Q: I was trying to understand what kind of play you were try to solicit through the Goal Words. My only concern: while I think you're right about the risk of turning a very long list into "grocery playing," I was thinking about the opposite risk. Meandering after nearly all words have been checked and the group feeling quite awkward about "Well, everything seems resolved - so what now?" Have you thought about some rule like "in a sentence you can include every Goal Word you like but check only only one"?
A: I have indeed considered a rule stating that there may only be one goal word in a sentence, but decided against it for the following reasons.
The interesting thing about Do is that Mark Sherry's done the math and figured out the average length of a game session. There is actually an exact number of turns that will be in the average session: 14. Maybe a little more, maybe a little fewer, but usually 14, regardless of the size of the group.
So if you're only allowed one goal word in a sentence, and your letter has 7 goal words, then you have some room to meander. You only need to use one Goal Word every other turn and you'll probably get the Parades ending.
If the letter has 14 goal words, then there is a slight chance for a Pitchforks ending, depending on how the players' choose to keep their stones and whether they can think of a way to include the Goal Word in every single turn.
If the list of Goal Words is 15 or higher, then it's very, very likely that the story will end in Pitchforks. The only option players will have by the endgame is to keep pushing stones back into the bag, stalling for time a few more turns so players can get a chance to not have a Pitchforks ending. In doing so, their pilgrims may get In Trouble (even though the overall story ends with Parades).
There are two sometimes parallel/sometimes opposing forces at work in a player's decision during their turn. In the long-term, she is deciding whether she wants the story to end with Parades or Pitchforks. But in the short-term, she is deciding whether she is willing to let her own Pilgrim get In Trouble in the process. (There's also a long-long-term factor here, but I won't lengthen an already long blog post.)
Keep this in mind if you decide to play with the one-Goal-Word-per-sentence rule in your home game.
Q: It seems too easy to use all the Goal Words before a player reaches 8 stones. (That is, if you intend it to be a challenge at all.) What if a player really aggressively and creatively uses a whole bunch on his turn, but there are still several turns left to go? Should the letters have more goal words?
A: Let's first recap what "Goal Words" are and how they figure into the game.
There are two possible endings for each session of Do – "Parades" or "Pitchforks." Either the pilgrims are celebrated as heroes or they're kicked out by an angry mob. Whether either ending happens depends on if the players can use all the Goal Words in the letter they're answering in that session. The Goal Words are a list of key phrases like places, character names, and important objects or concepts that are important in the letter. By incorporating those key phrases into your story, you can ensure your story gets the "Parades" ending.
Now, as for the number of Goal Words, I agree with you that some of the letters have very short lists. That was intentional, so that some letters would be "easy" while other letters would have longer lists and be "hard."
And yes, you could play aggressively so that all the goal words are included in the story very quickly. The worst that does is keep the story focused on the letter, which was the whole intent of Goal Words in the first place. There is a chance that the story would meander after all the Goal Words are tapped out, but perhaps I'll just add a sidebar to the text adding that as a potential endgame trigger.
If you feel like there are too few Goal Words, you may double or triple them. I suspect you're going to find that a list that long becomes a somewhat tedious task, like crossing off items from a grocery list. Give it a shot, though! I'm honestly curious to see the results of play in either situation.
Q: There's an outline in the unfinished portion of the Google doc called "In Praise of Camels." What's all that about?
A: There is an old joke here in America that a camel is a horse designed by committee. The joke is supposed to make fun of those situations where too many people have creative input on a project and the result is less than perfect.
However, I believe that the fun of Do comes from the collaboration, not from creating a perfect work of art. If you spend too much effort focusing on the artifact itself, the creation of that artifact may be less enjoyable. (At least, that's the flavor of fun I'm trying to design. As they say, designers are out of the picture as soon as players touch the game.)
Note: I'm really only talking about the urge to create a great, perfect story, which is all well and good, but might make players stall during their turn. That's a concern for story-writing, not necessarily story-gaming. There is a lot of advice in the book about maintaining a shared, consistent set of boundaries for the fiction, though.
So, I celebrate "camels." The stories you make with your friends will be silly, sometimes even nonsensical, but they're *your* stories. You made them together and that experience is the fun.
---
Got a question about Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple? Ask it on the official Do blog, on my blog, on Twitter or via email.
