Gentechegioca
Gente Che Gioca => Segnalazioni e News => Topic aperto da: Sebastian Hickey - 2010-09-20 11:02:49
-
Help. You guys have been the biggest supporters of my other game and I don't think there's any other community so alive as yours, so I've decided to come here to pitch my idea.
I just wrote Chronicles of Skin (http://cobwebgames.com/downloads/filestorage/Chronicles%20of%20Skin.pdf) for Game Chef 2010. Chronicles of Skin is a 60 minute game of ancient atrocity and propaganda.
"Pictures on leather record the history of an ancient civil war. Tell the stories of the people of that war and write your history through the eyes of the victors."
The more times it gets played during October, the more chance it has to win the competition. So, that's what I'm wondering. Does anyone want to play the game online with me? Or play without me (in Italy) and write an AP report (in Italian/English)? It only takes an hour and you get to draw pictures! (And, maybe just for Tazio, you can draw booooobs!)
-
I'd be glad to play with you, but at now I'll be able only through MSN or GTalk. Edit: I wanted to imply that playing via text could be quite uncomfortable, so maybe it'd be better to avoid it; I don't know, do you think it'd be feasible?
Anyway, I'll try to play it this week; now I'll read the rules and try to get enough players. But don't count on me for the pictures, I'm not so good at drawing...
And...
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]And, maybe just for Tazio, you can draw booooobs
Fan Mail.
-
Whoa, I was waiting the playoffs to write something like that too, but now I see you are playing dirty, so now I'll probably do another thread for my Brachininae, just to be sure :P
Cause I'm in the game too ;)
I have the impression that the italian croud will define the winner. We are.. so much... and so nerd...
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]I just wroteChronicles of Skin (http://cobwebgames.com/downloads/filestorage/Chronicles%20of%20Skin.pdf)for Game Chef 2010. Chronicles of Skin is a 60 minute game of ancient atrocity and propaganda.
Wao! Your game seems really cool!
I hope to have the chance to play your game with my friends one of these days.
-
If you think I'll stop supporting you, you'll be sorely mistaken.
>_>
<_<
...plus you said the magic word.
-
Really cool idea!
I can't wait to test it with my friends!
-
60 minutes, you say? I'll probably organize a run of three of the game, vis-a-vis my local friends or at a convention somewhere. I'll leave it to the other players to write AP reports, though, because I'm just that lazy.
-
I began to read it, it seems fun! Rafu, count me in if you want to try it!
-
My dear, you should know I always count you in, with utter disregard for your actual willingness or your desires.
-
Hey! We gotta do that together! I demand it!
How about a minicon like the one we did with shock:?
-
Yay! You guys are fucking sweet.
Mauro I agree with "playing via text could be quite uncomfortable." I'm old school when it comes to story gaming. I must be able to hear the other people or I get frustrated. However, in a pinch, I'd give it a shot. We'd need some kind of whiteboard software so everyone could scribble on the Skin.
60 minutes, you say?
Bearing in mind that that I've only tested this fella in the privacy of my own apartment, I'm not happy guaranteeing a 60 minute turnover. But the game generates one scene per player and each of those scenes will probably last around 10 minutes. Add in the doodling and culture generation, and I'm guessing it will hit the 60 minute mark. But that could easily stretch out to 90 minutes, or shrink into 30. Know what I mean?
Sorry Rafu, did you say you intend to run it three times?! Holy moly. That's very sound of you. Are either of you artists? Tazio, are you so keen to do a minicon because you know you'll be the one to boob-ify the Skin. Wait a sec... chronicles of skin. That name's sounding more and more porny the longer I hang around this forum. I better get out of here for a bit...
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]I'm old school when it comes to story gaming. I must be able to hear the other people or I get frustrated
I completely understand you: sometimes I played via text: it'd be quite good, but is not the same thing.
Anyway, if you agree let's try; I'll sarch some whiteboard.
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite][p]Tazio, are you so keen to do a minicon because you know you'll be the one to boob-ify the Skin. Wait a sec... chronicles ofskin. That name's sounding more and more porny the longer I hang around this forum. I better get out of here for a bit...[/p]
I decline any responsibility in this.
-
Should I post our last conversation about adding porn scene illustrations in Elar?
-
I am innocent. It's you suggesting such things when you talk about victorian age latex sado-maso lesbian elves. Hereby I am but a victim. I swear.
