Door Game Meta Topic

That’s about the only thing I like about his writing. He knows there’s no reason why a badass hero can’t as easily be a badass heroine if there are no actual gender issues to be dealt with in the plot, and so he “goes out of his way” (all the while knowing he’s not actually going out of his way, since it’s no harder) to make strong and compelling female characters in his action movies. Some studio head might have tried in 1986 to tell him that Ellen Ripley couldn’t believably be so badass and that audiences would stay away if he tried to make her so (even Ridley Scott couldn’t resist having her menaced in her underwear), but Cameron has proven himself correct time and again. I just wish more writers would bother to do this as well, and that more studio execs would let them.

Knowing (and appreciating) the much-better-than-average gender bias for BB in general, I was glad to see we’d successfully attracted female players… not just so we could reach a quota or have token female players or anything, but because I knew there were awesome female players out there, I knew that many frequented BoingBoing’s BBS, and I knew they’d come if we didn’t do anything stupid to turn them off.

Like Chris, I played the last two Fallout games as female characters, and I did so again with the Mass Effect series, in large part because they’re role-playing games, and it’s fun for me to see if the female characters I play in such games have a noticeably more exotic day-to-day experience (in relation to my humdrum, non-apocalyptic and non-futuristic life) within the game than their male counterparts would. Sometimes, like in Mass Effect, the differences are almost entirely cosmetic. Every NPC affords FemShep the exact same respect (or otherwise) that they do to BroShep. The romances differ slightly, sometimes, but whatever.

But with our little postapocalyptic wasteland, I try for certain touches of verisimilitude, and if there is to be any hope for a future, then we’re gonna need a decent cross-section of humanity to survive. I don’t mean we’ll need women to breed; that’s not only crass and heteronormative and reductive, but doesn’t have much to do with hope. I suppose that a game about a postapocalyptic Los Angeles where everyone craps into their heavily-armored cars in order to go might seem tailor-made for the kind of 11-year-old straight white American boy I’ll always be on some level, but within that skeletal framework I’ve felt that there ought to be room for players of all sorts and tastes. Nuclear war doesn’t discriminate when it comes to gender; it could kill all of us as easily as it could some of us. I wanted our players to be able to imagine themselves (or an alternate self, bearing no real resemblance to their IRL persona, if so desired) surviving ten years in such a merciless and hostile environment, and to imagine what they’d do when presented with a definitive declaration that things on Earth weren’t ever going to get better, and with an opportunity to do whatever it took to obtain, for themselves and their species and maybe for some friends made along the way, some hope for a genuinely better tomorrow.

That always seemed to me as gender-blind a goal as a being could have, and hopefully we’ve sold the game that way to the players.

5 Likes

You learn something every day.

I’d always assumed that the Jane of “Jane’s Fighting Ships” fame was this Jane (not sure why I thought this, I’d assumed it was a spin-off or something).

Turns out it’s Fred T. Jane. Literally the man they call Jane.

2 Likes

The Ripley effect is interesting - I have never heard, nor heard tell of, one soul who has questioned, let along mentioned, Ripley’s gender in the movie(s). When I think about it, it’s clear the studios suffer the bias, and uselessly fret over irrelevant details.

A well portrayed protagonist is simply a well portrayed protagonist.

2 Likes

I have to agree. I remember John Carpenter’s The Thing as an excellent and claustrophobic exercise in visceral paranoia (and paranoid viscera, for that matter), and one of the things I’ve always loved about it are the excellent performances turned in by the 100% male cast. It was a total sausage-fest, and yet it didn’t need to be. I’ve always felt the movie would have been just as good if any number of the characters had happened to be female. And I do wish more directors would take this page from Cameron’s book. He goes a wee bit affirmative-action with his female casting in those roles where gender doesn’t matter, and (if anything) that choice always seems to help the show, or at the very least have a neutral effect. Carpenter could have done that, but didn’t. And so The Thing is an excellent, frightening, and discouragingly typical male-dominated action/horror movie.

3 Likes

I assume you like The Descent…

2 Likes

I do. I like Dog Soldiers more, but only because I love werewolf movies more than anything. But Marshall is my kind of director, and The Descent was just great.

(Keep in mind that I also enjoyed Doomsday, so my appreciation for Marshall’s talents may be a wee bit overblown.)

