[shooting the moon] of mechanisms and fairy tales

[Emily Care]

The second of my games I got to playtest this weekend, thanks to Ben Lehman's help, was Shooting the Moon which is very much in development.  This is the very first time I've gotten to put the mechanics I came up with into real practice, so I'm posting this here in the design forum, rather than actual play.  Oh, such a pain to put those first bits of ideas into play.  Just a stage to get through, but nonetheless...

So, Shooting the Moon is another of my (crazy) relationship games. This one is intended to be quick & competitive.  Its mechanics deal a lot more with resource allocation than breaking the ice.  It is a 2-3 player game, with 2 people taking the roles of Suitors vying for a third character's attentions, the Beloved. If there is a third player, that person plays the desired Beloved.  

The overall structure of the game is this:

[*]Choose a setting, an appropriate genre or a venue that brings the characters together (eg fairy tale, high school, 20somethings in a club, 30somethings working together).
[*]Collaboratively create the Beloved and the Suitors.
[*]Choose a goal both Suitors are trying to attain with Beloved (eg rescue the princess, go to the prom with the star quarterback, hooking up with the cute dancer/coworker etc)
[*]Take turns choosing Subgoals (eg getting through the enchanted forest,  meeting the getting the cute girl on the dance floor's phone number, impressing the gorgeous lawyer at the firm with your scathing rhetoric) that the suitors will try to achieve that will bring them closer to the over all goal.  # of Subgoals is chosen at the start of play, determines how long the game will be.
[*]For each Subgoal, players of Suitors take turns passing Hurdles (eg a mysterious crone asking for help in the enchanted forest, you trip over a speaker line, the witness for the defense is a little girl...) described by the other Suitor's player, or the player of the Beloved.  3 Hurdles per Subgoal.
[*]Overcome Hurdles, accomplish Subgoals, then duke it out for final goal. See who accomplishes the Goal (if anyone does...)[/list:u]
Each of the conflicts (Goal, Subgoals, Hurdles) are handled by opposed rolls of dice pools.  The players of the Suitors roll against one another for the Hurdles, then against eachother and the Beloved pool for each Subgoal, and then the final goal.  Highest die wins. Number of dice for each pool are determined in various ways:

For Subgoals:
Each player begins the round for each Subgoal with 5 counters in front of them.  They use these counters to stake create Hurdles and also to overcome them, and however many they have left after overcoming the hurdles is how many they will roll towards the Subgoal.  The Beloved receives counters from the outcome of Hurdle resolutions.  Each Suitor has a Price they may have to pay (a trait that may be assigned to them) if they roll below the Beloved in the roll for the Subgoal.

For Hurdles:
The players of the Suitors take turns facing Hurdles narrated by the other Suitor's player.  The Opposing player describes the Hurdle and puts forward some of their counters.  The Active Suitor's player says what their character's response will be, and puts forward a number of counters.  Each rolls a number of dice equal to the counters they put forward.  Okay, this is something I need to work out better.  Here is how it is so far:

[*]If the Active Suitor's player wins, both players get their counters back, but the Active player may roll 1d6 and get back that amount instead.
[*]If the Active player loses, both lose their counters but the Opposing players' counters go to the Beloved's pool, which will get used to roll against both of them for the Subgoal. [/list:u]
For the final Goal:

[*]The Beloved rolls as many dice as the players have Prices.
[*]The players each roll dice equal to the number of Subgoals they have won.[/list:u]
Problems with the Hurdles
The Hurdle rules had some odd effects.  We effectively didn't want to win when we opposed, because it would reduce our pool and make it harder to be effective when we got our chance to face a hurdle.  Overcoming a hurdle was great (since it gave you the chance to increase your die pool) but I had a run of luck that put me way ahead many times, and it took a long time for Ben to get dice enough to oppose me.  

It had been my intent for you to get a bonus to your dice pool for each subsequent Subgoal based on how many hurdles you had overcome, but it seemed that it would be too easy to dig yourself into a hole due to luck in the first Subgoal round, and then never be able to advance if bonuses carried over. Ben suggested reversing it, so that the Active player's coins are the ones that go to the Beloved if they lose. And for the Opposing player's coins to go away if they lose, but come back if they win.  I have to try it.

Traits anyone?
The other major issue was that the traits for the Beloved & Suitors didn't end up coming in to play.  Duh!  Make the counters put forward for hurdles have to tie in to the Suitors traits. Have the Hurdles & Subgoals relate to the Beloved's traits.

And of course, if there is a third player, mechanics for that need to be worked out. My intent was for the Beloved's player to give qualitative feedback bonus dice (ie fanmail) to the Suitor's players, and to narrate the outcomes of Hurdles & Subgoal rolls in addition to playing the Beloved.  