-
Lol
I love you guys.
P.S. I think I'll have time for a Skype game this week (maybe Monday/Wednesday/Thursday/Sunday night...?) Whisper me or email sebastian AT cobwebgames DOT com.
-
I think I found a couple of suitable whiteboards; tomorrow I'll try them and report to you.
-
Cool.
-
Yay! Two suitable whiteboards: http://www.scriblink.com/ (http://www.scriblink.com/) and http://www.scribblar.com/ (http://www.scribblar.com/) (the latter requires subscription, but it's possible to avoid it by using a demo room).
-
I don't think I'll have time (it's deadline time for printing the games for lucca, people!) but let me suggest another online aid: Google Docs.
It has a drawing application that's quite handy and all the people that share the document see the changes in near realtime. Also, it exports in several formats (including svg and pdf). Just do "New Document" and choose Drawing.
We've used it as an online table to play several games, it works like a charm.
-
Brilliant! I think Google Docs is probably the best solution but I'll check them all out tomorrow.
-
Hey guys,
How are you all doing?
I just uploaded a new, super-shiny and thoroughly playable (?) version of Chronicles of Skin. I've been playtesting, meddling around, and robbing from other people's game ideas to get it into shape. I think it's fun. Here's the premise:
It's a pictographic story of war. Collaborating, you build the personalities of two cultures (using cards and symbols, like oracles). In a series of four scenes, you tell of the atrocities each side commit, and you record all this in a procedural way, shaping the fiction of the war. Players are pushing for themes, there's a bit of meta-discussion between scenes, and other funky, HIPPY shit.
A few of you wanted to play before. Would you care to read the new rules? It's 12 pages. It's not a layout masterpiece, by any means, but it's easy enough on the eyes.
Here's the linky (http://cobwebgames.com/index.php/games/cos/).
-
downloading... what were your inspirations?
-
The biggest nod must go to John Gregory's unpublished The Hammer Falls. Gregory's game asks you to create four manifestations of an oppressive society, each ascribed to a suit of cards. As these suits turn up in play, the society throws obstacles at you, coloured appropriately. It's a rich, contemporary and inspired take on the usual oracle system. I just added in some imagery. Total plagerism!
Next, I must credit Joe Prince's Hell for Leather, in which a few, specific scenes are played out under the tyrranic gaze of a single antagonist. I liked the idea that one player would represent an enemy, foreshadowing the oncoming atrocity, and that this player would manage pacing. H4L inspired a couple of the important design decisions, adding momentum to the idea at the earliest stage. Similarly, Graham Walmsley's A Taste for Murder jump-started the project. I was interested in messing around with his scene theming (the part where players are rewarded for pushing particular themes). Again, not so much a direct rip-off as a point from which I leapt forward.
Lastly, I'll mention Best Friends by Gregor Hutton. In looking for a way to manipulate other people's characters in a scene, I eneded up with a Push mechanic similar to the mechanic in Best Friends. It's looser, probably needs a bit more work, and so on. But it was definitely thanks to Hutton that it went into the second draft.
I also robbed suggestions from Jonathan Walton, Eoin Corrigan, Adam Kelly and (through another party) Ron.
-
Downloaded. Added to read queue.
-
Cool.
Thanks Rafu.
You Italians. I love you.
-
Downloaded. Seems to be cool. I'll send feedback in like a week :D (just the time for test it, of course)
-
I'll try to test it on next week's Friday, hoping in the players...
-
Weeee! Thanks Mauro!
I ended up using your suggestion ( http://www.scriblink.com/ ) to play out the game online. It seems to work best if just one person does all the scribbling.
-
Due to the low-volume playtests at Game Chef so far, Chronicles of Skin is only one play behind the leader!
How important is the Game Chef award for a game? Is it something I should get jealous about?
If it is important and I should get jealous, would you like to get jealous with me?
-
Uh, thank you for highlighting this!
A proposito, gente, vi siete accorti che Arconate è in tempo per i play-off?
-
no, sono distratto da altro, scusami, di che play-off parli?
-
La "finale" del Game Chef di quest'anno. Vince, fra i finalisti, il gioco che viene giocato più volte (nel mondo, da chiunque voglia giocarlo). C'è tempo... ancora 3 settimane, credo.
