The Forge Archives

Hi Ralph,

Some thoughts following our first session of Robots & Rapiers:
1. We had a good deal of fun, which is unusual and a pleasant surprise for a playtest. Everyone seemed to enjoy the rules.
2. The Inhuman Features were a hit. We'd like to suggest some space on the character sheet to record them.
3. Spending successes was also loved by all. Again, a quick reference on the character sheet would be helpful.
4. A great deal is made about upgrade slots in the anthropoid class section, but I couldn't seem to find anything about it after. Maybe it was in the Interlude section?
5. Is there a way to change your Anthropoid Class? In either direction?
6. Is it possible to increase your Core Programs and Knowledge Programs scores?

In more detail:
We got together on Thursday to give Robots & Rapiers a go. Despite the fact that you sent us the text several weeks ago, I picked up and plowed through all 360 pages between Wednesday and our session on Thursday. I retained a good bit, but was not quite as solid with the rules as I would have liked. Mayuran managed to get through about 30% of the book. John, Drozdal and Alexander had not had a chance to read it.

I decided to go with the first sample scenario, A Simple Letter, and printed out the Band of Four. I gave them to the players based on who I thought they would least identify with. Alexander got Burgiss, the strong simpleton; Drozdal got Alfredo, the rakish swashbuckler; John got Charles, the brooding swashbuckler; and Mayuran got Devon, the annoying intellectual. However, I really felt they needed to understand a number of concepts from the game before we could really get started. We thus spent about 2.5 hours going over the setting and rules: role, anthropoid class, hardware, programming, traits, Role Tests, Self Awareness Tests, basic mechanics, faux damage and malfunctions. I skipped over the Wealth, Favors and Interlude rules because I had the least grasp on them myself, and they didn't seem that essential to getting the session started.

At that point, Alexander felt that he couldn't absorb any more without playing, so we agreed to start the scenario.

We started off with the dinner party at Madam Beauvais' salon. I described the scene, explaining that Madam Beauvais was an eager social climber, and she had invited Alfredo because it was rumored that he had created a stir at court after seducing and then spurning Comtesse de ... Alfredo, of course, made sure to bring along his inseparable companions and fellow King's Guards, Burgiss, Devon and Charles. As they entered, the foppish Captain Etienne Pomeroy had the attention of the aging but wealthy Lady Margaret Duvaine and the young and very beautiful Aimee Beauvais.

Alexander immediately had Burgiss attempt to foil Captain Pomeroy's flirtation by rolling his Carousing (Drinking to Excess) vs. Durability to cause a scene. The NPCs weren't statted, so I fell back on the Running the NPCs rules on page 269. I decided that he would use Persuasion (Flirt) vs. Processor to continue his attempts on the ladies, keeping their attention from the boorish behavior exhibited by Burgiss. I gave Pomeroy a Persuasion of 6 and a Processor of 5.

At that point, Drozdal decided that he wished Alfredo to make an Augmentation roll by calling attention to Burgiss and making a toast to the king's health. He rolled his Oratory (Toast Making) vs. Processor. I didn't want to make the first roll too complicated, so I decided not to have anyone use a Charge to oppose Alfredo. Drozdal managed two successes and spent them to give Burgiss a +1D Persistent Bonus. After such a fine toast, the other partygoers would at least pay attention to what Burgiss had to say.

Alexander and I then rolled. We each managed 5 successes. We were a bit unclear what we should do in the case of a tie. I ruled that Pomeroy had successfully blocked Burgiss' attempt to steal his thunder, but wasn't sure whether Pomeroy had thus taken Initiative, or if it should be up for Bid. In fact, I'm slightly confused about Charges and Bids in general.
1. I think that Charges = Anthropoid Class? I couldn't find it in the book when the issue came up, but that's what I seemed to remember.
2. Is a successful "block" enough to take Initiative, or would Pomeroy have had to generate net successes in order to take Initiative for free?
3. Can you bid more than 1 Charge to take Initiative? Am I correct that the tie-breaker stuff is all about who gets to make the first bid? If so, it seems that low Anthropoid Class robots are doubly penalized. They have less Charge than high Anthropoid Class robots AND they have to allow high Anthropoid Class robots to bid first. For example, hypothetically, Burgiss and Pomeroy both wish to bid for the next initiative. Burgiss is Type 2 and Pomeroy is Type 3. Thus Pomeroy, with 3 Charge, gets to bid 1 Charge first, because he has the higher Anthropoid Class. Now Burgiss has to bid all his Charge to take initiative. Pomeroy could even have bid 2 Charge immediately, and locked Burgiss out.
4. I assume that Charge used to bid for Initiative is spent for that turn, and does not come back until the next Initiative phase?

Getting back to the contest at hand, I wound up calling for tests vs. Processor for the majority of the social conflict tests. Was that the right call? A few more examples and guidelines about which Hardware to use in different kinds of tests could be helpful.

We decided to give the Initiative to Pomeroy. I had Pomeroy use Oratory (Bon Mot) vs. Processor in an attempt to shame Bugiss for his drunkeness as his Action Roll. "Ze king dotes on his guard, but zey are little more zan undisciplined ruffians! Just look at zis one's drunkeness. He iz a disgrace!"

Burgiss Opposed with Persuasion (Charm) vs. Processor to come up with a witty retort that would make the ladies giggle.

Alfredo spent a Charge to Augment Burgiss with Etiquette (Fashion) vs. Processor to disparage the elegantly dressed Captain Pomeroy's fashion sense.

Again, I chose not to make things too complicated, so I did not spend any Charge to oppose Alfredo. Drozdal managed 3 successes, and he granted them all to Alexander as temporary bonus. Alexander and I then rolled, and I managed 2 net successes, which I used to eliminate the Persistent bonus placed on Pomeroy in the first exchange.

At that point, Madam Beauvais, noting the sharp exchange and Burgiss' unfortunate drunkeness, gestured to her footman, Ephraim Pollock, who convinced Burgiss to go with him in search of a cup of coffee.

Meanwhile, Devon and Charles were exchanging barbs with the puffed up windbag, Baron Anselme Averill. It went so far that Devon maneuvered Charles into insulting the baron, who wiped his monocle and asked if they should call for seconds. Realizing that even Captain Trebone wouldn't be able to extract Charles from the Cardinal's clutches if he were caught dueling with (or god forbid, killing) a baron, Devon decided to put a stop to what he had started.

Mayuran used Oratory (Debate) vs. Processor for his Action Roll in an attempt to calm both Charles and the baron.

John had Charles Oppose with Persuasion (Intimidation) vs. Force to intimidate the baron into backing down from the duel. I wasn't sure that this was exactly a fair opposition. We clarified that John wanted the duel, but he also wanted to make the baron a little cowed by his ferocity.

The baron spent a Charge to augment Devon with Oratory (Bombast) vs. Processor, suggesting that Devon should bring his friend to heel. The baron managed 3 net successes and gave them all to Devon as temporary bonus. With the additional dice, Devon managed 4 net successes, which he used to apply a +1D persistent difficulty to anyone in the room who wished to goad someone to violence.

John decided to have Charles back down, ending the conflict.

Dro then decided that it was time to have Alfredo make a play for Aimee. He decided to ask Madam Beauvais to dance in order to make Aimee jealous. His Action roll was Etiquette (Dance) vs. Locomotion.

Aimee Opposed with Persuasion (Flirt) vs. Articulation to cast come hither looks at Alfredo to inflame his desire immediately.

Mayuran spent a point of Charge to allow Devon to Augment using Administration (Military) vs. Processor to distract Pomeroy with an argument about military procedure, taking away Aimee's admirer and some of her confidence.

I had Pomeroy spend a point of Charge to Oppose Devon with Persuasion (Flirt) vs. Processor to bring the conversation back to Aimee.

Devon had 2 net successes. He spent 1 to give himself a +1D temporary bonus vs. Pomeroy and the other to give Alfredo a +1D temporary bonus vs. Aimee.

Then Dro and I rolled. Aimee managed 3 net successes. She spent 2 to give herself a persistent +1D bonus against Alfredo, and the last success to give Alfredo +1D temporary difficulty in resisting her.

Aimee took the Initiative. As her action, she used Persuasion (Flirt) vs. Articulation to get Alfredo to spurn her mother and come to her.

Drozdal had Alfredo Oppose with Deceit (Lie) vs. Articulation to suggest with body language that he was more interested in Madam Beauvais.

Aimee managed 4 net successes (after Drozdal elected to take his two 1s as Inspiration rather than successes), which she used to give everyone in the room +1D Persistent difficulty  to resisting her charm.

In the kitchens, Ephraim poured  Burgiss a cup of coffee. Burgiss finally decided to ask Ephraim what all the sighing and looking at his watch was about (I'd been playing it up). Ephraim then explained that his love was waiting for him at this very moment, but the unexpected party Madam had thrown meant that he couldn't leave. Could Burgiss please take this letter to her? Unable to resist the romance of it all, Burgiss swears to deliver the letter.

Alexander said Burgiss was going to jump up and head straight to the rendezvous. Wanting to make sure that he took his companions with him, I told Alexander to take 1 Inspiration as I made a Role Test. I succeeded (of course, since Burgiss' role score is still 10), and told Alexander that Burgiss was going to gather his companions for this little adventure. Was this a fair use of the Role Test? Alexander wasn't exactly making a test...

And that's where we cut it for the night, after about an hour or so of play. I'll come back with some further thoughts later, but hopefully the rest of the gang will stop by and post their thoughts. Anything you'd like to explore in more detail, Ralph?

Awesome!

Quote from: Thor Olavsrud on March 04, 2007, 12:13:01 AM
2. The Inhuman Features were a hit. We'd like to suggest some space on the character sheet to record them.

Yeah, I totally suck at making character sheets.  There's alot of stuff missing that should be on them.

Quote3. Spending successes was also loved by all. Again, a quick reference on the character sheet would be helpful.

And probably a malfunction table too.

Quote4. A great deal is made about upgrade slots in the anthropoid class section, but I couldn't seem to find anything about it after. Maybe it was in the Interlude section?
5. Is there a way to change your Anthropoid Class? In either direction?

These are as yet un(der) developed.  In the very very original version of the game, characters were created like Car Wars vehicles by buying a chassis and then equiping it with lots of gagets and gizmos...way cool for flavor (designing Car Wars cars is more fun than actually playing the game) but a total pita for designing NPCs.  The concept of upgrades stuck though.

