The Forge Forums Read-only Archives
The live Forge Forums
|
Articles
|
Reviews
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
May 27, 2022, 05:47:37 AM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes:
Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:
Advanced search
275647
Posts in
27717
Topics by
4285
Members Latest Member:
-
Jason DAngelo
Most online today:
81
- most online ever:
565
(October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
The Forge Archives
Independent Game Forums
lumpley games
(Moderator:
lumpley
)
[IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
Pages:
1
[
2
]
« previous
next »
Author
Topic: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms? (Read 6093 times)
Joel P. Shempert
Member
Posts: 451
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #15 on:
November 14, 2008, 06:43:15 AM »
Yeah, I admit that I threw out "Discuss to consensus" as sort of an absurdist and undesirable example. Perhaps my question should've been phrased, "Is there an alternative, ANY alternative, pleasefertheluvagawd, to simply 'discussing to consensus?'"
This does bring up a whole 'nother issue, of how much "good play of a game" is transpitted* through the game text, and how much is received through other sources (discussion with author, general internet discussion, how other games do it, your own best guess)? I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that? Or is author accessibility part of the package, so needing to ask questions is a feature, not a bug? Or is it just that there are some things a game text can never give you, regarding real-people interactions? But I dunno, that's probably a bigger discussion than this thread's designed for.
peace,
-Joel
*typo, but I'm keepin' it.
Logged
Story by the Throat!
Relentlessly pursuing story in roleplaying, art and life.
lumpley
Administrator
Member
Posts: 3453
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #16 on:
November 14, 2008, 08:14:34 AM »
It's a big discussion! I can answer the little piece of it specific to this game, and we can have the big discussion in its own thread if you want.
I hear regularly that Dogs in the Vineyard is one of the best- and most clearly written games. Nevertheless, for the first year and more of its existence I had to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I had to lead people through the text. Not everybody, of course, but always somebody. I had to pop into actual play threads and say, "yeah, you played that part wrong" all the time. I still do sometimes, as new people find the game (although now I can rely on the game's many and enthusiastic fans to do it for me if I'm busy elsewhere. Thank you my friends!).
When I wrote In a Wicked Age the way I did, my theory was that I could experiment with the text (imply more than I said, hope my readers would make the right leaps instead of the wrong leaps, demand active and repeated reading, hide rules under one another) and the downside would be ... that for the first year of its existence I would have to answer, answer and reanswer fundamental questions about how to play it. I'd have to lead people through the text, not everybody, but always somebody, you know?
I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.
Quote from: Melinglor on November 14, 2008, 06:43:15 AM
I mean, is the ideal that I should be able to buy IaWA and read it, and play a good game from just that?
That's the ideal, and it mostly comes true.
-Vincent
«
Last Edit: November 14, 2008, 08:16:27 AM by lumpley
»
Logged
David Artman
Member
Posts: 570
Designer & Producer
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #17 on:
November 14, 2008, 08:35:44 AM »
Quote from: lumpley on November 14, 2008, 05:37:31 AM
The rules DO provide you with a single player (the GM) who reliably has nothing riding on the outcome, and can therefore make impartial rulings, and who has already taken additional responsibility for making the game go. I strongly recommend that, instead of discussing to consensus (shudder), you let that player just resolve disputes.
I hear ya... and I was all-good with "GM is God" right up until I had a thought this morning, during my... uh... constitutional:
The GM is a facilitator, not a dictator. THAT's really all I meant by "consensus," I think--the group decides, with the Gm going along with the majority (and, yes, logically breaking ties). For instance, if all my players think "Drug-Induced Magic" is far-reaching, even though I had envisioned it more as "personal buffs for localized effects," then I go with their vision of it, their consensus (their shared imagining?).
Not to veer wildly off into theory stuff--this IS a practical play advice thread, and the questions ARE answered--but that's the only authority or agency I'd ever take, as a mature GM in fear of being illusionist or a railroader or a sole story author. Just sayin'....
Logged
Designer -
GLASS
,
Icehouse Games
Editor -
Perfect
,
Passages
Moreno R.
Member
Posts: 389
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #18 on:
November 14, 2008, 01:26:45 PM »
Quote from: lumpley on November 14, 2008, 08:14:34 AM
I was right! For all the "Vincent, I don't understand, Dogs is so CLEAR and In a Wicked Age is so BAFFLING," my own experience of the two is the same. Some people, I have to hold their hand through the text, lead them from point to point until it finally clicks for them. It's not more people, it's just about the same number. Some of them never get it - but that was true of Dogs too. If Dogs in the Vineyard is a successful text, In a Wicked Age is too, by the same measure.
