The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line
Started by: deidzoeb
Started on: 6/29/2002
Board: Indie Game Design


On 6/29/2002 at 9:14am, deidzoeb wrote:
My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

This started as a joke, sort of a "What's Wrong With This Picture?" game design. If designers can embed Premise or setting or other details, why not embed characters, situations, actions, micromanaging the whole thing?

But after putting some time and effort into it, I got carried away and tried to make a system that would almost function, in case someone plays it more than once. I'm not sure it's still a role-playing game. More like a board game that yells at you to stay in character.

See what you think. Tell me "What's wrong with this picture?"

In this "game," you play out the last day of Bob's clumsy advances towards his co-worker Imelda at the bomb shelter sales office where they work. Not even advances really, just attempts to catch her attention. It's the last day because Bob is going to die.


http://evilbobdayjob.tripod.com/ml4u/

Thanks,
Deidzoeb

Message 2638#25848

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/29/2002 at 3:43pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Great stuff! Absolutely hillarious. Sublime Pointlessness at it's best.

Reading the rest of your site now.

Message 2638#25859

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Paganini
...in which Paganini participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/29/2002 at 4:18pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Interesting idea, but you may wish to refine it a bit because it sounds like the only person who has anything to really do is Bob's player. What you need is maybe a couple such not-necessarily opposing goals to work with and to build off of. And it may be worthwhile to figure out some way to not have a Gorm player so that it can be GM-less and then everyone has something to do.

Or such is my initial impression. I'll have to read a lot more closely to give you more than this.

Edit: Just a suggestion, but maybe you should have ALL of the characters after another character for romantic interest. This may mean you'll either have to rethink the death thing or something. I mean, if Bob is after Imelda and she's after Frank and she makes her final roll before Bob, then what's Bob's player going to do? Go after Frank?

Just my lousy ideas.

Message 2638#25861

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jack Spencer Jr
...in which Jack Spencer Jr participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/29/2002 at 5:15pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

I don't think you need Gorm at all... why not have Imelda secretly record the results of Bob's attempts? I also like the solo variation.

I also read "You Stupid Bitch". Very good, very bitter, very clever. One question, tho: Shouldn't the roll for Baggage be 1d20 rather than 3d6? There's no reason for that stat to be on a bell curve that I can think of.

Message 2638#25864

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by xiombarg
...in which xiombarg participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/29/2002 at 7:28pm, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Hi Jack,

I half agree about Gorm and even Imelda being unnecessary, or having no real goals that the game affects. As it stands, it's almost a way for one player (Bob) to mess around with Gamist-leaning mechanics while the other two (Imelda and Gorm) will only enjoy the game if they like acting their parts. (What would that be? Not necessarily Narrativist, more like improvised Simulationist?)

But Gorm is not a GM. She can't rule on any outcomes, any more than John Madden gets to be a ref when he's doing play-by-play of a football game. At worst, Gorm is more like the Banker in Monopoly, holding on to a few physical resources, but not necessarily controlling the game. Yes, she could be removed. I should mention in the "solitaire" variation that Bob is the solo player, no Imelda or Gorm.

Most people wouldn't enjoy playing Gorm, and Imelda worries me even more, because I really didn't want to allow for Imelda to dislike Bob or fight against him. Maybe I'm making it into more of a story than a game?

This is the same reason that I wouldn't want to give Gorm or Imelda or the bullmastiff the same goal that Bob has, like a love triangle between three players. It might make a better game, but it would lose the messages: that some people have no control over things that are important to them (Gorm), and that some people are oblivious to a big, secret drama happening all around them (Imelda).

It makes a less enjoyable game, but it gets across the point. I figure if people are willing to watch two clowns Waiting for Godot, and the bastard never shows up, then people might play a game that's similarly confusing and pointless.

Or maybe not.

...then what's Bob's player going to do? Go after Frank?


