[Costs] playtest reports

[azrianni]

If you're playtesting Costs, we can talk about it here!

(Interested in playtesting? see the other thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22546.0)

[Paul Czege]

Hey Aaron,

I like it! The diceless offers and raises resolution mechanic is very clever. So how about some tough love (in no particular order):

1. Have you playtested the game? Throughout the text you use language like the "game works best with a group that's mature," "comedy can work," makes "[protagonist death] a logical part of the story," the "rules should foil the most common kinds of player abuses" and similar phrases that suggest you've tested for these kinds of things. Personally I've come to find bold and unsupported assertions in game texts rather off-putting, and...um...I pretty much don't believe them when I see them. Which is to say that I don't think they add much to the game as they currently are. If you want to sell the game on these features they need to be substantiated somehow (maybe with examples?).

2. In the Philosophy section you describe gameplay as "fabricating an interesting story together." And honestly, that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. It sounds like work. To me, and to most gamers, I think, a system that throws things at you and lets you react sounds like more fun than one that involves a lot of up front negotiating. I think this "not fun" perception is going to be your game's greatest hurdle. And I think you're going to have to do everything in your power to avoid creating it.

3. You write the game is "about discovering what kinds of prices the characters are willing to pay in order to achieve their goals" and elsewhere you use the phrase "willingness to sacrifice." And again, this isn't a play proposition that's going to get me, or most gamers, fired up. Sorcerer doesn't create excitement for play with "what price will you pay?" It creates excitement with the promise of power and "what will you do?" I think you need to totally reimagine your presentation of the game's play proposition. In an interview on Fear the Boot, Ryan Dancey explodes the conventional wisdom that it's gamemasters who decide which games get played. And he's right. Gamemasters propose games, but it's ultimately the players who decide if the game gets played or not. So I think you need to work out how to write a game text that sells the game to potential players. And what players want is an experience that lets them do something they've never been able to do in other games. Most gamers have already done "hefty price tag" (likely to great disappointment) in other games.

4. And okay, I know I'm hammering at this, so this is the last point I'll make on the "not fun" perception: the title has to go. Calling the game "Costs" might be accurate, but it creates about as much enthusiasm for the play experience as calling it Accountability, or Responsibility.

5. You write that "to create a character you must first know the kind of series being proposed." Do you recommend the GM creating a one-sheet? Or a group collaboration to hash out the nature of the series? Does one of these options work better the other? It seems like the players exert a lot of power over the thematic fabric of the game in creating their strengths, weaknesses, goals, and obstacles. If you're thinking the GM has authority over the kind of series I think you need to make that explicit.

6. The Strengths might be a good starting place for making the game's fun proposition. Have you seen my game-in-development, The Niche Engine? I think it has a similarity of design purpose to Costs, in that it's about making trade-offs in pursuit of progress toward desired outcomes. It gives players veto power over each other's niches.

7. For how structured the offers and raises mechanics are I'm surprised how fudgy and floaty the Tension Meter and the Ladder of Costs are, particularly when wrinkled with the application of Strength or Weakness, or a Weakness the GM has replaced or supplemented because it wasn't weakening enough. Yeah, I haven't played the game, but my gut is really wanting more structure to these things. As it is, I think they'll just make me doubt the fairness of my second offers, and my rejections of first and third offers. I do love the idea of the replacement Weakness the player doesn't know about. But its power is undermined by the nebulousness of the Ladder and the Tension Meter. As it is I can pretty much make any second offer I want, and reject anything I want, regardless of Weakness. Think about giving the Tension Meter some mechanical teeth. Do you own With Great Power? The Story Arc is a great mechanic you should take a look at. Maybe at the first level the GM can't make a second offer that includes permanent costs, can't reject an offer of Vast costs, and can't reject raises, and then at the second level of the Tension Meter the GM can't reject an offer of Vast Costs and can't reject raises, and then at the third level the GM can't reject an offer of Vast costs, and at the fourth level anything goes. Something like that. And relevant Strengths and Weaknesses shift what the GM is restricted from doing on the Tension Meter.

8. I love your example Weaknesses. The Starflare weakness creates complications for the character. The Veteran Weakness provides for characterizing the character. Perhaps some guidance to players on how to creatively give direction to their character's story via Weaknesses is in order.

9. Love your text about Goals. Not what you're doing, but why you've chosen to do it. Beautiful.

10. In the Gear section you mention a "recurring use costs" rule, but I'm not seeing an explanation of that rule. Did I just miss it somewhere?

11. I love the categories of costs! I've played a number of stakes setting games that would have been more varied and interesting in play with an inspiring categories of stakes for reference like what you've done here.

12. I like how you apportion narration rights, and I'm very curious to see how it'll play out. The GM only gets to narrate if he rejects a player's first offer and the player accepts his second offer. Learning how to get narration rights when you want them as the GM is going to be fun. (Actually, the whole damn negotiation thing is going to be fun. How quickly can I get a player to agree to his character's death? Heh heh.)

13. Y'know, maybe the negotiation and resolution mechanics are the fun proposition you should focus on. I'm really hoping they deliver an exciting "what can I get away with" thrill sensation in play. So maybe we should think about that. There's a poker-esque excitement to your negotiation and risk set-up. Is "never let them see you sweat" good player advice? Maybe the game needs a title like that. Sweat. Stress. Something that challenges the player. Suggests he maybe can't handle the game. Heat.

14. Do all players present in a scene have to agree to a proposed cost? If two of us are in a scene, and I'm trying to start the stalled boat, can I agree to a second offer from the GM that has the other player falling overboard and being left behind? Or does the other player have to agree to that cost?

15. You write, "Ultimately, the GM decides what 'partial success' means and the player who made the first offer gets to narrate." So, if the GM ever calls for a raise he's giving up a chance to narrate the outcome of the conflict?

16. I really like how conducive the mechanics are to group scenes. As a designer I've been pretty solidly on the path of round-robin scenes since Nicotine Girls, and the games I've played lately (Trollbabe and Hero's Banner, both run by me, Primetime Adventures, run by my wife Danielle, and a playtest of Kagematsu) have also all been on that same path, in execution if not textually. And so I've been keen on re-engaging with an old school dynamic where the expectation is that mostly player characters are in scenes together.

17. I confess to a small fear that the game will play out as a narrative death spiral. How does a character ever achieve a goal or get a new strength-weakness if he's constantly acceding to costs?

Anyway, I like it a lot. The offers and raises mechanics are very cool and sound like a lot of fun. I'm taking it with me to Forge Midwest this weekend and hope to playtest it there.

Paul