This has got to work, right?

Ok, in light of a certain thread in Site Discussion, I'll take a stab at something. It's a bit humorous, but the intent is entirely serious.

See, I'm working on this game that at the very least appears to make most folks yawn. It's called Nine Worlds. Read about it here or some rules basics here.

Or don't. Just tell me why you just don't give two shits.

...

Then again, you can always keep in mind that silence is defeaning.

OK.

Well, it actually looks pretty cool. However, right now I'm not into it ("don't give a shit" is too strong). Why? Well, it's a mood thing. I'm interested in doing some more vanilla-y Narrativism or even taking a crack at some Sim goodness, because, well, I've determined that maybe I don't dislike Simulationism after all; I just suffered a lot doing it dysfunctionally. So I wanna play or ref. some BESM, work on the designs I've got going, continue boosting for the Glossary (it shall be done, by the Gods!), and find a frickin' job.

I dig the demiurge dichotomy, btw. Most Greeks, btw, had either a neutral or positive interpretation. In particular, that hoary classic collection known as the Hermetica thinks the Demiurge is a great guy who made a swell place full of beauty. I guess it boils down to your opinion about the decorating. Gnostics think it sucks on a really basic level.

--JB

Matt, buddy, here's why I don't give two shits.

First let me say that I'm sure that Nine Worlds will turn out to be a perfectly nice game, but I haven't, nor will I ever never-ever, read the threads about it.

The only reason I read your post here was from a morbid curiousity to see what foolish endeavor that you're complete over-reaction to the issues in the Site Discussion thread had prompted.

Why won't I read about Nine Worlds? Well, I don't want to, plain and simple. Not enough time, topic title didn't grab me, too many other posts that I know I want to read, whatever.

Now, we don't know each other but I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy. I'm not trying to piss you off or have fun at your expense. I just think that you are completely over-reacting to the natural evolution that all communities undergo if they grow. No need to be outraged or sulky.

Personally, I have taken far more from The Forge than I could possibly ever return. I'm an intermittent poster at best. Not because I'm afraid to post or that I don't see threads worth posting on, but because I prefer to listen and learn. As far as game design, or rpg theory go, I'm an infant just learning to walk. But when I feel I have something useful to post (that hasn't already been said) I post.

I probably shouldn't have made this post, but quite frankly, I think it's what you asked for, if not exactly what you want.

And finally, please don't take this as a personal attack. Just chill a little, get a grip, and I hope that you feel better about this whole issue tomorrow.

Be well.

-Chris

Obviously Nine Worlds means a lot to you, and that's definitely a good thing. Let's start with this one rule for our social contract here: Chill out. Ok?

Now, my bit on Nine Worlds...
I like Mage, I like games that make you think, so I'm not one of those folks who just are against all things subjective or metaphysical.

So what doesn't work for me here? The conflict. Titans threaten to conquer the world, only you can stop them. It really is a fantasy heartbreaker concept to me. But let's not dismiss it, let's compare it to some games that work the same idea and how it works:

•Mage- Technocracy threatens to throw the world into stasis
Here you have a balance between Chaos, Stasis and Destruction. Idea of balance, mechanics support the idea of self exploration, enlightenment, etc.

•Dread- Demons threaten to take over the world
Here, the demons are fucking evil. These are the most evil ass things I've ever read about, they are malignant. You don't even want them to exist as fantasy. You want to blow the shit out of them the second you read anything about them. It's not how they look, or what they can do, it's what they choose to do that's evil.

•Draconic- Only a hero who has named a dragon can slay it
Of course, the dragon knows it, and is hunting you. Here you have this supernatural thing, after you and just you. Lotsa incentive to it.

So let's come back to your premise. Sure, the titans are bad and all that. So what? What makes them exceptionally evil?
So the PC's have magic powers, then what? Mage is all about enlightenment, Dread is all about fighting against bad odds, likewise with Draconic. What's the kewlness of this?

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm asking what's the hook?

Ok, lets go to the mechanics, what do they do that another set of mechanics doesn't do? Since I'm not sure why I should be fighting titans, I can't say if they'll support that or not.

Let me fling the Three Questions at you:

•What am I supposed to do?
Fight titans using magic. What's the style? Desperate and gritty, surreal and mindbending? Action movie style, should I be thinking Dark City and PI?
•What can my character do?
You pretty much lay that kind of stuff out in the rules.
•What kind of gameplay experience is this game going to offer?
Notice how closely linked this is with the first question. This one is the most important, cause this is the hook for people.