1 Like

Can I propose that for all future rounds, salvage is assigned to a particular owner immediately on finding?

It doesn’t have to be installed but having a default owner means that there’s no need to try to debate a solution amongst 10 players, some of whom are very infrequent players.

It just seems daft to me that people are having to buy their own salvage via an impromptu auction right now.

Also - could the game sheet show everyone’s inventory? I have no idea who does have spare stuff they might be willing to sell…

4 Likes

Hear hear!

I think this was done on purpose to get a little discussion/bidding going, however when there is no decider it is really hard to come to a deal.

Also seeing what everyone has stashed away would be super useful, but i guess some people would like to be able to hide it?

1 Like

Yeah, I think this would help keep things moving. One decider, not management by committee.

We could still all debate where the best place is that the decider to allocate those resources, but when the power rests with 1 person that person will be more likely to act quickly based on the strategy they find most credible.

Right now, for this round, we have several competing strategies (who’s the more immediate thread, Toecutter or Fleetwood?) and depending on which you believe that dictates car assignments, which in turn dictates upgrade needs.

I’ve tried to help expedite in-character (leaving the armor for jackknife, expressing disinterest in the 50 cal), but daneel’s simple gameplay tweak would cut a lot of the chatter and help us focus on planning.

3 Likes

Just wanted to say that I’m still having fun, but this round is becoming hard to wrap my head around.

Is it just me or is the repair scheme in round 4 extremely complicated? This is probably going to be extra work for the mechanics and the GMs as they validate the numbers. It might have been easier to do limits on the number of cars repaired rather than total HP points.

For example, 5 cars per mechanic is much easier to grasp than 3*MY_MAX_HP-(MY_MAX_HP-MY-HP)-(CAR_A_MAX*.75-CAR_A_HP) - (CAR_B_MAX*.75-CAR_B_HP) ... and so on and so forth.

Is a repair NPC coming back? I think that works great as an LP sink, and still lets someone get repaired even if they didn’t make a mechanic friend. It’d also be nice knowing I could repair up to 100%, even if I was too poor to do so.

I think this is for the best (when in doubt do what Guild Wars does), especially since we have a lot of inactive players.

And hopefully a merchant will come back some day?

2 Likes

1 Like

We’re bleeding players, so I am going to be blunt.

The GM’s have a to make a harsh choice, immediately.

  1. Simplify Narrative,
  2. Simplify Mechanics

Choose One

I think we are one round from some key, active players going dormant.

My suggestion: DO NOT USE GAME MECHANICS TO DRIVE PLAYER INTERACTION.

Donald’s narrative is already “chewing on the scenery” ( do I have that movie term right?) Whenever we are given a little narrative room unencumbered by game mechanics, we create plenty of interaction on our own. Hell, we’re starting our Religion.

So, with the game mechanics, JUST BE SIMPLISTIC, and get that headache out of our lives. Arbitrary assignment of goodies is fine with me.

And please, Please PLEASE get the repair mechanics simpler. I like the idea of a fixed number of cars per mechanic can do the full heal. That’s easy, and generates a lot of interaction, as each Driver needs to buddy up to some mechanic. Or just have “repair packs” as another random goodie that can be assigned. If the repair packs are “transferable”, then only two players are need to effect a trade.

Okay – thanks for listening. Much of this game is really fun. Parts of this game feel like work, which is what I trying avoid when I am playing this game :smile:


Thank you, again, for all your hard work, and, even more importantly, you’re willingness to listen to players’ perspectives.

– Bubba / Falkayn / Bizmail.

p.s. This is my second “whine” posts in four rounds, so I promise my next post will highlight success.

4 Likes

Agreed on the simplicity. Blazer / Cougar decide allocation. I accept the Gods’ destinies with every dice roll.

It is fun, but we’re chasing our tails on the FP.

No complaints here! But I do have one question… Is there any way (other than perusing my old posts and comparing those to the explanatory posts in each thread) to find out what upgrades we already bought/got installed and what they offer?

I’ve refrained from talking about the weapons because I’m pretty sure I bought a weapon upgrade at some point or other and I heard that I could upgrade existing weapons for more FP with a new weapon. So that instead of 5FP I could have 10FP (or something) on 1 slot?