Yes, you can play Do from what is in those google docs. The fundamental rules are in place as well as advice and examples of play. The parts that are not yet written, about writing letters and some best practices, are very esoteric and not REALLY directly related to actual play.
The one drawback is that those docs are REALLY long. They're much longer than what will be in the final book. I wrote all of that content assuming that the editor will delete about half of it, so only the necessary parts will remain. If you're willing to dig through my cluttered text and too-extensive examples of play, be my guest! :D
---
Got a question about Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple? Ask it on the official Do blog, on my blog, on Twitter or via email.
I’ve got to beg out from this week of posting as well. Last week was extra heavy with Dresden Files work leading up to the Alliance press release (among other things), and this week is chock full of similar activities (as well as some light anxiety about possible imminent travel). But there are a few things I want to note quickly.
Evil Hat’s PDFs are 25% Off At DriveThru
The GM’s Day sale starts today and runs for 4 days past it. Stuff which is on sale is 25% off, and that includes all of Evil Hat’s stuff. Well worth checking out the sale — tons of publishers have weighed in. The site’s running a little bit slow, though; I’m wondering if they’re getting hit with huge traffic. Just remember, this “GM’s Day” event is 5 days long, so you’ve got some breathing room.
Origins Game Submissions from Evil Hat Volunteer GMs
Good morningafternoon, Internets! Did you miss me?
If anything cool, fun, or important has happened since Thursday night, please let me know in comments.
Behind the cut, below, I'm going to talk about what I did at Dreamation 2010 this past weekend. LJ usernames will not be used to protect the innocent because I'm too lazy to look them all up. (I apologize in advance for misspellings and flat-out wrong names; mea culpa.)
Onward!
Events
FLIDAY
Drove up to Rob Donoghue's house at ZOMG o'clock.
Got on the road around 5:30 am.
Much great gaming geekery discussion, ranging from design matters to personalities to industry ideas.
Got to the Hyatt in Morristown; half-hour parking lot hell.
Check-in, got ourselves situated; see many people, many handshakes and hugs; lunch with Ryan Macklin and Matt Gandy.
General hanging out, with a particular "gobsmack Chad" moment:
MACKLIN: "I bet you think you deserve a motherfucking medal for just being you, for just being Chad Underkoffler, don't you?"
YOUR HUMBLE: "Abso-friggin'-lutely."
MACKLIN: "Alright, then, bitch!" (fumbles in bag, produces a medal)
YOUR HUMBLE: (pole-axed; gapes like a goldfish; starts laughing hysterically)
MACKLIN: (to puzzled onlookers) "It's the Silver ENnie for S7S I accepted for him at GenCon."
[Well played, sir. Well played.]
Sushi for dinner with Gregory Phillips, Brennan Taylor, and the delightful Lilith Taylor (who we all bored to tears for awhile talking about -- God help me, that I did this -- the economy, CDOs, the Move Your Money concept, yadda yadda. (Sorry, Lilith. The three of us we being old farts.)
Played in a game of 3:16 -- Carnage Amongst the Stars (which I got from the "Haiti Bundle" on RPGNow/DTRPG), GM'd by Matt Weber. Much bug-huntin' and "officers are idiots/douchebags" fun. Think Aliens meets the Starship Troopers movie.
Through the kind introduction of Darren Watts, and the sufferance of Vinny, got into the late-night Texas Hold 'Em game ($20 buy-in). Only had to wait about a half-hour before a seat opened up. I was writing off that $20 as an "entertainment and education expense" -- you see, almost all of my poker playing has been computer/online, so I have very few table skills. I saw this as an opportunity to learn those, and was happy to pay for the privilege, and said as much going in. I made mistakes, I learned, I had fun, and in the end, I made money: when I cashed out at 3 am, I was up $29. (That money helped with some of the Purchases below. Thanks, guys!)
A little under 3.5 hrs sleeps, and then...
SABADAY
When taking my morning shower, one of my greatest fears happened:
I slipped and fell in the extremely slick hotel tub.
I fell completely out of the tub, ripping the shower curtains free.
I narrowly missed cracking my skull open on the toilet, avoiding a porcelain slam to the brainpan that would have resulted in leaking blood and brains onto the lineoleum.
As it was, I landed on my... pride. (And we all know my "pride" is very well-padded.)
Lesson learned? I don't care: I'll wear my fake Crocs into hotel showers from now on.
