[Doctor Chaos] A cosmic force behind your feeble comprehension, little monkeys

[Ezio M.]

Second playtest for Doctor Chaos took place yesterday. We played afternoon and evening and I can confirm it is exactly what I'm searching from an RPG in this moment: unadultered, unhindered creation, free and exciting, without necessarily "deep" issues but not banal either.
I'm sinply loving this game.

This time our Chaos was a cosmic force of universal evolution (scope: one planet... at a time), a genderless beign of energy and change compressed in a mystic armor that come to Earth to lead it to it's True Destiny. The first step (ok, second) of it was to destroy North America, it was in the wrong place.
The heroes fought, they won, Zion the Lion Man from a previously "evolved" planet become the new Chaos when the cosmic Force migrated after the defeat of this Doctor, because there will always be a Chaos.

The cast:
Mario Bolzoni was the Minor Villain: Leilani "Earthchild" Kilawea, who "just" wanted to create a sanctuary for earth's life.
Stefano Cuoghi played Twilight Owl, Zion,Silvana and Shape, Patrol
Francesco Berni played Ian, The Freedom Spirit, Silvana and City Man
Francesco Sechi played The Freedom Spirit, Patrol, Zion and Shape
Ezio Melega played The Freedom Spirit, Silvana, Patrol, Zion and Shape.
Everyone had the chance to play Chaos.

We played a five player game, and I can confirm: it's a different sensation than a four player game. The game seems really design for a five player game, its mechanics click when there are five people at the table. The mathematic of the cards is more streamlined, it is cleare what the possibilities ar: Doctor Chaos will destroy the heroes if he only has a single player that opposes him, will have a fair fight with two, will be beaten by three.
I've got the impression that it is a game for five players, not four, not six.

We had a lot of developed heroes in play. Out of 8 heroes created, 5 were evolved. And whe we started "siding with the heroes", constantly picking Developed ones Doctor Chaos loose. The heroes side constintely beat him.

We had some perplexities on rearranging conditions: after the first one was crossed out we fought again and again against the same Chaos' plan to destroy North America. Mostly the problem was the constant uncheking of it, so we had a North America that somehow popped in and out of existance or, better, fought again and again for a increasingly devastated and fractionated landscape. I'm convinced that the simple thing to do is to go and close the game when this happens, but I think it's worthy mentioning.

I still see the mechanics as a "pool" between the players, that vouches on their favourite outcomes and Gin seems a good way to go: it allows for possibilities, it has the right lenght, and gives my hands something to do when playing.

A major doubt we had is about the Minor Villain. She got drawned under Chaos in Episode 2 and it was evidenttha she cannot break free. She was alone and the Heroes's Deck cannot beat Chaos' one if you are alone and there wasn't a mechanical possibility to help her. The only way was to have someone playing Chaos being so invested in the Minor Villain's freedom to play to lose an Episode, but it would need to be a MAJOR investment, since this will probably mean loosing to the heroes too.
We tend to think that the Minor Villain is really interesting when she has a choice, a risk to be drawn under Chaos, a chance to willingly serve him, or a chance to break free. It leads to a confrontations, to the Heroes dividing between her and Chaos, deciding who is most dangerous and, ultimately, who has the better point.
We found, with the current rules, very difficult to do so: once subjugated (and it will easily happen), the Minor Villain will remain subjugated and even if rebelling she will not really be of hindrance of Chaos, nor have a real chance to succeeed.
We lacked the "Alicia Masters' Choice", with an Hero willing to draw the Minor Villain away from Chaos and pushing some mechanical weight to do so.
Maybe it could be useful to give the Minor Villain access to some fort of Advanced Heroes "powers"? This way if enough people at the table are invested in seeing her breaking free she could really do it, and I fully expect them to regret it later. A very interesting fictional outcome that we feel, now, as impossible.
This way it could become frustrating for the Minor Villain as she has very little mechanical leverage and has to hope in a very difficult act of selfinessh from Chaos' player, and for the Heroes, that cannot give mechanical weight to their eventual efforts to draw Chaos important lackey on their side.
We feel like the Heores should have a chance to "corrupt" the Minor Villain as Chaos has.

And now some quibble.
I'm sorry, but we are Italians and we live out of this little cavils in laws.

About the Developed heroes "powers".

- Combine their melded cards: can an hero refuse to combine their meld? Can someone refuse to allow another to join? Mario and Francesco are combining ther melds, can they tell Ezio that they don't want his?
- Add Deadwood from any superheroe's hands into their own melds: do the melds need to be already in place? If I have two 6 can I take a third 6 from Mario's hand or I need to already have three 6 (a meld) to join a fourth card?