Mmmm.... I just re-read recently my first post in the forum (early 2006... how time flies...) and noticed that most, if not all, of my questions and problems were caused by not trusting the game text. I was used to "traditional rpgs" and DitV was really my first experience with something so different, and my first posts were a mixture of my misreading what was really written and my asking questions about how it could work. Sometimes I was baffled by some "not answers" I did got from you, and then in time I discovered that the answer was already in the book, or it was in playing it by-the-book and seeing what happened (my current opinion about Dogs as a game text come pretty much from this later phase, not from the first reading)
This, I noticed, is a rather common experience: both here and in the Italian forums the most common answers I have given to question about dogs is "play it like it's written", or "the answer is on page xxx" or "play it and then you will see". My "work" in explaining how to play dogs to Italian players is 10% explaining the rules and 90% telling people to play it exactly as it's written, and not house-ruling it without even trying it once
The problems with IAWA, if not in quantity, are different in quality. The people baffled by the texts are not the people who brought the manual coming from a traditional background (that at this time, from the sales level, I would say make up the majority of Dogs readers), but are people who already played a lot of dirty hippy games (the traditional gamers have LESS problems, it would seem). I did read again and again the game texts and the forum posts, and in the forum post you gave a TON of instructions that aren't simply there in the game text. I had to explain how to play IAWA, too (a rather difficult task, thinking that I still not really sure I was playing it right) and I noticed that not once I cited the game text, and instead I gave people a lot of forum threads links with your explanations.
Talking about the amount of people who have problems with DitV and IAWA, and the number of questions... when you say that the number is the same, are you talking about absolute numbers, or percentage of the readers? And what about the percentage of people who after the answer "get it" and then begin to answer other people's questions? It's he same for IAWA and DitV?
But, more than about people's reaction, I am interested in the reasoning behind the stylistic change: you say you guessed that the amount of explanation you would have to give would have been the same. OK, but this is a "it will cost the same" motivation. What was the positive motivation for the change?
Logged
Ciao,
Moreno.
(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
GreatWolf
Member
Posts: 1155
designer of Dirty Secrets
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #19 on:
November 14, 2008, 05:10:58 PM »
Quote from: lumpley on November 12, 2008, 12:10:38 PM
Um. This may be one of those distinctions that works perfectly inside my own brain, and isn't portable elsewhere.
For what it's worth, Far Reaching made sense really quickly to me, because of my Alyria experience. You roll your own dice, even if your minions are doing your dirty work for you. Far Reaching seems pretty much the same idea.
And Ralph's "Master Strategist" particular strength
was
way cool.
Logged
Seth Ben-Ezra
Dark Omen Games
producing
Legends of Alyria
,
Dirty Secrets
,
A Flower for Mara
coming soon:
Showdown
lumpley
Administrator
Member
Posts: 3453
Re: [IAWA] Exclusivity of Forms?
«
Reply #20 on:
November 15, 2008, 04:16:51 AM »
Moreno: as it happens, you hit upon the reason exactly.
Quote from: Moreno R. on November 14, 2008, 01:26:45 PM
the traditional gamers have LESS problems, it would seem
I wrote it the way I did to best reach its primary audience, within the strict page-count limit I set myself.
Seth: great!
-Vincent
Logged
Pages:
1
[
2
]
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
=> Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
General Forge Forums
-----------------------------
=> First Thoughts
=> Playtesting
=> Endeavor
=> Actual Play
=> Publishing
=> Connections
=> Conventions
=> Site Discussion
-----------------------------
Archive
-----------------------------
=> RPG Theory
=> GNS Model Discussion
=> Indie Game Design
-----------------------------
Independent Game Forums
-----------------------------
=> Adept Press
=> Arkenstone Publishing
=> Beyond the Wire Productions
=> Black and Green Games
=> Bully Pulpit Games
=> Dark Omen Games
=> Dog Eared Designs
=> Eric J. Boyd Designs
=> Errant Knight Games
=> Galileo Games
=> glyphpress
=> Green Fairy Games
=> Half Meme Press
=> Incarnadine Press
=> lumpley games
=> Muse of Fire Games
=> ndp design
=> Night Sky Games
=> one.seven design
=> Robert Bohl Games
=> Stone Baby Games
=> These Are Our Games
=> Twisted Confessions
=> Universalis
=> Wild Hunt Studios
-----------------------------
Inactive Forums
-----------------------------
=> My Life With Master Playtest
=> Adamant Entertainment
=> Bob Goat Press
=> Burning Wheel
=> Cartoon Action Hour
=> Chimera Creative
=> CRN Games
=> Destroy All Games
=> Evilhat Productions
=> HeroQuest
=> Key 20 Publishing
=> Memento-Mori Theatricks
=> Mystic Ages Online
=> Orbit
=> Scattershot
=> Seraphim Guard
=> Wicked Press
=> Review Discussion
=> XIG Games
=> SimplePhrase Press
=> The Riddle of Steel
=> Random Order Creations
=> Forge Birthday Forum