[Doctor Chaos] Ice-enberg, CloNU and USB-ees (and Liefeld-heroes dinosaurs)

[Ezio M.]

So... yes, we played Doctor Chaos and we had a very good time. It went less silly than the title would suggest, but there was a lot of weird and slightly over the top things, with this villain dressed like a romantic sea capitain whose project was dominate Heart to transform it in an "ecological paradise", with exctinct species back to life and forcing everyone through a cliched "greed eden". Quite the ecologist strawman, our Doctor Chaos.
We played, we throw in cool stuff, a lot of comic-cheese flew around, including a magic-throwing lesser villain fighting the Vesuvius spirit, an exploded t-rex, a couch potato Iron Man and a gun toting Utharaptor that was directly out fo Rob Liefeld mind (and yes, he died and never come back).

We tended to play the game in an interactive way, with some back and forth between the charachters (and the players) in maybe half the scenes, but we didn't shy away from putting our hands in "other's" characters and from purely "narrated" scenes. We kept suggestions and ideas flowing at the table between everyone all the time.

Let's run throug the playtest questions:

Examine the economy of cards following hero-development – does either side consistently win?
We had two developed heroes. Once one used his developed ability to use deadwood cards from the other heroes to literally crush the Minor Villain, but when we had two developed heroes in the same scene it amounted to nothing: Chaos managed a gin in 5 scenes or a little more.
We played 4 rounds: the first Chaos was delayed but the heroes shattered (Lesser Villain was functional in that result), the other three were straight away Chaos victories.

Directly related, is the relationship among Conditions, victory conditions, and player options sound?
I'm not sure to understand the question. I can say that the narration flowed without problems and I think we never felt forced to narrate something incongruent from the established fiction "because the rules say so".

Five people seem ideal – is the game robust with fewer or more?
We were four and had fun, but we halso had the impression that five would have been better, without reading this question before. It worked well, but sometimes having another hero or just another head throwing in ideas could have helped the flowing of the narrative.

Should Jokers be included in one or both decks as a simple wild card?
This is a bit of a quiz.
Chapter two says: "Set out two decks of cards, normal 52-card decks, with no Jokers." and then the rules talk about jokers. We played with Chaos using jokers and the other not. In our game Chaos had a relatively easy time, so my impression, based solely on that, is that if you want to have the heroes consistently win wild jokers in their deck could be useful.
But I don't know if our playtest could be reliable on that, honestly.

Does it work to explain the win and loss conditions as part of preparation?
Preparation and rule-teaching whas a bit longish, a little more than expected (all the game was a little longer than expected, actually). I personally like when my gaming options are on the table, but it could be useful to break down the front-loading of the rules in more maneagable packets. One doesn't really need to know the overall victory conditions if not after the first round has been played.

Is rearranging the Conditions actually fun?
It is strange.
We rearranged the Conditions twice, one for Chaos, one for the Lesser Villain, the Purple Sorceress.
I was almost fanboy-squeeing when I saw Chaos try again the same Condition on Round 4 he tried at the beginning: it is very thematic, it feels so "comic" to see the villain fissated with the same plan but trying from a different angle. It probably helped that the first Condition was quint big: "Upload my controlling virus in world's monetary economy", so he could try it in several different and entertaining ways.
I felt more awkward playing the delayed Lesser Villain. My delayed Condition was more specific: "To made the Vesuvius erupt to open a mystic channel to the Earth Core". Failed that it would have been goofy to try exactly the same thing. More Magica De Spell (that, yes, was a direct influence in creating the Villain. Her true name was Amelia, the Italian name for Magica. We know...) than Villain Scarlet Witch. I would have played it from a different angle, maybe chooseing another vulcano or something, but a little uneasiness in imagining that was one of the reasons I played a round to lose and willingly entered under Chaos' influence: it was just a more coinvolgent narrative that way.

Is Rummy really the way to go? Seems OK, but even more streamlining might be a good idea
I think the chapter on Winning is really fundamental. I insisted to reread it apart from other rules at half game to remember everyone what we were playing. My impression is that we were a little carried away in trying to win the hands before, and we got better after, understanding the Rummy just as a sort of timer and the way the players have to influence the outcome of the round, not a way to uphold advocacy for the heroes when you are playing it.

Out of the question I can say that the rules will probably benefice from a different organization. Finding winning conditions or the order in wich play the turn wasn't exactly the quickest thing in the world. Chaos/Lesser Villain/Heroes handbooks are a must.
One comment from one of the player at the end of the game was about having a little difficulties coming out with an hero and creating something she hadn't fun playing. My suggestion to her was to use, next time she will be in that situation, an already written hero or, failing that to play quick and hard, and maybe to lose, since the hero was not so interesting but I think that it ultimately boils down to having the brain full of superhero fiction and being able to draw ideas and concept from that spandex-clad maelstrom and go with them.

