Quote from: EppyI'd like to thank you for deciding to give Dread away rather than let it rot on a shelf.

I figured you'd actually appreciate that.

QuoteThe first, and probably least important, thing I should mention is that Dread is not affiliated with the Forge.

Well, it certainly seems to be ideologically aligned with it.

QuoteAs far as inane ways to remove characters from the game, I agree with you. It would make for a horrid game if one of our battered heroes is called away to visit an aunt in a nursing home, never to be heard from again. The example I use on page 18 is an unfortunate one. I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking, except maybe I was trying to present an absolutely worst case scenario. Truth is, to my knowledge, no one has ever had to resort to poor Aunt Ida as a way to prematurely remove a character from the game. A far more appropriate example of what happens when the tower falls unexpectedly would be that scene in the early part of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre where Kurt steps into the foyer asking if anyone is home.

Yeah, except the reason you put "Aunt Ida" in there was because apparently, you realized that there were things that would require moving a block to do that at the same time didn't seem to in any way have potentially fatal or incapacitating consequences.

The problem ends up being the same anyways; let's say that instead of collapsing the tower when you're researching a latin book and ending up visiting Aunt Ida, you end up being hit by a car (fatally) while crossing a street. Its still something that would come utterly out of the blue, in a way totally unconnected to either the thing you were attempting to do, or the creation of "story" that your game claims to be about.

In other words, your game desperately lacks a "negative result that doesn't take you out of the game, as a consequence of a risky and complicated but in no way life-threatening situation".

 

QuoteAs you admit, your example of play is a bit disingenuous, but it does raise a legitimate concern. And in fact one I shared when the game was first developed. However, the player in your example would have to be extraordinarily "willfully obstinate" in order for anything remotely like that to happen. It would be the rough equivalent of a barbarian in D&D using his fast movement class feature to flee from every battle rather than charge into it. It could happen, but if you didn't want to fight orcs, why are you playing D&D?

Well, no, its not exactly like that, for two reasons: the GM in D&D can always force you to roll the dice, and he can always end up killing you. Instead, its as if in D&D you could choose NOT to ever roll the dice, and the GM couldn't kill you if you didn't roll the dice.


RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, it certainly seems to be ideologically aligned with it.

On the most fundamental level possible, sure. I like to examine what it is about the game that makes me enjoy it, and I assume they do too. I then try to focus my games on what I've discovered in that examination. But the similarities pretty much end there. The conclusions most Forge participants draw from their examinations are often drastically different from my own. And while my differences with them have not be as widely celebrated as your own, they have led to some ugly spats.

QuoteYeah, except the reason you put "Aunt Ida" in there was because apparently, you realized that there were things that would require moving a block to do that at the same time didn't seem to in any way have potentially fatal or incapacitating consequences.

The problem ends up being the same anyways; let's say that instead of collapsing the tower when you're researching a latin book and ending up visiting Aunt Ida, you end up being hit by a car (fatally) while crossing a street. Its still something that would come utterly out of the blue, in a way totally unconnected to either the thing you were attempting to do, or the creation of "story" that your game claims to be about.

In other words, your game desperately lacks a "negative result that doesn't take you out of the game, as a consequence of a risky and complicated but in no way life-threatening situation".

Scary, life-ending events can come out of the blue in horror stories. They may not be a staple of every story, but they are certainly common enough. So to begin with, the idea of some menace striking at what is otherwise a relatively calm moment is not an alien concept. This can handle most situations in which the tower falls before expected. It may change how you expected the scenario to unfold, and you may disagree with that function of the game, but it is something I enjoy. It adds an element of surprise that I can appreciate even as the host.

That said, in our play-testing and demoing, we found it to be a very rare occurrence. It can happen, and did once. We've run Dread games for hundreds of strangers at cons over the past seven or eight years and only once did I encounter a situation similar to what you describe. A player, very early in the game, accidentally toppled the tower while his character was trying to eavesdrop on his doctor within the first fifteen minutes of playing the game. Those events and how I handled them led to the rules on page 60 which deal with how to create a negative result that doesn't immediately take the character out of the game as a result of a risky or complicated, but in no way life-threatening, situation.

That may not be exactly the solution you are looking for, but it is a solution and it is in there.

QuoteWell, no, its not exactly like that, for two reasons: the GM in D&D can always force you to roll the dice, and he can always end up killing you. Instead, its as if in D&D you could choose NOT to ever roll the dice, and the GM couldn't kill you if you didn't roll the dice.

But if the GM has to force you to do something, the fun is already gone, isn't it? If the player says, "I'm not going to play this game the way you want me to!" and that ruins the fun for everyone else, it really doesn't matter what the GM can do.