I'm pointing this thread to the other's player, I told them to come here and share their impressions and I will poke them until they will not do so. Mercilessy poke.

I still want to play again Doctor Chaos. It's a very thematic game, you probably need to be really invested in superheroes fiction to fully enjoy it, but it is unadultered fun to stretch creative muscles without so many boundaries and safeties net.

Thanks.

[Ron Edwards]

Ezio, thank you very much for this feedback. It's exactly what I need from external groups working from text.

I have a couple of questions about your game and then we can talk about rules.

Did your Doctor Chaos express his/her/its Issues? What were they? I ask this because your definition or concept seems a bit inhuman.

I have always found it a little odd that Galactus was so robotic in the classic Fantastic Four story. He wanted to feed, period. Maybe only a little tiny shred of values lurked in there insofar as he employed the Surfer more-or-less as his conscience in the first place.

Did Mario enjoy playing the lesser villain? This may not be a viable question considering the rules issue you raised, as it's hard to enjoy playing a helpless character.

The game is very much designed for five people. It looks as if I may have to introduce specific rules changes when playing with four or six, which I don't really want to do - it seems like inelegant game design to me. However, playing-cards mechanics using shared decks are affected strongly by the number of "pools" cards are shared among, so maybe I'll have to do that.

The mathematic of the cards is more streamlined, it is cleare what the possibilities ar: Doctor Chaos will destroy the heroes if he only has a single player that opposes him, will have a fair fight with two, will be beaten by three.

I am not sure that I want the outcomes to be this predictable particularly for the heroes ... and it seemed to me that Doctor Chaos always had the advantage unless one or more of heroes was developed.

Wait - given the amount of development and that by a few turns in, you were playing with all-developed characters. So are the above comparisons based on playing specifically with developed characters?

My goal is that the classic raw fight between Doctor Chaos + lesser villain against all-developed heroes would be an even match. I may have to improve the advantage Doctor Chaos gets from controlling the lesser villain.

We had some perplexities on rearranging conditions: after the first one was crossed out we fought again and again against the same Chaos' plan to destroy North America. Mostly the problem was the constant uncheking of it, so we had a North America that somehow popped in and out of existance or, better, fought again and again for a increasingly devastated and fractionated landscape. I'm convinced that the simple thing to do is to go and close the game when this happens, but I think it's worthy mentioning.

Did you miss the rule that says if Doctor Chaos loses all his current conditions in a row, then he loses the game? Or did he fail at destroying North America, then succeed at the other one, then fail at destroying North America, back and forth and back and forth?

Your point about the lesser villain is very important, and yes, he or she must have a viable mechanical choice throughout the game, under every condition. I've struggled a bit with that because I don't want breaking free from Doctor Chaos to be easy. The Alicia Masters concept seems like a perfect opportunity. I may define it as a specific case of development, or it may be an action that can uniquely combine the lesser villain's cards with those of the heroes. That's critical because the lesser villain is using the same deck as the heroes, and this particular action would be the only way that he or she isn't "stealing" heroes' cards.

- Combine their melded cards: can an hero refuse to combine their meld? Can someone refuse to allow another to join? Mario and Francesco are combining ther melds, can they tell Ezio that they don't want his?

I hadn't considered this option. My inclination is to say "no," and that developed heroes must combine cards. But I need to reflect on that before I decide it for sure.

- Add Deadwood from any superheroe's hands into their own melds: do the melds need to be already in place? If I have two 6 can I take a third 6 from Mario's hand or I need to already have three 6 (a meld) to join a fourth card?

I'd considered it to be for melds alone, so the hero has to be at least partly successful. If the Deadwood were to be available for any and all other cards to make any and all melds, then effectively the developed heroes simply share one big huge hand, and that is too powerful.

Thanks again Ezio!

[Ezio M.]

Did your Doctor Chaos express his/her/its Issues? What were they? I ask this because your definition or concept seems a bit inhuman.

That's something I and Francesco Sechi have discussed a lot afterwards. Effectively it could have been done better. Sechi and I went strongly in that direction, the other had more difficulties. We followed the "more force than man hint at charatchter creation, and went to humanize him afterward (he cared about the world, he collected pieces of them and obsetrved them carefully, he hated and loved and was searching for a successor, he was a sad, old creature on the inside), but that part could have been performed better, I think, and I was a little preoccupied about that. The Portrait moment is an important one. It doesn't changes big things on "the paper" but creates big ripples in the narrative landscape.

Did Mario enjoy playing the lesser villain? This may not be a viable question considering the rules issue you raised, as it's hard to enjoy playing a helpless character.

I think he was frustrated by the impossibility to be relevant. Beign able to really hinder Chaos by rebelling would had eased that, but that was not a possibility. He percieved a choice between beign submissive and helpful or beign useless, and that's not a great choice.