It's not just having an answer for these questions, but communicating it to folks you want to play it. You care a lot about it, so this game must have something major going on that folks just aren't aware of yet. Lay it on us man.

Chris

C. Edwards has a point.

That said, the main reason I haven't responded about Nine Worlds is adequately covered in the Site Discussion thread. No time. I had missed the original discussion so when I saw it today, all I saw was a big rules dump. And I only looked at that because of the Site Discussion thread. I said to myself: "I don't have time to look at this."

Plus, frankly, after Dust Devils, I trust you to work it out for yourself in due time. I figured I'd wait until you'd playtested a bit before looking at it again.

As of this recent post, I looked at the original thread, and it looks really interesting. But I will admit to a very superficial reason I didn't look at it the first time: Nine Worlds is a very bland name. I was expecting some sort of SF thing involving the Solar System, sort of hard SF, from that name. Considering my general lack of time and the sheer amount of postings, the subject line didn't grab me like the one for this thread did.

If you want a lesson out of it, if you want rushed people like me to look at this stuff, include more info in the subject line. "Nine Worlds: Working for the Demiurge" ore "Nine Worlds: Fighting the Titans" would have caught my attention a lot more.

Plus, even now that I've looked at all of it, I didn't comment because I didn't have much to say. I don't like to clutter up threads with posts that amount to: "Looks cool." Perhaps I should realize that that provides encouragement, but I like to think I should only post when I have something to contribute.

Addendum added in edit: If you'd posted about it on the Chimera Creative forum, it would have stood out more and I would have been more likely to read it.

Now you're just being silly! You realize you're basically stapling a "kick me" sign to your ass with this post, right? :)

Well, okay, I'll bite:

I glanced at both posts when they appeared, and I think you've got some great, creative ideas and I like the flavor of what you're doing.

The reasons I didn't respond to them was because (a) I don't like the concept of using playing cards in RPGs, and (b) I don't like magic in RPGs. So, I think you'll agree that I have little to add to the conversation, and little to gain from it.

Ethan

Matt

Actually, I rather liked what you had posted for the most part. But I didn't want clutter up the beauty of your post by replying, it's all about the zen appreciation of the views number of your thread:)

Rob

(Who feels for you.)

Matt,

Generally, I don't respond to threads simply to add a personal "here's what I think" on to the pile. Unless something really grabs me, or I think I have an insight that others haven't mentioned, or I'm trying to learn something myself, I'm quiet. THIS thread, however, seems like a direct call for a personal "what I think" response, so . . .

Why I didn't post about Nine Worlds:

1) See my first sentence above.

2) I've become convinced that 90% of what I have to say about game design I can and should say by finishing my own, though I somewhat dread the thought of a day when my answer to design questions becomes "the way I did this is X." I mean, it makes TOTAL sense to do that, no offense to those who do, but the thought of doing so myself seems somehow . . . pretentious?

Anyway, I allow myself time to read/skim stuff at the Forge, but really try to spend time working on my own thing.

3) The remaining 10% (which might be quite important) is probably dependent on Actual Play of the design in question.

I only rarely Actually Play indie games, though that's started to change some since Gen Con. And Nine Worlds isn't at playtestable stage.

4) Even if I were to post general comments about game designs, I'm overwhelmed by all the new games being posted lately. Where to start? And someone else could probably do a better analysis job than me anyway.

I think that's all the big ones. As I recall from skimming your initial post, the whole "like Mage" thing was a minor turn-off, but it did file it in the back of my mind as a "I'll have to check this out as it develops".

There it is - my answer :-)

Gordon

Matt Snyder wrote: Just tell me why you just don't give two shits.

Hi Matt,

At least you're generating some posts here. :)

For the record, I like the concept of the game. I've piddled around with Mage and I've never actually read all the way through Nobilis so if there are similarities other than powerful PCs using magic I haven't picked up on them.

Someone mentioned conflict against the Titans being an uninteresting premise but I strongly disagree. I almost think the poster was relating conflict to combat and that was not what I had pictured at all, at least not all the time. The key is to remember that Titans can take on abstract forms. For instance, a Titan in the form of a river that is threatening to flood an entire town after a heavy rain could be diverted by normal means and thus defeated. There are countless other non-combat oriented conflicts that can take place. Of course, _I_ could be the one who has that all wrong.