Thanks for reminding me! I meant to add a note at the end that the genders should be flexible if players want to reassign any of them. Maybe it would be fun or frightening or poignant to have Bob clumsily making advances to Frank (in place of Imelda), and Frank freaking out when he realizes what's going on. "I love you, man." -- only Bob doesn't mean it like the old Budweiser commercial.

Message 2638#25868

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/29/2002 at 7:34pm, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

xiombarg wrote: I don't think you need Gorm at all... why not have Imelda secretly record the results of Bob's attempts? I also like the solo variation.


Yep, I need to mention in the solo variation that Gorm can be left out too.

I also read "You Stupid Bitch". Very good, very bitter, very clever. One question, tho: Shouldn't the roll for Baggage be 1d20 rather than 3d6? There's no reason for that stat to be on a bell curve that I can think of.


Thanks for reading "You Stupid Bitch." I wrote that a year or two ago, another joke that got carried away, resulting in what Ron would rightly call "baroque" game mechanics. I haven't looked at the game in a while. Maybe I'll polish it up, make a version 2.0 and ask for comments on The Forge. You're probably right about Baggage.

Message 2638#25869

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/29/2002




On 6/30/2002 at 3:48pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

deidzoeb wrote: At worst, Gorm is more like the Banker in Monopoly, holding on to a few physical resources, but not necessarily controlling the game. Yes, she could be removed.

Hmmm.. Then maybe it should be handled like the banker in Monopoly. One player gets the job of managing the resources and that's it?

This is the same reason that I wouldn't want to give Gorm or Imelda or the bullmastiff the same goal that Bob has, like a love triangle between three players. It might make a better game, but it would lose the messages: that some people have no control over things that are important to them (Gorm), and that some people are oblivious to a big, secret drama happening all around them (Imelda).

It makes a less enjoyable game, but it gets across the point. I figure if people are willing to watch two clowns Waiting for Godot, and the bastard never shows up, then people might play a game that's similarly confusing and pointless.

Well, maybe. This kind of goes along the lines of something in Understanding Comics

Scott McCloud wrote:
The "fine artist"--the pure artist--say to the world: "I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art!
In other words: "My art has no practical value whatsoever!"
"but it's important!"


I'm all for artistic expression and all of that, but what separates a game that's got a profound message to it but is unfun to play and a just plain bad game? With that in mind, I'll try to give you ideas and maybe you can somehow keep the message while making it a fun game at the same time. Hopefully.

Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do, how about doing this: give everyone two character. One id a Bob, the other is an Imelda, although you'd probably use different names. I see using the chess pieces to this end, which would allow for up to five player (king, queen, bishop, knight, rook) with the black being "bob and the white being "imelda." Everyone has someon else's imelda, to keep things interesting.

Since we're using a chess set, I was thinking of having the pawns be NPCs of some kind. The exact purpose and means to use them are unclear, but these could replace Gorm in the "unable to do anything" space.

Or such is my take, anyway.

Message 2638#25916

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jack Spencer Jr
...in which Jack Spencer Jr participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 6/30/2002




On 7/1/2002 at 5:14am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Scott McCloud wrote:
The "fine artist"--the pure artist--say to the world: "I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art!
In other words: "My art has no practical value whatsoever!"
"but it's important!"


I'm all for artistic expression and all of that, but what separates a game that's got a profound message to it but is unfun to play and a just plain bad game? With that in mind, I'll try to give you ideas and maybe you can somehow keep the message while making it a fun game at the same time. Hopefully.


I know what you mean about artists with "important" messages who don't care if anyone sees the message. Who was that damned poet from the 30s or 40s who started writing in Mandarin Chinese or something just to make his poetry more inaccessible to his English audience?

Let me put it another way. As a game, I don't think this one is worth playing more than once or twice, if that. As a story in the form of game rules, I think it gets a point across. It has practical value as a story, and I don't mind if it fails as a game. (Guess that means I shouldn't submit it on The Forge to ask opinions of how the game works.)


Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do, how about doing this: give everyone two character. One is a Bob, the other is an Imelda, although you'd probably use different names. I see using the chess pieces to this end, which would allow for up to five player (king, queen, bishop, knight, rook) with the black being "bob and the white being "imelda." Everyone has someone else's imelda, to keep things interesting.

Since we're using a chess set, I was thinking of having the pawns be NPCs of some kind. The exact purpose and means to use them are unclear, but these could replace Gorm in the "unable to do anything" space.


Multiple players in Bob-like situations might be an interesting variation. (Would be a crowded board pretty quickly, but maybe that would make things interesting.) But it doesn't need to use the full chess set. I picked those because they're available to most people, and I liked the symbols of a squat, dark rook pining over the tall, sleek, deadly queen. A full chess variation might be interesting, but I don't think the fact of other chess pieces already existing is a powerful reason to use all of them.

Message 2638#25963

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/1/2002




On 7/1/2002 at 9:18pm, Eugene Zee wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

deidzoeb,

This game is really funny and original. I don't think you need to add more player possibilities. Just increase the opportunities to act that the Gorm and Imelda character have. Overall keep the game simple and lighthearted. The game is so funny because it is so real in a simple way. Easy to get.

Have you played it with anyone yet?

Message 2638#26015

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Eugene Zee
...in which Eugene Zee participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/1/2002




On 7/2/2002 at 1:29am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Thanks, Eugene. This is horrible to admit, and I know budding game designers are scolded to playtest the game before thinking they're done, but I haven't played it yet. My usual Star Wars and D&D gaming group probably wouldn't find this game to their liking. But I might be able to play this with my wife and our cat. (I'll play the sponge and the cat can play Imelda. We just lay the slips of paper on the floor with Imelda's actions, and wait for the cat to roll over on one of them. Works best with a cat in heat.)

Message 2638#26048

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2002




On 7/2/2002 at 1:54am, Eugene Zee wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Let me know what happens when you play. Why not let the cat be the dog and allow it to spontaneously end the game by knocking down your pieces. Then again might make for a really short game. :)

Thanks for the laugh!

Message 2638#26051

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Eugene Zee
...in which Eugene Zee participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2002




On 7/2/2002 at 3:07am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Anyway, thinking about the main problem I see, that this is mostly a game for the Bob player and the other two have little to do...


Sorry I got defensive earlier, Jack. It would be interesting to attach a page at the end of the game showing how this game illustrates game design errors.

So what could I add to a list of "What's Wrong With this Picture? [this game design]"

1. Gorm has no apparent goals and can't influence anything in the game, can't be influenced by anything in the game. Very few people would enjoy watching a game played by others and calling the color commentary.

2. Imelda has no apparent goal. She could be avoiding Bob's advances, or helping Bob's advances, but the game doesn't allow her to intentionally influence things either way.

3. There's no incentive to use the full game board. If Bob is smart, he won't go near the bathroom or the other offices. He'll spend his time bouncing around those Emboldening Spaces. Why bother having any of those other spaces available during the game?

4. More background info than necessary. Do we need to know that Imelda's husband was killed by a defective rowing machine?

5. "Universal" vs. quite specific. Is a game less playable because it limits you to one or two characters, a specific physical location, specific relationships between the characters built into the game? Is a game more playable if it leaves all of these open for the players to choose? Is there a happy middle-ground?

Message 2638#26061

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2002




On 7/2/2002 at 1:27pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Oh. That's what you mean by "What's wrong with this picture?" Definately add a page of the problems with the game. This makes it more something to be read rather than actually play, though. But that appears to be the point.

Message 2638#26095

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jack Spencer Jr
...in which Jack Spencer Jr participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2002




On 7/2/2002 at 2:58pm, Henry Fitch wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Personally, I think playing the sponge sounds like great fun. Probably not Imelda, though.

I really like the idea of an RPG that comes with preset characters, background, and situation.

