From: matt_snyder	Date: January 6th, 2005 04:31 am (UTC)		(Link)

Hello, Chad!

Thanks for taking the time to share your immensely fair and flattering comments. I'm glad you liked the game, and I really appreciate the overview. I offer these comments not as an outright refutation of your reasonable comments. Please take them as friendly commentary in return; you're certainly not "wrong" about any of your overview.

I think you've rightly highlighted some of the shortcomings of the game. First and foremost, the book could use some editing. Sadly, it's inevitable for a one-man-band like myself to let editing mistakes fall through the cracks, and I need to pay better attention to finding more editors as I publish and design in the future.

I'm a bit surprised you found the setting/history material too much, but I do appreciate what you're saying. By way of explanation, here's why the back history is 27 pages and not five: I meant it as a subtle instruction device to show players the kinds of conflicts the game encourages, and to reveal the kinds of themes about authority and creative power that Nine Worlds is all about. I consciously did this. I didn't intend for players to read the history, then take it as gospel and emphasize past events. Rather, I meant it as a "theme-builder" that, hopefully, resonated in players, tuning them to similar conflicts in play.

As for cognitive violence, as you term it, I offer no excuses. I deliberately twisted the tropes of Greek myth because I wanted to craft a situation-laden setting about authority. I wasn't interested in delighting mythologists with canon. I was interested in surprising and delighting players who realize they could tussle with the gods, rather than feel as though those mythic figures were sacrosanct. For example, I find Athena far more interesting in Nine Worlds because she defied her father and became a mother, despite her legacy of the divine virgin. She certainly deals with the premise of the game in an interesting and profound way, and in a way that the "real" Athena would have been, frankly, boring. Of course, I love Athena as a figure of myth, especially Homeric myth, and find her very interesting in that sense. That's Homer, this is Nine Worlds. (shrug)

(Oh, and I think you can chalk my clumsy use of Ouroborus vs. Omphalos as more poor editing, truly.)

Well, those are some of my explanations for "The Negative." Like I said, I offer my feedback amiably, and I do appreciate what you've said.

On to some of you comments from "The Positive" ...

First off, COOL! I'm so glad you like the game overall. I worked hard to create its unique "vibe," and it's something that I had very strongly in my mind. Getting great illustrations helped, of course. But, sharing my vision with players and readers had me sweating. That it's worked at all is a good sign.

Best of all, you seem to admire the conflict resolution. FANTASTIC! This is the most rewarding thing you said for me. As you can imagine, I worked very hard on that. I have been disheartened to see (1) how several people found it off-putting and confusing and (2) how apparently few people have played the game and made the system work for them. Of course, if you have any quesitons, I'm always happy to clarify. I have found that there is a slight learning curve. But, the beauty is that once you get it, you've got the whole game. Everything is there, really, and I think it works beautifully. (I would say that, wouldn't I?)

Finally, I'm heartened also to hear you found the Philosophy and playing advice helpful. Nine Worlds really is a game that (intentionally) challenges the notions of who has control and who gets to say what in a role-playing game. So, the advice is meant to help people recognize that and recognize any unconscious habits they may have as role-players. I like your term: Empowering. That's what I was aiming for -- empowering everyone at the table and challenging the common notions of game master as authority. (See how that works? The theme of the conflict in the game world mirror the themes of the human interaction and "power levels" outside the game world. This is me, being obvious about it now! Probably just gained myself some Hubris there, so I'll shut up now and work on more humble comments).

Thanks again!
Matt

	From: chadu	Date: January 6th, 2005 06:46 am (UTC)		(Link)

I offer these comments not as an outright refutation of your reasonable comments. Please take them as friendly commentary in return; you're certainly not "wrong" about any of your overview.

Understood.

Sadly, it's inevitable for a one-man-band like myself to let editing mistakes fall through the cracks, and I need to pay better attention to finding more editors as I publish and design in the future.

I hear you. Let me assure you that the effort is worth it: ASMP materials have benefited greatly from taschoene's input.

I meant it as a subtle instruction device to show players the kinds of conflicts the game encourages, and to reveal the kinds of themes about authority and creative power that Nine Worlds is all about. I consciously did this.

(ponders) Okay, I can see that. And I support your conscious choices. Personally, I think I would have winnowed the number of characters mentioned. . . made it even less history and even more myth. But that's just opinion. De gustibus...

As for cognitive violence, as you term it, I offer no excuses.

Fair enough. I think that if you'd focused the camera more tightly on fewer characters and amped the myth rather than history, I probably would have been cooler with the ideas, paradoxical as that sounds.

I have been disheartened to see (1) how several people found it off-putting and confusing and (2) how apparently few people have played the game and made the system work for them.

Feeling your pain. Been there, done that, opened the t-shirt concession stand. . .

Anywho, there's a nice balance in the system between chance, character ability, and resource management, and I'm all about that.

That's what I was aiming for -- empowering everyone at the table and challenging the common notions of game master as authority.

You take great steps, here, true. However, would you say that Donjon went even farther? I mean, I'm seeing sort of a development pattern here, say from InSpectres (small pure plater control confessionals) to Nine Worlds (substantial player control in description) to Donjon (overwhelming player control).

DO you think the level of player empowerment here is more evocative of the freedom/authority vibe that the others? Do you think a full-blown Donjon level would have minimized the authority vibe?

Stuff to think about. And that, to me, is the mark of a good gamebook.

CU