In Dread, the fate of the character is ultimately in the player's hands. Now this might not work for you, and that's understandable. I can sympathize with this sort of deal-breaker. As a player there are certain things that I know I generally don't enjoy having control over--but most of those are elements in the game fiction beyond my character. However, the problem you described in your example of play is the symptom of something else: a player deliberately sabotaging the game. If you are intent on doing this, no system is going to prevent you from ruining the game, no matter how powerful the GM is. If it helps though, I'd gladly create an official addendum to the rules which states: If you're going to refuse pulling just to be a nuisance, the host is allowed to request pulls from the other players unless they hit you. I'll even name it after you, if you'd like.

Quote from: EppyI'm curious about this. Do you mean that the answers on the questionnaires did not alter the number of pulls you had to make? Or that nothing on the questionnaires came up in the game at all?

Because if either of those are a yes, then I haven't conveyed the rules well enough to your GM, and that may be the problem right there. But if your questionnaire answers did come up and had an affect on the number of pulls, then I'd like to explore that more to see if I can make the game fit better for you and folks that share your tastes.

Whoah, the designer. Heh.

I haven't actually read the rules, so I'm just going by what we played. I'm pretty sure it was a scenario from the book.

Here's the questionnaire and my answers:

Quote> You decided to major in Economics because you saw it as the antithesis
> of what your controlling father wanted.  What career had he planned
> for you?


He wanted me to be a concert pianist. He was a Russian immigrant who
wanted to be in high society. all those lessons from when I was
three....


> What upbeat children's television show frightened you as a child?  How or
> why?


Sesame Street, because there was something sinister about the forced
happiness of the children. My family were like that.


> As part of dividing up the duties for this trip, you were entrusted
> with the map and compass.  Why?


I've done lots of orienteering in high school.


> Why did you decide to do an adventure camping trip instead of working
> to earn some extra money?


It's all part of the rejection of my father's lifestyle. He was
intellectual, I'm physical. I like camping, hiking, orienteering, etc.


> It only took you a day to realize that when they referred to
> "challenging" in the trip brochure, they were referring to physical
> challenges.  How are you dealing with your limitations?

Not bad – I've done lots of this stuff. I'm not totally fit, but I'm
in reasonable shape.


> Which of the others don't you trust, and why?

?

> You were busted last night for bringing some beer on the trip, and
> really resented the guide for making you dump it.  How do you feel
> now?


I'd kill for a beer. That guy sucks.


> While your school isn't in a particularly large city, you come from a
> very small town.  How do your small town sensibilities sometimes get
> you into trouble with other students, who see the school as being in a
> small town?


I can't handle their city banter, especially the girls. I think
they're laughing at me all the time.


> If you die on this trip, you will go to Hell unless you get absolution
> for what sin?


Murder – once when me and my friend Daniel were 12 we found this old
drunk guy out in the forest and we started kicking him and hitting him
with branches for fun. Then he gave this weird sort of sigh and he
didn't move any more. We ran away and swore never to tell anyone.


> What habit do you have that generally offends others?


I'm very dismissive – some of Dad's snobbiness rubbed off on me..


> What do you pretend to be passionate about, just to impress people?


Sports, but really I couldn't care less.


> How did your parents die?


Dad just keeled over at work (hospital orderly) and Mum drank herself to death

> What is your name?

Yuri Brjzovsky.

The scenario involved us getting out of a rocky area and being stalked by some critter. I don't remember any of the things above coming up in any way except possibly for the orienteering.

How are they supposed to come into play?

Excellent. Juicy stuff there. So, the scenario you played was probably "Beneath a Full Moon." I'm not intimately familiar with it, because I didn't write that one, but I have actually played in it and read it a few years ago. So I have some idea of what's going on.

So, with the Dread questionnaire there should be some questions that will suss out your character's abilities, goals, and state of mind. Some of the questions should help shape the scenario. And some are there as fluff to just get a better feel for the character. Not all the questions should come into play.

Here are some of the things I would have done if I were running the game for you.

• The orienteering would definitely show up. For example, after being chased at night, Yuri and his fellow campers are lost. If someone pulls, they should be able to get your bearings after ten, fifteen minutes. For Yuri, you can get your bearings after ten minutes or so without a pull, or you could pull to get them immediately.
• Yuri seems like a physical kind of guy. I have no doubt that would also show up. Any time he was running, climbing, or physical in any way, I would probably give you a break in the pulls (but offer you bonus pulls to tempt you to go a little farther).
• Killing the drunk guy at the age of 12 is a wonderful hook I wouldn't be able to resist. There are a number of ways to incorporate that one in. I would have probably had Yuri stumble across a helpless, drunk bystander just when things get their most heated. To see if you thought he was the kind of man who would risk his life just to redeem himself.
• I probably would have had some fun with the guide as well. One of your answers already indicated that Yuri disliked him. I would have fueled that a bit by making him one of these chipper folk who insist on everyone being as bright and cheery as them--playing right into Yuri's childhood memories of Sesame Street.
  
