Thanks. Several things happened to the intro music. I discovered Hydrogen on Linux. (link below) It makes beats. This let a musical dummy like me make his own music, which made me feel more comfortable putting in the part at the end about the show being released under a Creative Commons share alike license. I also felt it was time for a change. Plus the only negative comment I’ve been able to find about my show was the music. Hopefully now I can get totally different people to complain. *grins*

http://www.hydrogen-music.org

D.

I’m also interested in why players get hung up on whether they’re right or not. The game doesn’t make that distinction. It can’t tell them whether to feel good or bad about their decisions. There’s no mechanical benefit for rightness. There’s no necessary difference in consequences either. The poor bastard you shot between the eyes is still dead, his wife is still widowed, his kids still miss their pa.

Demons are problematic for me if they are more than just “bastards and bad luck,” if they become so real that they’re undeniably and empirically spooky demonic. For me, suddenly the moral dilemma is gone because now we’re definitely fighting demons out to condemn our souls to eternal damnation, rather than we’re maybe fighting demons out to condemn our souls to eternal damnation. I’m curious about that dynamic as well. As GM, are you forced to act as if there’s no Devil either?

Sorry for the length of my post as well.

James

Great talk about Spione, Ron. . .I think you conveyed your approach to both developing and marketing the game much better than it comes across in forums. I’m really itching to play now, and I have a good expectation of what play will be like and who it would work well for.

The stuff about Dogs–that was terrific in terms of clarity and insight. . .up to a point, where it was frustrating that the conversation died prematurely. If Vincent’s checking here, I’m dying to know at least what that last abortive sentence would have been (the one that goes roughly “Uh. . .it’s hard, it’s–uh. . .”). Two distinctions leapt out of the speaker at me and clicked: one, that the Dogs mandate is simply: “The GM can’t take your dice away for playing wrong.” Yes, I knew that already and it’s in the text clear as day, but this phrasing (and the aural component, again, helps) wasparticularly clarifying and equips me to articulate it.

And the second distinction: “As GM, you’re required to act, whether true or not, as if there is no God.” That’s fucking dynamite right there. That sorts out a LOT for me in practical terms, i.e. how to treat the thing in play, divorced from any amount of abstract ruminating and navel-gazing we could do on the topic “philosophically.”

I do scratch my head a bit (and I hope I don’t make either you or Ron pull your hair out here) at the declaration that “sorcerors and demons *are* bastards and bad luck.” I understand “assume there’s no God” because it puts the focus on the human choices of the Dogs and their players. But to say “these things ARE natural phenomena” seems to undermine the “whether it’s true or not” part of the “no God” concept. That’s making a definitive answer–no, there isn’t. I remember when I was muddle-headed on the players’ authority to declare facts, you told me “no, if the town writeup says it’s Sorcery, it’s Sorcery.” But if “Sorcery” means, and only ever means, “Dinah’s a crazy bitch,” then that’s. . .awkward, since the judgment of “crazy bitch” vs. “has a good point” is the players’ territory.

I realize this is awfully long for a mere comments page, by the way–if you think we should have this discussion in a forum or something I’m certainly game.

Peace,
-Joel

I was sorry it ended when it did also. I was very much enjoying the talk, but both Ron and Vincent had to get back for the sales floor closing at Gen Con. They left at the last available time, and got back just in time for Ron to sign a guys book who had been waiting for over an hour.

I expect there to be another interview with Vincent sometime next year, although I can’t confirm as I haven’t asked yet. I don’t anticipate it being difficult to arrange though as he enjoyed doing the interview.

What would you want asked if such an interview happened?

I like both single and with people. You are right there tends to be a more conversational tone when I do two people. The problem is two people can add to the work of scheduling times, and typically for interviews I’ll contact someone because there is a very specific question I want to ask them. The double interviews have happened due to the happenstance of both people being available at the same time and place. I have to go find people for interviews, as scheduling them for specific times almost always fails.

The other problem is microphones, I can only use two with my present equipment. I have a way to cheat using a Y formation to get myself in the interview, but it definitely is a hack.

So I can’t promise more, but fate will likely conspire to have multiple people talk to me at the same time.

I saw some of those bogus dynamics yesterday. I certainly couldn’t maintain the patience to allow certain folks to keep dialogging at the Forge. Anyway, I didn’t expect you to answer about Story-Games. I brought it up as it seems fairly clear Andy doesn’t want to be the moderator and expects people to be adults. This worked outstanding when the site was small, but now it seems like pissing wars are breaking out where a few people are talking at each other, and you’ll see like 100 posts in a contentious thread, over the period of a day. I think the place is slowly sliding towards breaking. I really like Andy, and don’t want to see that happen to something he’s worked hard on.

I think when I make the post change from, “I want to listen to this at work,” to what I want to actually say, my motivations will be more clear.

James R.

Anyway, I also wanted to clarify a particular phrasing I used, which is “to speak to” something. By saying I won’t speak to Story Games, I’m not talking about reading and posting at the site; I’m talking about how I didn’t think it was right for me to evaluate it or pass judgment on the site, thus wouldn’t talk about it during the interview. As I see it, the only person who can do that in terms of that interview would be Andy.

The answer is, about 75-80%, in terms of usage and benefit and my general sense of whether this thing is worth doing. The downside isn’t failure of the mission, so much as the buildup of certain bogus dynamics among people, for which I’m kind of like the janitor.