Comments on: Let It Ride Blows, and Other Updates

By: Alan De Smet

Alan De Smet — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:07:00 +0000

"It [Let it ride] is touted as a form of "protection" from the GM."

Indeed. And I don't think it's an accept. From an interview with the creator: "I’m the most dysfunctional, railroading, “this is my fucking story” GM I’ve even seen. I designed BW so I’d stop that."

This increased my respect for the idea. Instead of a "You all suck, so I have to reign you in" vibe (which is a distinct vibe I get off, say, Ron Edwards) it's "I suck, and I need to be reigned in. Maybe you'll find it useful too?"

By: Allen Varney

Allen Varney — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:02:00 +0000

Whoooa! I’m reading along, nodding, yeah, yeah, and then right at the end, like the sting in a scorpion’s tail, WHAM! My work is attacked! Annnd, one second later — end of post!

I wrote Horizon: Stronghold of Hope with my wife, Beth Fischi. I don’t quite see how your line of reasoning leads to the unsupported (and breathtakingly brief) declaration the book was crappy. Could you clarify?

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:21:00 +0000

Malcom,
I would like to point out that you're factually incorrect about the context of the development of the Let It Ride rule.

LIR is not a product of any "revision." It has been in the game since the "classic edition." It has nothing to do with "pseudo-theory" or, by implication, The Forge.

And, if I may, your analysis of the rule is rather superficial. Yes, it does protect against bully GMs and twitchy players, but at its core it is a vital and simple mechanic that changes the game from task-based resolution to conflict resolution. It lets player and GM alike know that each roll is important and that the result will not be undermined. And since each roll is important, it is also a cue and guide as to how to spend your points and gather help. Set up the situation, make your roll, interpret success and failure and move on. Let It Ride streamlines play.

I was looking forward to your review. I find it unfortunate that you can't see past something that nettles you in order to give a game a fair and objective look.

By: John Kim

John Kim — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:59:00 +0000

John Kim's theory glossary had two . . . mistakes. John Kim is a smart guy but his role as a compiler of information seems to leave itself vulnerable to absorbing dumbass statements by others without critical comment.

I believe you're referring to the TheoryTopics Wiki.

You might be unfamiliar with the wiki concept, but it means that anyone can (and usually does) edit it. I'd urge you to go in and edit those entries to reflect what you say. Just go to the Metaplot entry and click on the "Edit Page" link on the right. The Metaplot entry has had four contributors, for example.

You're right that I had no critical comment about the term "Metaplot" -- that's because I have virtually no experience with the game lines generally cited as metaplot, and don't discuss it much myself. The whole point of making it a wiki was to encourage critical comment as you suggest.

By: John P.

John P. — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:03:00 +0000

I’m not going to review The Burning Wheel after all. I came to this conclusion after realizing that the problems with the game map to the problems with indie games so exactly that it would be hard to write anything constructively critical about it.

Um – could you review it anyway? After reading your take on Let It Ride, I realized what’s been nagging me about it all this time. I know it’d probably be a lot of repetition for you (“and here is yet ANOTHER example of player-distrust encrusted in the rules”), but I’d read it anyway.