-
Hey guys! No talking in Italian here =:-|
-
Hi, Sebastian!
Tonight we played Chronicles of Skin in four; this is our skin: http://www.eldalie.com/mrn_skin.jpg (http://www.eldalie.com/mrn_skin.jpg).
The English text:
Croen: Smarmy, Fear the eclipse!, It's forbidden to work during the night, Farmers.
Iho: Solemn, Leaving the mountain brings bad luck, All Iho have the right to kill non-Iho people, Divide and rule.
First scene was Croen: during a Croen feast, Iho men burst into the village, killing all the people; Croen had little defenses and was in the middle of the feast, so was able to do very little. Loot: a meteor-iron sword.
Secon scene was Iho: in a tavern some Iho men were celebrating; a woman was searching her daughter, who - in the end - was sacrificed in a ritual who killed all the Iho in the tavern. Loot: Iho begin to fear Croen's power.
Third scene was Croen: in a cave, Croen men were arguing about a new attack against the Iho, and whether they'd attack during the night, though their creed was not to work during night-time; pieces of the cave collapsed and, while trying to free some blocked Iho, the cave was filled with poison; but the Iho managed to flee.
Fourth - and last - scene was Iho: during a funeral, sneaking in mist the Croen attacked, but the Iho was able to force back them, winning the fight.
In the end, Croen won the war by 23.
Now, questions:
• It's possible to spend Votes for cards during the battle? If yes, also if I still have cards from the free play?
• If two PCs have a fight, I think it's simply a push: one will somehow say "And you lose" and the other will have to accept or trying to change the narration; what if a PC ad a NPC have a fight?
• Can a player change more than one character/Glyph of War card?
Notes:
• Enemy, during Attack, takes seven cards, no matter how many player there are; this could mean he is more powerful, with less player.
• I was thinking... and if the vote about who wins the war was made in secret? It could be something like, "Take a Vote in a your fist and show both of them; when all have decided open your fists: if the Vote is in the right one, you voted Iho; in the left, Croen" (just an idea to explain what I mean).
And (maybe) typos:
• On Chronicle Sheet, under diamond there is Law; it'd be "Rule", doesn't it? Same question for Trait, under Club: should it be "Aspect"?
• In the rules and in the Summary Skin phase order is different.
-
By the way, an anecdote: second scene ends, we make the vote to decide the Glyph of Purpose; we open our eyes and I've won! No, wait: I'm the Enemy, I've no Glyph of Purpose...
And this remind me another doubt: the vote on the Glyph of Purpose has to be made base on the best portrait of the Glyphs, or on which was most thematically important in the story?
-
Hi Mauro.
Thanks for playing the game!!! I'm on holiday in the UK and I've only got two minutes, so I wanted to come here and say a quick thank you. Grazie mile! I'll come back to your points on Monday or Tuesday.
Sebastian.
-
Enjoy your holiday and don't worry, I'll wait!
-
Ok, I'm back.
Jesus, it's snowy here!
Before I go into this, there is one big change I plan for v1.4 (the next draft). Taken from The Collective Endeavour:
During play, in my sessions, the Enemy has only ever contributed to the narrative when playing an Omen card. In v1.4, I'm going to codify this tabletop behaviour, strictly limiting Enemy interaction to Omens, Bribes and Pushes. The meta-roles of the Enemy are editor (closing a scene and threading in new/off-screen action), antagonist and audience, the latter role supporting the former two. That is, when the audience gets bored, he has the tools to make things interesting for himself (and, therefore, the rest of the group).
In short, the Enemy can't narrate (though he is encouraged to make sugggestions) unless he plays an Omen card (to Bribe, Push or Omen). Bearing that in mind, here are the answers to your questions.
• It's possible to spend Votes for cards during the battle? If yes, also if I still have cards from the free play? No, it is not possible to spend Votes during the battle. Good idea though. It would give players the chance to "vote now" instead of voting at the end.
• If two PCs have a fight, I think it's simply a push: one will somehow say "And you lose" and the other will have to accept or trying to change the narration; what if a PC ad a NPC have a fight? Your interpretation is correct. In the v1.4 rules (next draft), the text will say something like, "Minor characters are not Principal Characters and, therefore, cannot Push or be Pushed. Their actions can be described by the Enemy as a means to foreshadow the Glyph of War, during an Omen, or by any player as a means to affect someone else's Principal Character, during a Push. That is, minor characters should not be used during incidental narration."