• You questionnaire would have also let you get away with a few things, too. If, say, you needed to start a fire, or had use for a knife, and told me that you were obviously an experienced camper, I would have certainly ruled that you had matches or a hunting knife on hand (even if you had to flee your campsite in a hurry, leaving other gear behind).
• Also, if some sort of interpersonal situation came up, like Yuri finding a forest ranger and having to explain what has happened, you can be sure that the forest ranger would be a woman. A woman likely to laugh at Yuri's crazy tale of being scared in the woods, just like those city girls.

That's generally how it is supposed to go. Every host is different, of course, and during the game you might bring up something on the questionnaire that I didn't know was relevant and get yourself a few free passes on the pulls (or even some extra pulls if feel sporting enough to remind me of Yuri's shortcomings).

Is that at all similar to what you experienced?

No, not really. It was much more a straightforward escape from the beast. I didn't exactly resent the time I spent on answering the questions, but it felt as if I needn't have bothered.

Quote from: droogNo, not really. It was much more a straightforward escape from the beast. I didn't exactly resent the time I spent on answering the questions, but it felt as if I needn't have bothered.

Okay, then I suspect your experience wasn't of the game as it is written in the book. The problem is probably in how I conveyed the rules, particularly on how the questionnaire interacts with the tower and how it should help write the scenario. This is very helpful, thanks. That last part in particular could use a little expanding upon in the FAQ. It's not a difficult thing to do, but it is vital, and should be emphasized more.

The Good, aka what I liked about the review:

• pulls no punches- it doesn't beat around the bush, it beats the bush to death, sets fire to it & then laughs as it beats it some more
• engaging writing; like listening to some homeless guy frantically debate a mailbox
• amusing imagination of what is supposed to be a sample Dread session, even if it manufactures a worst case gaming scenario, via having His Royal Doucheness III (i.e. 'Bill'), for a player

The Bad, aka what I went, 'Ummmm...' about the review:

• doesn't mention the listed 'Alternatives to the Tower' (Pick-Up-Sticks, Topple, dice stacking) {pg 118} as if to suggest that the Dread people, with the "gimmicky fashion" of their "fucking Jenga-resolution-system," must all secretly work for the Hasblo toy corporation
• stereotypes storytellers with the judgment that they're a "weird bunch,"  which is akin to a troll calling an orc fugly
• skips right on by interesting layout features like having 150 character questions at the page bottoms for inspiration, 'Flesh'/'Marrow' sidebars to help explain the game, fiction bits to introduce the different sections, etc.

The Ugly, aka what made me think, 'AYFKM' about the review:

• ignores how the ways for a character to leave a Dread game are conditional to said ways "still preserving the reality of the game;" then ignores the 'Going Before Their Time' rule, {pg. 60} meaning that between the believability guideline + the 24 other provided exiting ideas + the option to "ghost" a character, there only has to be a deus ex machina if your deus sucks
• complete mind shit regarding a suggestion for in-character talk despite it clearly being a small, optional idea to help maintain the suspension of disbelief, & despite even when it is used, how it is stated right there that this should not be draconian/craphead rule
• makes the claim that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GOOD ABOUT THIS GAME, yet somehow it won a Gold ENnie award in '06
  

All else being equal, still enjoyed the review.  But my group feels, Jenga included, that Dread is not as dreadful as this makes it out to be.  In fact, as an homage, we call not taking a block a 'Pundit Pull.'

Game on Grasshopper.

Steve G.

Quote from: AvatarArt;357330

• ignores how the ways for a character to leave a Dread game are conditional to said ways "still preserving the reality of the game;" then ignores the 'Going Before Their Time' rule, {pg. 60} meaning that between the believability guideline + the 24 other provided exiting ideas + the option to "ghost" a character, there only has to be a deus ex machina if your deus sucks

Except that the book explicitly states suddenly getting a job transfer to another town as an example of how to write someone out of the game.  That was not an absurd hyperbolic example I invented as some kind of straw-man, its actual advice directly from the author's mouth.  So apparently it is considered part of "Believability" that a guy could be stepping up the fight against a terrible cosmic horror that threatens mankind in one moment, and then deciding to move to Rochester to take that mid-management position at AT&T at the next.
That's just bad game-writing.

Also, its been a long time since I wrote this review, and thus since I read this book, and I have since given this book away knowing I would never use it for anything, but I do not recall seeing anywhere that the "no talking rule" was voiced as a mere optional "suggestion".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;357405...but I do not recall seeing anywhere that the "no talking rule" was voiced as a mere optional "suggestion".

