The Burning Mice of Ludic Peripety

Posted By on July 12, 2010

This is a small panel discussion, but I didn’t want to talk solo for as long as it would take to cover all the topics I had in mind.  So Arpie was kind enough to help me out and we cover a lot of ground and even review a few games. Here’s what’s inside:

  • We review “Burning Empires” and discuss my failure to record it in great depth
  • We also review “Mouse Guard” from a very biased perspective
  • We’ll teach you all there is to know about Ludic Peripety
  • Are most Story Games “abandon-ware”?
  • Why I haven’t recorded “Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries”, “Zombie Cinema”, and other games
  • There’s almost too much praise for Adam W. in this episode, especially in the discussion of “My Life with Master”
  • GMing techniques for traditional games and why they don’t apply to Story Games (or Ludic Peripety)
  • Do Ludic Peripety (or Story Gamers) fail “casual” role-players? (I can hear the ice cream truck in the background during this part but didn’t notice it during recording. My wife was upstairs and got herself something but didn’t get anything for me.)
  • Shticky Love?!?
  • Join the growing Ludic Peripety movement today! Just email Arpie.
  • The best D&D 4th Edition gaming story ever!
  • Arpie reveals far too much
  • The proper use of White Wolf games – run a Twilight based campaign and score with Cougars (If you think you’ve won the contest, email me!)

About the author

I'm from Colorado - but not originally. I like roleplaying games - obviously. I have a wife and three kids - shockingly. I also enjoy video games (XBox, Wii) and boardgames. I love to run RPGs at conventions and game days for the focus and intensity. I'll talk about RPGs all day with those who are willing.


8 Responses to “The Burning Mice of Ludic Peripety”

  1. Brad says:

    Haven’t had a listen yet but I’m absolutely outraged that your wife failed to get you ice cream. I’m pretty sure that if you take that to court they give you a no questions asked divorce with full entitlements.

    My wife tries to claim that I only need one box of ice cream to share with my little girl. Pfft.

  2. Adam says:

    My head exploded. I got ego all over my living room.

  3. Pete Figtree says:

    This show looks right up my alley. I got excited as was loading, and I saw this new beautiful animal. STORY GAMES…HURRAY.
    I had to comment before I even got a listen.

    Mad Mister Pete Figtree

  4. Scott says:

    If you’re old enough then I guess you get to be new again! I’ve got a whole backlog of stuff for you to discover, Pete, please let me know how you like it.

    But you are quite mad, Pete. I recommend you apply for membership in the Ludic Peripety Society. You’d do well there, sir!

  5. Doyce says:

    It’s not GM Fiat.

    The Guard’s can’t fail. I don’t mean they shouldn’t. I mean they can’t, mechanically, in the game. Period.

    They always get what they want when the dice hit the table. They might suffer while they succeed, or there might be complications that come up while you succeed, but they always succeed. Period.

    That’s how the game’s constructed.

  6. Arpie says:

    Well, yeah, there’s no problem with “failing” the task.

    The problem is looking like a schmuck even though you’re going to succeed, anyway.

    In the two games I played, it didn’t feel like I was progressing toward a goal so much as spiraling away from it due to qualities that I rather thought my character didn’t possess.

    In your game, Doyce (the better of the two I played, I might mention) the gruff veteran I played consistently failed at tasks I suspected a gruff veteran would at least look competent at… which is not good for my ego. Yes, we won in the end, but I couldn’t see how considering how often the dice yanked competency away from me!

  7. Doyce says:

    I kind of hate how this website routinely reloads and eats my comments while I’m writting them. To repeat what I just typed:

    The dice didn’t yank competency away from you: the player’s narrating their conflicts did, plain and simple.

    1. Player does test and succeeds.
    2. Your single helping dice (effectively a coin flip) was a weasel.
    3. The player chose to narrate you being less than competent.

    Personally? I have had LOTS of competent guys help me in my lifetime who, while totally smart and competent, were not any HELP at all — and that’s how I would have narrated it, to respect your character concept.

    However, I wasn’t narrating that stuff, and most RPG players are stuck on the idea that ‘if your dice fail, you must look like a chump’, rather than realizing that failure can still mean you’re totally competent.

    (And that’s ignoring the fact that it’s one bloody helping die and no indication of your relative skill at all.)

    Could I have evangelized for competent-failure? Sure. I was busy teaching people the actual rules, though, so I didn’t have that kind of time.

    In a proper campaign (the best kind of game for anything from BWHQ, in my opinion), there would have been a discussion about narrating to respect people’s concepts and letting everyone play their concept while still paying heed to the system. As it was, we just didn’t have the time, so your guy got narrated as incompetent.

    Not the system or dice’s fault — success or failure doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with competence.

    Finally — it wasn’t the system critique I was objecting to: it was your characterization of me as someone using GM Fiat, a method of play I loathe. I can’t for the life of me figure out what behavior of mine read as Fiat to you, but I assure you: I play the system, not authoritative decree.

  8. Scott says:

    Sorry about the comment eating, Doyce. I’ve referred the issue to David, maybe he can help correct it. Thanks for persevering to leave all these comments!

Leave a Reply