Beyond the Mirror, a sci-fi game on memories and humanity -in development
Paul Czege:
Tazio,
I have some additional feedback. Two items actually. I've been holding off because in the past I think I've given designers too many pieces of disparate feedback on their games, and it wasn't productive.
First item:
It's obvious that you've put incredible effort into the English language text of Beyond the Mirror. It's impressive work, knowing that English isn't your native language. But I want to suggest that you write it and organize it differently. You want a text that inspires people to want to play the game. Your text begins with, and includes lots of language like:
"a story game whose aim is to explore"
"help you recreate"
"gather some of your friends"
"introduce her character in play"
"move her, describe what she does..."
"maneuvering scene elements and external characters"
This kind of language casts the prospective player into an "author" mindset relative to play. You're telling prospective players that the game is supposed to be an authoring experience, where characters are "introduced" and "maneuvered," like the script committee for a TV show. And before you even talk about what the characters and setting and situation is like, the kinds of things that inspire creative enthusiasm, you're talking about the theme. No one gets excited to read a novel or see a movie by being told about its themes. I don't think gamers get excited to play roleplaying games by being told about their themes either. They get excited by being presented with characters, situation, and setting that they can visualize, and from this stuff the themes are intuitive to them.
Also, before you present inspiring game situation and setting, you also have language about how the characters are placed into "a situation of crisis" and "experience how it changes them," and about what sacrifices and choices they'll have to make. Players won't be inspired by this. Nobody fantasizes about having to make difficult decisions, about having to make sacrifices, or about having to change.
I recommend starting the text with the situation of the synths: created for war, in hiding for fear of being hunted and scrapped, with their memories buried and covered over with false ones, waiting for the opportunity of a better life.
I think the themes should be emergent from actual play, and the stuff about difficult choices and sacrifices and about the practices of introducing and manipulating scene elements and characters should only appear, if necessary, when you're explaining the procedures of play.
Paul
Tazio Bettin:
Hi Paul,
again, thank you very much for the interest you're showing in my effort. It means much to me. And as always, very solid points, which I will definitely consider when I write a final version of the game. I'm sure it will significantly change the gaming experience for the better once I've implemented your suggestions, which I'll be sure to do.
Side note, I've re-built the ending rules. I'm fairly satisfied at the moment, but maybe because what bugs me most is the conflict resolution mechanic which does not seem to work as well as I would want it to.
The ending part would be something like:
Endgame when you reach your Focus cap (human):
If your goal is above 3, choose one for each point by which it is higher than 3. If you do not chose one, you do not get it.
You reach your goal
You stay alive
You save your relationship***
If your goal is below 4, you do not get your goal. In addition, for each point by which it is lower than 4, you must choose one:
You end up in mysery: all what made your existence bearable in this dying planet is lost, including any chance to go Offworld
You die
You lose the most precious thing you had
(this list is the one I'm actually least satisfied with)
***relationship. At any time one of the shadow players (not the speaker) may create an NPC to be the Light’s relationship. This character is defined by a name, a generic description and is created by the shadow who introduced it.
There may be one relationship per Light. It's the relationship. The most important one. If the light introduces the relationship during play, one of the shadows (not the speaker) must control it. If possible, the same shadow who created it.
A relationship can only be revealed as replicant as the result of a culmination, typically in the “if you fail” clause declared by the Shadow Speaker. Same goes with the death of a relationship, because that would count as risking something, a condition for a culmination taking place.
Synth List
If your goal is above 3, choose one for each point by which it is higher than 3. If you do not chose one, then you do not get it.
You go offworld
You survive
You retain your identity (i.e. your artificial brain does not simply reset, as it would in an inconscious protocol in order to save your
existance, burying your true identity behind a new layer of false memories)
If your goal is below 4, you are scrapped. They get you, and you die.
Getting back to the conflict mechanics, I've been brainstorming with my dear friend Rafu and Joe (Mcdaldno), from which one rather important point emerged. It's: How should conflict be in the fiction? My answer was that I want to see something akin to how conflict is in the movie Blade Runner.
It usually starts physical, but it is revealed to be more about ethics and emotions and humanity.
It is rare but extended: its consequences span over more than one scene. It involves reassessing and repositioning, and fallout that occurs afterwards. Possibly it involves escalation towards physical harm. It is about taking risks to preserve and pursue one’s goal.
Is my mechanic delivering this? I would say partially.
It is extended because de facto you've been having an escalating scene which culminates in a resolution roll in its apex. You have a fallout afterwards, when you create scars and solaces. Which brings the emotional side, possibly the ethical one, and ultimately make you question your humanity.
The reassessing and repositioning is what bothers me. It exists, but right now it's only on a mechanical level (adjusting the roll by turning dice), not on the narrative one. So I'm considering this part at the moment.
Tazio Bettin:
Major Update:
During this weekend I had a chance to run a very satisfying playtest, thanks to the kind help of Ben Lehman (who came to visit us during EtrusCON) amongst the others. After this playtest I finally edited the current playtest version, which now has come to 1.2, and if you're interested in playtesting, you will find a package including the rules, the character sheet and the story sheet here: http://www.mediafire.com/?0gdwcx6bsbza518
I would greatly appreciate any playtest actual play report, and in the last page of the rulebook you'll find an address to which you can send your reports.
Thanks and I hope you have fun!
Paul Czege:
Tazio,
I have a couple of additional suggestions, both of which are aimed at making play less workshoppy.
For establishing a Location, I would recommend you say something like: "If this is your first game of Beyond the Mirror, you want a location on the scale of a city district. Choose from the following list:...For later games you'll go smaller. Suggestions appear later in the rules."
For Involvement and Purpose, I recommend a game ritual reminiscent of the Voight Kampff test. Have one player illuminated by a table lamp and the others in darkness. The other players ask questions, following from the player's chosen Trigger. "As a child you witnessed a suicide attack by a synth. Tell me about that." "Your brother works for the company. What do you stand to gain from this accident?" You answer in character and the other players note the answers on your character sheet. They probe, and don't stop the interview until they've discovered what makes your character a credible suspect. Then, turn off the light and the player answers the Purpose question. "What I hope to gain now is..."
And the other players record the answer.
Paul
davide.losito:
Paul, you're a genius.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page