The Forge Archives

I've posted version 2.0 of my game Discernment. The original thread is [Discernment] An experimental game of experimentation. The current version is a 700K PDF available here

I plan to submit this to Luke for the No-Press Anthology next week, so any feedback on the revision is welcome. Particularly, I'd like to know if the hint of Second Level setting enhances the game. Also, does the use of the three levels of reality & fiction and their associated icons work to clarify the text? Also, adding states of Awareness adds something like a "win condition" for the Subject, which I think gives the Scholars a strong reason to win the bid. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

I really like the use of simple graphics to indicate in the rules what "level" you're interacting on.

I like the "second-level" motivations for the Subject. I'm not so sure I like it so much for the Scholars -- I'd be tempted to leave the motivation of the Scholars up to the Scholars.

Really, this game seriously needs to be playtested to get some idea of what is and isn't needed in terms of the rules.

I like it – but the Soul Qualities wheel is screwy. I'd suggest, if you want to keep the same Soul Qualities (based on the Cardinal Virtues/Deadly Sins set), that you do it as follows:

Center, Top: Charity (possibly renamed Love)
going clockwise:
Faith
Loyalty
Temperance
Ambition
Pride
Envy
Lust
Gluttony
Despair
Wrath
Justice
Fortitude
Hope
and thus back up around to Charity/Love.

This makes more sense for relating the two neighbors as Approximations of the chosen Soul Quality, at least in my opinion.

Hi, Mark. Thanks for the feedback. My biggest dilemma in redoing the Wheel was the two points where the Virtues bridge to the Vices and back. I debated putting Wrath next to Justice, and might still alter that. However, I'm a little curious why you put Temperance next to Ambition. To me, moderation and self-control are a far cry from greed and avarice. Although, without reading a ton of medieval scholars, this is most likely a YMMV thing.

xiombarg, thanks for the thoughts. The first version had nothing resembling a setting and several folks suggested that I add one. So, I tried it, and it led me to create the State of Awareness, which is what the game really needed, I think, as well as those minimalist icons to keep the levels straight. Since adding a setting has been so fruitful, I'm reluctant to remove it again. But I'm still debating whether to re-add the alternate motivations that were part of the first version.

I put Ambition (née Avarice) next to Temperance because Temperance was always the Virtue of balance. In a role-playing situation trying to balance everything can go one of two ways: denying it all, or trying to get one of everything — I decided that Ambition was better in that position than Despair, which was my other choice.

I also considered suggesting a modification where the Vices and the Virtues opposed each other, but I couldn't make that fit into your game without breaking it.

One could also argue that Temperance is the sour grapes solution of those who lack the courage to be Ambitious.  By this logic the two are very similiar, just different reactions to the same impulse.  The ambitious have the courage to act on that impulse, the temperate do not, and so seek to turn their denial into its own virtue...

Don't know how that fits with your overall philosophy, but its one way of looking at it...comes from the same school of thought as "Greed is Good".

That's really cool!

I noted that the second sentence under Multiple Scholars (p.2) has an "as" instead of a "has."

From whatever experiences you've collected, how long does it run?  It seems like you've written it with the expectation that it would complete in one sitting, but it feels like it could be highly variable and tend to be too long for that.

Chris (who's wondering how hard it would be to start a fairly infrequent but regular indie-game Sunday in our area.)

Quote from: Christopher WeeksFrom whatever experiences you've collected, how long does it run?  It seems like you've written it with the expectation that it would complete in one sitting, but it feels like it could be highly variable and tend to be too long for that.

Hey, Chris. Thanks for taking a look at the game.

Well, the Philippines playtest group used a three-minute-per-scenario time limit and played three complete games for 2 Scholars & 1 Subject in three and a half hours. Of course, they were using the old rules of Endgame after a certain number of turns as Lead Scholar.

With the new ways of Endgame, I figure that if the Scholars are way off, the Subject will be more likely to win the bids (since the refreshment of coins on the Scholars part is based on having correct or Approximate Hypotheses). If that's the case, he'll likely become Aware and end the game that way.

If the Scholars start to home in on the Soul Quality early, they are more likely to trigger the endgame by all having Correct or Approximate Hypotheses. So, hopefully, these two tendencies will serve to bring the game to a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. I suppose it really depends on how long each Scenario is allowed to run.