Topic: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
Started by: xiombarg
Started on: 2/4/2004
Board: Actual Play
On 2/4/2004 at 5:16am, xiombarg wrote:
[Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
You might want to freshen up with the previous thread.
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung7_nar.txt
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung7_ooc.txt
As before, the first link is the "narrative" and the second link is a log of our out-of-character chatter.
I'm very interested in what people -- both those who played and those who didn't -- think of what went on. Ricky's downward spiral is getting real interesting.
As a reminder, here's the ruleset we're using:
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung_playtest.html
I'm also interested in what people think of the idea of allowing player veto of GM-called-for Lapse checks (since that's kinda like a Gift) and opinions on the Mission system. BTW, the alternate version of the mission system can be found here:
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung.html
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9329
On 2/4/2004 at 9:00pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
I do have comments, but I think they might be prejudicial. So I'll wait to post them after other's have had a chance.
Mike
On 2/5/2004 at 6:44am, John Kim wrote:
Re: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
xiombarg wrote: I'm very interested in what people -- both those who played and those who didn't -- think of what went on. Ricky's downward spiral is getting real interesting.
It's neat to have the complete transcripts, but it is hard to get into the minds of the players -- true for those in the game as well, I think. My main thought is that it seems a bit stressful on a player level, that there was tension over what Mike (the player) was doing with Ricky (the PC).
I'm stretching a bit here, but it seems to me that the game is written with the implicit assumption that the player will strive to have his PC act in a moral fashion. Then lapse and sacrifice (i.e. acting immorally) are fairly painful. But I don't think that was true for Mike, who was quick to sacrifice 2 responsibility for success in rescuing the hostages, say. It seems to me that he was rooting for "bad Ricky".
Obviously, I'm guessing wildly. Mike can of course contradict me. That's just my impression from skimming through the transcripts and the game.
On 2/5/2004 at 2:10pm, Lxndr wrote:
RE: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
As far as I'm aware, the game is supposedly written to support either choice (morality or a downward decline), without making it clear which one is "better."
I loved the mission system - it worked great for a preliminary test. Next time I'd be interested in trying out the alternative system, where the GM ranking sets the maximum bonus - that feels more appropriate to me. And if we're having a trial, you'll have to come up with an appropriate set of mission parameters to "prepare" for the trial. :)
Anyway, I didn't notice any major problems in the game. So I'm interested in hearing Mike's potentially-prejudicial comments.
On 2/12/2004 at 8:25pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
Lxndr wrote: Anyway, I didn't notice any major problems in the game. So I'm interested in hearing Mike's potentially-prejudicial comments.As am I. Mike?
Personally, I think the mechanics as they stand worked very well -- but that's me speaking from the GM-chair.
On 2/12/2004 at 10:08pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
John, you are right that I was rooting for "Bad Ricky". I mean, the plunge to splurge on success like that by spending Responsibility is pretty indicative yes? OTOH, I can't say that I, at least, felt any stress over doing this, nor that anyone seemed stressed about it to me. In fact, for me it was cathartic, and I sensed that for everyone else as well. Like, "Ah, finally we know which way Ricky's going to go." Indeed, until the Lapse was stated that had me shoot Alex's character in the back (ha-ha, gotcha), I really didn't know myself. It was just that things had gotten stacked up against Ricky at that point, and it seemed a neat way to go at the moment.
I set the character up in the first place to be a sort of blank slate, with the idea that I was going to "discover" what his destiny was, morality, or depredation. Now we know.
Kirt, honestly, until it came up, I thought that players and the GM were equals in terms of giving Gifts (stuff which requires a Lapse check). I can't see any reason to make it otherwise. I mean, sure, he doesn't get any Gift Points, but in other aspects I don't see a reason why it doesn't make sense to treat it all as the same sort of thing.
The mission system was interesting itself as an abstraction for missions. But I still get this sense that there's no "point" to the play outside of the whole responsibility cycle. I think in part that's because the characters don't have any goals, really, that are pertinent to them. I mean whatever there was in the game seemed to get created as a side effect of the responsibilty system. Gifts created Ricky's brother, and Guererra's father (effectively) in play.
I'm not sure I understand the phenomenon really yet. But all I can say is that I didn't care about the hostages, I didn't care about the terrorists, I didn't care about the mission. I only cared about the character, and whether or not he was going to be good or bad.
Mike
On 2/12/2004 at 10:29pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: [Unsung] Ricky Goes Apesh*t (Blood Opera?)
Mike Holmes wrote: Kirt, honestly, until it came up, I thought that players and the GM were equals in terms of giving Gifts (stuff which requires a Lapse check). I can't see any reason to make it otherwise. I mean, sure, he doesn't get any Gift Points, but in other aspects I don't see a reason why it doesn't make sense to treat it all as the same sort of thing.
I have to admit I don't have a strong preference on this score. Perhaps we can do it your way next session.
What do other people think? Should a player be able to veto a GM here? It's radical by "normal RPG" standards but not radical at all by Forge standards.
The mission system was interesting itself as an abstraction for missions. [...] But all I can say is that I didn't care about the hostages, I didn't care about the terrorists, I didn't care about the mission. I only cared about the character, and whether or not he was going to be good or bad.
Well, in the "shooting the sacred cows" vein, this might be an argument for stripping the Mission system out entirely, to focus more on the Lapse system, which I agree is the heart of the game. I'd re-use the Mission system in a game where it is more appropriate, of course.
The other angle would be to tie it into the issues Mike cites more firmly. For example, the GM creates a scene for each "seriously negative" factor, designed to seriously test a PC, Gift-style, tying Responsibility and the Mission together.
It's notable, however, that the Mission system is a holdover from the Rise Again days, where I thought the PCs would be, in essence, guerilla fighters.