BONUS: It's also darkly funny, in a way: "WET NAKED FAT MAN FALLS DOWN IN BATHROOM; FILM AT 11."
Paid $20 for coffee and a small plate of scrambled eggs and bacon.
Played Ganakagok in the am, GM'd by Jeff Collyer. Think tribal mythopoetical "Inuit-esque" folks, before the first rising of the Sun. The first Ganakagok game I'm been in NOT run by the author/designer (Bill White), and the most soap-opera-y thus far -- much of the play was all about social ties, relationships, status, and the Village.
Pizza for lunch with Joanna and Connie and others.
Spent first part of the afternoon sitting at a table in the hallway between the hotel lobby and the conference center with Rob Donoghue:
Shootin' the shit with whoever passed by.
Gave an academic interview to Bill White on North American jeepform/freeform play.
Talked with Vinny regarding some of the stuff I'll touch on in the Sunday Indie Roundtable discussion below.
Farted around with Rob and a deck of cards, trying to see if there was a good card-based resolution system for the sort of "give-and-take" in conflicts one sees in fiction and movies.
Played in Dan Solis' Happy Birthday, Robot. It's a fantastic all-ages game, and can RAWK as a "generic" party game with non-gamer geeks. (Any game that can credibly survive the input of an over-caffinated/over-sugared 7 yr old has serious chops.) This one's a winner, folks. (muskrat_john, this is an Out of the Box game just waiting to happen. SRSLY.)
Dinner, with much discussion of semiotics. ROCK ON!
While waiting for the stars to align, Jared Sorensen (that magnificent bastard) tricked a bunch of us into playing several rounds of JUNGLE ADVENTURE, a Parsely game. . . and thus assured I'd buy ACTION CASTLE the next day (see below, Purchases). (Parsely games are PERFECT party games, BUT I do have to note it may be only perfect for those of us at a certain age. I don't really know if the whippersnappers would get into infocom-style text adventures. I welcome insights.)
My attempt to Make Macklin Cry (by running Mythender) more or less fails. Mac's on top of his game, and handles it with aplomb and fun. CURSES!
Awesome lobby socialization.
Sleep the sleep of the Dead.
SUMDAY
$20 bacon and eggs, again.
Looking at the sched, I figured there was a decent chance of getting into a Fiasco game: many tables, early Sunday, rock on.
Have ridiculous amount of fun with Fiasco. (Jason, was it "Besting" or "Breaking" or "Busting" when talking about one's "Jonx"?)
Fantastic, if short, chat with Remi Treuer.
Many hugging goodbyes.
The Indie Roundtable, where:
Vinny laid out some ideas for a separate, Indie publisher/designer-focused mini-con. More deets will be forthcoming -- but I find the idea of a robust practical game design seminar track, a publishable academic "Proceedings" document, the idea that demos could be video'd and YouTube'd, and a central online forum/resource site VERY HOT. (Think of this mini-con idea as "Indie Roundtable, all the time!")
I offered my arrogant opinion on many topics.
Kudos to the Robs (Bohl and Donoghue) for emcee-ing.
Saddlin' up with Rob D. for the drive south.
Much great discussion, ranging from gaming stuff to fiction stuff to genealogical/family history stuff to philosophical explorations.
Get my car from Donoghue land; drive home; magically find an appropriate parking spot. Unpack/do required chores. Crash.
So, it’s Friday, and I don’t have a food post for you. Once I do, it’ll be about The Banana Bread I Grew Up On. Promise.
Today, I’ve taken some painkillers, so I have very little to say that doesn’t dissolve into a suffusion of yellow.
I’ve got some interesting things to say about how a distributor totally backed me up earlier this week — without me being a client (at least not yet). That, maybe Monday.
But it’s Friday, so I’ll just leave you with this:
Yesterday was Fat Tuesday, so naturally we dove into a pancake dinner. Good times. We aren’t much for plain pancakes around here — I’m all about the chocolate chip, my wife’s into the banana and/or chocolate chip variety.
Naturally we are right-thinking people and build this around Alton Brown’s Buttermilk Pancake recipe, found over yonder at the Food TV site. I grew up on the Bisquick variety, so the conversion to this one is extra-welcome, and definitely worth the very minor extra steps (composing your own mix, acquiring buttermilk, separating the eggs).
