I'm surprised to hear about the editing, only because I understand that Pinto edited hundreds of gaming books.

Posted By: Matthijsthere are some eyesores - like naming a rule "That's retarded!"

I seem to remember that the 'that's retarded' phrase was suggested up by one of us besides Jim during a playtest session and everyone thought that it was a good fit. It may be that it's an americanism common to the age group of the characters that doesn't resonate as well elsewhere

give the game a try if you can get past your reaction - the sessions I played were always fun

It took me a while to root about and find out what the game actually is. The description at LuLu enticed me -- it's a setting that I think I'd love.

But the actual rules -- what the game is -- only gets a quick gloss. I'd love to hear more about the rules.

I tracked down the blog feed and I want to say I loved the art samples from the book. I usually think the art in RPG books is bad. But this stuff was GOOD!

By skimming some of the rules from the sample pages I thought -- "Hey, this looks strangely engaging. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I might be moved to tears playing it."

Jim, could you talk more about what the players actually do in play -- both in terms of narrative, but specifically rules and mechanics. There were all sorts of colorful fidley bits on the character sheet, but I don't know what they mean, how they interact with each other, what the mechanical point of play is. Could you describe this a bit.

Oh, and I liked the type-face and layout and the way the the PC is reference as "The Child." Once I saw that I thought, "Well, of course one of rules is That's Retarded!"

But in the same way Dogs in the Vineyard is a very different game than My Life With Master which is a different game than AD&D 3.5 which is a different game than Sorcerer which is a different game than Primetime Adventures...

George's Children is going to be a different game as well. So what is it? Can you tell me how the game is structured? What are the reward mechanics? What do the Players try to get done with mechanics? How do the mechanics interact between Players/GM and so on....?

Thanks,

CK

Welllllll...

If you explain it here -- then this whole audience gets to know more about your game. Which is a good thing.

Someone has offered you the chance to go on about something you made. Whenever someone offers me that particular invitation, I leap to accept.

You might want to consider doing to the same!

CK

George's Children is very much stand by me meets mad max or lord of the flies meets mad max. The children and their point of view is everything.

Adults have been dead long enough that the world is in crisis, but short enough that some children remember something about them.

How children are born and when they go when they reach 13 is up to the storytellers.

Since it is a shard storytelling experience, everyone takes turns adding to the elements already created.

Told in three acts, the players take turns in age order (oldest first) detailing each of the following stages of the game

Act I: Breakfast
Act II: Gossip
Act III: The Journey
Act IV: The The
Act V: Bedtime

During Act I the children get one turn to introduce their character. Much like Dogs, they can either succeed or fail at the end of the scene and this will impact later scenes. Success in the game is denoted as gaining glory and failure is worry. This is true through every act. Breakfast also involves how they get food for the day.

Act II can be played one of two ways (although most everyone prefers the first version). Co-op or competitive rumors. Each child reveals a rumor about THE THE, being as convincing as they can about something that must be overcome. This is essentially how the plot of the game develops. But it changes every time you play. The only rules about the rumor is that it must be told as a THE. Children do not go to A park, they go to THE park. Therefore if a child says there's a monster in a forest somewhere, he is referring to THE monster in THE forest. In our first ever game, it was THE itchy. In the competitive version, the person with the most successes convinces everyone to go after his/her goal. In co-op, everyone votes or agrees.

Undoubtedly, it always becomes about safety or luxury. Children want to get somewhere safe or fight some bad guys. OR, they want to reach a place where food is plentiful.

Act III is the journey. It plays like Act I, but continues around the table over and over again until one player reach give glory, which immediately starts Act IV. If anyone accumulates five worry, he or she ages one year and is out of the game. If the child is 12, he/she dies. The player still plays the game, but the child is not part of the story any longer. Act III does not have to be a journey. If the goal is to build defenses against an incoming gang of kids, then game play is still the same, but the players do not walk somewhere, but instead take turns preparing for the end.

Act IV is THE THE. This is free-form again. Although instead of gaining successes, the players spend the successes they have received so far, one at a time, revealing more and more about the climax.

Act V is Bedtime where the players discuss the fate of the other children at the end of the day based on the amount of Worry they have amassed.

Gameplay is about 3-5 hours depending on the number of players and the complexity of the story.

Character creation is a two-step process, pick a name and an age (between 7 and 12). No two children can be the same age.

Your Memory score is equal to your age. This represents a child's reality and how he/she interacts with it. Your Imagination score is 15 minus your age. This represents a child's perception of reality and ability to expand it.

Children have one goal each, to help frame the character. This has no mechanical value.

Children have strengths, which can be used once to reroll a failed die roll. Basically luck or hit points with names.

Determining success is a simple 50/50 ratio, with children bidding their attributes to determine how many dice they roll. The other children can increase the difficulty of a trial by spending their own imagination or memory. The more people spend, the harder it is for a child to get passed their objective.

Children either forge independence (gain Glory) or forge bonds (reduce the worry of others) during their turn. Since it is (sort of) a race to be the first child with five glory, the game can get a little competitive. Which is good. In the Lord of Flies version of the game, children play to last man standing, not a set number of Glory.

I think that's the easiest way to describe everything in the game.