Currently the idea is to allow robots to canibalize other robots hardware to boost their own hardware scores and allow Spark mechanics to develop Non Tapestry gadgetry (like secret compartments built into the shell, or on board GPS scanners, and the like).  But rules haven't been written for that yet.

Anthropoid Class cannot currently be improved (but potentially one could see a robot installing its brain in another robots body...).  I envision it being reduced by adding too many upgrades and making your robot look less human and thus "lower class".

All of the benefits of Anthropoid Class, however, can be gained by increasing ones Self Awareness (through the Influence stat).

Quote6. Is it possible to increase your Core Programs and Knowledge Programs scores?

yes, in the same manner as increasing your other Skill Programs (by spending Inpsiration).  That should be in the Transformation section of the rules, if it isn't.

QuoteThe NPCs weren't statted, so I fell back on the Running the NPCs rules on page 269

Totally an oversight on my part.  But I take it, it wasn't too hard to wing...

Quote
1. I think that Charges = Anthropoid Class? I couldn't find it in the book when the issue came up, but that's what I seemed to remember.

Charge = Influence which (in the version you have) equals the greater of Anthropoid Class or 1/2 Self Awareness...which means for starting characters, yes = Anthropoid Class

Quote2. Is a successful "block" enough to take Initiative, or would Pomeroy have had to generate net successes in order to take Initiative for free?

Somewhere I think I made that explicit, but I've rewritten that section so many times I can't remember if I left that text in the current version.  Yes, bringing the acting robot's successes down to 0 is a successful opposition allowing Pomeroy to take the Initiative.

Quote
3. Can you bid more than 1 Charge to take Initiative? Am I correct that the tie-breaker stuff is all about who gets to make the first bid? If so, it seems that low Anthropoid Class robots are doubly penalized. They have less Charge than high Anthropoid Class robots AND they have to allow high Anthropoid Class robots to bid first. For example, hypothetically, Burgiss and Pomeroy both wish to bid for the next initiative. Burgiss is Type 2 and Pomeroy is Type 3. Thus Pomeroy, with 3 Charge, gets to bid 1 Charge first, because he has the higher Anthropoid Class. Now Burgiss has to bid all his Charge to take initiative. Pomeroy could even have bid 2 Charge immediately, and locked Burgiss out.
4. I assume that Charge used to bid for Initiative is spent for that turn, and does not come back until the next Initiative phase?

The buying Initiative rules are broken.  I've completely scrapped them.  The way I'm currently trying is to give each robot an "initiative token" (which could be a token, or just a check mark on a written list).  It basically works the same way except instead of spending Charge to bid, you spend the token.  If more than one robot wants the next initiative, ties are broken by most Influence then randomly.  When everybody has spent their token, or nobody who has one wants to, the tokens refresh.

QuoteGetting back to the contest at hand, I wound up calling for tests vs. Processor for the majority of the social conflict tests. Was that the right call? A few more examples and guidelines about which Hardware to use in different kinds of tests could be helpful.

Processor will come up alot.  Memory is also a good one...one is fully allowed to "remember" something about one of the other characters, or "remember" a love poem that can be recited or "remember" the last time you tried to seduce Aimee and why it ended in disastor.  Perception is also a good one to notice something about how the other party is feeling paired with Persuasion (empathy), or Observation (Detail) to notice something about the other party to complement or ridicule.

I got tired of rewriting a horde of examples every time I rewrote the mechanics...and that's a great way to wind up with legacy issues in one's example texts...so I decided to scrap all but the most essential mechanical examples until the rules are finalized...but yes...many more are needed.  I hoping actually to steal examples right from playtest reports.

...snip...

Some excellent uses of robots making Augmenting Rolls to help other characters.  I was hoping that the system would encourage that sort of teamwork.

QuoteAlexander said Burgiss was going to jump up and head straight to the rendezvous. Wanting to make sure that he took his companions with him, I told Alexander to take 1 Inspiration as I made a Role Test. I succeeded (of course, since Burgiss' role score is still 10), and told Alexander that Burgiss was going to gather his companions for this little adventure. Was this a fair use of the Role Test? Alexander wasn't exactly making a test...

Totally fair.  In fact, I envision that to be the main use early on.  It is essentially the tool the GM is instructed to use to rail road the players through the planned scenario, in the same way that their programming rail roads the robots through the various story lines.

One of the aspects I really look forward to seeing is the direction players take the characters once they start breaking down that Role Score.  For instance Burgiss has a Trait regarding his relationship to Alfredo.  I'm hoping that some players will wind up replacing that programmed "side kick" role with a genuine honest friendship for Alfredo...while other players playing Burgiss will start to resent the smug bastard.  Much of that develop will come not only from the players own concepts but how and when the GM employed Role as a ramrod during play.

Quote
And that's where we cut it for the night, after about an hour or so of play. I'll come back with some further thoughts later, but hopefully the rest of the gang will stop by and post their thoughts. Anything you'd like to explore in more detail, Ralph?

How was the handling time with the rolls.  I'm a huge fan of dice pool systems, but I intentionally designed R&R to be strict Task Resolution with frequent incremental rolls to generate bonuses.  I found the time to search for the number of dice to roll, count out that number of dice, search for the target number, and then count the number of successes (which normally I have no problem with) starts to bog things down with the volume of rolls there is to be made.  I want the system to be snappy...how did you find the actual mechanics of rolling the dice to be (aside from the usual first game looking up rules slow down)?

I'm working on an alternate dice mechanic that fixes the number of dice for all robots to equal their Influence (so no more counting out how many dice to roll) and then takes just the single best roll (so no more counting out successes)...where single best roll is the die that rolls highest without going over your Skill Program level.  The result on that die is then the number of "successes" you get to spend.  Bonuses then, instead of adding dice, increase the target number.  Under this system, the Hardware Attributes (currently rated between 3 and 8) are replaced with a scale of 0-3 and used just like quality bonuses from gear.

Hey Ralph!

The only think we (i?) had a litte trouble with was comming up with the narrative descriptions after conflicts.
As for now there are no guidelines for how roudbust, big or small should those be. IIRC rules say that the more succeses you won by, the more freedom with narration you have. I think that little table with examples corresponding to number of succeses conflict was won by would really help with this. Otherwise it will be hit and miss untill we will familiarize ourselves with the rules enough to be relally confortable with the narration scope.

Quote from: Valamir on March 04, 2007, 01:06:08 AM
Charge = Influence which (in the version you have) equals the greater of Anthropoid Class or 1/2 Self Awareness...which means for starting characters, yes = Anthropoid Class

Ah! I'm glad you mentioned that. I almost forgot: On page 30, the text agrees with the above. On page 97, it says that Influence "equals the greater of either the robot's Anthropoid Class +3 or its Self Awareness score."

I figured the latter was an artifact.

QuoteHow was the handling time with the rolls.  I'm a huge fan of dice pool systems, but I intentionally designed R&R to be strict Task Resolution with frequent incremental rolls to generate bonuses.  I found the time to search for the number of dice to roll, count out that number of dice, search for the target number, and then count the number of successes (which normally I have no problem with) starts to bog things down with the volume of rolls there is to be made.  I want the system to be snappy...how did you find the actual mechanics of rolling the dice to be (aside from the usual first game looking up rules slow down)?

I'm working on an alternate dice mechanic that fixes the number of dice for all robots to equal their Influence (so no more counting out how many dice to roll) and then takes just the single best roll (so no more counting out successes)...where single best roll is the die that rolls highest without going over your Skill Program level.  The result on that die is then the number of "successes" you get to spend.  Bonuses then, instead of adding dice, increase the target number.  Under this system, the Hardware Attributes (currently rated between 3 and 8) are replaced with a scale of 0-3 and used just like quality bonuses from gear.

We actually found the handling time to be quite low. Granted, we are veterans of Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, and other games that also require a lot of dice manipulation. We didn't find it jarring at all. It seemed pretty quick and intuitive. As Burning Wheel players, we also appreciated the ability to hand our dice around when we gave bonuses or difficulty, and the ability to use differently colored dice to tell whether it was the skill or the bonus/difficulty/equipment that made the difference in the successes.

I also appreciate the ritual of canceling out successes by discarding, and then having the net success dice in front of me, which I can place as I spend them.

I'm sure the others will share their opinions as well.

As for the point that Dro brought up, I agree. Additionally, I can't cite page numbers at the moment, but I recall discussion in various places of things like Goals or Intent. I think that text was a little muddy. It might be beneficial to consolidate that stuff with Special Effects, and really highlight the Intent aspect of Special Effects. Does that make sense?

Is there some reason this is on the Universalis board? It doesn't seem to be talking about Universalis as far as I can tell.

Robots & Rapiers is the next game coming out from Ramshead

Some (very) quick thoughts:

- I really liked the way the Role check worked for Burgiss - I should totally have gone and rounded the rest of the Band of Four up, so I needed the reminder, and I learnt and earned - sweet!
- I was mildly concerned that there's the potential for a player to play a mechanically very strategic game early on, and end up being a dick: lots of anti-Role narration just to build inspiration and start fuelling the drive to self-awareness. Thor was more of the opinion that such a scenario would be covered by New Rule Zero: don't be a dick. We'll see on Thursday.
- The transformation process looks really awesome. I can't wait to get my first spark.
- How do are ties resolved?
- Handling time was good for me. As Thor mentions, ending up with actual dice that are my successes made choosing how to spend them easy.
- Initiative was burdensome for me... there seemed to be a lot of rules for benefit; the streamlined token system you mention sounds more elegant and easy. (Let's try it, Thor!) (Also, my bad for not getting time to read the rules first.)
- There was a lot to take in after a day's work, already, and at one point (as Thor says) I was just full up. I couldn't internalise any more. When you get examples, they'll ease that process, but I wondered also, if there's a minimum-you-need-to-know-to-start-to-play for players in there.
- The way Role checks worked was cool: that Thor could say "Nope. You do something else." would normally have been very aggravating, but instead, both because his alternative had to be "in character", and because I got mechanical benefit that drove towards my evolution, it was fine! I found myself looking at traits and thinking "how can I manipulate this to my advantage for my next Role check?" Fun.

All in all, I really enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to picking Burgiss back up on Thursday.

