Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Arturo G., October 24, 2005, 09:17:19 AM
Quote2) The emperor proposes a big quest for the people in the lower layers. However, the mechanics to solve the big-quest are simple. What it is really important is that during the quest-phase, all players will have the opportunity to play a "personal quest" for their characters. And that's the nice part for me. Getting free of the GM-centric idea, it is possible to split the SIS. Players are acting as GMs for the personal quest of others. Thus, in two rounds (one playing the character, one acting as GM for another player), everyone has played his personal-quest. These quest are not shared during play. The SIS is splitted!! But as they do not affect each other it is working. After that, the big-quest is solved (quickly) in the again shared space.
Quote-I'd like you to expand on the "system may become too rigid" thing you mentioned. How exactly? I'm fully ready to believe you, I just would like help seeing the pitfalls. Do you see the main rigidity in the large-group play or in the one-on-one play?
QuoteBut my feeling is that perhaps, after several cycles, your character story-line is lacking something. Your are playing one solo quest after another. I was saying that the system may become too rigid in the sense that it has no support itself for crossing story-lines between characters. When the SIS is splitted your are always alone with your troubles.
Quote1) It would be nice if you mini-quests affected the outcome of the macro-quest in some significant way. As I read it right now, there is no real connection. Perhaps if you win your quest, you get the option of giving a bonus, and if you lose your quest, the option of giving a penalty. (This isn't a well-thought-out suggestion, just an example of where the rules could go.)
Quote2) It would be cool if you could call for aid on a mini-quest -- ask for someone's character to come in and help you.
QuoteThe main thing I noted, and this is a purely gamist-balance issue, is that whoever gets stuck as the Emperor first has a snowball's chance in hell of winning - he can't go on quests, so can never discover his talisman, which is required for the win. So the Emperor has to wait until someone is powerful enough to knock him off, and then start over from the bottom of the food chain and hope like hell no one else wins while he's playing catch up.
QuoteRight off the top: this is very ambitious, very interesting, new ground.
QuoteThe character creation system seems to offer exactly the right mix of structure and creativity for a large group, so that everyone can contribute but not get wrapped up in too many choices. What I'm envisioning is fundamentally a verbally-mediated role-playing game with some "breakout" group aspects, with hints of (but not including) LARP.
QuoteAlso, when we hop over to the resolution rules, I really dislike the multiple-Tiles option, which seems to me simply to be gratuitous stacking. The Pool taught me that being forced to choose one item on one's sheet for a given conflict is a good thing, and Hero Wars taught me that even if you augment with other items, keep it clear which one is the core. Just stackin' "whatever seems to apply" is pretty bogus by comparison.
Quoteyou did manage to fit in "Cosmos" cleverly enough to evade (barely) my suspicious eye that you were shoehorning in the Ronnies term.
QuoteI have a question about resolution. Are the rolled dice kept hidden while pairs are pushed forward?
QuoteOverall, the game's primary current weakness concerns how scenes and scene-lets get established so that everyone in play simply knows what's going on out there, at least at the scene level. Who's in each scene or on what quest, basically. That seems important to me, rather than having it be more LARP-like with experiences restricted to individual encounters. Without this organization, the game would be composed of just dice-matching all day.Now, I know you're on the right track with that issue, because the Seeking Fortune section provides exactly the right information or its potential. I suggest reading it over, maybe printing it out, then going over every procedure in the game with that in mind.
QuoteLooking over the whole game, I'm not really seeing any winning. What you call winning seems out of place, more like "all right already, time to end this." I suggest keeping that feature, but not calling it "winning," and adjust its conditions to be more events-driven rather than having a single trigger.