PCs free agents, so that instead of being merely soldiers in one army or another, they are able to change sides and tip the balance at will.

Factions do have the value of making explicit and obvious the 2x2 combinatorics of "Dragon? Yes/No" and "Gun? Yes/No." So it's not terrible to have them in the game at all. I'd just like to see them as groups of NPCs which the characters do not start aligned with.

In a just and beautiful world, your "Dragon-Kin" player will understand that s/he can, indeed sometimes must, betray the Dragon and change sides to make the most exciting story. But in the existing world, people have played lots and lots and lots of Dungeons & Dragons (or White Wolf Storyteller, even) which means they're used to thinking of such factional loyalties I.e. "alignments") as fixed foundations that the GM will punish, punish, punish them for violating.

I see what you mean by factional loyalties.
That's why I always play chaotic-neutral!

Maybe Faction is the wrong word - can't think of a better word tho!

I'll have to try and make it clear in the game text that Factions are intended to make characters more interesting by providing certain bonuses, but are not straitjackets and that there is no GM to punish them for un-factional behaviour, because all behaviours are up to the players.
- There's nothing to stop Dragon-Kin from killing other Dragon-Kin for example. In fact it may be advantageous...

Also, during a bout of amnesia I came up with an alternative mechanical system using tarot cards (or playing cards for a duller version). what are people's thoughts on having two systems for one game?

Hopefully I should be able to get some playtesting done this weekend so I'll have some DvG actual play goodness to post.

peas
JoE