I am not sure that I want the outcomes to be this predictable particularly for the heroes ... and it seemed to me that Doctor Chaos always had the advantage unless one or more of heroes was developed.

Wait - given the amount of development and that by a few turns in, you were playing with all-developed characters. So are the above comparisons based on playing specifically with developed characters?

Yes, sorry. It had the advantage against normal heroes and was to level with two DEVELOPED heroes.

My goal is that the classic raw fight between Doctor Chaos + lesser villain against all-developed heroes would be an even match. I may have to improve the advantage Doctor Chaos gets from controlling the lesser villain.

Did you miss the rule that says if Doctor Chaos loses all his current conditions in a row, then he loses the game? Or did he fail at destroying North America, then succeed at the other one, then fail at destroying North America, back and forth and back and forth?

Exactly like that. I was looking at that rule, but it was never the case. We destroyed North America two times and the last one Chaos failed and the game ended.

[Ezio M.]

I don't know how useful would this kind of input would be, but I thought about the Lesser Villain position all morning (and I'm sorry for the double post).

In very, very, raw terms, stripping the game of all positionining and narrative issues, non developed heroes are functionally alone, while the developed may collaborate merging their hands.
On a purely strategical viewpoint (without minding other considearation, like Chaos' player vouching for some other outcome than Chaos victory) the impression is that Chaos is at an advantage against any numer of non developed heroes and a single developed hero, on par with two developed heroes and at disadvantage facing three developed heroes.
The help of the Lesser Villain, that steals cards from the heroes and adds points to his hand should allow him to fight toe-to-toe with three developed heroes.
Of course every consideration could be offset by chance since the random element in cards, but my plain strategic viewpoint is this.

The problem I percieve from the Lesser Villain is that she always is functionally alone but when she is helping Chaos. If she is opposing Chaos she always is equivalent to a non developed hero, so no match for Chaos: she will probably fall under it as soon as Chaos will look in her direction and will free herself only out of sheer luck or a Chaos player really committed to her freedom.
If free and siding with the heroes in opposing Chaos the Lesser Villain will functionally be useless: developed heroes can easily reach 8,9 points, Chaos will race to knock quickly, aided by his powerful five cards drawing, and the Lesser Villain will be left on her own device without any chance to build some powerful melds.

On the side of sheer power level the Lesser Villain player is stuck with a non developed hero for all the game, unless she serves Chaos. It's a wonderful lackey but will be crushed by any opposition.
The player can still pull out some great roleplaying and have fun playing a great, thematic, lackey (I did and had) but I have the impression this shouldn't be the only option for the Lesser Villain.

So, the problem is about the mechanical isolation of the Lesser Villain.

I was thinking... what about giving heroes, or a developed heroes, the possibility to "gift" their melds to the Lesser Villain? They don't score points, she did. This way we can have the Alicia Moment, with heroes sacrificing something important to gain a possible ally (or an ungrateful traitor), and allow the player to side with a peculiar fctional outcome with some sacrifice on their part.
Is it a very distant idea from your design goals?

Adapting the game to more or less player couldn't be done just by adjusting the hand size opposite to the nuber of players?

[Mr. Mario]

Minor Villain reporting here. :)

I had fun playing the game. I went for a quite villainous villain, who held herself on a different ground from both the heroes and Dr.Chaos. Her plan was quite terrifying in her disregard for humanity, yet she stood so defiant of Dr.Chaos that the other players wanted her to be free. One of the heroes hated her even more than Dr.Chaos, and would have gone out of his way to oppose her even though she was fighting for her freedom from Dr.Chaos, but there's no such option. If I could have brought my plan forward, they would have been very torn choosing between me and Dr.Chaos.

Ezio's right, though, looking at my puny hand, I didn't often feel very relevant.

In episode 3 the heroes gained the upper hand on Dr.Chaos and quickly knocked, not realizing that if they didn't allow me time to form some melds, I could never get free. But even if they did wait and gave me one more turn, time is much more on Dr.Chaos' side than on mine.

Also, once I was controlled, my plan disappeared from the game. With little chance of getting free, I can can either work with Dr.Chaos (no advance) or struggle for freedom (no advance).

Dr.Chaos needs the minor villain when he's up against three developed heroes. Against two, it's still useful, but might not be necessary. Any less and he doesn't really need her.

Chatting after the game, I thought it might be more interesting if both sides had a way to bribe the minor villain.
Dr. Chaos might offer to help with the minor villain's plan in exchange for loyalty.
The heroes might offer help in getting free in exchange for resistance.

