tberton

So I finally finished this book and listened to the episode! Gerat job Chris and Sarah, I really enjoyed that discussion. I have so many thoughts, I had to take notes, but now I've lost them so I hope I get to everything I wanted to say. First off, I loved this book. I think it might be my favourite of the four Munro books I've read, or maybe tied for first with Lives of Girls and Women. Speaking of which, I think that book's in need of a bit of defense. Sarah said on the podacst that it's the least well-regarded of Munro's books , which for all I know is true, but it's still really good. I believe it was the book that first made her famous. Sarah says that maybe it doesn't work as well because it's a novel, but I think calling Lives of Girls and Women a novel is misrepresentative. Yes, every story follows one character through her youth in one small town, but they don't feel like chapters in a novel, they feel like short stories. That is, there's not really an arc or throughline between them, other than what the reader can infer. The stories have their own rhythm and don't necessarily follow from each other, similar to the Juliet stories in Runaway. Anyway, it's really good and well worth reading, especially for lovers of Munro. I was surprised to hear Chris say that he didn't think of these stories as particularly being about women, or at least that it wasn't the first thing that came to mind for him. Perhaps it's because I first read Munro in university and we talked a lot about the gender dynamics of her stories, but I see gender everywhere in these stories. It's not only that they all focus on women, but that they all focus on aspects of those women's lives that are heavily linked to gender: marriage, romance, childbirth, parenthood. None of these stories would be at all the same if the protagonists weren't women, which the possible exception of "Trespasses", although even there, the scenes between Lauren and Delphine would probably be very different if Lauren weren't a girl. However, they do feel more like stories "about people" than "about women" and I think that's one of their strengths and maybe what Chris was getting at when he said they felt universal. As a man reading these stories, I don't think "oh man, these characters have experiences completely different to mine." Instead, I'm struck by how relatable they are - the feeling of being a child with a cool adult friend, or having an entrancing first encounter with somebody that you don't want to end, or the tension in the room when you know your parents are going to fight. These are all things I've felt and seeing them be described through the eyes of women - who also are going through all sorts of things that I can't precisely relate to - makes those characters deeper and more real. This relates, I think, about what both of you were saying about all these stories and characters being very similar and yet each one still feeling fresh and revealing. Because while Munro goes back to a lot of the same ideas - smart quiet girls, overconfident men, romance that's at best quietly satisfactory - each story also has something description that rings true outside of what might be seen as the "main" action. "Passion," for instance, really captures the feeling of magical summers in rich rural Ontario, after dinner family games and nights by the water. "Trespasses" describes the feeling of watching your parents about to fight and not knowing what to do about it better than anything I've ever read. These variations stop the stories from feeling rote or predictable. Also, while I think it's true that Munro's protagonist's are all very similar, one thing I like is the variety of ages she puts them in. In this collection, I think we see women in every decade of their lives, up to I guess their seventies or eighties. That's another thing that I think that creates variation between them. On the thing about the trees: I have a lot of family that grew up in mid-century, small town Ontario and they can definitely point out all sorts of trees. It's totally a thing. I think it's funny that my favourite stories - "Silence" and "Tricks" - seemed to correspond with your least favourites. "Tricks" I liked because I'm a sucker for those "Before Sunrise" type stories of people meeting and having fleeting romances and having that wrapped in the concept of yearly visits to the Stratford Festival really resonated with me. Also, that ending was really surprising, because Munro doesn't usually end stories like that. It was as though O'Henry dropped in to ghostwrite it. But having that sort of twist in a story that was also full of Munro's trademark descriptions and relationships and quiet melancholy felt really refreshing. "Silence" I loved because I've read few stories that have provoked such a visceral emotional reaction in me. The idea of a child just completing abandoning their parent like that is completely unfathomable to me. Of course I understand people leaving abusive or unhealthy situations with their families and I would never say they shouldn't do that. But nothing like that seemed to be happening between Juliet and Penelope. Penelope just seemed like she had gotten tired of her mother and left, without a word. She instantly became one of my most hated characters in all of fiction, even though she never showed up. I can't imagine the pain that would cause my parents if I did that, and for Juliet to have such a seemingly mild reaction to it confused the hell out of me. That confusion created an utter fascination in me, analyzing why I had that reaction and why, according to Munro apparently, other people have such different relationships with their families. I loved the story for that. I think those two stories also showcased Munro's greatest skill as a writer: her ability to imbue her stories with sadness without having her characters be particularly sad themselves. At the end of "Tricks" Robin is shocked and confused, but she doesn't then think about how her life has terrible because of this dumb mistake, she just thinks to herself jokingly that she should have worn the other dress. Her life has, by all accounts, been fairly decent. Likewise, Juliet just accepts that her daughter has left and goes on living. Neither of these characters is particularly happy, but their lives have small pleasures and they've learned to incorporate the sadness they experienced into the fabric of their lives without being overwhelmed by it. Munro's stories always remind me that everybody has everybody lives through tragedy but few people's lives are, on the whole, tragic. Sorry, that was a lot of rambling. Like I said, I lost my notes.

