[Within My Clutches] my game can be won, so they played to win it
David Berg:
Joe,
The main thing I'm worried about in the latest version of the text is "IX. Ending the Game" on page 10. I'm planning to change it back to the version linked in my first post. While the endings listed are nice options to have, I think the idea that by achieving all your Goals you will end the game makes it feel more like "I won", whereas the earlier version says "play until your character exploration is complete".
I'm not sure how much of an issue "agreeing on a good place to stop" is. I don't want to be overly constraining -- e.g., timing it with the end of a session is probably a good option to have -- but something to look forward to, a la Sorcerer's kicker resolution, seems like a good idea.
In superhero comics, the end of a villain's story is always a defeat. But the end of a given issue might well be a villain's triumph, or worsening threat. Hmm...
Quote from: Rubbermancer on January 29, 2012, 03:40:02 PM
Quote
It’s all about what you want and what happens when you go after it and get it.
Players could take this to mean "Make your Goals, and then achieve them". Perhaps some re-wording will help, something that makes the game's goals more explicit from the outset. For example, "It’s an exploration of what your character wants, and of the changes he goes through in pursuing those desires."
Good call! In truth, it's all about what happens when your character pursues and achieves. As a player, the "what happens" is the important part, as defined by the experience rather than the mere facts of pursuit and achievement. That could definitely be communicated more clearly. I mean, I think the very first paragraph of the game covers that, but for anyone who skims or forgets that, a punchier version might be wise. I'll work on it.
Thanks,
-David
David Berg:
Quote from: Callan S. on January 30, 2012, 12:31:44 PM
Perhaps it's worth trying to describe the genuine responce to player system use (as if it were character thought process) in the text, with a prompt to try and think that way as often as possible. And see if a player or two engage that. It might even be worth writing in the text it's not just a side thing - that unless atleast one person at the table reacts this way, it just doesn't work out.
Yeah, a play example where the player is sort of thinking out loud might help. "I really want this new Goal, but I can't let my last Achievement get away from me! Rrrgh! I'll devote most of my resources to holding onto the old one. Captain, send in every last killer robot!"
Perhaps this is easier if Goals are kept tangible? The villain whose Adoration Goal is, like, the love of his daughter... that player might feel creatively strained to portray the act of investing in the daughter at the expense of his current Respect Goal attempt at joining the League of Destruction.
What I was hoping for was, "As I give my speech to the league, I can't get my daughter's disappointed glare out of my head, and the league members see me take a moment to compose myself." But that hasn't been happening.
The contest is supposed to be internal and psychological. That said, a lot of the strength of the genre (I think) is manifesting the internal in very dramatic external ways. Perhaps I should include one remotely-operating Instrument to be defined in char-gen, so those characters who have more modest means will still have at least a single flunky or something. Then in the moment of decision they can say, "It would have been nice to have my lackey kissing my ass in front of the League, but I must send him off to bring daughter flowers!" as the push the dice around.
Quote from: Callan S. on January 30, 2012, 12:31:44 PM
Maybe the various options are given names and the rules prompt people to verbalise the names of options they consider, as they consider them - to stop this 'player dissapears inside themselves for awhile' thing. Though I wouldn't make that a hard rule as I think people would often forget to name options as they consider, but more like an urging in the text and a GM duty to urge, so they atleast mumble a few option names and other players/the GM can get an inside glimpse, a little bit, to the thinking process.
Hmm. So given the choice of how many dice to spend on the current Goal vs past Achievements, I could label "more dice on Goal" as Forward At All Costs and label "fewer dice on Goal" as Protect Treasured Assets?
Actually, that dividing line could be a useful narration guide as well. "If you Protect Treasured Assets, narrate how your attentions in that direction negatively impact your pursuit of your Goal."
David Berg:
Separately, I've been thinking that perhaps the player/character disconnect has been fostered by extensive procedures. Like, there are too many required steps. Rather than needing to go through a checklist in order, it might be better to give players rewards for performing a small number of tasks apiece.
If the SC player gets a point for the Protagonist achieving their Goal, and the owners of Achievements get points for the Protagonists spending dice to defend their Achievements, and I rule about when you can Commit and spend Moxy, the rest might take care of itself.
I'm not sure what the above points would be for, though. I'm not sure what's the ideal way to reward "you've helped the other players really explore their protagonists by giving them compelling situations". In another game, I'd be tempted to say, "best GM gets to GM the most," but I don't think that sort of competition is appropriate here.
There's already a "fan" mechanic to see who winds up on the issue cover (page 10, item 11 -- I should repeat that in "Ending the Game"). Maybe something in that direction would make sense. Or maybe you can spend 5 points to narrate an interlude scene?
Callan S.:
Quote
What I was hoping for was, "As I give my speech to the league, I can't get my daughter's disappointed glare out of my head, and the league members see me take a moment to compose myself."
Yes, but who is the character talking to in doing that? In terms of psychology, it seems to be talking to an audience and...only people with broken psychology frame their thoughts as if an audience is listening *he said, thumb to chin, thinking solemnly...hehehe*
I think it's actually hard to think in character, freeze, go back and remember it all then restate it in a book or comic book like format. Never mind the freeze point, which involves ceasing to play the character, and when it's the right moment for that.
Clearly you don't want it all internalised. But in terms of psychology, I think generally the structure people think by isn't one that speaks to an audience.
David Berg:
That quote represented what I want the player to be thinking. If they do, I'm happy, and however they choose to express it is fine by me. Personally, I'd probably just do it with facial expressions -- pensive/fuming to suddenly self-conscious, followed by a deep breath.
The point is the thought process as the resolution is played out. Thinking fictionally, as the character, rather than just mechanically, as a player.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page