I kind of lost track of how that worked and where I could find that? Or can I just keep piling on like a crazy person? XD

1 Like

As far as I know there aren’t any fixed slots for items, so anything that is +X will add +X stat to your car provided that a mechanic installs it for you. I’d like to imagine each car turning into a porcupine, but narrative wise they’re probably just replacing guns with better guns.

1 Like

This is a keen perception that lead me to dig into the data.

Obviously, there are a lot of caveats about the different variables that complicate analysis, such as, increased familiarity and use of the “like” button as a function of time, increased cohesion among the vets leading to more engagement via “like” button and posting, etc.

A couple of trends, though, are worth noting.

BASD had consistently high views (the lowest out of all 8 rounds+finale was round 3 with 480).

BDW has consistently high “likeability.” The people who like it are really engaging in it.

I worry about the ratio of post-count to views, which is why I put that in yellow. My intuition suggests that more posts don’t necessarily reflect engagement (in the cleaner way that “likes” do), but might be due to increased posts to clarify game mechanics and rules. Which may be contributing to the declining views.

@codinghorror and @sam, a suggestion for Discourse: it would be nice to click the “Views” button and toggle between “total” and “unique viewers,” supposing you have a way to guesstimate uniques.


I hope not to offend anyone with such a cold analysis. Clearly, Pat Race tapped into something fun, and the Jonas Brothers (Donald, Chris, and…Jonas) are clearly extending that framework by testing the limits of narrative and gameplay complexity within that framework.

2 Likes

Hi Everybody,

Well, we’re learning a lot with this Round. A lot of different things have been employed on a more-or-less experimental basis to see what has worked and what has been more trouble than it’s worth. It’s painfully obvious that I’ve never run something like this before, and I’ve somewhat stupidly given all of us absurdly steep learning curves (especially myself) in a search for a maximum value of fun from what is fundamentally a very limited gaming interface. And I have no theoretical knowledge to backstop me; this entire thing is seat-of-the-pants. I deeply appreciate everyone who has stuck with it and contributed so much fabulously thoughtful and entertaining content.

I’m not giving up. I just have to ensure that you guys, as players, don’t feel you need to invest nearly as much time and effort into this as we three do. I shouldered the GM mantle willingly, having been warned by Pat Race’s example that it would grow into an enormous timesuck. And I haven’t regretted it a bit, except insofar as you guys have had to really work your butts off to keep having fun.

And you’ve (somewhat necessarily) been kind of a testbed for me. I knew oversimplification to the point that nobody had to think of any possible negative repercussions to their choices wouldn’t be much fun. However, I have made it more work than I intended. The elephantiasis of narrative (from which I chronically suffer) has probably constricted people’s creativity, as well as simply increased the amount of time it takes to keep up with the game, and for both I apologize.

But let us salvage what’s good and jettison what needs to be jettisoned (since we don’t want to jettison any more players).

It will be made so. We tried both approaches after Round Two, with the Marina and Skunkworks loot being assigned directly and the Navy Yard stuff being shared. Score one point against socialism, @penguinchris, let’s just assign loot to players. As @daneel says, they don’t have to install it (and thus are free to trade it if they don’t), but it’ll keep us from running a chaotic yard sale every Round.

That will be helpful to us as well. @JonasEggeater, can we do that? It’ll have to be manually managed, but without it, the Inventory mechanic will be kinda hopeless for anyone to keep track of.

I believe it’s the only way to make damage and repair anything like an actual game mechanic. It has a basis in realism (in that heavier damage takes more effort to repair than lighter damage, irrespective of the number of vehicles involved), and it does require some calculated risks. Repair should not be drive-over-a-health-pack automatic, otherwise it’s pointless. Mechanics, as part of their role, should be responsible for knowing how many RPs they have and to whom they want to distribute them. If they run short of RPs, that’s an incentive for them to buff up their MaxHPs, which hasn’t yet been really possible for them but will be beginning next Round. If a Mechanic underestimates what their repair promises will cost them, it comes out of their ass. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. (Remember, @daneel, your fears that the Mechanics were the luckiest class?) As long as everyone wants to work together, then yes, this requires extra coordination, but then again, nobody’s forcing anyone to collaborate to this degree. You killed the NPC Mechanic last Round, but there’s another one just up the freeway at the next Round. Most likely, this’ll be the only Round without one. He’ll also be an Upgrades merchant, too, though I think we’re permanently done with needing Parts for repairs.