Also, I totally missed the NW mechanics post. After reading it though I have to say that I don't care much for it. The mechanics are fine, I just don't think that a deck of traditional playing cards matches the overall setting. With Dust Devils it is cool because everyone can see a gunslinger playing poker and doing shots of whiskey. It fits the setting perfectly. But here it just seems like _you_ prefer card mechanics over dice without any regard for harmony of system and setting. You gave a reason why you think it fits but very few people think "Greek" and get an image of traditional playing cards.

Tarot cards have been mentioned and regardless of whether they have been overdone I think they would fit better mood-wise.

But better than that, since you're going PDF, I would strongly consider you go all Microtactix-y and make your own card cutouts. That way you could use game-related art to better tie the mechanic into your setting, perhaps working out some way that 1-9 would represent the planets, then fill the other cards with Greek themes (Fates, Titans, etc.). Rather than suits, you could have symbols representing the different Paragons.

The key here would be to have first rate artwork. Time spent on designing a pretty deck would be time well spent I think. Otherwise, it's just "the Dust Devils guy using playing cards again".

Hope that doesn't sound too harsh but you must know by now that Dust Devils is the game by which all your others will probably be judged---think Ron=Sorcerer, Gygax=D&D, Blair=Little Fears and Rein*Hagen=Vampire. :)

Now, as I was typing this I also came up with a wild, off the wall idea which might not even work and definitely will not go over well with some people but what if you designed a deck based around animal (and maybe human) sacrifices. This would fit with the Greek's sacrificing animals to their pantheon. The actual cards could depict organs and entrails (artistically/stylistically drawn amidst Greek themes of course) and then you could define what each one meant (possibly what powers it related to), what they meant in sequences and which ones were more "powerul" than others---the heart is stronger than the liver which is stronger than the kidneys, etc. For suits you could use different animals that were commonly sacrificed, from weakest to strongest---a chicken, a goat, a bull, a man (??? I know the Norse and Romans did it, did the Greeks?). Anyway, it would take some though and a lot of work but it would certainly be original. (Or would it?)

*For the record I do not endorse or encourage animal sacrifices or cruelty to animals.

Lastly I can understand people not having time to read/reply to every post but I just want to mention to the posters who have the time but don't post comments because "they are waiting for the game to develop more", that if everyone who had the time took that stance, it might keep the game from ever being developed. The designer might think that no feedback means no interest means and move on to something else. Most probably wouldn't, but it's still kind of discouraging to think you have a kick ass game idea and then have few to no people post about what they like or dislike about it.

Pete
(who thinks Matt found a neat way to generate some posts although is sure the Moderators would step in were this to be used again by someone else). :)

EDITED to include the whole point of the "sacrifice deck" would be to literally "play the hand Fate dealt you" as animal entrails were often consulted to predict the future.

Wow, now this is some really fascinating stuff. Outside of the fine comments in the line of "Hey, it sounds pretty neat," I really and truly got what I wanted to hear -- everything from specifics like "I don't like cards in RPGs" (which hits close to home because my friend and collaborator is much in that same boat) to broader concerns like "It's nothing new" or "Too much like Mage" to commentary about the designer, as in "I don't like swearing" and "Chill out" or even "Well, Dust Devils was neat, so ... "

The Chill Out approach is intriguing because it's presented as such that I was objectively "WRONG" about this Indie Game Design forum, and also that I was "WRONG" in, what?, the tenor of my posts regarding that issue? So, if I'm wrong in content, then I'm an over-reactive hot head. If I'm actually right about some things there, then, what? I'm still an over-reactive hot-head? At what point does being "chilled out" supercede the need to voice concerns that may have ramifications for the entire community of game designers here?

I really don't think I was over-reacting today, but I arguing otherwise might be a sisyphean task. I might as well have commited forum sepuku based on some of the reactions I'm getting, and yet what precisely was erroneous about what I suggested? Did it not culminate in some really positive acknowledgment among the whole community, even if you didn't agree with my assessment of the "problem? Further, was not the point I made left undecided at "best" and agreed with at "worst?"

No, I do not think this particular thread here was a kick-me, victimize-me post. It was, well, poor man's marketing research. Know your audience, perhaps most importantly by know quite specifically who your audience is NOT.

Some observations:

* How does the apparent "Freak out" I apparently so egregiously peformed Thursday really affect the content and creation of my games? Same can be said of things like swearing. This isn't a "screw you, too, bub" -- it's a valid query and/or demonstration of how folks here at the Forge specifically, and in the hobby in general approach games (or don't approach them!) for reasons that have precious little to do with their games. Case in point: The games of John Wick, Gareth-Michael Skarka or even our own inestimable Ron Edwards have all been both the benefactor and victim of people's reactions to those game's creator's commentary or "radical" posts online (whether or not they're actually radical, of course).