I have most of the fun out of the way the game doesn't take you by hand giving you something to draw upon if you are at loss for ideas. It was just "sit down and say something cool" and I really wanted to stretch those gaming muscles.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ezio!

The group included you, Matteo, Lavinia, and who was the fourth? Also please let me know the names of all the characters, and who played them.

Both here and at G+, you have really identified a core feature: the distinction between creativity vs. extensive prompts. I might as well disclose that although I acknowledge Fiasco is a working game, I don't particularly like it. It seems to me to infantilize the participants and ultimately, to be not much more than a paint-by-numbers experience. I think Jason is a brilliant designer but I favor his games like The Plant and Grey Ranks, especially the degree of prompting in them. You can see similar designs in both S/Lay w/Me and Shahida (the latter was strongly influenced by Ben's The Drifter's Escape in fact). Doctor Chaos is based on the joy of creation, especially the unhindered yet earnest comics of my childhood, when Marvel still had one foot in the underground, full of slightly crazy utterly 70s young creators, extravagant and sincere at the same time.

I plan to organize the rules solely by playbooks, per role, similar to Murderous Ghosts. Each person can simply use his or her instructions, sequentially, including whole-game concepts as they apply. The current draft does have such documents at the end, although not in final form, and I definitely think that only the organizer of the playtest needs to read the main text.

Regarding inspiration, I really want custom cards, with the heroes deck full of single-image basic prompts, like this one. (Disclosure: I have four or five such images criminally lifted from the internet, by "Grigg." I searched long and hard to find out who Grigg is, without success. I would pay this person good money to produce 52 images like this! Help me please.)

Here and at G+, you mentioned that playing took longer than expected. I might be reaching, but I think those expectations are being set by Fiasco and its multitudinous playsets, providing a major limit upon concepts of play across that particular audience at the moment. I even saw such expectations infect a playtest of Circle of Hands, with unfortunate results. My games all include a learning curve, typically a rather steep one that levels off quickly into an expected level of mastery and if I say so myself, a payoff equaled by few other game designers. You've seen this before with S/Lay w/Me and Shahida, especially. I don't see a way for me either to accomodate the current expectations, nor to afford any tolerance for those who favor them.

Adding a fifth player results in better mechanics against Doctor Chaos, given some hero development. I do need to review the rules to make sure that developing even one hero does matter (I thought it would matter more than you say, especially for two). I fully admit that my author-bias favors Doctor Chaos and I am probably not letting the heroes win - the opposite of With Great Power, which I think in its current form basically screws the villain.

Still, I can see why he won: the lesser villain never threw in against him, right? That's definitely a core element of play, because if Doctor Chaos wins, then the Lesser Villain's plan  fails regardless of mechanical success. Lesser villains and heroes are all the same to Doctor Chaos, after all.

You've given me useful feedback about the lesser villain condition. I think the solution is to permit this character to re-write the condition entirely, permitting a lot of flexibility that Doctor Chaos doesn't have. The only constraint is that it must remain independent from Doctor Chaos' goals, pro or con.

Is your Doctor Chaos, a straw man? Really? I think you nailed it: the classic well-intentioned extremist, who is battling entrenched and self-destructive common practices at least as much as being simply crazy. Insofar as those common practices are wrong, then Doctor Chaos is right. If Magneto is a straw man, then so is Doctor Chaos, and that's pretty noble company to keep.

Best, Ron

[Ezio M.]

The fourth was Laura Baldini, Matteo's fianceé. She isn't really into social networking.
And the Heroe's deck is just a wonderful idea!

As for the charachters:
Doctor Chaos was a technological villain, who lived in this semovent, flying iceberg and wanted to subvert and subjugate the world's order for his "ecological" purpouses. Once he declared UK a rogue state. He cared about his creations and the Purple Sorceress but was pretty much obsessed by ownership.

I played the lesser villain, the Purple Sorceress, Amelia, a power-bent magical character, rebellius and really on edge when she thought someone was trying to control her, to tell her wat to do. Her plan was to make vulcans erupt to channel magical energy from the Core, using the Hypercoductor.

Heroes:
- Steve, played by Lavinia and Laura, a couch potato Iron Man, apathetic and snarky, apparently an unwilling hero. Also, the Purple Sorceress' brother and huge powerhouse. Development brought him Responsability (but not much)
- #42, played by Matteo, an Utharaptor cloned by Chaos, gun toting, pouch wearing, granades throwing
- Lady Lizbet/Lady Red, played by Matteo and Lavinia, a superheroic UN/World Government rapresentativ without apparent superpowers but with a lot of wits and contacts. Developement brought her Disability and we saw her wheelchair bound. (decapitation tends to mess with the central nervous system)
- Aurora, played by Laura, a young and not very effective sorceress.
- Gh05T, played by Lavinia, a black ops tech ninja with drones.