• Can a player change more than one character/Glyph of War card? Sure. If he spends the Votes.
• Enemy, during Attack, takes seven cards, no matter how many player there are; this could mean he is more powerful, with less player. No. The players always have 12 Push cards between them, so the card ratio is always the same. In v1.4, however, I will probably drop the Enemy's Attack Hand down to 6 or 5 cards.
• I was thinking... and if the vote about who wins the war was made in secret? It could be something like, "Take a Vote in a your fist and show both of them; when all have decided open your fists: if the Vote is in the right one, you voted Iho; in the left, Croen" (just an idea to explain what I mean). Good idea. I think I'll use the old close-your-eyes voting system. While your eyes are closed, you must make either a "C" shape or and "I" shape with your right hand. The Scribe counts to 3 and everyone opens their eyes. If all the shapes are the same, the person with the least votes must change their shape. C corresponds to Croen, I to Iho.
• On Chronicle Sheet, under diamond there is Law; it'd be "Rule", doesn't it? Same question for Trait, under Club: should it be "Aspect"? You are correct.
• In the rules and in the Summary Skin phase order is different. I'll look into that.
THANKS SO MUCH!!!
I owe you one!
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]it's snowy here
Here too! I hope this won't block my train...
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Their actions can be described by the Enemy as a means to foreshadow the Glyph of War, during an Omen, or by any player as a means to affect someone else's Principal Character
This is interesting: the Enemy then could play NPC only if he plays an Omen card? In our game, he played all NPC, with Others suggesting.
There was a scene like this: I was looking for a PC's parents, who were NPCs; who decides if I find them? We made the Enemy - seen as some sort of "master" in this regard - choose, but now I'm not sure it's the right thing.
As for the PC/NPC conflict, so in a scene like this:
NPC: I go out.
PC: I catch him and force him inside.
There should be a player (Others or Enemy) Pushing me saying, "You (don't) manage"? And if none Pushes?
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]The players always have 12 Push cards between them, so the card ratio is always the same. In v1.4, however, I will probably drop the Enemy's Attack Hand down to 6 or 5 cards
Sure, but with more players won't change the Push/player ratio? I mean: it's only an impression, mind it, but it seems to me that, the more the players, the more likely the Pushes, the less the Push Cards during the battle.
But keep in mind that we didn't played PC/NPC conflicts like described above, so my impression is likely to be biased!
As for the seven cards, I don't know: I had the impression seven are quite too high, but four battles are really not enough to judge; if I'll play another game, I'll try with six.
-
[cite]Autore: Mauro[/cite]Here too! I hope this won't block my train...
Last train out of Milan.
-
As for the PC/NPC conflict, so in a scene like this:
NPC: I go out.
PC: I catch him and force him inside.
There should be a player (Others or Enemy) Pushing me saying, "You (don't) manage"? And if none Pushes?
The actions of an NPC should never be described, except as part of an Enemy's Omen or during a Push. In other words, play should look like this:
Scribe: Describes location. "It's a castle, with lightning storms and rain, etc."
Player X: "My character does X, Y and Z."
Enemy: Silent.
Player B: "My character does A and B."
Enemy: Silent.
Player X: "I'm going to Push character... Character B is dragged over to the bed by the handmaidens (NPCs)."
Player B: "Not way! I reject that Push, etc."
and maybe, at some point:
Enemy: Plays an Omen. "There is a crack of lightning. Outside the tower of the castle, we see shapes climbing up the walls using long, sharpened claws."
To summarise, NPCs (or minor characters in the text) are to be used like colour. They are not described at all during the game except as a means to foreshadow the Glyph of War (during an Omen or a Bribe), or as a means to affect another player's PC (during a Push). If a player interacts with a minor character, it should be in reaction to one of these events. In this case, the minor character should be played by the player who introduced the NPC and only for as long as it takes to resolve the Omen, Bribe or Push. After that, the minor character should fade into the background.
Sure, but with more players won't change the Push/player ratio? I mean: it's only an impression, mind it, but it seems to me that, the more the players, the more likely the Pushes, the less the Push Cards during the battle.
You are right, but that is fine. The more the Pushes, the more Votes are earned, and the more easy it should be for the Enemy to win his battle. If players Push for their themes, they sacrifice their chance of success. In this way, boring scenes can be tied up early and still everyone can earn Votes.
-
The NPC going out indeed was a reaction to the Omen; to bring another example, in the second scene there was an NPC woman who asked about her daughter: she wasn't able to find her and so was asking everyone - at last, including PCs - if they've seen her. Glyph of War was Occult, the missing girl was my first Omen and I decided Croen kidnapped her (I described the Omen as the woman looking for the missing girl) to have a sacrifice for a ritual: Iho blood used to kill all Iho blood people in the tavern and surroundings. I continued to describe her action and to play it also outside Omen narration.
This is right, isn't it?
Anyway: so I'd simply have stated something like "I found PC's parents" (who were NPCs), and if someone didn't like the idea'd have pushed me ("No, you don't")? If yes, I'd stress this in the rules: by reading them, Pushing seemed to me more an active, than a reactive, action (I mean, something like "You do this" "No I don't", instead of "I do this" "No you don't").
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]If players Push for their themes, they sacrifice their chance of success
This bring to me a still unanswered doubt: the vote on the Glyph of Purpose has to be made based on the best portrait of the Glyphs (that is, which player brings it best in the story), or on which was most thematically important in the story?
During first scene I was the player whose Glyph of Purpose was better portrayed through the characters, but due to Glyph of War being Destruction the most thematically prominent one was Swords/Destruction (mainly our destruction, really...).
-
I continued to describe her action and to play it also outside Omen narration.
This is right, isn't it?
Yes and no.
Yes, it is right to include an NPC to foreshadow the Glyph of War. However, try not to make the NPC the star of the show. I will probably indicate something like this in the text for the next version:
"When introducing minor characters into the scene by way of a Bribe or an Omen, be careful to remember that the Principal Characters are the stars of the show. Minor characters introduced in this way should only be used to foreshadow and inform—by their speech, actions or reactions—and should never be used to challenge the other characters in the scene. If you want to challenge another character, use a Push."
Additionally, I would add:
"After a minor character has been introduced into a scene by a Push, Bribe or Omen, that minor character becomes invisible. Principal Characters may not interact with minor characters. Interaction in Free Play should always be between Principal Characters. The only way to force an interaction between a minor character and a Principal Character is to use another Push or another Bribe."
This bring to me a still unanswered doubt: the vote on the Glyph of Purpose has to be made based on the best portrait of the Glyphs (that is, which player brings it best in the story), or on which was most thematically important in the story?
Good question. The answer is a mixture of those two. I'll include something like this in the next version:
"When choosing the theme of the scene, nominate the Glyph of Purpose that was thematically most important before the atrocity. That is, choose the theme that was represented most appropriately during free play."
-
I've posted up some errata for the 1.3 version here (http://cobwebgames.com/wiki/index.php?title=Chronicles_of_Skin_Errata).
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]"After a minor character has been introduced into a scene by a Push, Bribe or Omen, that minor characterbecomes invisible. Principal Characters may not interact with minor characters. Interaction in Free Play should always be between Principal Characters. The only way to force an interaction between a minor character and a Principal Character is to use another Push or another Bribe."
I've to try this, by reading it it feels somewhat odd.
I mean: in the scene I spoke about the star wasn't the NPC: she asked about her daughter, but it was like, "So, she's asking about her daughter"; free play among the PCs; "The woman asks to you"; they answered, she went away, the continued free play among them; then I played an Omen to insert the woman finding a ribbon belonging to her daughter.
The interaction was among PCs, but colored with a (supporting) interaction with a NPC.
Doing as you said... I'd have described the woman, than no PCs could have said, "I want to speak to her"? It'd have been possibile only if someone Pushed someone other that way?
And, as for the parents example: what does this mean? I'd be able to find them only if someone pushes me, "And you find them"? Can I search them at all, outside a Push/Bribe (if I look for them, they are not invisible)?
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]"When choosing the theme of the scene, nominate the Glyph of Purpose that was thematically most importantbeforethe atrocity. That is, choose the theme that was represented most appropriately duringfree play."
I'm not sure I've understood: as Omens the Enemy could cause destruction all the scene, so Swords'd be thematically most important; but among the Others the Glyph most appropriately represented could be Heart (this is almost was happened in our game: due to Enemy Omens and attack the destruction was dominant; but among the Others Heart was the most portrayed Glyph. We voted Heart, by the way).
