[With Great Power ...] Brief but strong play in Sweden
Nathan P.:
I'm assuming the Color-first has a particular meaning in context of With Great Power... (which I haven't read or played), but it immediately reminds me of a really fruitful technique I developed during my playtesting of Darkpages. After determining which Imprint (which covers tone and general style of the game-to-come), but before going through the whole character generation process, I would ask the players "Ok, so I pick up your characters comic off the shelf. What's the cover look like?"
I found that this was really effective at both getting the players thinking in terms of color and image (which is really important in Darkpages), and also at cluing me in to their comics background and preferences.
James_Nostack:
Quote
I can't comment on how [the evolving scratch pad] actually works in long-term play. I haven't been able to sustain long-term play for a variety of real-life reasons.
This is one of the spots where the text isn't very clear. The GM can only change an aspect once he or she drives it to the maximum level of stress ("transforms it"). Presumably if play ends before the GM can transform that aspect, it resets to normal at the start of the next series.
After playing 3 one-shots and a long-form game, I've never seen the aspects get transformed. We've come very close in one game*, but only on those aspects which were extremely significant to the plot ("strife aspects"). The other aspects were only moderately stressed. This suggests that the long-term change of characters will be pretty slow if not undetectable. Naturally players could re-jigger their own scratch pads to reflect whatever they learned during the adventure, but I gather we're talking about changes compelled by the conflict rules.
Michael, what happens when the game ends, and there's an aspect sitting around that's been captured by the GM but not yet transformed? It resets to normal, right?
* = Obligatory disclaimer: that game may not have been representative. In that game, the players had trouble understanding some of the rules and therefore weren't playing optimally. Either as a result of their poor play or imbalances native to a 1:2 player long-form game, I crushed them so horribly and so persistently that by the last session I ended up playing sub-optimally, so that they would have a fighting chance. For reference, at the end of the game one player had devastated all of his aspects; the other player had devastated everything except for the strife aspect which had been left untouched.
Ron Edwards:
Hi James,
My understanding is a little different. It hinges on the difference between Devastation (which is the same as Capture) and Transformation. I'll phrase it like I see it.
A Devastated Aspect, and at any of the post-Devastation stages save for Transformation, can be regained by the player by winning a single conflict against the GM, which returns the Aspect all the way to Primed. This is called Redeeming an Aspect. However, it will be permanently changed by one or more of the various features listed in the text (Scale, et cetera), and if I remember right, the change is up to the player.
A Transformed Aspect is permanently changed by the GM in accord with the Plan.
Actually, these are the second and third forms of what can happen to an Aspect, so I'll list the least extreme for the full picture. As I implied above, an Aspect which Suffers but is not yet Devastated can change drastically in the fiction, but as long as it remains un-Devastated, later narrations to bring it back to the way it was, given reductions in Suffering, are permitted. Also, such an Aspect is not permanently changed even if its Suffering is still high at the end of an Arc; it just "bounces back" at that point.
I'm not sure whether (i) we understand the rules differently or (ii) we are saying the same things and running into a little terminological/phrasing confusion, so let me know.
----
I may still be a little bit confused about one thing: you refer to Aspects coming close to Transformation which are not Strife Aspects, and Strife Aspects are the only ones which may be Transformed, or so I thought. Michael, do I have that right? Can any ol' Aspect in play be taken through Capture and further stages up until Transformation? Maybe I was thinking too close to the Plan, which relies on the Transformation of Strife Aspects, and anticipating focusing on that end when I play in the future.
Best, Ron
James_Nostack:
Hi Ron,
Quote
As I implied above, an Aspect which Suffers but is not yet Devastated can change drastically in the fiction, but as long as it remains un-Devastated, later narrations to bring it back to the way it was, given reductions in Suffering, are permitted. Also, such an Aspect is not permanently changed even if its Suffering is still high at the end of an Arc; it just "bounces back" at that point.
Yep, we're saying the same thing.
Quote
Strife Aspects are the only ones which may be Transformed, or so I thought. Michael, do I have that right? Can any ol' Aspect in play be taken through Capture and further stages up until Transformation?
Pages 59-60 strongly imply that the villain can transform any aspect, not just the extra-special strife aspect.
I'm divided as to the strategic value of really trying to nail the lesser aspects. Once I capture your strife aspect, I really don't have time to screw around. As a player, you can declare, and then immediately forfeit, as many conflicts as necessary to force me into Endgame, which allows you to either redeem the aspect or wreck my plan (which, in effect, also redeems the aspect). Either way, my time is limited and I've got to transform the strife aspect while I still can. There's no reason to fool around with the lesser aspects, except to divide your attention.
Quote
a Plan as a whole may not be an in-game, in-fiction plan at all.
The completely disembodied and unintended plan is a curious idea--sort of like an inescapably tragic Situation--and I wonder how well that illusion would hold up given the degree of antagonism inherent in the game.
I do have some notes from our Silver Age Marvel game last summer regarding degrees of suffering. I'll try to post them but it'll probably occur while folks are at GenCon having fun.
Michael S. Miller:
Yesterday did not go as I had hoped. But today's a new day.
Cardplay issues
In 1-on-1 play, I don't see any problem with the player offering up the card. The main reason for the "GM plays versus a random flip from the deck" rule is to avoid the situation where one player must weaken their hand to oppose the GM's Enrichment scene. It seemed like that would mechanically penalize one player for stepping up and being engaged.
Discards simply go into separate discard piles for each individual deck. That's why I recommend different card backs. We tried some other discard schemes, and they all proved to be wasted complexity. Even discarding one of the cards onto the Story Arc to advance it, and having it locked there for the rest of the issue, is a rule that brings more complexity than useful gameplay.
As for whether there should be only four styles of conflict in a particular scene, James has the right of it. As written, Spades can be "striking/punching/kicking" on Noir's sheet, and "persuasion/threatening/gloating" on Debris' sheet. And, if Debris changes style with Diamonds to "grappling/tacking", she can later change back with Spades to "using a power" or whatever. She doesn't need to go back to "persuasion/threatening/gloating." The suits never "lock" to a particular style. The only choice should be "keep the style the same" vs. "change to any different style."
I never considered locking them in to just four styles for a given conflict. Keeping track of which suits represent which styles is another element of complexity in a game already burdened with it. Perhaps it will be a fruitful constraint. I'll have to give it a test run for the revision.
Devastated Aspects
As written, the GM can attempt to Transform any Aspect that the player Devastates, not just the Strife Aspect. As James points out, it doesn't help The Plan, but sometimes you take what the players offer. This can occasionally produce play where what a player originally claimed was their Strife Aspect sees no suffering at all. Maybe the player is turtling, maybe the player thought they were going to have more fun with Aspect X, but in play they find that Aspect Y is more fun. My wife Kat actually runs a variant at conventions where she asks the player to change their Strife Aspect to the one they're obviously interested in, and adjusts her Plan to match.
Quick notes, I hope to come back to later in the day, but you never know:
The Plan is primarily an organizational tool for the GM, not for the fictional villain. If it can do both jobs as an in-fiction nefarious scheme, and as a metagame reminder of "this is the flavor of adversity to offer up", then great. But, particularly with larger, disparate groups, I need to use the Plan to keep my Stakes and my particular attacks consistently tuned to each player's needs.
I won't be at GenCon again this year. Hope you have a good time, Ron.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page