* I've noticed that response to the game are largely from new or at least relatively new folks here at the Forge. The responses are all over the board, but in large part you are saying the same things. Either 1) you don't care because you just don't care or don't have time to care or 2) you're interested, but larger questions remain unanswered.

I can't work much with 1). Number 2) however is REALLY interesting. That's because by and large, folks are asking what the "old guard" would inquire about -- what's Nine Worlds about, what's at stake, what do you do. All that stuff. Premise.

And yet, the interesting things is, for the most part, these newer members don't share the lexicon and the theory that many folks like, say, Mike Holmes or Jared Sorenson, or Ron Edwards or any number of other long-standing Forge members share. That is what I'm getting at. That the old guard maybe can't keep up with the newer folks to get everyone on the same page, or that they just aren't trying. Or, perhaps, they are trying and just not succeeding. Are the newer folks who post in Indie Game Design reading Ron's essays and participating in discussions on theory?

In other words, would I have received similar feedback to that presented in this thread at, say, RPG.net's Art of Game Design forum? What distinguishes the discussion here from the discussion there? It used to be (still is, though diluted?) that the discussion here shared a general consensus about design, that it had a pretty solid foundation based on several terms and definitions put forward by Ron Edwards and others. I don't detect that foundation in these replies, yet.

That's frustrating to me, because I DO buy into that theory I'm talking about, theory discussed rigorously here on the Forge for a long time. I don't cling to every word or notion, but largely that theory foundation is useful and meaningful to me, as it is to others with viable, playable games out there in myriad forms.

Long story short? I've yet to hear (on the forums, at least) someone come into a discussion and "Hey, Matt, what's Nine Worlds' Premise?"

That's a clear Forge theory buzzword. The apparent, continued lack of that commentary founded in Forge theory throughout the Indie Game Design forum of late is what I railed against today, and what I still think is hardly over-reacting.

I'm saying that without that theory, this particular forum is weakened. It loses it's point of difference from RPG.net or other forums, and therefore loses its value.

I'll try to get to several of the specific questions regarding Nine Worlds tomorrow. It's late, and it's been a terribly interesting, if taxing day.

Or don't. Just tell me why you just don't give two shits.

Long story short? I've yet to hear (on the forums, at least) someone come into a discussion and "Hey, Matt, what's Nine Worlds' Premise?"

these newer members don't share the lexicon and the theory that many folks like, say, Mike Holmes or Jared Sorenson, or Ron Edwards or any number of other long-standing Forge members share

Well Matt, yes, any comments I made would have been the same had you posted in the AoGD forum (which incidentally I think is really good forum).

You will never hear me ask what a game's Premise is because I don't always think a game needs one to be fully defined, at least not with a capital P. D&D and Shadowrun come immediately to mind. You may not like those games but that doesn't mean those games are necessarily bad. Based on the setting information you've given I can (and did) think of at least a dozen interesting adventures off the top of my head and that is without your Premise being fully defined.

As to terminology, I've read the GNS article but I don't post or read in the GNS discussions, not because I don't think the points made in the article or in the GNS forum are valuable but because I like to think I design games on a more intuitive level rather than an intellectual one. In other words, when I set out to make a game, I make one based on either the kind of game I like to play or one that I want to play. I don't really care where it fits into the grand scheme of things. Now, this is probably an assumption that most designers make but it was worked out well for me so far so I am sticking with it.

As to buzzwords and theories adhered to by Forge members, not everyone (especially newbies) are familiar with the GNS terminology and even if they were, not everyone (including myself) would be using them in their feedback. For those who want to learn more, the glossary is being compiled but if you really want people to understand what kind of feedback you are looking for as well as introduce the newcomers to the concepts, why not structure your post with the GNS terms in mind. List the Premise of Nine Worlds, list the GNS mode you are trying to encourage in play, etc. That way the terms will circulate and be seen by newcomers and if they want to find out just what the hell you are talking about they can do a quick search. In fact it might also help (and certainly couldn't hurt) to post a link to the relevant GNS article/discussion at the bottom of your original post.