Excellent.

I had the same fear regarding gaming the Role Checks...but I decided that was my own fear talking and that a "Rule Zero" (that's nice) approach would handle it.  There is something of a "let it ride" approach as well allowing a whole range of "asshattery" to be quashed once

He musta fell asleep typing...

Watching with interest,
Mike

Quote from: Valamir on March 04, 2007, 01:06:08 AMHow was the handling time with the rolls.  I'm a huge fan of dice pool systems, but I intentionally designed R&R to be strict Task Resolution with frequent incremental rolls to generate bonuses.  I found the time to search for the number of dice to roll, count out that number of dice, search for the target number, and then count the number of successes (which normally I have no problem with) starts to bog things down with the volume of rolls there is to be made.  I want the system to be snappy...how did you find the actual mechanics of rolling the dice to be (aside from the usual first game looking up rules slow down)?

I'm working on an alternate dice mechanic that fixes the number of dice for all robots to equal their Influence (so no more counting out how many dice to roll) and then takes just the single best roll (so no more counting out successes)...where single best roll is the die that rolls highest without going over your Skill Program level.  The result on that die is then the number of "successes" you get to spend.  Bonuses then, instead of adding dice, increase the target number.  Under this system, the Hardware Attributes (currently rated between 3 and 8) are replaced with a scale of 0-3 and used just like quality bonuses from gear.

I enjoyed the handling time. The only moment of hesitation that I observed was determining which Hardware Attribute to use as the Skill Program Target Number. But factoring in a learning curve, and adjusting for Hardware Attribute naming conventions it might not be too cumbersome. We also haven't taken damage yet which may have an impact on handling time.

Pretty much everyone covered what I wanted to say. I enjoyed the setting and system.

So far I'm pretty happy with my Role. I'd want to change the brooding part but I'm ok with being bipolar. I could definitely see myself reinforcing aspects of my Role as I gain Self Awareness.

Heh. actually Mike, I just forgot the period.  What I was trying to say was that "Your Role prevents you from acting beligerantly to your superiors" only needs to be checked once and then it "rides" until the robot achieves another level of Self Awareness.  Meaning the GM can continue to enforce that check without needing to give any additional Inspiration.  The player, could make a Self Awareness check to act beligerantly to a specific person in a specific situation, however.

Good news on the handling time.  I figured you guys would have less issue with it given your BW background...if it was too much for you all, I'd really be in trouble.  One of the things I'm really liking about the revised mechanic I'm working on is going to a fixed die pool based on Influence and then treating the Hardware Scores (i.e. Attributes) as just modifiers that can be called on...so having high quality Articulation works the same as having a high quality rapier.  I'm not yet sold on the "best single die" vs. "count successes" method of reading the dice...the end result is similar but a bit more squirrely.  The chance for a big blow out success even on a small die pool seems to be a plus, but will need to test it to be sure.

I'm a big fan of the Transformation Rules, I think they accomplish exactly the design goal of the game...hopefully they'll actually be fun in practice as a sort of "level up" system.  The math behind the Inspiration costs is something to watch.  Only actual play will determine how fast Inspiration is really accumulated and then spent vs. how fast I think it will be.  Those numbers may be too slow / too fast.

Ties "go to the defender" so to speak.  The burden is on the acting robot to achieve a net success to accomplish their action so preventing that from happening is all the defender needs to do...more just gives them added bonuses to spend.


Other things to watch for: 

a) is the concept of difficulty giving a bonus to your opponent rather than a penalty to you intuitive enough?  It got pretty convoluted trying to explain it in the text at times but my goal was to make a player mechanically neutral on it.  You give a 2 bonus to your self you get +2 dice.  You give a 2 difficulty to your opponent you get +2 dice.

b) Favor and Wealth makes me nervous.  I like the tables for Wealth, it was fun going through the starting characters and discovering how big a house they own and how nice their wardrobe was.  And it should be pretty easy to look that up for NPCs when it becomes necessary.  But making the rolls to buy stuff I'm a bit shaky on.  The original intent was to avoid the hassle of tracking coins and spending by making purchases a simple test roll.  But the system might actually be more of a pain than simply tracking coins.  The Favor system I'm pretty excited about...make a roll and get someone to do something for you sounds fun to me...and accumulating people who will do stuff for you (and then having to maintain that relationship over time) gives players a goal to shoot for.  But actually using it in play is the least tested part of the system so far.

c) The Interlude.  You guys should run your first Interlude after you wrap up a Secret Letter.  Its the system that allows the characters to get involved in all of the meta faction goings on in the city.  I'm pretty sure the math behind the faction strengths works out...I tested that fairly heavily...but I need to know 1) whether the fluctuations of the various factions is interesting enough to be fun and provides the GM with enough "news headlines" to describe the mood of the setting, and 2) whether the menu of options the player robots have (the Activities) is compelling.  Right now I'm thinking there are way too many and they need to be cut down and simplified dramatically, but its hard to say.  Also, the language describing what to do is pretty rough at this point.  I think some procedural streamlining is likely needed for the whole process but I'm not sure what to start taking the hedge trimmers to yet.

Quote from: Valamir on March 05, 2007, 02:35:30 PM
c) The Interlude.  You guys should run your first Interlude after you wrap up a Secret Letter.  Its the system that allows the characters to get involved in all of the meta faction goings on in the city.  I'm pretty sure the math behind the faction strengths works out...I tested that fairly heavily...but I need to know 1) whether the fluctuations of the various factions is interesting enough to be fun and provides the GM with enough "news headlines" to describe the mood of the setting, and 2) whether the menu of options the player robots have (the Activities) is compelling.  Right now I'm thinking there are way too many and they need to be cut down and simplified dramatically, but its hard to say.  Also, the language describing what to do is pretty rough at this point.  I think some procedural streamlining is likely needed for the whole process but I'm not sure what to start taking the hedge trimmers to yet.

Thanx Ralph, I'm in charge of all the "macro mechanic" (we broke the manuscripts by sections and each of the players took one part with him home - so he can explain it to the rest of the gropu) and thanx for all those points above - all this will help me out a lot while assimilating the rules.

PS. I have a little present for you, but you have to wait until i get back home.

a) I was still a bit fuzzy on the precise nomenclature, although the core system seemed natural and clear to me. I like the elegance of the choice available in how you can spend successes. It reminded me of what I like about Nine Worlds' point captures.

b), c) This week, we've all got homework to review a chunk of rules that we didn't get time to review last week, and incorporate them in play. I'm on Favour and Contacts, and presumably The Interlude as well. So, more anon!

The concept of Bonus/Difficulty seemed intuitive enough. I felt that it was more mechanically beneficial to assign Difficulty rather than a Bonus if more than one character was ganging up on the character assigned the Difficulty, since they could all then benefit.

In general though, we seemed to have a fairly even distribution of Bonus and Difficulty. We'll keep a close eye on it in our next session though.

We definitely hope to use the Favors/Wealth mechanics and Interludes in the next session. We stayed away from it in the last session because none of us felt very firm with those rules. But the others agreed to take a section each and really learn it, so Alexander should guide us through Favor, John should guide us through Wealth, and Dro will know everything there is to know about Interludes.

Oh, one other thing I should note. We had a great record of our conflicts (program, specialty, hardware, intent/special effect, etc.) because Alexander unwittingly volunteered to record that stuff for us.

While we did it for the sake of giving you data from the playtest, I think recording that information is a useful habit to encourage in players of this game. Because of the way Action Rolls, Opposition Rolls and Augmentation Rolls work, if often takes a bit of time between the declaration of an action and the time when the dice actually hit the table -- especially if more than three characters are involved in a particular contest. Keeping notes helps everyone remember what they had declared and what they were rolling.

You might consider some sort of sheet to aid the process, like a scripting sheet or the Synopsis Sheet in With Great Power.

QuoteThe concept of Bonus/Difficulty seemed intuitive enough. I felt that it was more mechanically beneficial to assign Difficulty rather than a Bonus if more than one character was ganging up on the character assigned the Difficulty, since they could all then benefit.

Yes exactly, and the reverse if the character is outnumbered because with a bonus the robot can benefit against all opponents.  One on one it should be 6 of one half dozen the other.

As long as people are primarily describing their actions in terms of what seems coolest and then choosing bonus vs. difficulty based on what seems most appropriate to the description I don't think a little strategizing is a problem.  Only if people were passing up clearly appropriate decriptions in order to force one or the other purely for mechanical advantage would I be bothered.  If you had a fairly even distribution and didn't notice any gimmickry going on then it sounds good so far.

Quote
Oh, one other thing I should note. We had a great record of our conflicts (program, specialty, hardware, intent/special effect, etc.) because Alexander unwittingly volunteered to record that stuff for us.

While we did it for the sake of giving you data from the playtest, I think recording that information is a useful habit to encourage in players of this game. Because of the way Action Rolls, Opposition Rolls and Augmentation Rolls work, if often takes a bit of time between the declaration of an action and the time when the dice actually hit the table -- especially if more than three characters are involved in a particular contest. Keeping notes helps everyone remember what they had declared and what they were rolling.

You might consider some sort of sheet to aid the process, like a scripting sheet or the Synopsis Sheet in With Great Power.

That's an idea I hadn't considered...the wheels are turning now...some recent play of the new Marvel Heroes boardgame has some potential there.  In the boardgame you have figures which move around a map of Manhattan, but the map isn't really a map...its really just a way of tracking character status with a colorful background that's nicer than a spreadsheet.

I wonder if a conflict "map" couldn't be developed where figures are moved around indicating who is acting, who is interrupting, who is augmenting who is opposing...that could be interesting. 

QuoteBut the others agreed to take a section each and really learn it, so Alexander should guide us through Favor, John should guide us through Wealth, and Dro will know everything there is to know about Interludes.

That's a great idea.  Alexander mentioned a "what you need to know to play" section.  I'm thinking a section covering the conceptual basics with page references combined with advice for a play group to split up sections of the more "advanced" rules like this seems like a fantastic "how to get started" strategy to put right in the book.

Feel free to IM or email me as you review your sections with any questions or comments prior to your game Thursday.

I'll look forward to your present Dro.

Quote from: Valamir on March 05, 2007, 04:50:25 PMI'll look forward to your present Dro.

