Oggi per cercare un vecchio articolo di Clinton R. Nixon sono andato a vedere in un folder nel mio hard disk che frequento raramente. Perchè mi dà tristezza. Il "cimitero dei blog", dove salvo gli articoli che riesco a recuperare da blog chiusi e defunti prima che spariscano dalla cache di google.
E ho visto il subfolder dove tengo quello che ho salvato di "deep in the game", il vecchio blog di Bankuei, chiuso nel 2006.
Guardando quei vecchi files, ho ritrovato qualcosa che a leggerlo adesso pare ovvio e scontato, ma allora provoco' una marea di polemiche. E mi pare il caso di ripostarla...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 10, 2006
The Fun Now Manifesto(nothing new, just formalized)
1. Not everyone likes the same thing
2. Play with people you like
3. Play with rules you like
4. Everyone is a player
5. Talking is good
6. Trust, not fear or power
7. It's a game, not a marriage
8. Fun stuff at least every 10 minutes
9. Fix problems, don't endure them
posted by Bankuei @ 11:48 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Fun Never ManifestoContrast and compare with the Fun Now Manifesto:
1. Everyone must like the same thing
2. Keep playing with people even if you don't like them
3. Keep playing with the same game, even if you don't like it
4. Not everyone gets to play (and by play, I mean engage & input)
5. Talking is bad
6. Fear & Power, never Trust
7. Commit. Forever.
8. Be amazed when fun actually happens
9. Endure, but do not fix problems.
No one in their right mind would suggest these, right?
Try looking in some of your favorite games about "problem players", "Don't let them get too much control", "Planning a campaign", "fudging", "Acting out of character", etc. Try looking on some of your favorite forums & online advice columns about "problem players"/"problem GMs", "Forming a group", "punishing powergamers/munchkins/ruleslawyers".
Try reading Knights of the Dinner Table and pick out the cartoons you can't relate to at all.
After all, no one plays like that, right?
posted by Bankuei @ 6:31 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------
E un altra cosa interessante, un articolo su Dogs in the Vineyard:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Thoughts on DogsSo, we're in our 8th-9th game, just starting our 3rd town (and third GM). Here's some thoughts about how the game works from a play-experience standpoint. (Actual play reports to follow after our last town.)
At The Table
So, this is one of the books I point everyone to for clear examples of what to do at the table. The two standouts from a text point are the "Structure of Play" that tells both GMs & players what they ought to be doing in play, and putting the rules on the character sheets (God that's helpful, I can never remember which 2 stats go to which action. I'm Sam.)
Ammo
First off, Ammo-wise, the town creation rules...well, rule. It's a formalized way of making a shitstorm of fictional problems, an explosive R-Map, and the hierarchy of sin puts it on that downward spiral that demands the Dogs get involved. Not assigning stats until the last minute has been terribly useful, AND also prevents the GM from getting abusive with overpowered characters. (only grey area- large groups of people- what prevents GMs from overstacking the numbers? Not a problem yet, though we've seen the GM call in more and more people a couple of times.)
The demonic influence allows GMs to turn the screw and escalate the conflicts to a climax (in the traditional, literary sense of the term), also without abuse. As Matt Wilson put it- as a GM, you can throw your all at the players in adversity without worrying about crushing them- the system handles that.
System clearly defines input & authority
Second, stake setting makes things explicitly clear. What I love is that if you get the Stakes well defined, you can cut away a lot of "floatiness" to play right away. "Do I find out why he did this?" means, no qualms or fudging, if you win the conflict, you know it and don't have to keep pressing the issue. There's no, "Aha! But you missed this! (regarding this subject)" kinda crap that sometimes gets pulled in other games(especially investigation types). You get the info and you can move to a different area or conflict without having to worry about going back to it.
Likewise, knowing that you could lose the Stakes also gives you incentive to escalate. Now, most people assume the escalation is words to violence- though you can also go violence to words. What's interesting to note- is that violence is always in there. Either way, if you want the most dice for your conflict, you gotta include violence in there somehow AND you gotta include words in there somehow. Mindlessly beating your way through the problem alone won't suffice, nor will trying to "roleplay" and talk it all away. You have to be able to pull out both to really get the most effectiveness out of your character. Turtling under violence alone or trying to "stay clean and peaceful" alone will likely leave you losing conflicts.
Stuff That Matters
Whoo-whoo! What a loaded game. Obviously you have the fat question, "What is right/justice?", along with many others, "How do we make people stop being asses to each other?" ("CAN we make people stop being asses to each other?"), "When is violence ok?", etc. Slightly more subtle questions include, "What happens if you fuck up someone's life or many people's lives while trying to fix things?" "Is it ok to sacrifice some innocent people to save some others?" "At what point is violence THE ONLY option?" "Can there exist such a thing as benevolent dictatorship?" "What happens when ideals meet reality?" and thousands of other real world relevant questions.
That's just in the premise of play and the system alone.
The chips on the table
But here's the real interesting part- I feel like the real "resource" at stake, in every conflict, is your character concept of your Dog. Every town makes you address the questions above, but your Dog is what carries from town to town. And you carry the memory of where you choose to escalate and where you chose to give and over what. If anything, I've watched people give or escalate very hardcore based on what was most important to them as a player about the character.
Vincent says, "If you don't want to see your character changed, don't play Dogs", and it's true. That doesn't mean it's not important to you, in fact, that's why it's so focal. You could likewise say, "If you don't want to take the chance of your character dying, don't play D&D", and it would equally apply. Your concept of who your character is, and what he or she is willing to do, that's the stakes on the table. (behind that, is, also, what are you willing to say about this character, and perhaps, about yourself through that).
"Address the premise"/say something meaningful
Everything about the game says, "Say something meaningful". The town situations often deal with real issues (and then add demons) to address. The traits and relationships you choose say something. (other players were surprised to see me add, "The Territorial Law is an evil & heartless thing" or, "Not afraid to pull the trigger") Even the way you choose to narrate your sees & raises says a lot.
And scarily enough, probably one of the MOST telling things is where you choose to lower your characters' Traits, not for a single conflict, but permanently. There's no in game incentive to do so (you could choose to take a new trait/r-ship instead), so you're only doing it to say something.
My "Seen the worst in people" is at 4D10. My "Seen good in people, too", has dropped to 1D4.
What's that say?
Awesome game.
posted by Bankuei @ 10:46 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ho un folder pieno di centinaia di articoli di questo livello, presi da una mezza dozzina di blog defunti ed ormai irraggiungibili. Che nessun altro leggerà mai più. Tristezza.
