Beyond the Mirror, a sci-fi game on memories and humanity -in development
Tazio Bettin:
I wrote that history for those who playtested earlier versions and might want to know what changed.
The mechanic of question resulted in a terrible downtime and hiccup narration. Basically, once the conflict was over, the Light had to answer a series of questions which would adjust what used to be the stress die back then (and now has changed into something quite different: the goal die).
It was question like "was violence involved?", "did you act selfishly?" and similar ones. A "yes" would increase the stress die's rating and a "no" would decrease it. In the end, as soon as a character would reach one of the two extremes in the scale (it was a d10, so 1 or 10), that would trigger the end scene. However, the progression was very slow and the mechanic didn't work at all so I dropped it.
The initial inspiration for such a mechanic came from the Voight-Kampff test of Blade Runner...
Tazio Bettin:
Quote from: Ben Lehman on May 14, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
There's nothing particularly worrisome about author stance, as a design principle. It just means you have to adjust your expectations about where to target rewards and punishments: a good thing happening to a character isn't necessarily a reward; a bad thing isn't necessarily a punishment. But lots of good games encourage author stance w/o too much difficulties. Like Sorcerer and Polaris and Dogs in the Vineyard.
yrs--
--Ben
Ben, thank you for your explanation!
I had a conversation with a game designer friend of mine who told me that in the current shape Beyond the Mirror is not centered on advocacy as it is all resolved on an author stance logic, and no advocacy would mean no NARrativism. Usually I don't spend much time thinking where my game would fit in the GNS model. All I care for is that it is fun and intense to play. So far I think players felt some tension during play (I would ask after each playtest, and they would say that yes, they felt tension), so all is good. But I've always been considering Beyond the Mirror a story now type of game, and that talk kind of threw me in doubt. But now you solved it.
I'm still in doubt whether this game solves the dilemma you once pointed, that it's more fun to play in order to be revealed as a synth... I'm not sure I'm solving that yet... in the game's logic, one should feel like accepting blur and getting close to being a replicant should be a sort of sacrifice. In my hope, having solaces work as links that bind the Memory with your Purpose should at least partially solve it. Mind you, I don't mean that all players should NOT choose to be synths. But that has to be the sad ending. Yes you win. But you aren't even human, and all your past and things you loved are fake.
davide.losito:
Well, no, actually.
I told you that you have to find a way to put advocacy in the game.
There's nothing implicitly wrong in author stance, but in the way it is now, you are risking to go to a point where the plot comes out from "dice positioning" and subsequent descriptive narration.
I told you there should be some point in the game where the player can grab the system and say "hell, no... I stand my way". This can still remain in author stance. Just it didn't seem there is such an option, from the feedbacks you reported.
Just to bring the thread on... the version we playtested in dicember 2010 at the ArCONate was far way more engaging than how it seems it resulted this last weekend, based on the feedbacks you reported. :)
Tazio Bettin:
Quote from: davide.losito on May 15, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
the way it is now, you are risking to go to a point where the plot comes out from "dice positioning" and subsequent descriptive narration.
Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you implied a relationship between author stance and lack of advocacy, and that lack of advocacy meant no narrativism.
Care to explain the point I quoted from your comment?
Dice positioning relates to how you want to go through the culmination, i.e., whether you want to win at the cost of gaining blur, or you prefer to save your humanity and accumulate focus, at the expense of your chances of winning your goal... depending on how you want to answer to this dilemma you are going to position the dice, and then you describe the culmination's outcome.
Saying that "the plot comes out from "dice positioning" and subsequent descriptive narration sounds to me like the description of how a conflict in Dogs in the Vineyard works... So I guess I'm missing something important...
davide.losito:
Tazio, I replyed to a short message you wrote me in gTalk about your doubts in a mechanic change.
You were thinking about choosing a "dice allocation" or "mixed roll with d6 and dFudge" (your words).
The solution you proposed in that chat was:
Quote
Light throws 6dFudge. Lights gets the + and Shadow gets the -
They allocate the dice on Focus, Blur or Goal.
+ and - are nulled out
and you start with an automatic -
(in the conflict)
I just warned you that, depending on what you mean with "dice allocation", you risk to have a game that may produce to emerging problems: 1. have a lot of down-time, 2. have a game resolution that is not nailed to the fiction.
You "risk" means: pay attention to this.
And I already told you in that chat about the advocacy issue (translating a quote):
Quote
no, I didn't tell that now you don't push on advocacy, I told that "allocation mechanics" risk to ...
I don't think we have to translate and post all of that conversation.
You asked for advice and I gave you my opinion :) you can elaborate on it, or throw it away :) I am happy the same way
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page