Following up from my previous post. Go read that and this comment first: http://lcdarkwood.livejournal.com/3824.html?thread=15600#t15600 - I'm doing my reply as a new post because it got long, and because I think it'll be helpful to further discussion.
I don't think there's functionally that much difference between what SotC says and what I'm saying. Let's break it down by passage, and I'll show you where the letters fall:
"If a character is given a situation (X) where he would normally have a number of choices (Y), and limiting those choices to act in accordance with his aspect is going to make more trouble for the character (Z)..."
"If everything would be going along normally (X and Y), and the aspect makes things more difficult or introduces an unexpected twist (Z), that’s also grounds for a compel."
The only thing I'm adding is clarity, mainly for the purpose of providing a rubric for judgment, for those folks who still wonder if their compels are doing what they actually should. Because, look, you have to evaluate a game mechanic by asking yourself what it actually does to play, what its purpose is.
So, let's look at a bad example:
***
You're Dane Black, private eye. You have the aspect, "Damsels in Distress Do It To Me Every Time". I narrate that a beautiful dame comes into your office, distressed, and flops into the chair at the desk and says, "Mr. Black, you have to help me, I have no one else to turn to!"
You decide to take her case. The GM hands you a fate point.
***
What actually happened there? What did giving you a fate point do for the story we're making, what did it show me about your character, what drama did it create? Absolutely nothing, and absolutely none. I basically just gave you a bennie for playing your character, something you should be doing by default, or else you have bigger problems than figuring out this game.
So, let's go again, and this time add the all-important Z (apologies for potential lack of class here):
***
You're Dane Black, private eye. You have the aspect, "Damsels in Distress Do It To Me Every Time". I narrate that a beautiful dame comes into your office, distressed, and flops into the chair at the desk and says, "Mr. Black, you have to help me, I have no one else to turn to!"
You decide to take her case. I go "Hm," and decide a compel might be fun here.
So I narrate that you're heading out the office with her when your phone rings. You say you ask her to hold on a second and answer it. I say it's your girlfriend, and she's, oh my god, stranded on the freeway with smoke coming out of the engine and needs your help right now!
You try and reason with the dame, and she tells you that she came to you instead of going to the cops ('cause she thinks they're dirty), so it looks really bad for her right now. She needs you to get there and investigate the scene before the cops do, otherwise, she's (gasp!) a suspect.
You say, "Don't worry, babe, we'll have plenty of time." I hold up a fate point and say, "No. No, you won't."
So now we have all three elements - a situation that is complicated by an aspect, a potential choice that needs to be made, and a good idea of what consequences could result from doing so. If I want to be explicit, I might say, "Look, it's either one or the other. If you go to your girlfriend, there are probably going to be cops all over the scene, mucking with evidence and whatnot, and then the dame will be a suspect. If you go with her, your girlfriend is going to be upset, to say the least... and you will feel the fury of a woman scorned later."
You think about it and say, "Man. I guess the job comes first." I give you a fate point and smile the smile of the wicked, and we roleplay the rest of the scene.
***
Now: what did *that* exchange do for the story? A whole ton. First of all, it told us something more about the situation at hand, which maybe sets me up for a new scene. Second of all, it told us something essential about your character *beyond* just the aspect on the sheet - your decisions do that more than any selection of pithy phrases can. And notice, I didn't tell you what to do or what not to do at any point; control of your character remained wholly yours.
Next, it ramped up the drama a bit - now we have a tension of both time and relationship in play, which we can mess with to good effect later. Paying off that kind of buildup will give the session more emotional resonance and punch.
Lots of bang for buck there. Imagine if you had one of those every scene.
***
Final note: So, you may be looking at this and saying, "Well, what if I refuse the compel?" Hey, fine by me - but what are you really saying "no" to? Are you really rejecting your aspect? No, because it's clear that whatever decision you make, it's relevant to your usual pattern of falling for damsels in distress. (Even if you say no to taking the case, because you're having a strong-willed moment.) Are you saying no to one particular choice or another? Not really, or not anymore so than you would in normal play.
So there's only one thing left to reject, really, which is the potential for complication. The Z.
So, there it is. If you do compels in your group, and you don't say a lot of this stuff explicitly, but you still have fun and dynamic results, I'm willing to bet that all of X, Y, and Z are happening in some fashion. If you're having issues, going back to this rubric and evaluating what you do by it will, I hope, help you out a bit.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Subscribe to RSS