[Do] Coming in for a Landing

I just submitted Do to Ryan Macklin's editorial wizardry. The writing portion of this project is now mostly out of my hands for the next few months. Here's the letter I sent out to the Evil Hat crew explaining the voice of the text and some other aspects of the sausage-making.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Hey fellas,

It's been a while since I last emailed you all as a group. It's been an eventful year for a lot of you, what with the babies and all. Mazel tov, Fred and Rob!

On the subject of newborns, I'm submitting the most recent, most complete draft of Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple to Ryan for editing and midwifery. You're all now invited to access that document, too. (Actually, two documents, since Google Docs has an upper limit on file size.)

You've probably seen me tweet or blog about my progress on this draft the past few months, mostly concerning the word count. This beast is roughly 125,000 words at the moment. The reason for this absurd length is twofold:

1) Ryan pointed out numerous areas in the last draft that required further elaboration, tools, advice and examples of play. Because I've got a wedding coming up in a few months, I won't have time to do that degree of writing again soon, so I figured it would be better to get a "Delete This" edit than a "Write More Here" edit.

2) Secondly, and somewhat related to the first point, I am quite an inexperienced writer. Really quite bad, actually. That being the case, I took on this task assuming that every word that makes the final cut of the final game would probably have ten words that got left on the editing room floor. To spin a clunky metaphor: I'm trusting Ryan to be the sculptor, but I'm trying to provide the best marble I can.

If any of you besides Ryan are insane enough to try to read this whole thing, here are a couple notes on the voice of the text:

- The general setting and procedural text is meant to be friendly and conversational, as if I am speaking directly to the reader. In earlier drafts, I tried affecting the voice of a wise Miyagi-like mentor, but I couldn't pull it off. I thought it better to just do what I could to be clear.

- The examples of play that are within the procedural text are written in a third-person voice. Each describes players doing things at the table, but never describes individual characters acting out of context. So an example might say:

"Fred decides that Tordek will drink one more stein of mead for his fallen ally."

That example would not be phrased as:

"Tordek drinks one more stein of mead for his fallen ally."

The examples of play always follow the players at the table, not the characters in the story. That's to reinforce the very explicit focus on telling a story in the game, rather than necessarily playing a character.

- Also, those examples never show players saying things in their own words. An example would not be phrased as

"Lenny says, 'Hey Fred, what if Tordek has another stein of mead?'"

Instead, the example would be phrased as:

"Lenny suggests to Fred that Tordek would want another stein of mead."

Earlier drafts had examples of play that included table chatter, but that didn't flow as naturally with the procedural text.

- Instead, there are two whole chapters where a complete example of play is laid out as a transcript from an actual game. The first is "Example of Character Creation," in which example players Allie, Bebe, Cat and Dev follow the whole character creation process from scratch. The second is "Example of a Pilgrimage" in which the whole chapter shows them playing an entire campaign of four letters.

- That second chapter is unfinished. That's unfortunate, but the deadline's here and I gotta deliver this baby even if it's a week early.

There is another unfinished chapter, called "The Subtle Art of Gonzometry," which is kind of a grab bag of somewhat advanced play issues that would take up too much room to discuss in the main procedure. I bet Ryan's gonna edit down the bulk of this chapter and scatter it around as sidebars.

So that's the schpiel. Hopefully this overly long email is a sufficient guide through the overly long draft. Feel free to email or call me if there are any questions over the next several months.

Thanks so very, very much for your patience the past couple years. It's been a long flight, but I think we're coming in for a landing soon.

-- Daniel

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

And thank you, too, kind readers. Have a happy new year!

Indirect

Originally published at Deadly Fredly. You can comment here or there.

Conversation via comments with Joshua A. C. Newman, maker of Shock:, went pretty well after I confessed to my reasons of disconnection from the game. Josh deserves some serious kudos for how he handles critiques of his game. I know I’m personally inclined to try to look like I’m as calm about negative feedback as Josh is, but having met him I suspect Josh actually is that calm, and I envy his facility with that. Me? It’s a case of making myself act like I think I should, and hoping my adrenal response will chill the heck out and follow suit.

Anyway.

Later on, I talked about melding Shock: and Diaspora together in a particular way that I thought would suit my sensibilities well, and allow some of the potency of Shock: to make its way into a game I’d feel more connected to.  This is where the conversation got particularly interesting for me.  Some excerpts follow, focusing on the line of thought that brings me here.

Fred: “… the lighter weight crossbreeding I’m proposing here is more about letting the issues exist out in the environment, and allowing players and characters to encounter them at what is perhaps a less breakneck speed, less strictly directed.”

Joshua: “Antagonists are the primary route toward keeping players focused on Issues. They’re the teeth.”

Fred: “That focus is a little too relentless for me, though. Because we’re looking at a relentless collision with the issues, the issues never get to sneak up on me. … Which is why at the end of the day I’m suggesting that embedding the issues in the setting, available to be explored but not constantly clubbing the characters, may be the way to get me my absorbed/sympathetic/identification itch scratched.”