This is a couple of pages late, but I thought I'd offer some advice here. For determining what move a player should make: read the fictional trigger carefully and think about whether or not the described action fits that trigger or not. If you're not sure, you or the player may not have described the action clearly enough, so go back and make sure you're clear on what's going on. That should help. Also, sometimes players will want to do things that don't require rolls and that's fine. If the potential for failure or complication doesn't seem interesting, just let them do it. In terms of GM moves, don't be afraid to pause and think about consequences. In fact, the book explicitly says that before decided on a move to make, you should take a second to consider whether or not it fits with your Principles and Agenda. Obviously don't take too long at this, but there's nothing wrong with taking a second to stop and think - it can even add drama. Remember, you're playing a game not directing a movie and playing a game well usually requires considered choices. I'm on EDT, but I would be able to swing a CST game and would be willing to GM. What game do you guys want to play.

I actually think that kind of works in the movie's favour a bit. In the book, Bill Haydon (Firth's character) looms much larger than any of the other suspects, to the point where it's obvious that he is the mole, except is so obvious that he can't possibly be the mole. which is why Karla picked him to be the mole. I feel like the director played the same double-bluff on the audience of the film

To be fair about that, Kingdom isn't supposed to have a GM or that many players, so it's not surprising that they had to do some tweaking on the fly.

Oh really? I quite enjoyed those episodes. I don't get the impression that The Quiet Year requires a lot of conflict to work, at least not between the players.

So, it looks like Gormongous, Salacious Snake, SuperBiasedMan, Vulpes Absurda, Twig and myself would be interested in The Sprawl. "Story game" is the term I hear used most often.

I'd be down to play The Sprawl too.

It's worth noting that while Dungeon World isn't nearly as combat-focused on D&D, it's still very adventure-focused - most time is spent overcoming (not necessarily fighting) monsters, delving through dungeons (obviously) and looting treasure. It's very good at that, but that's what it's about. If you want a more relationship-based game, I think Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts and Masks are more about that.

Transistor plays quite differently from Bastion, so you may still like it.

Roleplay Down a Hill.

I would be super down for playing Burning Wheel, although I don't think I'd feel confident enough to run it.

Oh yeah, sorry, those threads were only for making groups, I think. I've only GM'd a very small amount of Dungeon World and it's been with people I know (although two of the players didn't know each other), but I don't know why this would necessarily be the case any more than it is for any RPG. The game may seem like it has very few rules, but the rules that are there support play really well. It also has really good rules for the GM, which is possibly the most important part of an RPG's design.