Here's the passage from page 45, which is in a section that is referred to as the 'Flesh' {cue scary music}.  That is, "Sidebars which expand upon the rules with examples and insights."

Quote from: TheImpossibleDreamChatter
"One way to reduce some of these gaps between player and character knowledge is to reduce the amount of discussion between players that isn't occurring between the characters.  The temptation to talk to the other players about what is happening in the game and how you plan to deal with it is great. However, if plans and agreements are made between players whose characters aren't able to communicate with one another, the suspension of disbelief in the game breaks down.  To avoid this, you could play with this rule:

If you aren't telling the host what your character is doing, then your character is also saying what you say.

This should keep the out-of-character discussions to a minimum.  There is no need to be draconian about enforcing this rule unless it really gets out of hand."

I agree with you that this bit could have been presented much better.  But things being what they are, it is a really a minor issue that is easily rectified:

• Decide not to include this as a rule at all
• Use the rule when it becomes necessary from just too much OOG table talk
• Only have the rule apply during certain parts or scenes; i.e. during dramatic or important stuff
• Modify the rule to read if a player says something OOC that could affect what is happening 'in game,' they have to pull from the Tower.  They can choose to deliberately say something OOC to help another player, but are still penalized with a pull.

So the way they presented the rule was lame.  But the spirit of the idea makes sense.  And with a little tweaking, there could be another strategy during play while allowing for the conversations that make gaming fun, with each having a suitable response.

Sound about right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;357405So apparently it is considered part of "Believability" that a guy could be stepping up the fight against a terrible cosmic horror that threatens mankind in one moment, and then deciding to move to Rochester to take that mid-management position at AT&T at the next.

Well, in all fairness, since it is written as, "Leave to find a better career" you can't then believably include Rochester, NY as the destination.  But really, the cardinal guideline for when any character is ever removed from a game of Dread is that the way in which this happens must "still preserve the reality of the game" as determined after hosts "look at the surrounding circumstances." {pg. 16}

Essentially, the decision to explain how someone exits stage left isn't made in a vacuum & (in keeping with the spirit of Dread) it certainly should not be absurd.  Occasional funniness seems somewhat fitting because such moments happen in horror, as long as they aren't completely laughable.

Another key for believable narratives is the, "If there is no environmental danger involved, the host may have to turn to a more mundane way of excusing the character from the game."  {pg. 17} Here they say to look through the character's questionaire for a suitable narrative to occur.  And this is where the Aunt Ida, 'Be called away to visit a sick loved one' excuse comes in.  Would that be a sucky way to have to leave?  Yes.  But it'd be suckier from a game design standpoint to not have pre-explained outs for when a Tower is knocked over early during a session or when there just isn't a monster or other potential danger around to work with.  

So the cosmic horror situation certainly needs a "Fall into a catatonic state" or other gory type of write off.  However, if the Tower collapses while the group is in the Mayor's office trying to make a convincing presentation about the cosmic horror, then the "Realize they are also putting their family in danger" would be more appropriate, & the character could then realistically say, 'Screw you guys, I'm going home.'

I do agree with you in that this area should be conveyed better.  To start, separate the 'Ways For a Character to Leave the Game' list into Danger/Non-Danger columns to make it clearer what exit is more logical when.

Steve G.

p.s. For whatever its worth, Rochester doesn't really have AT&T, but is more known for Kodak, Xerox, Wegmans Food Markets, Bausch & Lomb, Paychex, Dixon Schwabl, etc.

The idea that there can be a "Non-danger moment", where you might nevertheless be required to "roll the dice" (or pull from the tower, as it were), and can end up "removed", is a huge part of this game's Suck. How the fuck is it that ANY moment is not a "danger moment" in the game, and why the fuck should someone have any risk of being removed in anything even remotely non-risky?

Contrast this to the genius of Gnomemurdered, where you only ever roll a Gnomemurder check at a moment of genuine challenge, and regardless of when and where that is, if you fail the roll, you will be murdered by Gnomes.  The idea that Gnomes can't just show up at that moment to murder you because the GM has some grand "story" that would require not having Gnomes around is just stupid for this kind of terror-inspired game.

What these assholes should have said is "if you make a guy draw from the fucking tower, and he fails, then suck it up and have him killed in an horrifically gory and UNEXPECTED moment where the Horror shows up, however "early" in your plans that might have been, and then you, as GM, deal with it from there".

RPGPundit

So you mean an unexpected moment like this?  And I'm actually going to agree with you 100% here: if the Tower is knocked over, something horrible happens.  Period.

Have the GM come up with what goes down.  Added bonus: surprise kills always speed players along.

Congrats on the 2nd Ed btw.