Beyond the Mirror, a sci-fi game on memories and humanity -in development
Paul Czege:
Tazio,
You write that all you care about is that the game is "fun and intense to play" and that you want to create a "visceral gaming experience". Davide writes that a playtest last December was "far way more engaging than how it seems it resulted this last weekend," suggesting that you've discussed a more recent playtest with him, and that the game is somehow not realizing your design goals.
When you say that you have concerns about "players caring little for their characters," is this something you've observed? If not, then what are you seeing in your playtests that isn't living up to your expectations for the game?
Paul
Tazio Bettin:
Paul,
maybe something I said caused Davide's interpretation, but actually I have to disagree with him. The playtest of December showed how crude the game was and how much work I still needed to do on it. Since I trimmed the useless parts and changed some bits, I experienced a dramatic improvement in the game's fluidity. The most recent playtest I did was partially successful.
If I were to say what I don't see as working as smoothly as I'd like is mainly the culminations' resolution mechanic.
I'm trying to find something that works with as little downtimes as possible. I haven't had a chance to playtest a complete cycle with a grou or three or four players yet, due to a lack of time. It only happened twice that we managed to have our characters go all the way up to the revelation, and that's because we were playing in two.
Also the matter of narrative authorities has been bugging me a little bit. Maybe it's more of a personal bias than an actual problem, but I have an issue with games where the audience have a passive role or little influence over the narration. However, I'm still struggling with deciding whom should have the last say on what.
Lastly, In one or two earlier playtests I see a lack of flags, possibly. I.e., not always the Shadow finds it easy to help the scene move towards a culmination. However, I've seen games with fewer flags working in a perfectly smooth way, so I'm kinda comfused. Should I add something? A relationship map perhaps? Not sure about that...
Regarding my concern for players caring little for their characters, it was just related to the observation Davide made about author stance. No, I haven't witnessed that in the playtests. When a resolution roll puts players in the position of taking a difficult choice, I always saw them feeling cornered, and that was thrilling. The problem is that (having players face tough choices) right now it happens less frequently than I'd like. Blaming the resolution mechanics here. They work, but not too efficiently.
Sorry, long reply. Thanks for asking those questions. By answering to them I noticed many things I had been overlooking.
Paul Czege:
Tazio,
Both you and Davide have used the word "downtime". Do you mean Search Time (everything that needs to happen before you can use the resolution mechanics)? Or Handling Time (everything that needs to happen to completely use what the resolution mechanics have specified)? Or something else? What kinds of things are you characterizing as "downtime" during the Culminations?
Paul
davide.losito:
hm, for me, it was a term I have been introduced by... Tazio :D
It should represent the break on game narration while players set the dice and "read them", without adding any specific content to the fiction and actually stopping it.
In a game where the mechanics require the players to place dice and wait for the opponent to place his, either one by one or all in turn, there is a lot of this "downtime".
I don't know whether there's a specific term for this, but it sounded right and explanatory enough, so I accepted it.
Tazio Bettin:
Paul,
Davide summed up the term pretty well.
I introduced this word in a discussion I opened on Story Games where I identified what I perceive as flaws in the design of Joshua A.C. Newman's shock: social science fiction (with Joshua's permission).
I consider a downtime a time during play where you stop making decisions and just do the game's math. It is a term I see most often related to boardgames. And in boardgames it's a design flaw (or considered so), because it breaks the game's flow. Like when you have to make additions, subtractions, calculations etc. You're not taking a real decision in game, or even considering your strategy. You're just doing math.
I also try to carefully keep a balance between a game's math and the ratio of information you get from a resolution roll. Any given conflict resolution mechanic can give you as simple an answer as yes/no (you get the stake/you don't get the stake), or it can give you tangent information (yes, and/yes, but, for instance). In such cases, some complications may be acceptable, but a full fledged downtime would be a mistake in my opinion. I think it's a very serious matter, but for some reason it has been widely understimated in rpg designing, by what I perceive. May be mistaken, mind you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page