Currently, each Mechanic just needs to determine how many RPs they have available, and allocate them as they see fit. They were intended to sell this service, but they’re free to give it away. Once they run out, they’re out for the Round. If other players can’t get fixed this Round, they’re kinda S.O.L. until the next Round, when the NPC Mechanic returns. It’s a simple enough system, but I understand your frustration with it, since we don’t have anything like a board or sign that shows Clank has 12 RP remaining, Micky has 18, and Bill has 9 (or whatever). Hence the back-and-forth.

The only way I see around this problem (if the current system is really too cumbersome) is just to have repair only be purchasable from NPCs, as was the case in Badass Space Dragon. As long as Mechanics are willing, in their evangelical fervor, to perform repairs for free, if those repairs are not limited, then there’s no point in having damage. The game becomes a binary Living/Exploded character status, like Space Invaders.

Our friendly, collaborative play style kinda breaks the system, where players should be competing (or at least paying for) repair. I kind of wish we weren’t trying so hard to get everyone to succeed safely, not that I want anyone at anyone else’s throat, but babying everyone along is what’s taking up a lot of our time. “Gimme that gun” is quicker and easier than “who deserves the gun?” And ethical issues aside, this is why I made death so nonlethal. We won’t lose our pals if they flame out in a spectacular hair of cannonfire. They’ll be back, probably in a shinier ride, ready to exact vengeance.

Yeah, I want to keep weapon upgrades as simple as possible. Whether that +10FP thing you found was a hood-mounted howitzer or a fancy spiff-and-shine package intended for an existing weapon, doesn’t matter. Add those 10FP to your stats, and make it any kind of cosmetic change you want. Like @kingannoy’s increasingly bristling Camaro, or just the same peashooter you’ve always carried as a hood ornament (only now it somehow puts out 90FP), the cosmetics are, in the end, however you want them to be. +10FP is +10FP, when it comes to combat.

Yeah, that’s what we’ve been doing (albeit somewhat subconsciously), and we’re gonna pull back on that immediately. We hear what you’re saying. I’d honestly intended to make Round 4 simpler and yet simultaneously more interesting that Round 3, but the simplicity went out the window with the whole Cipher Hunt thing. Hell, we’re still building that, trying our damnedest to keep it fun and interesting without burying us all.

I’m gonna converse with Chris and Jonas and see what we can do to address stuff immediately. This won’t be a lengthy pause, but we have to tweak a few things.

4 Likes

If I may, complicated game mechanics are fine, as long as they aren’t complications the players themselves need to deal with. The loot system is a great way to view this. It is probably a little too uncomplicated in one regard, the random allotment of loot. We have a luck stat and the GMs can probably use that as a dice roll to determine if we get loot. Then the allocation of loot won’t seem as arbitrary and the players won’t have to spend countless posts trying to complete an impossible task allocating the loot to everyone’s liking. It would also give LK a very real and recognizable purpose in the game. I know this represents yet another calculation that the GMs have to run each round for each player, but it streamlines a lot of the more chaotic and arbitrary aspects of our current loot system.

As I’ve said privately, I’ll say publicly. We’re playtesting novel game mechanics publicly, live, for real.

I’m super appreciative that the GMs are brave enough to take this risk, publicly, and also super appreciative that a good number of players are willing to roll with it and still also offer suggestions for improvement mid-stream.

If anyone is aware of prior art in terms of managing a designated but variable number of inventory slots via text-only interface in a multiplayer online interactive game, please cite that reference for the group. Maybe some MUDs did it. I don’t know, this is a sincere ask.

2 Likes

Yeah, that’s another way it could work. The overall point is that we’re not playing a team sport here, otherwise we’d need a captain to make these executive decisions about who goes where and who gets what. @bizmail_public is good at figuring out what would be the ideal allotment and deployment for any given scenario based upon his goal of getting everyone through with the shiny side up, but he too acknowledges that he can only make these suggestions without knowing if any or all of you are gonna sign on to his recommendations.

You guys are all fun and decent people, so nobody’s clamoring to seize the guns & loot for themselves at anyone else’s expense. We don’t wanna turn you all into self-centered turds, so we GMs will distribute loot as we see fit, rather than leaving stuff to be claimed.

2 Likes