Here and at G+, you mentioned that playing took longer than expected. I might be reaching, but I think those expectations are being set by Fiasco and its multitudinous playsets, providing a major limit upon concepts of play across that particular audience at the moment. I even saw such expectations infect a playtest of Circle of Hands, with unfortunate results. My games all include a learning curve, typically a rather steep one that levels off quickly into an expected level of mastery and if I say so myself, a payoff equaled by few other game designers. You've seen this before with S/Lay w/Me and Shahida, especially.

You are probably right. I don't know why but we recieved an a "quick and simple" vibe from the manual and it clearly isn't. It is a game choke-full of meaningful decisions and a lot of sublte techniques to manipulate the fiction. Once the expectation were adjusted I enjoyed it very much and have been happy with the results. As I said I appreciate how it counters some current game design "tendencies". I don't find anything wrong with those, but Doctor Chaos allowed me to use a playstyle I haven't used in a while, and it has been liberating.

Still, I can see why he won: the lesser villain never threw in against him, right? That's definitely a core element of play, because if Doctor Chaos wins, then the Lesser Villain's plan  fails regardless of mechanical success. Lesser villains and heroes are all the same to Doctor Chaos, after all.

You've given me useful feedback about the lesser villain condition. I think the solution is to permit this character to re-write the condition entirely, permitting a lot of flexibility that Doctor Chaos doesn't have. The only constraint is that it must remain independent from Doctor Chaos' goals, pro or con.

The lesser villain played against him in the first round, on a total whim, and it was the only round where he was delayed.
In the second round Chaos and the Sorceress ignored each other, both pursuing their private goals.
In the third round the Sorceress was fictionally opposed to Chaos, trying to steal the Hypercontuctor from him, and Chaos was trying to subdue her. Even if fictionally they were at odds the scene of the Liefeld-raptor made me so furious with the heroes I decided to throw all my weight toward Chaos, played to lose, willingly submitting to him.
The fourth round I played the faithful henchwoman and the heroes didn't stand a chance. I believe we beat them 10-0 after a couple of Chaos drawn.

From round three onward I simply ignored my plan: stopping the heroes was more important, the character just developed that way, and siding with Chaos was the quickest way to do it. So, even if the Sorceress failed her previous plan (even if Chaos gifted her the Hyperconductor macguffin thing at the end), because she will never be allowed to destroy the new Chaos Paradise... well, I felt as I won, since I got out exactly the narrative outcome I was invested into and the character I was advocating for cared more in that specific moment.

And yes, we noticed how important the Lesser Villain dinamics were. After the game we were all: "She was the one able to tip the balance".
She has this power and she changed a lot, she was the most volatile and changing character of the game. In this regard I think that allow the Lesser Villain to change their goal could be a good idea, allowing them more room under Chaos World-shattering moves. The Lesser Villain isn't an unstoppable juggernaut of power like Chaos, they is more flexible, more adabtable.

[Ron Edwards]

Wow! I think you completely nailed it. Your decision-making while playing the Lesser Villain is exactly what I was designing toward,, especially your feeling that you "won." When all is said and done, this isn't a Gamist design at all: you played the other option for the Silver Surfer!

Did it seem like the other people at the table had fun playing Doctor Chaos (the character)? Did each person get a chance?

[Ezio M.]

Did it seem like the other people at the table had fun playing Doctor Chaos (the character)? Did each person get a chance?

I keep poking them to answer.
As far as I can tell, yes, they seemed to have fun, and everyone had a chance to play him.

A couple of question more: I still haven't clear what to do with the Jokers. The text seems contradictory. Do I put them in both decks?
We are also not crystaline about the Lesser Villain creation. Is them created collectively as Doctor Chaos, or has their player the final word on them?

[Ron Edwards]

Both decks should have Jokers.

In Doctor Chaos' deck, Jokers are always wild.

In the heroes' deck, Jokers are "blanks" (useless) for undeveloped heroes and the lesser villain. For developed heroes, however, Jokers are wild and may be assigned a value and donated to any hero's hand, developed or not, by the player who drew them.

(this is a new rule prompted by your playtest report)

The lesser villain should be made up entirely by the person who will play him or her. The character is not explained or introduced unil play begins.

One of the amusing historical details involved in that rule, aside from pure design considerations, is found in Stan Lee's very old book "Origins of Marvel Comics." Lee claims that when Jack Kirby submitted the pages for the Galactus story, he was surprised to see the Silver Surfer, as Kirby had merely made him up and added him into the art. So Lee decided to make up more back-story for him and the whole story turned into a much more complex sequence hinging almost entirely on this character. (Note: whether anything in that book is actually true is a matter for debate. It didn't stop me from memorizing it.)