A simple "(GNS)" along with the title in the subject line and a concise listing at the beginning of the post might also prompt more posts from the "old guard" as you call them because then they don't have to wade through the entire post to see what you are trying to accomplish.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Pete

PS - And please can _everyone_ just stop the volatile posts? I don't care about fucking language or "kick me" signs or he said, she said or people being wrong or right or needing to chill, but you're (collectively) letting personal emotions intrude on relevant discussions and it _is_ annoying for those not directly involved to have to wade through all that. What do you say you all just call it even and let it go? Just don't post on it anymore, even to say, "OK, that sounds good, let's just let bygones be bygones." Either that or carry the war over to RPGnet's Tangency forum.

Actually, I was mostly waiting for you to expand your premise Matt (to start with a clean slate and tell why there was little input from me). It sounded vaguely interesting, and there were some enthusiastic stuff about things you could do. Then came the post with few replies, the one about the system.

For me personally I didn't feel much need to contribute. I wasn't struck by any idea for the mechanics immediately, nor did I feel like pushing any of my mechanics on you. And besides I would have liked to know more about the premise before I could suggest anything in detail.

It's a good question you're asking by the way. Because that hints at what I need to do too :) Maybe we need a little more people who ask "so what's the premise?" :)

I've already said this, but for the record:

I don't like metaphysical gaming in general terms. No, that's not quite right. I do like it, but I think it's already been done right.

I think that OTE did it first and best, and since then nobody has presented a metaphysical game that had anything like that level of visceral pull in it's presentation. They all seem way too "aetherial", if you will. Unknown Armies only shines, IMO, where it reproduces OTE. Mage...blech; too few points of reference.

In all these games, we play somebody who has been "awakened" to a new level of consciousness. In OTE, the game was about the awakening. That was cool. I can't know, nor do I want to try and speculate about, what the "hidden essence" of he world is. I want surrealism in my own world. If at all.

This is why I was so Jazzed about Court of Nine Chambers. It's all about the deformation of real world images. Things I can feel. It's precisely the PCs link to the Real World that makes Dreamspires such a cool idea. Without that, it's just wandering without referrent.

I can't "feel" titans who can change into anything.

Mike

Gwen wrote:

Long story short? I've yet to hear (on the forums, at least) someone come into a discussion and "Hey, Matt, what's Nine Worlds' Premise?"

You tell me. I shouldn't have to ask.

These newer members don't share the lexicon and the theory that many folks like, say, Mike Holmes or Jared Sorenson, or Ron Edwards or any number of other long-standing Forge members share.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I'd rather spend my time supporting games that might not happen otherwise and those that are trying some things that haven't really been attempted before. Nine Worlds is neither of those.

You're traveling down well-traveled roads (abeit in a new and interesting way)

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I don't throw jargon around precisely because most of the newer members don't have a firm grasp on it. I know I don't. But just because I don't say "Premise" or use GNS terms, doesn't mean I can't say "so what's your game about, really?" or "are you trying for a pseudo-realistic depiction here?" If you can communicate clearly with others, who needs the lexicon & theory? After all, most people who will be playing your game won't know jack about that stuff. We are your potential audience as well as your fellow game designers.

In fact, it is partially the jargon and shared theory that makes the Forge, at first, seem elitist and unwelcoming. If I have to spend a year on the forums to be able to write intelligent, jargon-filled comments, that's BS. I can write intelligent comments now, without the jargon. What's the difference?

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

But I like Matt.

Therein lies the conflict.

Matt Snyder wrote: Really? How do you know? Have I really provided enough information so far to dismiss Nine Worlds as not-terribly-interesting?

Most importantly, in terms of mechanics, the game converts narration into a kind of winnable currency. This, as I see it, is the game's primary (perhaps only) innovation.

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

Greetings Matt,

How was your Halloween?

I hope everyone reading these words had a safe and fun time, however you spent the day (and in whoever's company). Now (insert voice of your mother) "Don't forget to brush your teeth!" (smirk)

Matt Snyder wrote:
Woah! One the one hand, folks are saying, "What is your game? What's it about?" And on the other, they're saying, "It isn't really anything new, so it's not interesting to me."

Really? How do you know? Have I really provided enough information so far to dismiss Nine Worlds as not-terribly-interesting? Is Nine Worlds similar to Mage and Nobilis? Yeah, particularly in setting and "flavor." That's intentional. One of the many aims here is "Mage done right." So what? Isn't Dust Devils similar in content to, say, Deadlands or the Sidewinder D20 book? Isn't Sorcerer similar to Mage or even Vampire? Isn't InSpectres rather like Ghostbusters RPG? Isn't Universalis kinda like Aria? Well, yeah, they are.