I think this (http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/3007/molduracidade2copyws5.jpg) might make you smile (at least once). It was done for my blogpost over at the polter.pl (http://drozdal.polter.pl/,blog.html?2429) one of the biggest rpg sites in Poland.

Enjoy.

That's awesome, Drozdal!

Very cool, Dro.

You'll have to translate your post for me.  The online translator didn't do a very good job.

Quote from: Valamir on March 05, 2007, 09:12:44 PMYou'll have to translate your post for me. 

No way it's huge! That Post was just breakdown of the rules and a note on the setting plus some things that i've found cool and refreshing about the game.

Quote from: Valamir on March 05, 2007, 09:12:44 PMThe online translator didn't do a very good job.

Polish isn't called the secret language for nothing after all.

And one more thing - one person (after that blogpost) asked me about possibility of the playtest with his own gropup. What's your take on that? Too early?

Heh, well I'm vaguely familiar with the rules already...but fell free to share the cool and refreshing parts.

As soon as I get this next revision finished incorporating all of the first round of feedback I've gotten, I'm going to throw it open to a broader audience, so have the guy get in touch with me here or by email and I'll hook him up.

Ralph

Quote from: Valamir on March 06, 2007, 10:16:01 AM
Heh, well I'm vaguely familiar with the rules already...but fell free to share the cool and refreshing parts.

What i really liked:
- I really dug the whole "GM is making your character and assigning you the role" deal. I'm well aware of the possibility of player created robits, but looking at it from my perspective, I'd rather play a robot that i haven't made in the first place. This allowm me to think ahead and start figuring out the changes i want to make to the exisitng programs and robot itself while we play.
- Role Checks and the GM ability to mess with the players by using the rules! I love them!

That's about it, we really played for about two hours and haven't got the chance to experiece the full potential of the system yet. We'll see what happens this thursday.

Hey Ralph,

Near the top of page 119, in the Available Currency section, you say, "use the standard wrap-around rule." It's the first mention of such a rule in the text. What is it?

Huh...I wonder if the Wealth rules are the last place in the text where that still happens...

Anyway the rule is/was that if you had a Target Number above 8 on your d10 you treated it as 8 and then wrapped around the excess back to 1, so that the wrapped around target numbers essentially counted as a double success.

For instance if your Target Number was a 10, without this rule every die would be a guarenteed success (10 or less on a d10).  With the rule 9s and 10s count as 0 success (i.e. failures) while 1s and 2s count as 2 Successes each. 

That way the expected number of successes is still 10 (2+2+1+1+1+1+1+ 1+ 0 + 0 = 10) but there's still some variance in the result possible.

Great. That rule would definitely give the players a chance when it comes to Role Tests (though they're out of luck with Self Awareness Tests until they can advance Self Awareness to 1).

It also makes the decision regarding 1s that much more difficult if the difficulty is 9 or 10.

I like it. We'll play with it tonight.

Did Thursday's game happen?

Sure did. And a total 'duh' moment for me as I realized the wrap-around rule doesn't really work with Role tests and Self-Awareness tests, since you're only rolling 1 die and margin of success doesn't matter.

Anyway, we had a bit of a truncated session since John had to leave early. We took about an hour at the top to go through the Interlude mechanics and make all the GM rolls for the various factions. Then we had about 45 minutes left to pick up where we left off at Madam Beauvais' party and the race to the Kissing Bridge.

I'll come back and report in detail as soon as I have a few spare minutes. The rest of you should feel free to ask any questions that came up.

Hey Ralph-

The only comment I have (other than that we are having actual FUN with this playtest) is that Devon (my character for the playtest) doesn't have any specializations listed for his core programs and knowledge programs...

Also, more Frenchie sounding names would be awesome! You should name all the minor characters after New Wave film stars.

Now, as for the mechanics, we went through the whole Interlude bit - and I guess the challenge is figuring out how to color all the changes happening behind the scenes in play. Also, do we do this interlude stuff between sessions, after a session, or before? Thor figured that the GM should just make all the rolls between sessions (though the players don't get to see it, it was pretty boring to watch him roll for 20 minutes and have nothing to do).

However, I really love the interludes - especially being able to buy an adventure to deal with a crisis.

Heh, if the playtest is actually fun to play, than that's a pretty good sign. 

I did just notice Devon's missing stats in my own play this weekend.  I'll get those added.  In the meantime, should be fairly easy to populate the core programs from the Role Table and the Knowledge Programs by choice from the table in the character creation section.

For the interludes, what I'm hoping the Struggle for the Tapestry will do is give the GM some grist to turn into "headlines" and "rumors" and such.  So when the King Result indicates action against the bandits and the King wins and the Bandits strength declines, the GM can come up with some tavern gossip like "Hey did you hear that the infamous highwayman Francois le Renard was captured last night?".  Or when the Spark Activity number creeps up very high then the GM should incorporate more obvious signs of people not acting the way they're supposed to into the background narrations of what's going on.  That sort of thing.

Good feedback on the rolls being boring.  I haven't decided whether those should be something the players should 1) witness, 2) participate in, 3) get a report on next session, 4) not be aware of at all save in how the GM narrates the outcomes into the in game story.

As you look at the interlude possibilities for the robots, keep an eye out for ways to better organize and convey the player's options, and choices that are superfluous and could be combined more simply with other choices.  Right now the list of Activities is pretty much in "kitchen sink" stage and will need some substantial textural improving before it goes final.

I've been working pretty hard on putting a new version of the text together incorporating some of the changes to the system I've been developing.  I'll try to get that to you in the next couple of days, although you'll surely want to finish up the current scenario using the rules you've been playing with.

Hi Ralph,

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Drozdal, Alexander and John each agreed to study one of the sections (Interludes, Favors/Contacts, and Wealth, respectively) and come back to teach the rest of us. So we started the session with a quick discussion of how each system worked. We also decided to follow up by going through the Struggle for the Tapestry process in order to see how it worked.

We decided to use the Short Story Arc for the Starting Auvernais Scores, setting the Tapestry at 75 and the Crisis at 25. We also chose to use the Standard Starting Faction Strengths and Standard Starting Spark Scores.

First off, we found the "Check Faction Strength" phrase very confusing as we started with the mistaken impression that the die roll was somehow influenced by the Faction Strength score. It didn't take us too long to realize our mistake, but a little rewording could eliminate the confusion.

There was also some question as to whether Tapestry and Crisis had to sum to 100 (as Role and Self Awareness sum to 10). I was fairly sure that the answer was no and so we played it that way.

I was also confused by something in the Spark Scores entry on page 143. It says that Scores above 10 are possible and result in the excess being added to the d10 roll. That seems strange, as it would mean that a higher Spark Score makes it less likely that there is Spark Activity. Am I reading that wrong?

Here's a record of what we rolled. Note: The Struggle for the Tapestry Log is very useful for this, although I recommend having a spot somewhere on the sheet to record the Starting Tapestry Score and Starting Crisis Score.

1. I rolled a 1 for the King, giving us a Repair Tapestry Result. I was a little confused by the Effect entry. We weren't sure whether the result was based on what we rolled for checking the King's Faction Strength, or if we were supposed to roll again. We decided it was the former, and we read it to essentially mean that if you rolled a 1, you added 2 points to the Tapestry Score, and if you rolled a 2, you added 4 points to the Tapestry Score. Looking at it today, I'm wondering whether we made the right call. In any case, the Tapestry Score went from 75 to 77.

2. I rolled an 8 for the Cardinal, resulting in Oppose Faction. I rolled again, for a 3. The Cardinal was opposing the Bandits. We had the same confusion for the Effect for the Cardinal, but the way it read made us decide that in this case we did have to roll again, this time trying to roll under the Cardinal's Strength. The Cardinal succeeded, so the Bandit's score dropped from 5 to 4.

3. For the Bandits, I rolled an 8, followed by a 9 for the Support Revolution result. As you can guess, we had the same confusion as to the Effect, but went ahead and Increased Revolutionary Zeal by 1. A related question: The Cardinal succeeded in reducing the Bandit's score from 5 to 4 in step 2. I'm assuming that we played step 3 incorrectly and should have rolled 1d10 against the Bandit's Strength to determine whether they managed to increase Revolutionary Zeal. If that's true, should we have rolled against a Strength of 5 or a Strength of 4 here? In other words, did the Cardinal's result take effect immediately, or will it only take effect in the next Interlude? Revolutionary Zeal increased from 5 to 6.

4. I rolled a 1 for the Queen, which would normally result in Damage Tapestry. However, since her starting Strength is 3, we treated the result as Increase Power instead. The Queen's Strength increased from 3 to 4.

5. I rolled a 7 for La Roche, resulting in Increase Power. La Roche's Strength increased from 3 to 4.

6. The Gray Eminence has not been unleashed, so no roll for him yet.

7. I rolled a 2 on Spark Activity versus their Strength of 5. I thus subtracted 2 from the Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score back down to 75. I also added 1 to Spark Strength, giving them a new Score of 6.

8. I rolled a 5 for Revolutionary Zeal versus a Strength of 5. I thus subtracted 10 points from Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score to 65. The roll was odd, so I didn't reduce Spark Activity or increase Revolutionary Zeal.

9. I rolled a 2 for the Preservationists versus a Strength of 5. I thus added 2 to the Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score to 67. The number was even and successful, so I reduced Spark Activity by 1 to a total of 5, and increased Preservationists by 1 to a total of 6.

Final Tally:
King 9
Cardinal 8
Bandits 4
Queen 4
La Roche 4
Gray Eminence N/A
Sparks 5
Revolutionary Zeal 5
Preservationists 6

10. We did not meet the qualifications for Crisis Increase.

11. We did not meet the qualifications for a Coup Possibility.

12. We did not meet the qualifications for a Bandit Invasion.

13. We did not meet the qualifications for La Roche Invasion.

14. Checking for the Tapestry score. Do I use the original score or the revised score (i.e., 75 or 67)? I assumed it should be against 67. I rolled a 28 and so there was no effect.

15. I rolled a 4 for the Crisis Score check versus 25, indicating a Crisis. I then rolled a 6 on the Crisis Event Table, bringing on Chronic Shortages.

This was the first part of our session. We then proceeded to play out the race to the Kissing Bridge. But I'll stop here for now so we can go over this stuff. I'll probably get the rest of the session up tomorrow.