More substantially, while I'm not aware of any good two-player games, here are a number of RPGs that I would love to play online and would be willing to GM for. Apocalypse World - fiction-first game set in a post-apocalyptic world evocative of Mad Max or Fallout. Dungeon World - based on the Apocalypse World system, but with the flavour and trappings of classic D&D. Monsterhearts - teenage vampires, werewolves and the like finding themselves and navigating life as a young person. Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Vampire Diaries. Masks - teenage superheroes finding themselves and fighting supervillains. Think Young Avengers or Young Justice. Urban Shadows - wizards, ghosts, seers and the like navigate the politics of a city with a magical underbelly. Think Angel or the Dresden Files or World of Darkness. Blades in the Dark - a group of scoundrels seeking to make a name for themselves in an industrial fantasy city. Think Lies of Locke Lamora or The Wire.

So, I've been going back through the Mass Effect series because I never played 3 despite loving the first two games. I'm about 2/3s of the way through two right now. I haven't played it since my first go-around 6 years ago. Jesus christ you guys, this game is great. An improvement on the first game in every way, with the possible exception of removing the Mako outright instead of improving it. But still, easily one of my top 10 games ever. I love everything about it. Can't wait to play 3 (also I'm sorely tempted to just replay 2 again once I'm done, I love it that much).

Does TBS still air Friends reruns? I recommend that. Sorry. Real answer: if you've got a Game Boy Advance or a DS, the Advance Wars games are really good. They tend a little toward the "puzzle" end of strategy, but they're really fun anyway. Advance Wars 2 (GBA) is the one to get if you can find it, but Days of Ruin (DS) is also quite good. Also, pretty different than what I think you're looking for but techinically fitting your requirements is Transistor. Yeah, you only control 1 character, but it's got an awesome pause-and-queue-actions combat system and a ludicrously deep ability combination system that might scratch the same issue. Also, the visuals and music are as good as you'll ever encounter in a video game.

There actually is a thread for this in the Multiplayer Networking forum, but this is probably a better spot.

No joke, if anybody on this forum wants to play a Powered by the Apocalypse game or Blades in the Dark or something, I would totally be down.

A follow-up to this: if the Thumbs were looking to add a new podcast to the network, an Actual Play RPG podcast would be fucking great.

I was going to write into the podcast about exactly this. Really, there's an incredibly prolific indie tabletop RPG scene (which mostly congregates on Google+, weirdly enough), which includes the Powered by the Apocalypse games along with a bunch of others. I highly recommend Sean and the other Thumbs check it out, even if it's just for a look at a different type of game design. Tabletop RPG design is fascinating in the similarities it has to video game and board game design, but also in how different it is.

Damn you.

Hooray Sean! Regarding the brief Captain Olimar aside: Captain Olimar does not have a mustache.

Oh man, I had no idea that you guys were doing Runaway until my podcast feed updated! I love me some Alice Munro, but have never read this one (despite hearing that it might be her best). Got it on hold at the library now! Gregbrown, I know where you're coming from in terms of short stories being a weird format. If you want to give Munro another shot, I recommend either Lives of Girls and Women or Who Do You Think You Are? Both are short story collections that follow a single character, so they feel like a cross between a short story and a novel. They might give you more of the development and change that you're looking for. I think the former is more consistent throughout, but the latter has some freaking great stories. Wild Swans in particular. Here's a question that struck me as I was thinking about Munro this morning: why don't people talk about her more often? Even in Canada, even in discussions about women authors, she always seems like an afterthought. Like "Oh, yeah, Alice Munro is great. But we're going to talk about Margaret Atwood or Margaret Laurence". Yet I would argue (and the Nobel committee seems to agree) that Munro is Canada's best writer and one of the world's greatest living writers. Is it because short stories aren't as popular a genre (although as gregbrown says, their certainly popular in academic circles)? Is it because her work isn't overtly provocative or political?

The dislike of anything that smacks of randomness is my biggest (game design) gripe with a large portion of the board game hobby.

Listening to Dan learn about gravity on yesterday's Beastcast was magical.

Oh man, I remember hearing about Love way back in like 2008. I'll check this episode out.