Help me pitch sales?

So, I came up with good-enough back cover copy, I'll post it here when I'm at that computer again. I'm still not sure what I'll say in person, but it's good to know to save Firefly for later in the conversation, if it comes up.

Thanks, everybody!

-Vincent

Exciting!

I think Firefly has its place in the "this is what the game can be like" talk, but certainly not during the opening salvo.

I'm curious to see what you've come up with.

Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.

That said, I'm glad you have a thing you like. Looking forward to seeing it.

Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.

That's the danger of "It's like X but with Y" where X and Y are pop-cultural items.  You alienate some while including others.  They're an easy out but when they fail, boy do they fail.

Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.

That said, I'm glad you have a thing you like. Looking forward to seeing it.

It's a genre problem. A friend and I were talking about this. Just like Star Wars clearly has nothing to do with science fiction, but still gets lumped in there by most people, it's generally better to go with the trappings rather than what the game is actually "about". And if you lead with the pitch of "it's a hyper violent post-apocalyptic nightmare psycho fantasy", you'd be wrong as well.

If you told someone that AW was like Firefly before they played it, they'd get the wrong impression. If you told them that after they played, then they'd get it.

Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".

AW is "no lasers" as written.

Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".

AW is "no lasers" as written.

Well, there ya go: just tell 'em it's a "no lasers" game.

Quote from: Chris on July 26, 2010, 09:40:42 PM

Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".

AW is "no lasers" as written.

Well, there ya go: just tell 'em it's a "no lasers" game.

I know a Savvyhead or two who might attempt to disagree.

That said, our games have, so far, been a lot more The Road and a lot less Fallout, so you might be right.

So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiencers of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.

So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiences of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.

Can we have lasers and no lasers simultaneously?  Can I invent the Schrödinger Beam?

Quote from: fnord3125 on July 27, 2010, 01:18:34 PM

So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiences of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.

Can we have lasers and no lasers simultaneously?  Can I invent the Schrödinger Beam?

Maybe, but now we're dealing with experimental fiction. I say don't play with what Aristotle wrote in Poetics:

Verily, there are simply two modes of meaningful expression: that which hath lasers and that which hath not lasers.

But I'm a traditionalist.

See, I never much cared for Aristotle's take on it. I found the Jain savants take on it ever so much more flexible and human. It's complicated to translate from the Sanskrit, but basically it goes like this:

In some ways this game has lasers
In some ways this game has no lasers
In some ways this game has lasers and in some ways this game has no lasers
In some ways this game has lasers, but they are not describable
In some ways this game has no lasers, but they are describable
In some ways this game has lasers, in some ways it does not have lasers, and they are not describable
In some ways, the lasers in this game cannot be said to be or not to be

Personally, I believe that AW is a game that has no lasers, but they are describable. To understand how you just have to look at the Psychic Malestorm rules.

I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.

Anyway: some time ago, I explained AW as "postapocalyptic and way more brutal Neuromancer". Worked fine.

I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.

I want to be in that game!

Quote from: juliusz on July 30, 2010, 07:05:43 PM

I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.

I want to be in that game!

This is the opposite of every apocalypse world game I ever want to play.

Which isn't to say it's bad or uncool, but if someone said we were playing that game with AW, I would decline.

Simon: thanks! ;-)

skinnyghost: that's fine! ;-) I mean, I thind I'd react the same way as you when someone would say "let's play Firefly". Still, as written, AW says nothing against that kind of Quite-A-Lot-Of-Lasers things (and I think it's not just about me and my problems with seeing the sharp distinction between postapocalypse and cyberpunk ;-)). One creates Mechs for Drivers using Construction / Utility rules, takes number of stuff from 1st session, adds a little bit of Jodorowsky here and there, and then it's just about zooming and moving away in scenes. And then you have perfect "Snowcrash" or "Mona Lisa Overdrive" (not to mention another possibility, things like "Tetsuo: the Iron Man").