Once upon a time...
In the game, we played on Sunday, Ben played a wizard's apprentice & I played  a knight, both seeking to rescue a kidnapped and cursed princess in a fairy tale.  We had to get through an enchanted forest, cross a river and find the princess in a huge castle, rescuing her from the witch who had kidnapped her.  The Apprentice Newt was Magical, but his magic Misfired and was Wise but Weak. The Knight Roderick was Strong but Boastful and Courageous but Selfish.  

For the first Subgoal, Newt's price that he might have to pay was to be struck dumb, Rodericks was to be turned into a toad.  (The player who doesn't choose the Subgoal makes up 2 Prices, and the other player chooses which he or she wants.)  Newt met an old woman in the woods & refused to give her food (2 counters for Ben, 2 for me). Ben failed the roll, so my counters went to the Beloved's pool and he lost the 2 he put forward; the old woman taunted him.  Roderick also faced the old woman, and was rude to her.  Roll failed, she turned all his food into dust.  I took the next Hurdle for Roderic and this one he succeeded in passing.  He saw a stag bound across his path and shot it with his bow.  Turned out it was a cursed adventurer who told him how to cross the river coming up. I rolled my d6 to see if I got bonus counters and (yes!) I got a result of 6.  Newt faced a wounded lion, but Ben's roll failed again, sending him scurrying up a tree to shiver in terror through the night.  No dice for Ben.

Ben's pool of counters got depleted here, so we ended the Hurdles early and went to the Subgoal resolution.  Since Ben had no counters left, I rolled Roderick's dice against the Beloved's pool--and won!  Roderick triumphantly rode out of the woods on his charger.  For the prices, neither character took one:  You gain a Price by rolling lower than the Beloved, but Ben had no dice to roll so couldn't, and I happened to do so.

The two other subgoals we played out saw some turn around. Ben's character successfully magicked a raft across the river, and won the Subgoal. Roderick skewered a pesky river Troll, fought some giant lizard creatures and crossed the bridge of moonlight, but rolled too low to be the one to gain the advantage from the crossing. Both Newt and Roderick avoided their respective prices of becoming hopelessly lost or bereft of posessions.

At the Castle Subgoal, Newt succeeded in overcoming obstacles in the castle (getting plucked into the air by a Roc and avoiding the seduction of the witch disguised as the princess.) Roderick successfully found his way in despite the lack of an entrance (climbed ivy over a wall), proved he (or perhaps his magical horse) was pure of heart by being able to mount the wall, and went straight to the princess in her tower, where he won the Subgoal.  Again, neither player rolled lower than the Beloved, giving neither character their Price (Imprisoned and Corrupted).  

The final Goal went to Roderick.  He had gained 2 goals, and I only had to roll against Ben since none of the characters had paid any Prices.  There were a lot of interesting things narrated, but it was jerky & obviously needs to be tweaked.

Likely changes:

[*]Require counters for Hurdles to tie in to character traits.
[*]Make Subgoals relate to Beloved traits.
[*]Remove the bonus for Hurdles adding to the next Subgoal's dice pool.
[*]Have players brainstorm a list of possible Subgoals/Hurdles to use as suggestions (as well as have example lists in the book).
[*]Try Ben's suggestion for the following Hurdle outcomes:

[*]Active Suitor's player rolls 1d6 for bonus if win over Hrdle, put counters in Beloved's pool if lose.
[*]Opposing player's counters are returned if they win, or lose counters if Active player's character overcome Hurdle.
[/list:u][/list:u]

Things I'm wondering about:

[*]How to make the Prices more likely to be paid?
[*]Should the pools for final Goal be affected by more than Subgoals achieved?
[*]Is there a single maximal strategy that would always be best to adopt? Or does the randomization of winning over a Hurdle, or other elements make it variable enough?
[/list:u]

Any thoughts on these issues would be appreciated. Thanks for making it through this long post!

best,
Emily Care

[Andrew Morris]

Two questions:

1) Why is the game limited to 2 or 3 players?

3) If there is a third (playing the Beloved), it seems like they won't have much to do, at least during the hurdles, and probably not that much during the subgoals. Is this accurate, or am I misreading?

[Emily Care]

Hi again,

Two questions:
1) Why is the game limited to 2 or 3 players?

The game arose in response to the limitation of having 2 players in Breaking the Ice, actually.  Odd numbered groups would have issues. This was a natural & related situation to have 2-3 players, allowing a play group to round out their numbers.  I'll have to think on whether it would make sense for it to be able to support more than 2 suitors. Hm.

3) If there is a third (playing the Beloved), it seems like they won't have much to do, at least during the hurdles, and probably not that much during the subgoals. Is this accurate, or am I misreading?

