Splitting off from the Design Challenge thread, to avoid total threadjack.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNot that I hold anything against Stolze. I just think In Spaaaaace or Meatbot Massacre would be more of a game than

"..ok, I'll pretend I'm the president and you pretend your'e like .. the SecDef. And we discuss what to do about the alien invasion. For like 2 hours."

Man. There's just nothing there.

On the other hand if the game were like this I would play it:

GM: "ok, so your'e duck hunting, see.. and you notice Jim's character is over in the blinds."

Player (as Dick Cheney): "I shoot him in the face!"

GM: "roll for inititative!"

See, now thats a game.

How about:

"Bob, you're the SecDef, and Jim, you're the Environmental Minister.  Tina, you've got Finance."

"All of us except Bob, who knew about this, just found out that the military has been building a nuclear waste-disposal plant up in the Ozarks.  We also just that it's leaking.  We have maybe twenty minutes before the media gets wind of it.  I'm the President.  Tell me what to do, cabinet."

The key you're missing is conflict.

Sorry for tangeting off of the other thread. I had originally thought people were coming up with ideas for a new game rather than getting suggestions for existing games (or "games" in this case) being thrown at it.

But here's my thing:

What if there's no conflict? Instead of playing off of one another, all four players could just say "yeah, I guess." After a 1 minute conference they all decide together to send some guys to clean it up, and pay some restitution to the hillbillies who live in the Ozarks.

Also- this particular conflict has no solution, so even fighting over it seems a bit futile. You can't don your superhero tights and run in to fix it. You just get to argue a bit. And then ponder the meaning of it all.  

There's no game to it because the character don't do anything but talk and come up with policies. Which makes it roleplaying (sure) but not a game.

The key your'e missing is player directed action.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAlso- this particular conflict has no solution, so even fighting over it seems a bit futile. You can't don your superhero tights and run in to fix it. You just get to argue a bit. And then ponder the meaning of it all.

Every situation in the game presents a list of options.  One must be chosen - usually, several choices must be made over the course of any game.

Every choice is loaded to serve some characters, and not others.  Points are tracked.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat if there's no conflict? Instead of playing off of one another, all four players could just say "yeah, I guess." After a 1 minute conference they all decide together to send some guys to clean it up, and pay some restitution to the hillbillies who live in the Ozarks.

Actually, the GM's job (Gm in this game = The President) in the game, as written in the rules, is to push the people towards confliict. It's right there, in the rules. Agreement, disagreement. Cajoling. Name-calling if need be.  

So, if the players aren't being provided by Conflict by the GM, that's the GM's problem. It's like saying "What if in D&D the GM doesn't allow you to fight anything? He simply refuses to produce villains and monsters?" Well, then the DM isn't doing his job.

QuoteAlso- this particular conflict has no solution, so even fighting over it seems a bit futile. You can't don your superhero tights and run in to fix it. You just get to argue a bit. And then ponder the meaning of it all.  

Actually, as Levi said, there are four to five answers for every scenario. ONLY ONE can be picked. The players can't come up with "their own", nor can they compromise between two plans. There ARE solutions. Then you read the Chosen Answer and you find out the results of what happened; I played twice, and in one case the result was OK, the other case it was a major fuckup.

...

...

Now, having said that, all four players realized that we didn't like the game and wouldn't be playing it again. The reasons:

1) In the end, there can be no compromise. You have to choose one of the six cookie-cutter solutions.
2) And depending on which you choose, there is no telling the results. The one that we thought we fucked up turned out OK. The one that we thought we did good on was a total fuckup. It was like a choose-your-own adventure book. Which I guess says something about the nature of reality vs political debate, but it wasn't rewarding in the slightest.
3) In the end, the president listens to the cabinet and can just say "fuck you all, I choose Option E that none of you talked about! Ha!". And sure, the president can do that. But there is no downside for the president doing that (at least I'd like to see a mechanic for "your cabinet is disappointed in you" or whatever). And it's realistic, but it's not satisfying, like it wasn't thought through to the end. I imagine Colin Powell must have felt the pain of the president going "fuck y'all, we're goin' in, bitchez! Option A!" when he played Executive Decision The LARP.

However, it WAS very immersive. I felt like the Secretary of State for those two hours we played. It's just that, in the end, we all realized that we totally would have redesigned the game differently (but in surprisingly similar ways).

-Andy

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhat if there's no conflict? Instead of playing off of one another, all four players could just say "yeah, I guess." After a 1 minute conference they all decide together to send some guys to clean it up, and pay some restitution to the hillbillies who live in the Ozarks.

Ummm, I live in the Ozarks. Ummm, screw you sideways.

Also, the game looks okay, but more like a party game than an rpg.
-Zam

I'm thinking I'd have to play this to "get it", because right now it sort of sounds more like an excercise you'd do in a theater class than anything.  Not saying that's bad or anything, it just doesn't sound like it'd scratch my gamer itch.

To Zamiel: uh.. sorry! I meant the "really important citizens" of the Ozarks.

To Andy: That sounds far worse than I thought. Like I said- I'm not disputing the roleplaying part, I'm disputing the game part being any good whatsoever.

Also, it sounds like by having one "correct" solution to any scenario, it could not help but be be prone to the political bias of whoever writes the scenario, whatever that may be. And that sucks in the worst way.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTo Zamiel: uh.. sorry! I meant the "really important citizens" of the Ozarks.

To Andy: That sounds far worse than I thought. Like I said- I'm not disputing the roleplaying part, I'm disputing the game part being any good whatsoever.

Also, it sounds like by having one "correct" solution to any scenario, it could not help but be be prone to the political bias of whoever writes the scenario, whatever that may be. And that sucks in the worst way.

You should read the game, it's free and short. I don't particularly think it would be fun for me, but your objections are off base. It's a game, it has a scoring system. There isn't one "correct" decision, just decisions that could get different players different point amounts. The problem I have with it is it just seems a bit dry.
-Zam

There was a TV series created by the BBC called something like Critical Decision in which a emergency scenario was created and acted on by a series of executive officers.

It ran almost like a Choose Your Own Adventure Path for Prime Minsters.