The background info is great, rowing machine and everything. Definitely adds to the game as story, and I should think it would add to the play itself as well. Sort of like the ridiculous backstories of Cheapass board games; they're fairly irrelevant, but they greatly enhance the fun.

Message 2638#26106

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Henry Fitch
...in which Henry Fitch participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2002




On 7/3/2002 at 9:42pm, Jasper wrote:
Making the other player positions viable

I'd say that for it to be a good and playable game, you definitely need the other players to actually be able to do something in game terms.

Gorm's purpose of providing commentary isn't really supported by any mechanics... it's just stated. So while some people might enjoy it, it's not really participation -- I mean, not beyond what you could theoretically do with any game. At the very least, I think you need some kind of points or reward scheme to motivate the Gorm player. Awards for good commentary would be a start, but there's still not much of a motivator on it's own. Gorm is sympathetic to Bob (is that his name? I forget): that's a good start. Maybe with good commentary, he could try to make the bullmastiff sympathetic as well, thus staving off Bob's death for a time and giving him more of a chance to get sparks.

The bullmastiff is not, of course, a viable character at all now, but I don't think you meant her to be.

As for Imelda, she definately has to either want a relationship, or want to avoid Bob at all costs... or something. I guess her goals could be to get sparks IF bob seems compatable and to discourage his "moves" if not. Maybe she can learn her spark sheet slowly, as Bob keeps trying things and can then try to pass clues on to Bob. I'm not sure exactly how that would work. If she were to have a definite goal (get sparks) you'd need to limit her actions based on present spark score or something.

It's a fun concept in any case, and well written, but I can't think I could convince anyone else to play any position other than Bob right now... assuming I could get them to play at all -- it's a little off the beaten track :)

On the Art issue: I don't think that this is a concern for My Love, but I have some concern that games which deal with "darker" or more complex/realistic emotional relationships may get labeled as "Art games" and hence be put outside the realm of normal criticism. I haven't really seen it happen yet, happily, and some people have even reacted against the idea, but it could happen if we're not careful. This goes back to the old entertainment vs. art argument I suppose, but my concern is that if some games claim goals loftier than "simple" entertainment, they'll become immune to criticism fom that front: "Well, my game isn't SUPPOSED to be playable... it has a message." Again, I haven't seen this here yet, but it's happened elewhere before....

Message 2638#26259

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Jasper
...in which Jasper participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/3/2002




On 7/4/2002 at 12:29am, damion wrote:
Re: Making the other player positions viable

Various thoughts:
1)An obvious idea is random duration. Give BoB D20 rolls, even better, gorm, or better yet, nancy could be the keeper of this number. (A Nancy player is pretty useless, but anyway...), so Bob doesn't know how many moves he gets.

2)Art for art's sake is ok, I mean, it's a free game. What do you expect? I figure the only purpose it may have in this case is that you enjoyed making it.

3)You could have a humor varient. I would allow Gorm to mock Bob.("Yoo, squeeze me out, you ninny.") Also Gorm could have minor directorial power by being able to add irelevent details to Bob's justifications of his movements.

Bob: "I think I'll go over to look out the window"

Gorm: "You see a UFO, but it's gone now, you just KNOW she won't believe you if you say something."

Bob:"Hey Imelda, want a Coke."

Gorm:"To bad for you it doesn't have REAL cocaine, then you MIGHT get somewhere."

Admittably, this would probably ruin the point of the game, which is to be dark, but hey, it's a though. YMMV. It is more playable however.

Message 2638#26265

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by damion
...in which damion participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/4/2002




On 7/4/2002 at 2:24pm, Rallan wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Maybe if it was implied that Imelda and Grom have an objective other than staying in-character, and there was some arcane point-scoring mechanism with a few charts, their uselessness could be disguised without changing the fundamental nature of their roles.

Then again, considering how totally useless and futile Bob's role is, any scoring system for the other characters would take the limelight away from him.

Message 2638#26281

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rallan
...in which Rallan participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/4/2002




On 7/5/2002 at 8:00am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

Rallan wrote: Then again, considering how totally useless and futile Bob's role is...