Otherwise, the choice of the controlled villain is a choice out of frustration. It's always "Since i can't get what I want, I'll help you/I'll resist." After a few episodes, it gets tiresome.

[Ron Edwards]

The curse of playtesting is discovering the ways in which the game isn't fun. I greatly appreciate the time and attention you've given to it!

So ... I think the solution is to permit a way for a hero to help the lesser villain rebel. I think this will have to be alternate to opposing Doctor Chaos - in other words, you can't directly oppose Doctor Chaos with your own cards, alone or with the other heroes, when you're helping the lesser villain rebel. On the other hand, your cards are helping the lesser villain oppose Doctor Chaos, because an attempted rebellion does still act against Doctor Chaos' cards.

This is pretty interesting. All the heroes could try to help the lesser villain rebel, which means all their cards will be acting together including the villain's, but that isn't the case once the lesser villain is free. The benefit of a free lesser villain comes both passively (because his or her cards aren't helping Doctor Chaos) and actively (because the player of the lesser villain can strategize with the other players about the face-up card), but they can't combine melds the way that developed superheroes can.

The question is whether this option should be available only to developed heroes. Fictionally, there's a good case for doing it this way, and it also puts some strategy into the "three developed heroes" situation, so they can't simply overpower Doctor Chaos at that point.

The benefit to this idea is that it will encourage the players of the heroes to think socially, both as people and for their characters.

Also,

Adapting the game to more or less player couldn't be done just by adjusting the hand size opposite to the nuber of players?

But that would be sensible, elegant, easy, and effective!

[Ezio M.]

With the current rules, on a purely cold and tactical viewpoint the best cours for Chaos is probably to let the Lesser Villain go free until the heroes consistently start ignoring her to fight Chaos himself. After that he should ensare her and, possibly, win her loyalty.
Of course this is easier said than done and could be offset by a myriad of narrative and roleplaying variables.

Letting the Heroes help the Lesser Villain as an alternative to fight Chaos the best course of action will probably be a off again, on again relationship, letting the heroes spending resources to help the distressed Lesser Villain.
Again many variables could offset this.

I see the first one as giving most of the cool decisions to Chaos and leaving little in the matter of authority on her own destiny to the Lesser Villain.
The second one empatize, I think, roleplay and narrative-lead decisions as the Lesser Villain has many incentives in creating an interesting, ambiguous characters. Things like a "Patrol, help me, do it for our Mother!" screamed under the clash of a superpowered battle will be commons. Still the Lesser Villain will ask for help, needs to form alliances, but at least she will have more sides to look at.
Once someone decides that let the Lesser Villain free from Chaos' influence is the right thing to do we will see a lot of battles over her, with Chaos still advancing his plan and the Heroes forced to choose between stopping him or help someone break free from his influence, someone who is at least morally ambiguous.

I like it.

But that would be sensible, elegant, easy, and effective!

I don't clain paternity over the idea! It has been something coming from post-game chatting and everyone build and bought it. I don't even remember who proposed it first, maybe Mario.
It's a fairly common technique in boardgame so I think we all were familiar with the idea.

I'll try to play again Doctor Chaos in August and/or September. Let me know if you will have some rule you need tested!

[Ron Edwards]

I've been thinking about cards and hands. H'mm ... OK, I'll break it down in crude terms and admit that plenty of intangibles might be at play too, but how about ...?

FOUR PEOPLE TOTAL
3 people sharing Hero deck, 9 cards each
Heroes + lesser villain share 27 cards in play

FIVE PEOPLE TOTAL
4 people sharing Hero deck, 7 cards each
Heroes + lesser villain share 28 cards in play

SIX PEOPLE TOTAL
5 people sharing Hero deck, 5 cards each
Heroes + lesser villain share 25 cards in play

The tricky things are how does the change in hand size affect the dynamic of melds, and how often Doctor Chaos gets to act relative to the others as a group (1 in 4, 1 in 5, 1 in 6). I think these things will offset one another, but whether it's 1:1 or close enough, I'm not sure.

Best, Ron

[Ezio M.]

Seems solid, but I'm not good with this math.

How are you considering the definition of Gin (easier to have a full hand with 5 cards, impossible to have 7 melded cards)and the knocking?

[Mr. Mario]

I think changing the hand size was my idea, but immediately after I realized that the math involved would be a nightmare and that it would need to be heavily tested.

I also was thinking 8 and 6 size hands.

I'm wary of the 5 size hand because it's very hard to get a meld, but even more because it's much easier to try for two three-card melds with 6 cards, than it is trying one four-or-more-card meld with 5 cards.

I'm afraid it might be frustrating. But tests should have the final word of it.

Ron how do you feel about Chaos letting the minor villain use her cards for her plan instead of using them for himself, while he's still controlling her?