Edit: I forgot to refresh the page... 47-minutes crosspost with Sebastian.
-
Can I search them at all, outside a Push/Bribe?
No.
To play Chronicles of Skin the way I play it, you should only be referring to minor characters via the principal character. The minor character (in this case, the parents) should be used to highlight an issue, not a task. Like, the issue should be, "what does my family mean to me," not "go find your family." Instead of announcing that your character leaves the scene, announce how he wants to leave the scene, but can't. Or announce why he cannot leave the scene.
Try to think of minor characters as a tool, not a personality. When you introduce another minor character in another game, don't think about what the character wants, but instead, what narrative purpose it will serve. How will it either a) foreshadow the atrocity or b) be used to affect another character in a Push. An NPC should never be a question mark. It should never be a lead.
The scene that you are in, the scene that the Scribe invents, is where the action is. I suggest that you try not to make the action happen somewhere else. If you want the scene to be about family, try Pushing another principal character so that he, "stops you from looking for your parents."
In other words, make the principal character and what he can or cannot do—or what he wants other principal characters to do—the focus. The NPCs are colour used to highlight the principal characters.
as Omens the Enemy could cause destruction all the scene
Basically, ignore the Omens. The Glyph of Purpose should be defined by the actions of the principal characters. Destruction should only be considered when endorsed by a principal character.
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]to play Chronicles of Skin properly, you should only be referring to the parents (or any minor character)throughthe principal character. That is, you should be saying, "I must leave the war to find my parents." Or something like that
In our game, it was something like that:
Enemy play an Omen (smoke - a fucking lot of smoke, like a hundred meters wide - from the woods).
Due to the Omen, a PC want to find his parents.
My PC (Glyph of Purpose: Heart) says, "Stay here, I'll find them for you".
My PC went looking for the parents.
The scene created by the scribe was in a village, and I searched the parents in the village; I was "somewhere else" with respect to other PCs, but not with respect to the initial scene.
Is this proper Chronicles of Skin?
Edit: And it was the Enemy to decide if I find them or not; but this is not proper Chronicles of Skin, as far as I've understood.
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Basically, ignore the Omens. The Glyph of Purpose should be defined by the actions of the principal characters. Destruction should only be considered when endorsed by a principal character
Great; thanks.
-
The scene created by the scribe was in a village, and I searched the parents in the village; I was "somewhere else" with respect to other PCs, but not with respect to the initial scene.
Is this proper Chronicles of Skin?
I think it would have worked better if you, as Heart, Pushed the other principal character to stop you from searching for his parents, forcing him to say something like, "I don't want to lose you too," etc.
For the player who wanted to find his parents, the action is directed outside of the scene, which tends to split the group. Scenes work better if the characters are pointed directly at other characters, not at the game world. Just like with In A Wicked Age, I would advise that players look at another PC and target them for their desires. I'm sure the PC would want to protect his family, and, therefore, he'd want to leave the scene to go look for them, but that's not going to make a good scene. You should always be trying to Push for your Glyph of Purpose and you should always be trying to use other people's principal characters to that effect. That's the way we play it, though it's not written that way (yet).
-
Understood; next time I'll try that way. Thanks for your replies!
-
No, no, no. Thank you for your dogged probing (oooh, that sounds kinda sexy). I've got a much clearer direction for the next draft. Grazie mile!
-
We played CoS last Saturday evening at ArCONate in Arconate. General impression: it doesn't quite work as a three-players game, I believe. We managed to play it to the end, mechanically speaking, but it was awkward — I'll gladly discuss this in greater detail, though I can't immediately. But doodling little pictures is fun.
-
Thanks for playing, Rafu. Can you help me to figure out what went wrong for you, specifically? I've played and enjoyed three player sessions. I'd like your help in figuring out when and how the game failed for you. Perhaps there is a discrepancy between what I play at the table and what is written in the rules.
What was the first instance of failure at the table?