The book also has rules for playing in a mutant or zombie-filled wasteland or to recreate AKIRA or something similar.

Hi Jim,

Thanks. Now I definitely want to check this out.

I'm still unclear on what happens in actual play: what people are rolling, how one accumulate worry, how the GM interacts with the Players and so on.

But I love the simple, formalized "kids telling a story" aspect to it.

Can't want to see a copy at Gateway.

Thanks again,

CK

You just did

Heheh :)

This thread is pretty obvious proof that even posting negative stuff about a game can easily get that game positive attention.

Jim and I have been whispering a bit about this game. Here's what I wrote about "That's retarded":

* I think that even though children from a specific culture are using that term today, it doesn't mean they will do so in a horrible post-apocalyptic world tomorrow.
* Even if they do, the game is presumably meant for children from other cultures as well.
* And at any rate, naming a rule after an offensive term is a conscious design choice. Why use that term, in this specific game? (I mean, you could conceivably name a rule "Nuke the fags!" in Twilight:2000, but it would seem jarring in the context of the game - while if Kill Puppies For Satan had a rule called "The Fuck Jesus Rule", it would make sense, sort of).

It's for charity. All of it. How can we justify or afford an editor?

We've already lost time and money on this project.

Ok at this point, I think before jim gets actually offended or angry I should step in and offer a refund for return of the book.

Drop me an email at monstrosgiganticos@yahoo.co.uk and we can arrange the return of the defective merchandise and a refund.
We're really genuinely sorry you didn't enjoy the book. Other have expressed their satisfaction with it.

My apology was not intended to offend. My natural impulse now is to apologise for causing offense, but I'm not sure that would help! I genuinely hope you have fun if you get round to playing the game!

(See this thread for more context on the "criticising games on this forum" thing: Guide to Talking Bad About My Games)

All good.

(And if you want to see me performing on the other end of the pointed stick, you can see what happened when I discussed We All Had Names at theRPGsite).

Hi Jim,

You wrote:

Posted By: jim pinto
There is no GM. One YOUR turn, you frame a scene for yourself. And then set a Trial that you have to overcome. The other players can increase the difficulty of the Trial (one point per). You bid how much Memory or Imagination you want to spend to overcome the Trial. You roll dice equal to points spent (or flip coins or whatever). 50/50 chance of success on a single die/flip. If you get enough successes you get a point of Glory and describe your success. If you fail, you get a point of Worry and the player to your left describes your failure.

So, is it a competitive game between the players? Are there resources the players give up to increase the difficulty of the Trial?

I got the game until this point, and now I'm getting a little confused. What's the intention here? How does it play out in practice?

Thanks,

CK

I was trying to be respectful of the fact that Matt dropped it.

Matt is entitled to his opinion about the editing. I don't agree.

But he should be allowed to discuss it in public all he wants. If he wants to talk TO ME about it, I don't feel that leading questions are a fair way to go about it.

How much further can the conversation go?

If you haven't noticed. I'm trying not to be an asshole on these boards in the manner I was a week ago.

I've been very polite about everything so far.

If you want to talk about the game, I will gladly answer your questions about it. But I can't and won't address Matt's opinion any further. He's bowed out of the debate about it and so have I.

It's about children. It's intended for mature players.

You can see some sample pages on Lulu. There are two typos that I remember noticing on the pages I looked at ("then" instead of "than", and a singular/plural error). I am doubtful that this is unprofessional. Any book has to have a limit at which point you send it to press, and there will be typos for sure.

I think it looks to have been "edited" in the sense of content -- it has been arranged in order, with I'm guessing parts added and omitted from an initial text. I would say that Jim has taken a critical view of the order of the book and what is to be included. I am guessing this as it looks a coherent text to me. Maybe an external editor would have asked questions that didn't occur to Jim, or maybe not.

I also think it has been "edited" in the sense that typos have been spotted and fixed, and I would say some proof-reading had been done. I think this because otherwise there would be far more errors. However, Jim probably did it himself and, of coures, you have a harder time spotting your own errors. Would someone else looking at it have helped?

Here's the deal. I would take someone who does this as a professional "rushing" it through and giving it a look over only a few times over a non-professional labouring away intensively for far longer. That is my experience.

What would my ideal be? A professional labouring away intensively for far longer, of course, but often circumstances dictate that this option is not possible (either financially or physically).

Gregor, I agree. My question really comes from my feeling that Matthijs is objecting to things in the writing that were conscious choices of the author, rather than sloppy editing or unprofessional proof reading standards. Which makes a lot of Chris responses about professional conduct and proof reading off target. I'm unclear at the moment as to whether rushing is really an issue. Professionally edited games have some typos. I understand from Jim that he is proud of the game. That it is the game he wanted to create. That is not an editing issue (except as you pointed out, editors can sometimes change writer's minds with new perspectives). That's a design issue. Maybe some people just like different things.

For the record.

I spoke with Matthijs in private.

I did not agree with all of his assessments. Copyediting is one thing. Editing for structure is another.

The charity comment was in reference to a specific comment.

I don't feel the need to "defend" my position any longer and I hope no one takes it as a slight that I think the book is really cool, even if the structure isn't their cup of tea.

I hope this clears things up.