Read the rest of this entry »

[Do] Sniffles. Boo.

Remember that scene in Neverending Story where Atreyu's slogging through the swamp and his horse drowns from sadness? That's what my sinuses feel like right now.

I came down with some kind of sniffly bug during the holiday weekend. That means the four vacation days I scheduled for the end of the year to wrap up the draft's last chapters may be occupied with soup and bedrest. Nuts.

In case you didn't know, my fiancée's very kindly suggested I set writerly tasks aside after the New Year until we get married in June. Most of my evenings have been spent churning out a few thousand words here and there. It's about time for a break.

I think I'll just send off what I have to Ryan. The current draft is hovering around 125,802 words. All that's left to write is the tail end of Subtle Art of Gonzometry and the transcript of a full pilgrimage. Not essential stuff by any means. May even be able to sneak in some more work through February, but I ain't gonna push it.

After the new year, I'll return to the visual side of development. I'll post some layouts, colored art, and video updates on the cover.

Sunday Family Outing

Originally published at Deadly Fredly. You can comment here or there.

I always like to get a day of recovery after travel. This past Sunday was exactly that.

Our morning started with a trip to Mayorga Coffee down in south Silver Spring. Christie had gone there a few times as part of one of her moms’ groups, and had nothing but good things to say about it.

Hm, make that almost nothing but good things. The bad thing was that it’s shutting down at the end of the year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bandwidth

Originally published at Deadly Fredly. You can comment here or there.

So, common gaming question: if we had superheroes in the actual world, what government agency would regulate them?  If you’re from the United States like me, your first answer is probably The Department of Homeland Security.  But that’s too pat and too boring of an answer for me.

So I’m looking to head in another direction, one based on something that I think Rob Donoghue cooked up for a supers game once (though it might have been Matt Gandy).  I don’t remember much about it, other than the idea that the folks with superpowers were regulated by (and in several cases, employed by) the Food & Drug Administration.  Now that’s something that has legs, because the FDA is a weird choice, and it forces you to sit and think about what that choice means for the nature and origin of superpowers in your setting as well as the politics of regulation and oversight that got things stashed there in the first place.

So let’s go back to my original question, and turn it on its ear: starting with a particular government agency as the body of regulation, what’s the reason superpowers exist in the world, and what form do they take?

Read the rest of this entry »

[Do] Merry Christmas, Pilgrims!

On the twelfth day of Christmas,
the temple sent to me
Twelve pilgrims troubling,
Eleven monks mumbling,
Ten moons a-flaming,
Nine nobles nagging,
Eight elders naming,
Seven mobs with pitchforks,
Six gonzo stories,
Five flying whales!
Four falling airships,
Three tiny planets,
Two angry dragons,
And a pilgrim in trouble with me!

[Do] Different Styles of Examples of Play

This chapter is a transcript of a character creation session of Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple. It's actually a composite of several character creation sessions we've held over the years, even as far back as GenCon 2006.

The examples of play in the main text are written to be concise, clear and a little academic. They're written consistently in the third-person. So they sound like this:

Daniel pulls three stones out of the bag. He draws three white stones, and decides to keep them all. That means he can add one sentence to the story in which his pilgrim changes the world in some way. Daniel creates the following sentence.

Pilgrim Gobi the Fluffy Curl frees Rudolph red-nosed dragon from the poacher's cage.

Because Daniel has a set of three stones, no further troubles arise from this action. His turn is complete.

This example of play is entirely self-contained without any references to page numbers or anything else. It's meant to be a supportive, explanatory section to the main text which actually has the instruction. (This was by Ryan's guidance. Early drafts hid procedural explanations in examples of play, to the detriment of clarity.)

Now the transcripts are a different kind of example of play. They're much more casual, almost entirely written from the perspective of a fly on the wall during an actual play session. So the above example would be more like this.

Daniel: Okay, so it's my turn now, right?

Liz: Yup. The first thing you do is draw three stones.

[Daniel draws three stones from the bag.]

Daniel: Okay, got 'em.

Liz: What color are they?

Daniel: I've got three white stones here.

Liz: That means you can keep all three of those stones or put them all back in the bag.

Daniel: Why would I want to do either?

Liz: Well, if you keep all of them, you can add a new sentence to the story. That's not such a big deal on its own, but because you had a very rare draw, that sentence does not lead to more trouble for Gobi. It's kind of like a critical success in D&D or a powerful spell in Final Fantasy.

Daniel: What happens if I put them all back into the bag?

Liz: That's pretty much the opposite. You won't be able to add a new sentence to the story. On top of that, the Troublemakers will add a new sentence. They're going to describe Gobi getting in trouble.

Daniel: Well geez, that seems like a no-brainer.

Liz: Don't be so sure. By keeping all those white stones, you're making the bag have way more black stones than white. That affects how the story will end. You might want to take this trouble now to make sure the story ends the way you want it to end.