I disagree that Bob's role is useless. The player knows Bob is going to die, but his goal is to try to get Imelda to say something positive to him at the end. That's still worth something. Sort of like Call of Cthulhu, where players are told that unstoppable monsters will one day eradicate mankind, that most pc's will be killed or gradually lose their minds after a few adventures. I just got the d20 version a month or two ago, and this accounts for a lot of the discussion on the CoC message boards -- D&D players asking why they should bother playing Call of Cthulhu, what their motivation is supposed to be if players know they're fighting a losing war.

It's also similar to the endings of Thelma & Louise or Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid. Sad endings, but not necessarily useless deaths, or useless movies. Butch & Sundance would rather continue fighting against unbeatable odds than give up. They lose their lives, but they win honor by never giving up.

Dying doesn't necessarily confirm that your actions have been futile.

Message 2638#26311

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2002




On 7/5/2002 at 8:26am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: Re: Making the other player positions viable

damion wrote: 3)You could have a humor varient...
...It is more playable however.


Yikes! A humor "VARIANT?" The original idea is too serious so it needs a humor variant? I'll definitely add this one. Gorm as unsympathetic tormentor of Bob would be funny, for people who want to play it that way. But it only makes it "more playable" to people who would enjoy doing that. That's like saying vampires are "more playable" than werewolves because I wouldn't want to be a werewolf.

I realize that most people would not enjoy playing Gorm, and that it's just asking people to improvise, play freeform around the rest of the rules. But I don't think the idea is "unplayable" any more than the thousands of freeform play-by-email or freeform IRC games are "unplayable." I think it might be an interesting way to get two radically different types of players to enjoy one game: that talkative theater major in your D&D group who loves to play out long scenes of bargaining with weaponsmiths or flirting with barmaids (make this dude play Gorm), and the Gamist who would rather "win" a game than worry about how realistic or literary the game turns out (make him play Bob).

I'd rather drop Imelda or make her an NPC than get rid of Gorm.

For all it's worth, I'm going to extend the "Variations" section to include some things that have been suggested here, and I'm definitely going to write a longer "What's Wrong With This Game Design" page to attach after the end.

Message 2638#26312

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by deidzoeb
...in which deidzoeb participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2002




On 7/5/2002 at 10:15pm, damion wrote:
RE: Re: Making the other player positions viable

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the game was unplayable, nor to serious. This kinda reminds me of the plot of many television shows, so I was trying to draw on the fact that it may be humerous to an external veiwer, but excrutiatinly depressing/embarassing for the people in the situation(more accuracly, the people playing the people, as they know the ending). Thus you could look at it another way and find the hurmor, but like I said, that probably ruins the point.

Message 2638#26344

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by damion
...in which damion participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2002




On 7/6/2002 at 11:44am, Rallan wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line

deidzoeb wrote:
I disagree that Bob's role is useless. The player knows Bob is going to die, but his goal is to try to get Imelda to say something positive to him at the end. That's still worth something.



Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for Bob all the way regardless of his inevitable fate. What I meant was that since Bob's goal is such a small and simple thing (get Imelda to feel good about him by the end of the day), expanding the role of Imelda or the sponge to give them their own goals would kind of overshadow what little point there is to the game.



Rallan
- that's always been the big problem with minimalism. Try and fit too much of a message and suddenly it ain't minimal no more

Message 2638#26351

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rallan
...in which Rallan participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2002




On 7/10/2002 at 8:22pm, jrients wrote:
RE: My Love For You Is Way Out Of Line


1. Gorm has no apparent goals and can't influence anything in the game, can't be influenced by anything in the game. Very few people would enjoy watching a game played by others and calling the color commentary.


I think Gorm rules. I'd love to try playing Gorm. But I've always wanted to be the Chorus in something Shakespearean or Greek.

Message 2638#26605

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by jrients
...in which jrients participated
...in Indie Game Design
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/10/2002