In other words, I like the idea of most of the table being a bit surprised at the presence and details of the lesser villain, who truly is the wild card of the game, and as I explain in the rules, the only traditionally-constructed player-character. Also related to this is concept is the extreme distinction between the Cheese rule, which should be applied very strongly to Doctor Chaos and the heroes, but which is absolutely relaxed concerning the lesser villain.

[matteosuppo]

Here I am.

I enjoyed greatly being Doctor Chaos, far more than being the heroes.

I noticed that we all played Doctor Chaos a little differently. My Doctor Chaos was cold and detached, Laura's (her surname is Brandini, by the way) was annoyed and bored, and Lavi's was hammy and caring (for the dinosaurs, at least).

My Heroes were Lady Lizbeth with no superpowers (because I wanted a challenge), and #42 the gun-toting utharaptor (because I wanted to make things explode). I never bothered with developing a hero, mostly because I wanted Doctor Chaos to win. But I never played to lose, because  I thought Doctor Chaos needed to triumph in the face of adverse odds, or it would not be satisfying.

The game says to keep narrations brief, but we didn't exactly followed that rule. I tried, but sometimes you just want to talk with the heroes while you're hammering them.

With my last Doctor Chaos I tried to talk Steve into becoming my thrall. It didn't work, but I have the feeling it could.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matteo, thanks for posting. What you're reporting lets me know even more that I'm on the right track with this design.

I suspect that the heroes were a little bit less important to the players in this game at least partly because they weren't very effective. As I posted above, I've now changed the rules a little to permit a bit more effectiveness among the Developed heroes. Also, a fifth player means there are three heroes active during an Episode, which automatically makes them more effective even not Developed.

Ezio: I've also changed the rules to allow the lesser villain to alter his or her Conditions during play, but not his or her Plan.

[Ezio M.]

Well, if I understood correctly youir design goal... yes, you are. Big time.
I'm still planning to play it with five players on short terms, though. And to write about it.

Ezio: I've also changed the rules to allow the lesser villain to alter his or her Conditions during play, but not his or her Plan.

Let me guess: when a Condition is delayed you can also change it.

Plan to publish another playtest draft with all these little changes?

[Ron Edwards]

Updated and available at the same link as before.

One thing that confused me in your previous posts was your call for playbooks. The end of the document included three separate Episode rules packets, for Doctor Chaos, the lesser villain, and the heroes. Did you see those?

[Ezio M.]

One thing that confused me in your previous posts was your call for playbooks. The end of the document included three separate Episode rules packets, for Doctor Chaos, the lesser villain, and the heroes. Did you see those?

I didn't noticed them as handout booklets the way we printed the rules, but looking at the rules from monitor made it evident.

I noticed that we all played Doctor Chaos a little differently. My Doctor Chaos was cold and detached, Laura's (her surname is Brandini, by the way) was annoyed and bored, and Lavi's was hammy and caring (for the dinosaurs, at least).

I liked very much this aspect of the game, it felt very "comix". Do you know how Magneto can be a dramatic anti-villain, a ruthless anti-hero, a well meaning extremist or a plain terrorist depending on who the writer is? That. The game captured that feeling very well. I came to thought of every scene as a flush of panels, a couple or a page, and every episode as... well, an episode, a number of the comic, with the outmost naturality also because of that feeling.

PS: Ron, minor detail in the Development notes of the draft. Lavinia played Steve and Gh05t, Laura Steve and Aurora.

[Ron Edwards]

Here's Ezio's main post at G+, one of several.

I frequently browse the internet for Doctor Chaos art, the sort of thing I like to put into early-stage playtest drafts for fun, entirely irresponsibly and never for publication.

Strangely, I am generally unsuccessful. You would think pictures of original superheroes and supervillains of all types would be incredibly easy to find. I can hardly find any.

I'd love cover art in the style of the illustration Ezio used for that post, featuring an obvious ultra-villain which invoked all the grandeur of the concept without being a licensed character. I'm astonished that I can't find a damn thing.

[Lavinia]

Here I am! I had trouble registering when Ezio first prompted me, and then I forgot.

I'll add what I think can be useful to you later or tomorrow, I wanted to tell you that I've found the shutterstock profile of the artist of the image you linked in a previous post: DeviantArt page (but it looks like the last stuff is from 2012)and this other website (he was active as of last year's autumn).

[Lavinia]

Argh, a tag didn't close correctly so a huge part of text of my previous message has been eaten. Second try!

Here I am! I had trouble registering when Ezio first prompted me, and then I forgot.

I'll add what I think can be useful to you later or tomorrow, I wanted to tell you that I've found the shutterstock profile of the artist of the image you linked in a previous post: here. The link to his website is dead/broken, but I successfully found a DeviantArt page (but it looks like the last stuff is from 2012)and this other website (he was active as of last year's autumn).

[Ron Edwards]

Thanks Lavinia, and welcome to the forum!