Megan: And I, for one, would rather keep more white stones in the bag.

Daniel: Hm. Tough call. I think I'll just keep the stones though.

Megan: D'oh!

Liz: Okay, now you can take a look at what's going on in the world and change something about it.

Daniel: Rudolph is still trapped in the poacher's cage, right? I think I'll change that.

[Inset: Pilgrim Gobi the Fluffy Curl frees Rudolph red-nosed dragon from the poacher's cage.]

Liz: And now the turn is complete! Keep those three white stones with you for the rest of the session. They're going to influence how the story ends.

Originally, I thought I could mesh the transcripts as examples of play into the main text, but they're way too bulky for that. Also, they make pop culture references and analogies that don't quite fit the voice of the main text. So the transcripts are separate chapters of the book, where the example players are free to speak as they please.

Hopefully, having two very different styles of examples of play will make the game that much easier to learn. See for yourself! The character creation transcript is complete.

Popovers

Originally published at Deadly Fredly. You can comment here or there.

Popovers are ludicrously easy to make (though the cleanup afterwards can be a mild pain sometimes). I have deep, fond memories of the popovers of my youth. I’ve eaten them with strawberry preserves and butter with an accompanying lobster bisque while sitting by Jordan Pond in Maine.  Everyone should have popovers in their lives — the crispy fluffy eggy buttery goodness of them.  Today, I share the recipe with you. They are this easy. Make them. Better yet, make them for people you love; they’ll know how you feel.

Read the rest of this entry »

PDF, Print, Pricing

Originally published at Deadly Fredly. You can comment here or there.

Today I want to talk about PDF pricing, after seeing my friend Matt react poorly to the pricing of the recently released Dr. Who RPG PDF. (Don’t take this post as an attempt to jump on Cubicle 7’s case. As I’ve said before, I like the guys at Cubicle 7, and there are things I like about another game of theirs – Starblazer Adventures — that I’ve talked about before on Deadly Fredly. Heck, I was almost a part of the Dr. Who RPG project, and helped with their initial pitch to the BBC, but ducked out early on due to other time demands. This is a convenient and recent example, is all.)

PDF pricing with this product in particular is an interestingly sticky one. The physical product is going to manifest as a boxed set, so the PDF can’t bring along any physical components for the ride (though the only hint as to what those comprise is listed as “tokens” on the PDF listing). So things are already a little off the usual track here. Based on the markdown indicated on DriveThru, I’d surmise that the boxed set comes in at $60, and the PDF is showing as $35. That’s about 58% of the physical price for the PDF. Looking at Cubicle 7’s other “straight up gaming book” products, since DWRPG is their only boxed set so far, it looks like they trend towards pricing their PDFs as 70% of the cover price, so one could surmise that the math here is $60 = $50 of books (there are three in the box looks like) + $10 components (the box itself, the tokens), and thus 70% of $50 = $35.

For Matt, $35 is an abnormally high price to pay for a PDF, at least in this case. It’s a price he is deciding not to pay, at least at this time. I think Matt’s perceptions here match my own as a consumer, so I want to dig into that, and then talk about how my perceptions as a consumer affect the pricing decisions I make as a publisher.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Do] Combat-Agnostic

In my mind, pilgrims try to solve problems diplomatically when possible, engaging in defensive actions only when necessary. It's not as concrete an ethos in the mechanics as it is in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or Doctor Who, though.

With Avatar: the Last Airbender being a prime inspiration for the game, it's not surprising if combat might happen in a story. (Barring any agreements made beforehand, naturally.) I didn't want to encourage it, but I also didn't want to discourage it. To coin a phrase, I tried to make the system combat-agnostic.

Combat does not have its own unique sub-system nor are there mechanics that make combat actions less effective than any other. Because play is so structured, there is no need for "initiative" per se. Because there are no hit points, obstacles may be overcome with diplomacy or artistry or cookery as easily as fightery. The game's stats and statuses do not make some actions more effective, they give constraints to player narration to encourage each pilgrim to have unique styles of problem-solving, whatever arts that may entail be they martial or otherwise.

But, even if mechanics are agnostic when it comes to combat, I don't just want to say "Pilgrims don't usually fight" without offering tools or advice. Let's face it, a lot of kids grow up with action heroes who never meet a problem they can't punch, kick or shoot their way out of. Doctor Who, as noted, is a remarkable exception, but even he is more of an action hero in his modern incarnations. For every one MacGyver, there are ten Jet Li's or Pokémon.

With role models like these, it could be tough thinking of a way to handle a problem without violence, even if there are no mechanical incentives to do so.

Right, so to my point, I am looking for any real-world advice on non-violent resistance, dealing with bullies, rules of engagement, and any other similar materials. I'll adapt these into an article that can go in the main rulebook about how to solve problems without violence.

If you know of any such resources that are clear, concise and readable, please pass them along to me in the comments, email, or twitter.