[Game Chef 2011] The Trouble with Rose
zircher:
First draft, you can find the PDF here:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?1gvfeoig4y84bb3
Please let me know what I got right or wrong. I plan to do some play testing this Saturday night.
As always, any feedback (good or bad) is welcome.
--
TAZ
Hans Chung-Otterson:
Hey Todd,
I like it! Seems like fun. A few questions/comments:
1. You say the base rules "allow for five" to play, and then give an option for six or seven. What about 3 or 4--is that covered by the base rules? Does "allow for five" mean "three to five" or "exactly five", or something else?
2. What are the criteria for allowing a player to keep their tile? As it stands, I read it as, basically, if the other players enjoy your narration in a kind of vague collective sense (not trying to provoke by using "vague" here, just trying to communicate clearly how it actually seems to me as I read the text), then you get to keep your tile. Is that your intention?
3. In the play example, it seems that the structure of the game is 1 tile played per scene, but that rule (if indeed it is a rule) is never made explicit.
4. I wish there was more assistance for scene framing than just "make a scene!"
Hm, I think that's it. Good luck in your playtest.
zircher:
Quote from: Hans Chung-Otterson on July 19, 2011, 11:37:05 PM
I like it! Seems like fun. A few questions/comments:
Thanks!
Quote
1. You say the base rules "allow for five" to play, and then give an option for six or seven. What about 3 or 4--is that covered by the base rules? Does "allow for five" mean "three to five" or "exactly five", or something else?
Good catch three to five is the intent, play test will hopefully reveal if as few as two is possible.
Quote
2. What are the criteria for allowing a player to keep their tile? As it stands, I read it as, basically, if the other players enjoy your narration in a kind of vague collective sense (not trying to provoke by using "vague" here, just trying to communicate clearly how it actually seems to me as I read the text), then you get to keep your tile. Is that your intention?
Exactly, I'll see what I can do about clearing that up.
Quote
3. In the play example, it seems that the structure of the game is 1 tile played per scene, but that rule (if indeed it is a rule) is never made explicit.
Duly noted. Yes, it should say, 1 tile per scene.
Quote
4. I wish there was more assistance for scene framing than just "make a scene!"
Yeah, I was worried about that, I still have a few hundred words left to expand on scene framing.
Quote
Hm, I think that's it. Good luck in your playtest.
Thanks again for the prompt reply and feedback!
--
TAZ
zircher:
Updated version with the above changes and a some better graphical elements.
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ebxy1w83ikhn8t7
Can't see much changing until more proofing and playtesting is done.
If someone is gung-ho to give this a try before the end of GC'11, I'd love to hear your experiences.
--
TAZ
zircher:
Cross posted from another forum...
"I don't get how the domino actually controls the nature of the game. I'm going to guess that the pips refer to the list of aspects that the player established earlier--but it's not made clear enough in the document."
That's exactly how it's done. But, I'll see about making that clearer.
"I also think more attention needs to be paid to how the players develop the nature of the exile. The rules just say "At the start of the game, the players decide the setting for their play. In this collaborative phase, they work together to determine the time, location, and events that lead up to Rose being exiled."
How much detail is expected at this point? Is the game based on the events after the exile? Or is it based on the events leading up to the exile?"
The 'technical' answer would be, "Add as much detail as needed." It can be as short as a few sentences or the players can act out the whole scene leading up to the exile/banishment/flight. As originally thought, the play begins after exile, but I don't see why the players could not begin at the brink and start the play off with a bang.
"I'm also a bit confused as to exactly how much information the other players can set up in a given scene that's not their own."
The blurb I added for scene framing in v1.1 might clear that up a bit. The players have a lot of power in scene creating. In traditional game terms, they're each a GM charged with telling a story.
On the other hand the audience (the players who are not center stage) have the option of adding more to the story. But, they are limited to embellishments (color text), consequences (repercussions), and perhaps some minor tweaking and twisting of the plot (for comedic value or perhaps to help set up the next scene.) It's very much a reactionary bit of stage craft.
While the audience is not given veto power for the narrative, they could withhold a tile for scoring purposes if the player goes off on a tangent.
"Actually, I just had a thought about that. If the player who's turn it is draws a domino with a 2/4 and uses the Aspects numbered 2/4 on his list to set up the main scene, why not have every other player be limited to the aspects numbered 2/4 on their lists to further that particular scene or add to it? That way there's some direction for the players as well as a bit of constraint to help promote creativity."
Each player has their own hand to play. For example, what if a player laid down a 5/6 or worse a double? You have a whole round were everyone was being tormented by or breaking their oaths. While a little drama and dilema is good, a truck load of it is too much.
--
TAZ
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page