• 1 Post
  • 63 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • I’m super excited to give Barkeep on the Borderlands a go! :D

    Also, this paragraph stuck out to me:

    Before we take a look at Barkeep, I want to drop a few quick examples to demonstrate how tone can be affected by writing, mechanics, art, etc. I firmly believe that the tone communicated by an RPG author is inteded to be replicated by the GM. So while you could run Blades in the Dark as a sexy dating game, I don’t think that would properly reflect the game’s tone.

    I absolutely agree. Burning Wheel has stuck with me for a decade and a half, even though I haven’t played it yet, because it’s the first time I opened a game with a clear authorial voice, and it was explicitly explaining to you not just how, but why the rules work the way they do.

    Obviously that’s an extremely explicit example, but it’s also something that clicked for me with the -Borg games. The ratio of style to substance greatly favors style. That’s not to knock the substance, but the games are light and, to be honest, pretty standard for a new-school renaissance type game. It’s not that the rule book is also, separately, an art book. It’s that, when the rule book is an art book, then the acts of bringing it to the table and opening it up to reference the rules become acts that set and reinforce a tone. It made me realize that all games do this, even if it’s sometimes unsuccessful, or negligible.

    Heck, to go back to Burning Wheel, I love the digest-sized hardcover with matte pages, because it looks and feels like a novel, and I think the game intends to create that style of play. I might join a Fabula Ultima game, and that rulebook looks and feels like a manga, which had to be intentional. It works.

    So I really jive with what the author says about how RPGs should communicate their intentions, especially tone in an adventure like this. Obviously any GM will put their own spin on the performance, but hey, if they’re laughing and having fun just reading through potential encounters, that’s the vibe the GM is going to cultivate in turn. :)



  • Haha, thanks. I just meant that sentence at first blush, I know it’s a reasonable position after that. :P

    I’m not sure I’d like it, because I “got” Blades in the Dark, but realized it wasn’t for me. It does what it does well, but my group and I didn’t like so much the “one session, one job” paradigm, and it seemed too abstract at times. I read a comment that said narrative games are like writing with the other players, and it seemed to click. I might just not like that kind of approach, as a matter of personal preference.

    But I might like DW2 more, as it incorporates more of a traditional style. That and, to be honest, I might love Blades and other FitD games with some light tweaking. I need to explore!



  • Dungeon World was a big flop for us… and I’m excited about the next edition. :P

    I think it flopped largely because we were playing it wrong. I know that sounds stupid, and you usually hear that from people making excuses when people don’t like their favorite game. What I mean is that we tried to play it like D&D, and while it’s clearly trying to bridge the gap between PbtA games and D&D-type games, you have to approach it a bit differently, which we didn’t. Maybe I still won’t like it, but I want to reevaluate it on its own terms.

    I’m also a big fan of Burning Wheel productions. Burning Wheel is my favorite game I’ve never played, just because there are so many things I find interesting about the system, and I love the presentation. (Still trying to get a group together, though!) If DW2e takes the form of a chunky, digest-sized hardcover, I’d be thrilled.








  • And capitalist regimes. The Russian Federation was literally founded by a betrayal of a reformist movement in the USSR, and China consulted with Milton Goddamn Friedman on their economy, ending up with billionaires. I even saw .ml users crying about Russian *oligarchs" having their assets seized (“stolen,” as they said), and unironically citing Matt Taibbi. Not even “back in the day” Taibbi, but literally The Twitter Files. Using bought & paid for corporate propaganda to make their point.

    They’re just campists. I don’t want to run afoul of a “No True Scotsman” situation, but fuck, for people who seem to think they’re the Only True Socialists, they’re willing to drop socialism in an instant if it means they can be edgy dickheads on the internet.


  • Three-way tie. Unfortunately there hasn’t been movement on any due to personal stuff, but hopefully soon:

    • Pathfinder 2e for a modern D&D-type experience. (Not to yuck anyone’s yum, but I have plenty of gripes with 5e.)

    • Dolmenwood. Currently awaiting delivery of the Kickstarter. For those old-school D&D vibes.

    • Burning Wheel. My favorite game I’ve never played, even after owning the books for nearly two decades. :P But for real this time!


  • It’s especially sticky because “Men’s Rights” is a bait-and-switch, ripping off “Men’s Liberation.”

    Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.

    So Men’s Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It’s not this systemic problem, it’s this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, “It’s not patriarchy, it’s not capitalism, it’s feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course…”

    So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.

    So I don’t know what’s in OP’s heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I’ve found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don’t have the better ideas, and they don’t have the better plans, but they’re good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There’s no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.

    In my opinion, at least, for whatever that’s worth. Sorry for the rambling!


  • I quit Spotify when the “New Library Experience” completely fucked the music library side of the app. If you mostly use playlists, it was a lateral change. If you used it to collect some songs here, and album there, and keep them all sorted, it’s like it dumped your entire collection on the floor and expected a thank-you for the new organization system.

    My guess, as others have mentioned, is that Spotify tries to squeeze more profits by pushing certain songs, whether because they get paid to promote them, or the royalties are lower. That’s easier to do with their playlists and recommendations, so they pushed people to that side of the app by making everything else dogshit. And now, apparently, the curated side took it too far and is awful, too.

    I still use Apple Music, which is one of like two services that actually let you organize your music in a sensible way outside of playlists. That said, after I cut cords with video streaming services and set up my own library, I think I might do the same with music.



  • Different strokes, of course. :)

    I think for me and my group, it’s just a sometimes thing. I think I’d be happy to let players make some decisions about the world around them, but narrative control of action resolution just fell a bit flat.

    It’s also why I like the distinction between “writing a story” and “being a character.” It indicates the difference without presenting either as better than the other, which is a risk when talking about… well, anything, especially online. :P


  • I think there are three main ways to make it work:

    1. Giving the GM tools to do the job. I remember reading PF2e and thinking, wow, it fills in so many of the gaps I had to improvise on the fly as a DM, and the balancing systems seems to, you know, work. Kevin Crawford’s work, especially the …Without Number series, famously provides so many useful tables guidelines even if you don’t use the underlying system itself. Then there are system-neutral resources like the Tome of Adventure Design.

    2. Providing clear explanations for how and why the system works the way it does. I know it’s a love-it-or-hate-it system, but Burning Wheel is great for this. It’s a weird system, and whatever you think of Luke Crane, it’s useful to have guidance and explanations for why the rules are the way that they are. Plus the Codex adds even more. I found I really like GM resources that explain the thought process behind running the game. IIRC some of Ben Milton’s work does the same, and I like to have a commentary for my own projects.

    3. Giving the players meta-narrative agency. Admittedly, this one is extremely subjective. I have mixed feelings about it. I’m absolutely happy to let my players make some decisions for the game, but I found that my group specifically prefers to inhabit a world rather than shape it, and I’m not crazy about that style of play in practice. It feels more like writing a story than playing it out. TO BE EXTRA CLEAR, this is a matter of personal preference. For those who like it, it works fantastic, and the popularity of that kind of game goes to show how it works for a lot of people.