Angels and Operators Post-Game Analysis (Part 1)

[robin_d_laws]

Thanks to everyone who left kind words in the comments to the final installment of Angels and Operators. Now for the promised post-game analysis, or a start on it, anyhow

Comments

[jeffwik]

While I'm not in the habit of being all crazy with the self-promotion, anyone who misses the weekly play-by-blog fix might be interested in the one I started a while back,

http://jeffwik.livejournal.com/tag/stars

which is now in its fifth go-round, still readily available for the jumping-on.

[gbsteve]

I played earlier on but dropped when I had PC problems at home. That said, I did enjoy it, even though I found it infuriating at times. The issue as to whether I could trust the evidence of my PC's senses was enough to drive me mad - so, result!

I'm not at all suprised by risk aversion. When you only have one playing piece, you tend to guard it jealously, especially went you don't know the rules of the game - which is one reason why those rules in Fear Itself that force characters to investigate are so important.

And when we played FI, we found that after some initial resistance, players didn't mind their new found courage - possibly because it was one of the few rules on their own conduct that they did have.

[notshakespeare]

I jumped in to this in the a bit after the start(which meant I found a lot a polls I could vote in to late). I enjoyed the structure, and agree that an insane character is the ideal character for being run by commitee. I'm a little less risk averse than the mob, but that is okay. When the GM tells you that you are crazy and it seems like a good idea to cut off your hand, you cut off your hand! Everybody knows that!

I have to say, it was an enjoyable run.

[viking_cat]

Do you think that the trend towards risk aversion had much to do with the fact that each person's vote isn't just affecting them, it's affecting everyone? I know that I'm much more likely to take risks in a narrative or game when I'm the primary stakeholder.

[robin_d_laws]

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. Intriguing point.

[bryant]

I tended towards the risk adverse and information gathering because I felt I didn't have sufficient information about the world to make decisions well. While it's hard to test this, I like to think that we would have reached a point where we collectively felt comfortable with available information and started going for more dangerous things. (Which is, perhaps, what happened at the end. I'm not sure.)

Hmmm.

We weren't able to ask questions. I think that's significant. In a tabletop game, you can always say "hey, do I know anything about X?" In this environment, not so much. I'd be interested in seeing a similar game with, perhaps, a two day question period between decision points.

[jeffwik]

I'd argue that the end of the risk aversion really came when Robin came out and said (subtly) "wtf is with all this risk aversion?" in the italicized portion of the text for installment 77. It seemed like something that built slowly over time, beginning during the hospital sequence, which I found frustrating because we didn't seem able to accomplish any of our objectives (Judy taking Pierce's side after Pierce beat us, that was a real kick in the teeth).

I know that in installment 75, I couldn't bring myself to select "get a hook, hang Pierce on it" even though it immediately seemed like the best thing to do.

[bryant]

Yeah, the effect of the GM kicking us in the teeth cannot be underestimated.