And yet, these are really great games with some really similar qualities to their predecessors. But, more importantly, they bring something new -- particularly in terms of game rules -- a crucial point -- to the table. They also bring a totally different style of game to the table. Sorcerer is NOT apt to satisfy Mage players. I know Dust Devils won't satisfy fans of Deadlands. But that didn't deter me from making the game. In all those grand theory terms I keep refereing to, that's because both are Narrativists games that offer something different for gamers than their Simulationist predecessors.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

But I like Matt.

Therein lies the conflict.

Greetings Valamir,

Nice to have an opportunity to chat with you again.

Valamir wrote:

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

I would agree with that sentiment.
One of the purposes and advantages to the theories (including many things only tangentally related to GNS itself like Stance) is that they provide a common lexicon for people to talk to each other and convey information succinctly. When I say "Joe was making vanilla narrativist decisions mostly from actor stance with no real directoral input" those familiar with the jargon will know what I'm talking about. To explain that sentence without the jargon would take a pretty long essay.

Learning the vocabulary (even if you don't agree with all the details) is important. Otherwise we wind up spinning wheels and making little forward progress. If we constantly have to redefine the ground we've already covered, then it becomes impossible to cover new ground. And a lot of great ideas and great input from creative inciteful people gets left behind because we can't communicate with each other.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
You can't trust us to be psychics and always know "what you're really trying to do." Sometimes the forums can help you figure that out or clarify it, but most of the time you have to know it and, more importantly, be able to communicate that clearly to us.

I agree. But this takes TIME. Expecting people who've joined the Forge in the past month or two to have all the theory down is unreasonable. We're all still learning. We're doing this a favor to each other. Cut us some slack.

Greetings Jared,

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

Sorry everyone!

Yet fascinating...

I don't recall hitting "quote". Yet here it was.

[Reproduced post (which was supposed to be an EDIT only) deleted.]


Apologies to Ron. Don't know how I flubbed this one.


Kind Regards.

(can this be deleted?)

Matt Snyder wrote: Oh, and by the way, I've got to check out this Torchbearer game! Sounds intriguing.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: Oh, and by the way, I've got to check out this Torchbearer game! Sounds intriguing.

Given the context, this statement is a delightful irony.

Mike

Matt Snyder wrote: But, in part, it's because I feel obligated to check new stuff out, just as I'm clamoring for others to do the same.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: But, in part, it's because I feel obligated to check new stuff out, just as I'm clamoring for others to do the same.

My point is that the Torchbearer stuff has been floating about the Indie Game Design forum for quite a bit longer than Nine Worlds (I've read them in detail, though I've not commented at all yet). Apparently you're ignoring your obligations, Matt. ;-)

That's meant in jest. My point is just to say that one can see how easily people can miss something new. Doesn't mean it's not good; just means it got missed.

Mike

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

Kester Pelagius wrote: I imagine a lot of people share this sentiment.

From a GNS perspective, this is why the premise did not grab me:

Character - I've never been interested in games that center around magic. I was never interested in Mage for this reason. Oddly enough, I really like Sorcerer's take on magic (ie. the magic comes from Demons, you have to bargain for it and pay the price).

System - I generally don't like cards unless it makes sense. I think it makes sense for Dust Devils. Not too sure about this game.

Setting - From reading your first post, I wasn't entirely clear on the setting. I'm not sure it even says whether the game is set in the modern day or ancient times. If it's set in modern times, then the whole greek myth thing seems a little incongruous. At the very least, it begs the question why the Greeks had it right and the other religions didn't.

Situation - It basically sounds like the players are responsible for saving the world. It sounds a little like In Nomine or Armageddon. However, I think I prefer the premise of those games because I like their character choices and settings better.

Color - From what little I've read I couldn't really get a good grasp of this. You mentioned weird vehicles traveling through the ether. Once again, this strikes me as little incongruous with the other elements.

I hope this helps.

Roger

Gordon C. Landis wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

Kester Pelagius wrote: I imagine a lot of people share this sentiment.

For the record - I imagine a lot of people share Jared's other sentiment, too.

For the record. :-)

Gordon

I didn't meant to...

Apologies. Was just replying to...

Which is to say, from what little I know, Matt seems to be a decent enough fellow. I didn't excise that part of the original post in a attempt to say otherwise or...

(Kester looking flustered.)