Oh, I should also note that after I succeeded on the Crisis Score Check, I rolled 2d10 as indicated to increase the Crisis Score, getting a total of 9. Crisis increased from 25 to 33.

Quote from: Thor Olavsrud on March 13, 2007, 05:37:44 PM
First off, we found the "Check Faction Strength" phrase very confusing as we started with the mistaken impression that the die roll was somehow influenced by the Faction Strength score. It didn't take us too long to realize our mistake, but a little rewording could eliminate the confusion.

Confusion is good.  I like to know what I need to work on.

QuoteThere was also some question as to whether Tapestry and Crisis had to sum to 100 (as Role and Self Awareness sum to 10). I was fairly sure that the answer was no and so we played it that way.

You are correct.  Should I state that explicitly do you think, or is the absence of instructions to keep them tied sufficient?

QuoteI was also confused by something in the Spark Scores entry on page 143. It says that Scores above 10 are possible and result in the excess being added to the d10 roll. That seems strange, as it would mean that a higher Spark Score makes it less likely that there is Spark Activity. Am I reading that wrong?

That could definitely be clearer.  The intent here is that a score above 10 will always succeed, its impossible to fail on a d10 rolling under 10+...so success is a given and the roll is just to determine how much the Tapestry declines...which is why the excess is added to the roll.

QuoteHere's a record of what we rolled. Note: The Struggle for the Tapestry Log is very useful for this, although I recommend having a spot somewhere on the sheet to record the Starting Tapestry Score and Starting Crisis Score.

I had intented the first Strength column to be used to record initial values (or values from prior logs)...so starting Tapestry Score would be in B14 and Crisis in B15.  Need to be more visible?

Quote1. I rolled a 1 for the King, giving us a Repair Tapestry Result. I was a little confused by the Effect entry. We weren't sure whether the result was based on what we rolled for checking the King's Faction Strength, or if we were supposed to roll again. We decided it was the former, and we read it to essentially mean that if you rolled a 1, you added 2 points to the Tapestry Score, and if you rolled a 2, you added 4 points to the Tapestry Score. Looking at it today, I'm wondering whether we made the right call. In any case, the Tapestry Score went from 75 to 77.

Ahh, yes, I see where the confusion stems from.  I'll clarify that.  The intent is to roll 1d10 on each table and then make a Check as indicated.  Checks (as opposed to Tests) are always 1d10 equal to or less than the relevant score.  So when you rolled a 1 for the King the result is to "Check Strength" meaning you would have rolled 1d10 vs. the King's Faction Strength, increasing the Tapestry by 2x the roll if successful, or nothing if he failed.  An extended example of an Interlude will probably clear all that up.

Quote2. I rolled an 8 for the Cardinal, resulting in Oppose Faction. I rolled again, for a 3. The Cardinal was opposing the Bandits. We had the same confusion for the Effect for the Cardinal, but the way it read made us decide that in this case we did have to roll again, this time trying to roll under the Cardinal's Strength. The Cardinal succeeded, so the Bandit's score dropped from 5 to 4.

Correct.

Quote3. For the Bandits, I rolled an 8, followed by a 9 for the Support Revolution result. As you can guess, we had the same confusion as to the Effect, but went ahead and Increased Revolutionary Zeal by 1. A related question: The Cardinal succeeded in reducing the Bandit's score from 5 to 4 in step 2. I'm assuming that we played step 3 incorrectly and should have rolled 1d10 against the Bandit's Strength to determine whether they managed to increase Revolutionary Zeal. If that's true, should we have rolled against a Strength of 5 or a Strength of 4 here? In other words, did the Cardinal's result take effect immediately, or will it only take effect in the next Interlude? Revolutionary Zeal increased from 5 to 6.

Yes, you should have rolled 1d10 vs. Bandit's Strength.  The tables are rolled in order so it would have been against the Bandit's reduced Strength of 4.

Quote4. I rolled a 1 for the Queen, which would normally result in Damage Tapestry. However, since her starting Strength is 3, we treated the result as Increase Power instead. The Queen's Strength increased from 3 to 4.

Correct.  I added that alternate result after early tests indicated the Queen never became anything more than impotent.

Quote5. I rolled a 7 for La Roche, resulting in Increase Power. La Roche's Strength increased from 3 to 4.

6. The Gray Eminence has not been unleashed, so no roll for him yet.

correct

Quote7. I rolled a 2 on Spark Activity versus their Strength of 5. I thus subtracted 2 from the Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score back down to 75. I also added 1 to Spark Strength, giving them a new Score of 6.

Correct as written.  Although I have been tempted to have a successful Spark Activity Check reduce the Tapestry by the Spark Activity level rather than by the number rolled...depending on whether that's needed to tip the equilibrium against the Tapestry (design goal is for the Tapestry to fall and crisis to destroy Auvernais as the most likely default unless the PCs take action to either prop up the Tapestry or tear it down while thwarting Crisis).  Tests so far suggest this change isn't needed and the Tapestry is plenty fragile as it is.

Quote8. I rolled a 5 for Revolutionary Zeal versus a Strength of 5. I thus subtracted 10 points from Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score to 65. The roll was odd, so I didn't reduce Spark Activity or increase Revolutionary Zeal.

Correct.  The dastardly Revolutionaries and their efforts to despoil Auvernais.

Quote9. I rolled a 2 for the Preservationists versus a Strength of 5. I thus added 2 to the Tapestry (is that correct?), bringing the Tapestry Score to 67. The number was even and successful, so I reduced Spark Activity by 1 to a total of 5, and increased Preservationists by 1 to a total of 6.

Correct as written, although I've been tempted to make the change noted in #7 above if the Tapestry proves too fragile and falls too quickly.

Quote
10. We did not meet the qualifications for Crisis Increase.

11. We did not meet the qualifications for a Coup Possibility.

12. We did not meet the qualifications for a Bandit Invasion.

13. We did not meet the qualifications for La Roche Invasion.

These steps are both my favorite parts and (11-13) the parts I'm most worried about being unneccessarily fiddly.  Its probably too early to tell since you didn't qualify for any, but I want the invasions to be neat things with the rolls here (likely over several Interludes) indicating whose winning and then normal play occuring against the back drop of an actual revolution or foriegn invasion.

Quote14. Checking for the Tapestry score. Do I use the original score or the revised score (i.e., 75 or 67)? I assumed it should be against 67. I rolled a 28 and so there was no effect.

correct

Quote15. I rolled a 4 for the Crisis Score check versus 25, indicating a Crisis. I then rolled a 6 on the Crisis Event Table, bringing on Chronic Shortages.

Ahhh...Wealth Level reductions already.  Plunge those player robots into poverty.  See how Devon likes not being able to afford to maintain his +3 Sonic Rapier...heh...I'm very fond of the interaction between Crisis and the Wealth Tables...assuming the math continues to work out.


For the most part that seemed to go as envisioned.  So now you as GM have a successful action by the Cardinal against the Bandits, a successful action by the Queen to expand her network of informants and perhaps some form of demonstration or anarchist event by the revolutionaries resulting in a sharp drop in the Tapestry, and an increase in Preservationist recruitment.  You also have Chronic Shortages which is a particularly nasty crisis, especially as it sticks around until dealt with.

Tieing a few of these together, one could easily see the increase in Preservationist sentiment as a back lash against the large Revolutionary roll.  Particularly if whatever the Revolutionary roll was was the trigger that led to the supply shortage (perhaps some warehouses were raided, or a fire in the artisan district burned out several of the cottage factories that keep Auvernais supplied).  The Bandits could be in particularly bad shape.  Not only did they just suffer a setback from the Cardinal but (narratively) a shortage in Auvernais is doubly painful for the Bandits who rely on Auvernais surpluses being smuggled out to them.

Given that the PCs are just starting out, they won't have the Self Awareness to be key players in this mess yet, but you can probably find some way of incorporating all this...especially if one of the players asks for a Scenario to end the crisis.  That's exactly the sort of story meat I was hoping the system would generate.  Was it worth the effort of all of those rolls to get to that point?

Quote from: Valamir on March 13, 2007, 07:48:03 PM
Given that the PCs are just starting out, they won't have the Self Awareness to be key players in this mess yet, but you can probably find some way of incorporating all this...especially if one of the players asks for a Scenario to end the crisis.  That's exactly the sort of story meat I was hoping the system would generate.  Was it worth the effort of all of those rolls to get to that point?

Yes, it absolutely developed some cool story potential. The players were already talking about the Request Scenario Action with the intention of dealing with the Shortages with some excitement, so I think that's definitely working.

However, I could see some of their eyes glazing over while I was doing the rolling, so I think it's probably better to recommend this stuff as GM-prep work rather than something to do together at the table. As prep work it's not too onerous. It might be neat to have some connection between the results and the Scenario Generation tables, but that's certainly more of a "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "this is really necessary" type thing.

As for whether it is better for the players to know about this stuff, I don't have a good, informed opinion yet. My instincts are that it wouldn't hurt to let them see the results -- it would certainly aid them in deciding to use the Request Scenario action -- but I could see arguments the other way as well.

Do any of the rest of you want to chime in on this one?

As for your answers: great! Glad to get that stuff straightened out. I don't think we encountered anything that can't be fixed with some cleaned up writing. I'm hoping the next session will finish up the scenario and we'll get to use the PC's Interlude actions to dig into some more of this stuff.

The rest of Session 2:

We opened with Burgiss rushing up to the rest of the Band of Four to tell them that they had a mission "For love and adventure!" and told them to come with him.

We went immediately into the race to the Kissing Bridge. The Hazards Table in the scenario was a big hit.

It feels like the system of Action Roll, Opposition Roll, Augmentation Roll, etc., breaks down a little bit when I don't have an agent with which to make Opposition Rolls. It wasn't bad, per se, but without opposition to galvanize them, I had to nudge a bit to get the players to use Augmentation rolls for themselves and each other. Also, there's no real reason to conserve Charges if there's no opposition. This wasn't horrible, just wanted to bring it up.

And some questions:
1. If I activate an equipment penalty or the players activate an equipment bonus, is the penalty/bonus good for only a single roll, or is there a Let It Ride-like effect where it lasts for the length of a conflict? In this case, for instance, John (as Charles) has a Poor Steed (-1). If I give John an Inspiration Point to activate the penalty during his first Riding test, does he have to deal with the -1 penalty for the rest of the race to the Kissing Bridge, or only the one roll?

2. Does an equipment penalty give  Difficulty (i.e.,  would John's Poor Steed have given me 1 die to roll), or does it cancel one of John's successes on his roll?

3. Does an equipment bonus give bonus dice, or is it added to the number of successes?

4. If I wind up with dice when I wouldn't otherwise roll (for instance, in the race, one of the characters attempts something in which they don't have a Specialty), what do I use as my Target Number? In this case, I don't have a Hardware Score to roll against.

5. Is there a set time when players can spend their earned Inspiration to increase Self Awareness? Or can they do it at any time after they have enough Inspiration to buy the next level?

Quote from: Thor Olavsrud on March 15, 2007, 04:36:52 PM
It feels like the system of Action Roll, Opposition Roll, Augmentation Roll, etc., breaks down a little bit when I don't have an agent with which to make Opposition Rolls. It wasn't bad, per se, but without opposition to galvanize them, I had to nudge a bit to get the players to use Augmentation rolls for themselves and each other. Also, there's no real reason to conserve Charges if there's no opposition. This wasn't horrible, just wanted to bring it up.

That was exactly confirmed in my own playtest this past weekend.

Here's what we came up with, see what you think.

1) When there is no agent to make Opposition Rolls, players are always opposed by "The Tapestry"...pretty much using the same logic as Demonic Influence in Dogs.  The number of dice to roll as the Opposition increases as the level of Spark Activity / Revolutionary Activity increases, and the Target Number increases as the Crisis Level increases.  So one of the steps in the Interlude then becomes setting the level of default opposition for the coming session.  Idea being the more Auvernais goes to hell in a handbasket the tougher the going gets.  My current thought is that NPC robots don't face this Tapestry opposition because a) having the GM roll off against the GM is boring, and b) making the NPC villains a little scarier isn't a bad thing and making the NPC mooks weaker isn't necessary...but I could be persuaded otherwise.

2) The Charge Limit definitely becomes less of an issue in quick "one roll" type conflicts.  It basically indicates at that point the maximum number of Augments and Activations a robot can do at once with little reason to set any aside for "defense".  I'm not sure that in and of itself is a bad thing at all.

However, it did make me aware of one potential mechanical break down.  In a situation with no opposition, it is theoretically possible (i.e. permitted by the mechanics as currently written) for a player to make a free unaugmented Action Roll, use the successes to buy a bonus.  Then take another Initiative (since there are no other robots to go), take another free Action Roll to buy a bonus, etc. as a way of effectively getting an unlimited number of Augments without paying any Charge.  Not sure yet whether to file this one under "rule 0" (i.e. the don't be a dick rule) or try to fix it.  The easiest fix would just be to make Action Rolls cost 1 Charge same as Augmenting Rolls...

QuoteAnd some questions:
1. If I activate an equipment penalty or the players activate an equipment bonus, is the penalty/bonus good for only a single roll, or is there a Let It Ride-like effect where it lasts for the length of a conflict? In this case, for instance, John (as Charles) has a Poor Steed (-1). If I give John an Inspiration Point to activate the penalty during his first Riding test, does he have to deal with the -1 penalty for the rest of the race to the Kissing Bridge, or only the one roll?

As written currently, just 1 roll.  Rationale:  robots are swashbuckling heroes whose abilities shouldn't be dwarfed (negatively or positively) by their gear.  I'm willing to entertain contrary opinions on that if anyone has any.

Quote2. Does an equipment penalty give  Difficulty (i.e.,  would John's Poor Steed have given me 1 die to roll), or does it cancel one of John's successes on his roll?

In the version you're running 1 die of Difficulty gets added as an additional die to the opposition.  If there is no opposition the Difficulty is rolled on its own with a TN of 5.

Quote3. Does an equipment bonus give bonus dice, or is it added to the number of successes?

Dice.  In Beta 1.0 all bonuses add dice to the benefitting robot, all Difficulty adds dice to the benefitting opponent.

Quote4. If I wind up with dice when I wouldn't otherwise roll (for instance, in the race, one of the characters attempts something in which they don't have a Specialty), what do I use as my Target Number? In this case, I don't have a Hardware Score to roll against.

5.  The default TN for Difficulty that isn't being added to another robot's roll is always 5.

Quote5. Is there a set time when players can spend their earned Inspiration to increase Self Awareness? Or can they do it at any time after they have enough Inspiration to buy the next level?

Currently any time.  I've given some thought to restricting it to Interludes, but the Transformation process should be quick enough in practice to be done on the fly without too much distraction.


So, I've been compiling various feed back and ideas received up to this point and should have Version 2.3 ready by this weekend (God willin' and the crick don't rise).  Nothing fundamentally has changed in the way the game is played...i.e. all of the mental thought processes are the same...but there've been a number of mechanical streamlining changes that superficially have changed a lot.

Quote from: Valamir on March 15, 2007, 05:35:43 PM
So, I've been compiling various feed back and ideas received up to this point and should have Version 2.3 ready by this weekend (God willin' and the crick don't rise).  Nothing fundamentally has changed in the way the game is played...i.e. all of the mental thought processes are the same...but there've been a number of mechanical streamlining changes that superficially have changed a lot.

Great! We should hopefully finish up A Simple Letter tonight, so it'll be a good time to switch to updated rules.

Incidentally, we used the token system (from a few posts up in this thread) for Initiative, so we didn't run into the Initiative problem that you saw. Everyone got their turn and used Charges to Augment themselves and their companions.

Incidentally, the Hazard Table with proximity (characters within 1 success from each other are considered to be together) made for a really cool moment. After the first series of rolls, Mayuran and Dro were in the lead with 6 successes, John had 5, and Alexander was at the rear with 4. I rolled for Hazards for Mayuran (as he had the first initiative) and got the thugs. Mayuran and Dro and John were able to engage them, but Alexander was too far behind to join in. The session ended before we could finish, but that moment was really neat.

Hey, Ralph - a few thoughts while they're fresh in my head from the conclusion of "A Simple Letter".

Perhaps most importantly, I really enjoy myself playing R&R. I like many of the details of the mechanics and how they fit with the setting, I like the color we create, and I like the way I can see my character developing (or trying to). The combination of swashbuckling musketeeriness with character-driven becoming is great.

I think you should start crystallizing some of the language you use to describe mechanics. I'm finding myself confused between test rolls, checks, target numbers, difficulties, skill numbers and so on. Because they're such common terms, they seem synonymous, when they are (I think) actually describing different mechanics. Using slightly unusual terms can help here, and then being crystal clear and obsessively consistent will be useful.

Likewise, I think you should rename the action / augment / combat stuff to give it a fencing flavour: Opposing rolls could be "Parrying rolls", an action roll that follows (by initiative) as a counter-strike could be a "Riposte roll", and so on. Just a thought that struck me as I was documenting play.

We ended up cheating, and it was weird - we forgot that Opposed Rolls made to defend against an Action Roll had "to stop, avoid, or interfere with another robot's Roll" - it meant that our action sequence was all offense, and no real defense. Mechanically it worked fine, but in color it was a bit odd for me. Looking back at the text, it's all there; we just forgot. Oops.

I was playing with Insipiration a bit more this session; I'm playing Burgiss, and last time I earned enough (4) to spark. Awesome. We had some questions about the process, which I'll leave for Thor to decipher from my scrawls. I am a little concerned that the cost of sparks is too high for the default: at the current rate of earning/expenditure, it's going to take me something like three or four months of weekly play to get the 50 inspiration it will cost to have a 50% chance of doing what I want to do if Thor (as Tapestry) has other plans. That's less fun than I thought it was going to be.

I basically hate being unable to earn inspiration on a roll when I've also spent it. This rule seems arbitrary, and it makes me want to hoard inspiration for sparking, rather than spend it as fun currency on my Spark Traits and so on. I didn't like the direction it drove my play very much, and I would prefer to moderate the progression to S-A10 with the dial you propose. It also breaks your math on p.58 of the draft we have, under "The Self-Awareness Increase Rate Dial". In the same section, I would advise against calling any mathematical adjustment or process "simple" you either come across as arrogant, or make your audience feel dumb for not getting it.

Burgiss died tonight: Thor gave me a mortal wound. Given that I was having a bad night for Inspiration, that really hurt - I spent both my hard-earned points, and whiffed horribly (and would have whiffed with either a self-awareness check or spending the dice as bonus dice to my roll). I was miffed. (The color was cool - I'd just used an ornamented rose pylon of the kissing bridge to knock one of the Cardinal's Guard off the bridge to his faux death in the water below - so I wasn't bummed thematically). However, it left me feeling hollow. I think you need to spruce up the Mortal Wound section so the GM's obligated not to be a dick, and to bring your character back as soon as narratively possible. It would be nice, also, to earn Inspiration (when you wake up) as compensation, if you will, for sitting out the end of the fight in which you gave your life to save everyone else. Scoring a mortal wound really isn't that hard, too... so it's especially scary for someone like Burgiss to be taken out of play.

The relationship between charge, initiative and the narrative constraints of the Diminishing Returns rule became clearer to me tonight, and I like them a lot. Make more of the hard-and-fastness of the Diminishing Returns, though - it's golden. I was a little concerned that with lots of chained Augmentation Rolls all over the place, the action could get a bit stodgy.

Can players apply Diminishing Returns to the GM?

What happens to the GM's ones? It began to feel odd that Thor wasn't able to make an equivalent choice / calculation as the players.

OK, I'm beat. I had fun tonight, and I'm looking forward to next week, when Thor's taking the scenario creation rules for a spin and we're continuing with the Band of Four. Huzzah! I think I'm beginning to grok viable ways to play the combat system's mechanics to the hilt, so I'm going to take a shot at exploiting the unholy crap out of it. :)

Quote from: Iskander on March 16, 2007, 12:10:35 AM
Hey, Ralph - a few thoughts while they're fresh in my head from the conclusion of "A Simple Letter".

Perhaps most importantly, I really enjoy myself playing R&R. I like many of the details of the mechanics and how they fit with the setting, I like the color we create, and I like the way I can see my character developing (or trying to). The combination of swashbuckling musketeeriness with character-driven becoming is great.

Awesomeness.  Then its pretty much all tweaking and tightening and dialing in from here...

QuoteI think you should start crystallizing some of the language you use to describe mechanics. I'm finding myself confused between test rolls, checks, target numbers, difficulties, skill numbers and so on. Because they're such common terms, they seem synonymous, when they are (I think) actually describing different mechanics. Using slightly unusual terms can help here, and then being crystal clear and obsessively consistent will be useful.

I'm fairly certain the language in the text is pretty near obsessively consistent.  But there've been a lot of drafts so there may be some legacy issues creeping in.  I'll keep and eye out as the text gets finalized and maybe include a glossary box at various stages.

QuoteLikewise, I think you should rename the action / augment / combat stuff to give it a fencing flavour: Opposing rolls could be "Parrying rolls", an action roll that follows (by initiative) as a counter-strike could be a "Riposte roll", and so on. Just a thought that struck me as I was documenting play.

It might harm clarity to change the rules over, but I think I can definitely provide that flavor in the examples:  "Burgiss parries the Cardinal's man and siezing the initiative to launch a riposte augmented by his great strength to launch a might lunge"...or something with all the pertinent mechanics.

QuoteWe ended up cheating, and it was weird - we forgot that Opposed Rolls made to defend against an Action Roll had "to stop, avoid, or interfere with another robot's Roll" - it meant that our action sequence was all offense, and no real defense. Mechanically it worked fine, but in color it was a bit odd for me. Looking back at the text, it's all there; we just forgot. Oops.

If I follow:  You declare an attack against me, I declare an attack against you, we roll in opposition and the high roller wins?  or something else?

If that's the case, that's not cheating.  If my method of "stopping" or "interfering" with your attack on me is to attack faster and kill you first, that's a valid opposition roll.  He who wins lands the blow.  It definitely gives a certain flavor to your combat style and for best results narratively should probably be mixed in with others.

QuoteI was playing with Insipiration a bit more this session; I'm playing Burgiss, and last time I earned enough (4) to spark. Awesome. We had some questions about the process, which I'll leave for Thor to decipher from my scrawls. I am a little concerned that the cost of sparks is too high for the default: at the current rate of earning/expenditure, it's going to take me something like three or four months of weekly play to get the 50 inspiration it will cost to have a 50% chance of doing what I want to do if Thor (as Tapestry) has other plans. That's less fun than I thought it was going to be.

That rate of income is definitely a "needs testing" point.  I've reduced the cost in the next version, but I've also completely changed the mechanical payment calculation so I don't know if the net effect will be faster or slower.  From my playtest last weekend (1 data point) it seems faster.

Also there is a player influenced dial in that when the GM forces a Role Check to keep you "in-line" you get Inspiration.  So if you need just a couple more points...you can sort of earn them youself.  Of course my design goal is to keep the mechanical income high enough that the player isn't "challenging their programming" sooooo much just to get Inspiration that it becomes annoying rather than fun.

QuoteI basically hate being unable to earn inspiration on a roll when I've also spent it. This rule seems arbitrary, and it makes me want to hoard inspiration for sparking, rather than spend it as fun currency on my Spark Traits and so on. I didn't like the direction it drove my play very much, and I would prefer to moderate the progression to S-A10 with the dial you propose. It also breaks your math on p.58 of the draft we have, under "The Self-Awareness Increase Rate Dial". In the same section, I would advise against calling any mathematical adjustment or process "simple" you either come across as arrogant, or make your audience feel dumb for not getting it.

The intent there was two fold: 1) to make the player make a choice "is it more important to succeed" or "more important to be inspired" 2) to "simulate" (I use the term loosely) the robot being distracted in the midst of a duel by some stray thought about the meaning of life and the mating rituals of butterflys and the loss of effectiveness thereby.

That said...I found it too fiddly and too annoying. 

The new system works as follows:
Still have a die pool and target number, but this time instead of counting successes on individual dice you take your single best die -- defined as highest die without going over target number and your "successes" is just the number on that die.

If the number on that best die matches the target number exactly, you gain 1 Inspiration per such matching die.  With no trade off choice...you just get it period.

QuoteBurgiss died tonight: Thor gave me a mortal wound. Given that I was having a bad night for Inspiration, that really hurt - I spent both my hard-earned points, and whiffed horribly (and would have whiffed with either a self-awareness check or spending the dice as bonus dice to my roll). I was miffed. (The color was cool - I'd just used an ornamented rose pylon of the kissing bridge to knock one of the Cardinal's Guard off the bridge to his faux death in the water below - so I wasn't bummed thematically). However, it left me feeling hollow. I think you need to spruce up the Mortal Wound section so the GM's obligated not to be a dick, and to bring your character back as soon as narratively possible. It would be nice, also, to earn Inspiration (when you wake up) as compensation, if you will, for sitting out the end of the fight in which you gave your life to save everyone else. Scoring a mortal wound really isn't that hard, too... so it's especially scary for someone like Burgiss to be taken out of play.

Tell me more about this.  How the mechanics of "being put down" are handled in the new version has been completely changed, but if you can remember the specific mechanical point where the system let you down (from excited about cool color, to being miffed) that would help.

QuoteThe relationship between charge, initiative and the narrative constraints of the Diminishing Returns rule became clearer to me tonight, and I like them a lot. Make more of the hard-and-fastness of the Diminishing Returns, though - it's golden. I was a little concerned that with lots of chained Augmentation Rolls all over the place, the action could get a bit stodgy.

Excellent to hear.  I was trying to strike a balance between giving the GM an overwhelming tool that essentially turns the whole deal into fiat with a bunch of superfluous illusionary rolls vs. not giving the GM any tools to rein in the action.  From the sounds of it the Diminishing Returns standard accomplished that...

QuoteCan players apply Diminishing Returns to the GM?

Yes, I think there's an offhand line in there that indicates the standard applies to the GM as well, but I don't think I really highlighted it.

QuoteWhat happens to the GM's ones? It began to feel odd that Thor wasn't able to make an equivalent choice / calculation as the players.

Currently that's weak.  If the robot making the roll was a Spark, they'd get Inspiration same as the PCs.  If the robot isn't then nothing.  Problem is most Spark villains aren't going to be around long enough for that accumulated Inspiration to matter...they'll either be defeated or spend the bulk of their time off stage.

I'm open for ideas on that.  One thought I had was that the "1s" for the GM would earn some GM benies that could be used to activate player robot negative gear, or throw some additional "situational difficulty" (instead of just allowing the GM to invent that freely)...that sort of thing.  But that's just a half baked idea at this point.

QuoteOK, I'm beat. I had fun tonight, and I'm looking forward to next week, when Thor's taking the scenario creation rules for a spin and we're continuing with the Band of Four. Huzzah! I think I'm beginning to grok viable ways to play the combat system's mechanics to the hilt, so I'm going to take a shot at exploiting the unholy crap out of it. :)

Excellent, I got a sense from reading your reports that this was the "play conservatively while learning the system" sessions and that the "pound the crap out of it" sessions are yet to come.  Eager to see those...

Quickly again, and probably imprecise - sorry! Also, whiny - double sorry

You declare attack against me (with augments), I declare opposed roll to be "shoot Ralph in the face and kill him" (with augments). I guess that's interrupting! So, not cheating. I would have preferred more back-and-forth color, I guess. My narrative choice - ignore it!

Role-checks: I only managed to get one this time, and on reflection, it bugs me a little: the situation was the third roll of the chase scene: Only Mayuran as Devon stood a chance of making it to the bridge, so we're constructing a seriers of augments from everyone else. I didn't like Dro/Alfredo or John/Charles' colour at all: it seemed very un-romantic un-swashbucklerish and basically thuggish. So I declined to augment those rolls, holding my charge for a potential later augment. Thor disagreed, and Burgiss was forced to take part in brutalising the local populace so we can deliver the letter. I guess this boils down to a difference in our perspectives of what constitutes Tapestry-supporting behaviour.  Throughout the session, I was hovering around one or two inspiration, needing to spend it frequently, earning none from dice (pure whiffery), and the 8 points I need for the next spark seem a long, long way off.

Mortal wound: Thor gave me a mortal wound (totally fair - not a problem). I read the rules, and the text lead me to believe that not only was I out of the fight and its consequences, but my character's return to play at all was in the hands of the GM - he could (by accident or by dickdom) put Burgiss in extended convalescence for six months, which would be a big downer for me. Thor (who is definitely not a dick) said that his reading of the setting material implied that Robots are no longer being repurposed at all, ever, and just wake up the next day as if nothing had happened... providing impetus for spark. That makes perfect sense to me, but is not what I read from the Mortal Wound section of the text, which made me feel like I was in a much worse situation than I really am. Even though Burgiss will be back on his feet the next day, he was completely out of the action for the conclusion of the scenario, which was a bummer, and that - combined with the does not compute factor of being alive again next day, makes me wonder if the GM should be required to grant Inspiration when choosing a Mortal Wound. After all, there are plenty of other ways he could damage a character, without completely eliminating them narratively from the task at hand.

Resolution change: I like the way the system works, and I like the choice between taking inspiration and getting more successes - for me, it successfully reinforces the tension between the Tapestry and Self Awareness. It's cool, and I'm confess I'm not looking forward to the alternative (but who knows?) Further - I would prefer to see the moment of inspiration as reinforcing alternate paths in my positronic brain, rather than closing off the possibility of gaining more inspiration thereby. I still hate not being able to spend and earn - it sticks in my craw.

I like the GM accumulating bennies for his ones - but I'm not so keen on him using them to activate our shitez0r equipment... it already seems pretty easy. That's probably because Rusty the Trusty Robohorse is a little close to the glue phase of his life. I should look at trying to fix those things up for Burgiss.

Quick note from earlier comments: yes, I think you should make it explicit that Crisis and Tapestry need not sum to 100. My inclination was to extrapolate that identity from sum(Role + Self Awareness) == 10.

Quote from: Iskander on March 16, 2007, 01:14:45 PM
You declare attack against me (with augments), I declare opposed roll to be "shoot Ralph in the face and kill him" (with augments). I guess that's interrupting! So, not cheating. I would have preferred more back-and-forth color, I guess. My narrative choice - ignore it!

Yeah, mechanically anytime someone other than the current Initiative robot makes a roll that's an "interruption".

So to expand the above: I declare an attack against you...augment #1 feeds into augment #2...feeds into my attack action...then say Dro wants to jump in and help me (that's an interruption while he makes his rolls...up to 3 since I'm making 3...so both my augment #2 and Dro's augment now feed into my attack.

You then (being the target) oppose me (so that's an interruption while you make your rolls)...you also can make up to 3 total rolls since I'm making 3.  So your augment #1 feeds into your augment #2 feeds into your opposing roll against my action.  But say when you declare your augment #2 Thor decides to have an NPC oppose you.  That NPC now interrupts you and can make 2 rolls (since you're making 2 so-far).  Assuming you win, you continue on with your opposition to my attack.

My thought is that the level of "back and forth color" should be completely tailored to how ever many augments and interruptions and such the group does.


Also, there will be 1 key change in the new version to the way "I'm trying to put you down" rolls are made vs. "I'm trying to gain an advantage against you" rolls.  The "I'm trying to put you down" rolls have to overcome your Influence to have any effect.

SOOO....if you try to oppose my attack with an attack of your own, your opposition will first negate my attack and THEN have to overcome my Influence in order to put me down.  If it fails to put me down there is no other effect.  However, if your opposition is not a "put me down" type roll, then that extra step of overcoming my Influence doesn't happen...and so any extra successes you get go towards buying bonuses and such.

I'm not sure I explained that very well but the point being that since "put you down" rolls are harder to do than "advantage" rolls, there should be an incentive to spend some time building up an advantage before going for the kill.  Since its tied to Influence, low level non Sparks should still be fairly easy to "put down" while higher level types take a bit more effort.  In fact, I'm hoping that "putting down" the higher Sparks take so much effort that its not worth trying to do...instead of going for a Tapestry approved Mortal Wound of the sort that put Burgiss down, you'll instead say "screw it, lets just actually damage this guy and make him non-operational"...which will be easier at that point than the "Mortal Wound".

Again, I'm not sure I'm explaining that well...hard to do without going into all the version changes...but the whole Damage / Injury routine was pretty fugly and one of the first things I tried to fix for the revision.  Since you ran smack into the fugly part I'll look forward to what you think of the revision once I get it out to you.

QuoteRole-checks: I only managed to get one this time, and on reflection, it bugs me a little: the situation was the third roll of the chase scene: Only Mayuran as Devon stood a chance of making it to the bridge, so we're constructing a seriers of augments from everyone else. I didn't like Dro/Alfredo or John/Charles' colour at all: it seemed very un-romantic un-swashbucklerish and basically thuggish. So I declined to augment those rolls, holding my charge for a potential later augment. Thor disagreed, and Burgiss was forced to take part in brutalising the local populace so we can deliver the letter. I guess this boils down to a difference in our perspectives of what constitutes Tapestry-supporting behaviour.  Throughout the session, I was hovering around one or two inspiration, needing to spend it frequently, earning none from dice (pure whiffery), and the 8 points I need for the next spark seem a long, long way off.

Not sure I follow entirely.  Sounds like Dro and John narrated some actions that you felt were out of genre and Thor used a Role Check to force you to follow suit, and because Thor's ruling on what was a "Tapestry" behavior differed from yours you were a bit turned off by it?

If I've got that right I have a key question for you:

I WANT you to be bugged like that.  I want those points where you disagree with the GM but mechanically are compelled to just put up with it to be just enough off-putting to do three things...1) help you the player sympathize with the plight of the character by a direct parallel to what the robot character has to put up with and likely feels about it, and 2) motivate you to raise your Self Awareness so the GM can't do this to you as easily, and 3) motivate you to spend Inspiration to make Self Awareness checks to say "no, not going to do that, thank you very much".  Just enough to accomplish that but not so much as to make you less inclined to play.

Given those goals...did the scene accomplish that?  or do you see a likely hood in crossing the line into "un-fun" as a result.

Caveat:  Also note that my design goal is to have starting characters get through the first few levels of Self Awareness quickly enough that they start to leave the above farther behind within the first 3-4 sessions...which will require some tweaks in advancement rate to get right.

QuoteMortal wound: Thor gave me a mortal wound (totally fair - not a problem). I read the rules, and the text lead me to believe that not only was I out of the fight and its consequences, but my character's return to play at all was in the hands of the GM - he could (by accident or by dickdom) put Burgiss in extended convalescence for six months, which would be a big downer for me. Thor (who is definitely not a dick) said that his reading of the setting material implied that Robots are no longer being repurposed at all, ever, and just wake up the next day as if nothing had happened... providing impetus for spark. That makes perfect sense to me, but is not what I read from the Mortal Wound section of the text, which made me feel like I was in a much worse situation than I really am. Even though Burgiss will be back on his feet the next day, he was completely out of the action for the conclusion of the scenario, which was a bummer, and that - combined with the does not compute factor of being alive again next day, makes me wonder if the GM should be required to grant Inspiration when choosing a Mortal Wound. After all, there are plenty of other ways he could damage a character, without completely eliminating them narratively from the task at hand.

File this one under "fugly" as noted above and when you've had a chance to play the revision let me know if its any better at this.

QuoteFurther - I would prefer to see the moment of inspiration as reinforcing alternate paths in my positronic brain, rather than closing off the possibility of gaining more inspiration thereby. I still hate not being able to spend and earn - it sticks in my craw.

Not parsing.  What specifically are you refering to with "not being able to spend and earn"?

QuoteI like the GM accumulating bennies for his ones - but I'm not so keen on him using them to activate our shitez0r equipment... it already seems pretty easy. That's probably because Rusty the Trusty Robohorse is a little close to the glue phase of his life. I should look at trying to fix those things up for Burgiss.

In the current version of the rules that you have, buried deep in the Favor section where Disfavor is explained, is a rather obscure rule that I'm thinking of making more central.  This rule allows the GM to make Disfavor checks with all of the robots' enemies and use the result of those checks to screw with the robots.  That would be on page 131 of your current version (assuming it pagenated the same). 

I'm currently thinking that these accumulated "bennies" would feed into the same GM resource.


Very cool feedback...and not whiny at all, thanks.

BTW:  I think you're the first Brit I've seen type that word without throwing a superfluous "g" in it :-)

Quote from: Valamir on March 17, 2007, 07:36:29 PM...the whole Damage / Injury routine was pretty fugly and one of the first things I tried to fix for the revision.  Since you ran smack into the fugly part I'll look forward to what you think of the revision once I get it out to you.

Sounds good.

QuoteGiven those goals...did the scene accomplish that?  or do you see a likely hood in crossing the line into "un-fun" as a result.

I'm a bit distant from the moment... but I think it just heated my desire to gain Self-Awareness. I certainly didn't want to stop playing!

QuoteCaveat:  Also note that my design goal is to have starting characters get through the first few levels of Self Awareness quickly enough that they start to leave the above farther behind within the first 3-4 sessions...which will require some tweaks in advancement rate to get right.

Sounds good!

Quote

QuoteFurther - I would prefer to see the moment of inspiration as reinforcing alternate paths in my positronic brain, rather than closing off the possibility of gaining more inspiration thereby. I still hate not being able to spend and earn - it sticks in my craw.

Not parsing.  What specifically are you refering to with "not being able to spend and earn"?

In the version we were playing from, when a player spends inspiration on a roll, none of the 1s that come up are eligible to be turned into Inspiration. I hate this. I can see no justification for the restriction, and it was a major contributor to the downer I got from Burgiss' death: I had spent pretty much every Inspiration I had, and although I had come up with a bunch of 1s, I only got them on rolls where I'd spent Inspiration... so no bennies for me. Sucks to be Burgiss! I can't tell you how much I dislike this restriction.

QuoteIn the current version of the rules that you have, buried deep in the Favor section where Disfavor is explained, is a rather obscure rule that I'm thinking of making more central.  This rule allows the GM to make Disfavor checks with all of the robots' enemies and use the result of those checks to screw with the robots.  That would be on page 131 of your current version (assuming it pagenated the same).

I'm currently thinking that these accumulated "bennies" would feed into the same GM resource.

I like Disfavor a lot... I would be concerned that the additional bennies would give the GM too much strength, but I'm sure that can be evaluated in playtest.

QuoteBTW:  I think you're the first Brit I've seen type that word without throwing a superfluous "g" in it :-)

Oh, that's a whole different word, most often used by Aussies to refer to Brits... as in "whingeing Poms". Ironic, given the nasality of the antipodean dialect. (Kidding, children!)

QuoteIn the version we were playing from, when a player spends inspiration on a roll, none of the 1s that come up are eligible to be turned into Inspiration. I hate this. I can see no justification for the restriction, and it was a major contributor to the downer I got from Burgiss' death: I had spent pretty much every Inspiration I had, and although I had come up with a bunch of 1s, I only got them on rolls where I'd spent Inspiration... so no bennies for me. Sucks to be Burgiss! I can't tell you how much I dislike this restriction.

Ahhh, yes.  That rule was crap.  It made it in during a "must not let the players have too much too soon" moment of weakness and survived by me justifying it as a "meaningful trade off choice" for the player.  Its already gone.

That said, what's also already gone is the cobbled together mishmash of things you can spend Inspiration on.  What I've done for the next version is pruned back Inspiration all the way to only being used for Self Awareness Checks or "leveling up" Self Awareness, with the idea of then adding back in things that actually work in a controlled and tied together fashion. 

QuoteI like Disfavor a lot... I would be concerned that the additional bennies would give the GM too much strength, but I'm sure that can be evaluated in playtest.

I have alot of ideas swirling around that concept right now, but none of them have gelled into a hard and fast crystal clear way to write rules about it.  In no particular order:

1) GM records the result of the Disfavor Rolls made during an Interlude and uses that as a pool to purchase effects from during play justified as the machinations of enemies behind the scenes
2) GM records the result of the Disfavor Rolls and treats them exactly like Favor Rolls, only instead of a player making a Favor Roll to help the GM would use the Disfavor Favor to hurt.  This has a nice rules symmetry to it, but I have trouble seeing it as something the GM wouldn't already be doing anyway without needing to track anything.
3) Go completely meta and have the result of the Disfavor Rolls symbolize "how hard life is when you have alot of enemies" and limit the GM to adding in special circumstance situational penalties by making him purchase those penalties from a Disfavor Pool.
4) Some other simpler cooler thing I haven't thought of yet.

There's something there I want to use...but it keeps slipping away from me so far.

I've started a new thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23630.0) for the playtest now that we're using a revised version of the rules.