The Beloved's player has 2 main roles right now--giving feed back, in the way of bonus dice, in response to the Suitors' players narration of hurdles, and playing the Beloved itself.  Not a big job in scenarios like the one above, but then it's ideal to have less screen time for a 2 player session.

I believe the player of the Beloved may become responsible for narration of outcomes after the Hurdles.

best,
Emily

[MatrixGamer]

When I look at the rules they seem very boardgame like but they aren't because the "board" is made up an elaborated on by the players. In the end though play is made up of what people are doing at the gaming table.

Your players are...

Making up the scene.
Making up the characters.
Making up the goals, subgoals, and hurdles.
Building up dice pools to use to cross the hurdles.
Then making up how they do it and roll dice.

The players certainly have to do a lot of work!

The actual play would seem to be a race game. Players compete to reach the end goal first (or at all) and then duke it out to win. A very competitive view of love. Do you have anything built into your rules that encourage players to work together? That would moderate the race aspect of the game.

The geography of goals/hurdles is similar to how I view quests in Matrix Games. The players have an end goal. They know up front how many barriers/challenges stand in their way. They first investigate to find out/define what the barriers are. They then plan how to over come them, then do it by initiating a conflict round of arguments. The scenario allows players pick rival characters or out right enemies. It also allows players to switch sides by merely arguing against the side they first worked with. Certainly competitive but not tied to a dice pool - instead tied to arguments (where players remain equal at for the whole game).

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Andrew Morris]

Do you have anything built into your rules that encourage players to work together?

That would seem to run counter to her stated goal of a competitive game, don't you think? Change that, and you're changing the game entirely.

As to being a lot of work for the players, have you played My Life with Master? You have to create everything in that game, too, but it's actually part of the fun.

[MatrixGamer]

I just got My life with Master and am reading it now, so haven't played it yet. I can see how world building can be fun I guess I'm just thinking how a dull twelve year old would react to the rules.

The dull twelve year old test is one I've used for years. When this consumer can read and understand how to play then anyone can. This rule of thumb is only important if you want to appeal to a mass audience. The internet is working to end the necessity of that sales model though.

The game is competitive - but competition does not preclude cooperation. The TV reality show Survivor is a perfect example of that. The fun of it is seeing who will defect and how it plays out.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Emily Care]

Hi Chris!

Interesting questions.  

The game is competitive - but competition does not preclude cooperation.

This game will be published with Breaking the Ice, which is completely cooperative.  The intent for this game is to accentuate the competitive aspects, in contradistinction with BtI. Together they make two very different ways of looking at quite similar situations.  I'm not averse to people making their own decisions about the implications of each. : )  

Your players are...

Making up the scene.
Making up the characters.
Making up the goals, subgoals, and hurdles.
Building up dice pools to use to cross the hurdles.
Then making up how they do it and roll dice.

The players certainly have to do a lot of work!

Someone has to do it. (smile) They do all that in Matrix games, too. In Shooting the Moon, if there is a third player, the creation of settings & characters will be fully collaborative with them as well.  My intent is to give a lot of support to the players so that they can do these things easily & well.  (In this case, I think I'm a good party to be a play tester--I have a terrible time coming up with things on the fly under pressure, so if I can make myself comfortable, likely others will be too. No substitute for beta testing, though!)

The actual play would seem to be a race game. Players compete to reach the end goal first (or at all) and then duke it out to win. A very competitive view of love. Do you have anything built into your rules that encourage players to work together? That would moderate the race aspect of the game.

The players will work together on most of the set up. The role of the Beloved's player will affect the straight "race" dynamic while, perhaps, accentuating the competition.  This player will give feedback, in the form of mechanical bonuses to the other players as they play (a la fanmail).  

The biggest question in my mind is whether there is a single best strategy for playing the coins (ie always putting forward 5, none or whatever).  If so, the mechanics are plain old broken & I'll have to go back to the drawing board, or modify it or what have you.  If anyone has insight into that aspect, I'd be grateful for it.

best,
Emily

[MatrixGamer]

The biggest question in my mind is whether there is a single best strategy for playing the coins (ie always putting forward 5, none or whatever).  If so, the mechanics are plain old broken & I'll have to go back to the drawing board, or modify it or what have you.  If anyone has insight into that aspect, I'd be grateful for it.

best,
Emily

What about looking at the "Can I break this" question by imagining a highly dysfunctional relationahsip. For instance - a beloved that sends mixed messages and suitors who insight jealousy, bully, and embarrass their beloved taking advantage of low self esteem. This way you can see how to coin system might be twisted for evil ends.

Just a thought.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

In Matrix Games while players can make up everything the sold game provides them with a framework world to operate in (character descriptions, locations, even the story opener.) A game can be played by literally reading the openning from the book and going from there - the dull 12 year old rule.