-
Sebastian, with three players you only have two-character scenes. Given that the principal characters also don't have much of a depth because of how short-lived they are, and that secondary characters are silent window dressing or mere tools, we were hard-pressed to make anything at all happen in the scenes (except for Omens and the final inevitable massacre, of course). Basically we felt that the game was demanding us to make the randomly drawn character cards, on the spot, into people who'd make for an interesting scene just by having a conversation between the two of them. We felt like we had to look for things to Push for because it's what you do in these scenes, the result often being somewhat forced. Even when the character cards made for characters who were very strongly at odds with each other (we had this scene where the Scribe had a Q Spades and I had a J Spades, thus Pushing came quite natural for once) the end result was a little shallow.
Also, we noticed that the way you vote for a Glyph of Purpose... I won't say it completely breaks with only three players, but it automatically turns into "the Enemy player chooses who gets 4 Votes, everybody else gets 1".
-
Basically we felt that the game was demanding us to make the randomly drawn character cards, on the spot, into people who'd make for an interesting scene just by having a conversation between the two of them.
I'm interested to find out if you limited the actions of your characters to conversations. Did your characters do anything or was it all talk?
Even when the character cards made for characters who were very strongly at odds with each other (we had this scene where the Scribe had a Q Spades and I had a J Spades, thus Pushing came quite natural for once) the end result was a little shallow.
Did you understand from the text that the characters had to oppose one another? Did you understand that Pushes had to be character versus character?
Also, we noticed that the way you vote for a Glyph of Purpose... I won't say it completely breaks with only three players, but it automatically turns into "the Enemy player chooses who gets 4 Votes, everybody else gets 1".
Yeah, that's totally broken.
-
I've added some new text to the wiki. I'm trying to explain what Pushes are for. Your post highlighted some ambiguity in the text.
Does this text support or compete with what you experienced at the table?
What is a Push for?
Push for your theme. A Push is not between your character and another character. It is between you and another player. It is your chance to manipulate the scene so that your Glyph of Purpose gets the limelight.
For example, you have the Crown as your Glyph of Purpose, so you want to push for a power struggle in the scene.
Me: The prince says, "Don't worry brother, this family will make it through the war!"
You: I want to Push! I want your character, the prince, to continue, saying, "But we cannot afford any more rivalry." Then I want him to take out a knife and stab me in the back. "Sorry brother. This was the only way."
In this example, you have harmed your own character. It is not important for your character to "win." Instead, focus on representing your Glyph of Purpose.
What if two principal characters want to fight?
Wow. Are you sure you want such a brutal conflict? Seriously?
Pushes are supposed to further your Glyph of Purpose. Rarely will you want a fight, unless one of you has the Swords. Even then, only one of you will be served by continuing to battle. Really, really think about what Pushes are for. If you still want to have a fight, though...
One player should Push the other. [Etc.]
-
I think that text is quite useful: in my game I played trying to pursue both my Glyph and my character's interest, so I didn't make Pushes against the latter.
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Does this text support or compete with what you experienced at the table?
Yeah, now it's beginning to make sense! This is pretty radically different from whatever I've experienced in rpgs to date, so I'm not surprised that I overlooked it. So it's about pushing the events toward your OOC "dramatic goal", rather than pushing another character into what you want her to do IC!
-
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Did you understand from the text that the characters had to oppose one another? Did you understand that Pushes had to be character versus character?
I guess I just assumed that. Thus, the way we concretely acted toward our chosen Glyph of Purpose as players was chiefly the way we interpreted our character cards, trying to "seed" the appropriate kind of conflict; but afterwards we just "let our characters go" and portrayed them as pursuing their own interests, while assuming that Pushes were a fancy Conflict Resolution mechanic.
[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]I'm interested to find out if you limited the actions of your characters to conversations. Did your characters do anything or was it all talk?
Of course, we played it wrong. Anyway, it was mostly conversation, because we felt like we had to establish the principal characters, the conflicts between them, and that any non-talky action had to develop naturally from the conversation. A whole lot of assumptions I carried in wholesale from other games. :/
-
Hi Raffaele,
This is all incredibly useful stuff. The assumptions that you made about the game are born from a lack of supportive text. That's my fault. I'm going to have to address these assumptions carefully and with extended examples in the next version.
Really, you have been very helpful.
Thanks a million!
-
Furthermore, just to clarify, you've summed up the premise of the game engine perfectly here:
So it's about pushing the events toward your OOC "dramatic goal", rather than pushing another character into what you want her to do IC!
Another way of looking at it is that all the players are collaborating to tell the story of one character—the war.