Gente Che Gioca > Gioco Concreto
[AP] Cold Soldier
Moreno Roncucci:
Non so se è saltata fuori nella vostra partita, ma parlando con Ron, lui consiglia di utilizzare una regola che era presente nell'edizione che ha vinto il Ronnie e che poi Gillan ha tolto (per me sbagliando) dall'edizione successiva, quella tradotta in Italiano.
Ne parlavo in questo post su G+ (in inglese, sorry).
La regola è che se il Soldier fallisce nella sua missione, perde una carta dalla sua mano. L'avete usata?
Moreno Roncucci:
Per essere più esatti, due sono le regole presenti nella prima edizione e che mancano nelle successive, e che per me non andavano tolte:
1) il soldier deve essere morto da poco (e questa penso serva a far sì che le persone dei suoi ricordi ci siano ancora, e non siano morte da 200 anni...)
2) Se il soldier fallisce nella missione, deve scartare una delle carte che ha nella sua fossa, se ce ne sono. (e questo darebbe una logica all'uso dell'arma, e mette in una situazione più difficile in giocatore, che deve fare nefandezze per non perdere la possibilità di ribellarsi.
Daniele Di Rubbo:
Ti ricordi anche cosa rispose Bret a riguardo?
Moreno Roncucci:
--- Citazione da: Daniele Di Rubbo - 2017-04-04 18:09:05 ---Ti ricordi anche cosa rispose Bret a riguardo?
--- Termina citazione ---
Copia-incollando dai vari commenti in quella discussione
"Moreno that rule was dropped.
It's been a long time since I designed it so I'm afraid I can't give you a good walkthrough of why it was dropped. I'll take a look at the Ronnie's and final version tomorrow and see if it jogs memories. My gut says that the Cold Soldier was in a tough spot against the GM as it was and I found it tipped things too far.
The reason to use the weapon, then, is because you want to succeed or do not want to fail."
La mia risposta:
"Some thoughts:
1) With the latest rules, the Soldier has no reason to use his weapon. Ever. Failure can't really hurt him, and the despicable goals of the Evil Master are not his own. The player usually prefer to fail, even. And using the weapon means giving more cards to the master.
I suppose there could be some occasions where, with a cleverly stated goal, the Master can put the soldier in a tough spot where failing could mean harm to someone the soldier love from his memories, but it would be tough to pull off and it smell too much of narrative contrivance.
In most games I think that the obvious result would be no use of the weapon, ever. It's not a problem by itself (the game mechanically works fine without ever using the weapon) but it makes the weapon disappear from the fiction.
2) By the other hand, the Soldier has no reason to NOT add a memory every time, even if it would mean removing a good, "winning" card and drawing a "losing" one. It's the master that lose, not him, and removing a good card is even more advantageous.
3) If the Soldier never use the weapon and always add a memory, it's easy to run the numbers and see that the Soldier succeed in the goal stated by the Master only 25% of times (on the table there are always 4 cards, with a 25% that the highest one is the soldier's and a 75% that it's one of the three the Master drew)
4) Every time the Soldier try to follow his master's commands the game use exactly 5 cards (1 taken by the soldier with a memory and 4 discarded, the Master takes no card), the Joker is always between the 27th and 53th card, so there are at least 5 draws and no more than 11 (median value is 8), if the soldier doesn't stop the game before that. This means that if the Soldier REALLY want to win, he can take up to 11 cards (from 5 to 11) and 5 five more, choosing his hand between 10-16 cards. The Master draw the 5 cards that he will play directly (the Master can reduce that disparity by ordering the Soldier to do something that the Soldier would refuse to do, but even in this case, the Soldier would have to "consume" a card only 25% of the times, the other 75% of the times the Soldier would fail in his mission anyway.
5) So, the soldier would always win the final confrontation, if he is not really, really unlucky, and 75% of the times he would fail to do what the master order him anyway. If the Soldier's player REALLY want to avoid doing harm to anyone he can simply use 1/4 of his cards to resist the commands and keep 3/4 of them, reducing his 10-16 final cards to about 9-14. Still a sure bet again the master.
Am I missing something? Because I don't think this is the way the game should go..."
La risposta di Bret alla mia risposta:
"In my playtesting, that was not how the game went, so I unfortunately I don't have any good answers for you. Sorry you're having issues with the game. Unfortunately it's been a long time since I looked at the game, and I'm not currently designing roleplaying games so I have no guidance to offer you. Thanks for the feedback and for giving the game a look."
---
In seguito parlandone con Ron mi ha detto che tutte le volte che l'aveva giocato aveva usato le regole della prima edizione, e quindi mi interessava sapere se l'aveva fatto anche stavolta, dopo che avevamo parlato delle differenze fra le edizioni.
Daniele Di Rubbo:
Grazie. Sono comunque curioso di sapere cosa dice Giulia. Nel caso si può chiedere anche a Ron. ;)
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa