[Flawed] Can I write comprehensible rules?
Josh Porter:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B6AKcTWvDmp5NTg5YzE3N2YtYjljMS00YWU0LTlhZDgtNTQ1NDQ2NGYzODgz&hl=en
This is the current version of Flawed, the game I have been writing. I am pretty damn sure that it is not in Final Copy mode yet. I am pretty proud of it, as it is my first attempt writing a game, and I think it's not shitty.
However, I have been told I write utterly complex rules. This may come from my deep and abiding love for Mutants & Masterminds character creation. Or I may just be a rules sadist. Through the few times I have playtested this game, I have confused players time and again with the rules. At this point I have streamlined them to a point where I believe they flow together and feel like they are all part of the same system.
What I would appreciate is a frank assessment of the rules system. I need to know if my writing communicates the ideas I mean it to communicate.
Do the rules make sense?Does the writing style detract or improve the rules text?Could you play this straight from the box without the creator explaining how things work?General comments and concerns.Thanks in advance for the feedback! I am very excited to see what my game needs.
Kashlaor:
Interesting idea, I read through the pdf.
Now as far as I understand we all create characters (randomly dealing from various tables until we have our general idea filled in, then we decide on some sort of Agenda and flesh the concept out) then we give the red joker to someone who essentially acts are the narrator for any given scene.
Whenever we have a conflict we each state our Motivations, and unless someone plays an Ace to change that we draw from the appropriate decks and compare the value of our cards.
After that the loser either concedes or raises the stakes, play continues.
The winner of each round narrates how that section gos, and at the very end whoever has the highest value of cards in front of them narrates how the scene ends.
Unless I'm missing something the rules seem to make sense, however that took a bit of reading in to, I'm not sure that the way its written is especially clear.
Josh Porter:
Thanks for feedback-ing!
That sounds like a pretty good summary of the way the game works. It has definitely taken some strong editing to hone it down to what it is. (It is worth noting that there used to be about two more pieces to character gen, which have now been stripped out.) What I lack most, I think, is new eyes. I have been thinking so much on the writing for the last month(s) that I have difficulty knowing what is clear and unclear.
You mentioned that the way in which the text is written is not especially clear. What were some specific hurdles in crystallizing the rules in your head? Since playtesting has begun, I have tried to get my friends to just read through the text and give me some feedback on the clarity, but as they have already played through the game, they are already a little more well-informed on the way play progresses. They don't have the first-time-reading-this perspective.
Another question I have: Is the goal of the game clear?
The first time we played this all the way through, one of my friends was incredibly frustrated because he was not able to "win". He definitely likes to be the Best Winner in all types of games. So when he was unable to defeat other characters in conflicts (even while min-maxing and stacking his decks) he became quite angry with the game in general. Since that experience, I have tried to make the goal clear from the start, but I would like to hear if that comes across clearly.
And here is the link to the character sheet, if you'd like to see how it looks: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B6AKcTWvDmp5NjQxNzRkZGYtNDBiYi00YmQzLWE3ZjctZDE5ZTFiNWE2Yzdj&hl=en
Kashlaor:
Don't have too much time to type right now but one thought.
If I win a conflict I get to keep one of my oppoenent's cards, does this go to my relevant Motivation or the Destiny Deck? This seems unclear.
Perhaps have some of the friends you've played with write up a short bit on how they think the game works, or ask them to explain it to you. Some of the phrasing seems harder to understand just by virtue of how its written. One of the reasons I like card based games is that you can make them very complex but seem very simple. Instead of trying to describe the rules of the game imagine that you're telling someone about the exciting opportunities the game presents to them. Even if it makes the section a bit longer it might be easier to work through. Also examples are nice. Instead of "currently winning" (which sounds like the conflict has been resolved), perhaps "in the lead." Explain why the stakes cannot be raised three times (because you can only be SO dead).
Josh Porter:
Aha! A perfect example of what I was looking for!
When you are the victor in a conflict, you don't win anyone else's cards; you get to hold on to your own. BUT, you get to tell the loser which single card he or she keeps. Apparently I need to reword this explanation, as it seems simple to misunderstand.
Incidentally, this used to be vastly different. The victor would win ALL the cards in the conflict, thus instantly tipping the scales after the first conflict. However, this game is very much about flawed people going toward their own destruction, and getting stronger after a conflict seemed to be counterproductive. Now you can only get weaker as the game goes on, much more so if you lose. This puts the game on time clock, as every conflict leads to a consequence, and when you run out of consequences you die.
The "current winner" thing is a good point. I may very well change it to "leader" to differentiate from "victor."
And as far as stake-setting goes, I feel that is the weakest piece of the writing as far as description is concerned. I need a way to crystallize it, so that raising the stakes (as a narrative device and as a mechanical one) feels cohesive. Any thoughts?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page