Clarifications

[Veritas Games]

First, the rules on decks need to be described EARLY in the rules.  You've got rules referring to decks before describing them.  Also the deck usage rules are fuzzy -- it says, "you and the players" share a deck.  Who is "you"?  The GM?  Does this mean that the players and GM share a single deck?

Also, the rules mention the GM's "core deck" but don't describe which one that is.

The rules don't clearly state whether, when, where, and how most of the cards are discarded.

Defeats are entirely unclear as to their meaning and repercussions.  If a villain yields for a page does he totally yield for the scene?  What about heroes?

Can you cause an aspect to suffer even if it normally would only suffer under special circumstances?  For example, can Superman's Heat Vision be caused to suffer from anything other than magic or kryptonite?

Why should characters divide their aspects by type of struggle?  This seems to serve no purpose.

Nor does it seem important to Type aspects as this serves no game purpose.

What's the purpose of establishing power level for a power since this has no mechanical purpose and likely won't be simulated by the core mechanic in any way?

The product has nice layout and is interesting, but looks a bit vague and cumbersome.  I haven't tried it in practice yet, though, so I am gonna hold back on judgment.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Lee.

Thanks for taking an interest in WGP... I normally eschew line-by-line replies, but you've asked so many individual questions, I'm going to break them up for clarity's sake.

First, the rules on decks need to be described EARLY in the rules.  You've got rules referring to decks before describing them.  Also the deck usage rules are fuzzy -- it says, "you and the players" share a deck.  Who is "you"?  The GM?  Does this mean that the players and GM share a single deck?
Also, the rules mention the GM's "core deck" but don't describe which one that is.
The rules don't clearly state whether, when, where, and how most of the cards are discarded.

You need one deck on the table for each real, flesh-and-blood human person participating in the game. That means if you have a GM and three players, you need four decks of cards. It doesn't matter how many opponents or characters the GM or the players have. It's all about the Real People participating in the game.

Let's stick with the example of a GM and three players. At the start of play, the players will all share one deck of cards. Call this the Hero Deck. The GM has three separate decks of cards in front of him. These are the decks she currently controls. One of them is called the Core GM Deck, which is the one used for Enrichment Scenes.

As the game goes on, the heroes will fill spaces on the Story Arc by yielding conflicts. Once Space #4 "The Balance Shifts" is filled, one of the GM's decks is given to the players for them to share. Now the players have two Hero Decks, and the GM has two decks: her Core GM Deck, and one extra deck. At any later point in the game, the players can yield another conflict to fill Space #4 again, which will gain them the extra deck. At that point, the GM will only have her GM's Core Deck, and the players will have three Hero Decks. The players can never steal the GM's Core Deck.

Whe a conflict is over, all cards in all the panels of that page are discarded. Cards are always discarded to their appropriate deck, unless they are put towards the Story Arc.

Defeats are entirely unclear as to their meaning and repercussions.  If a villain yields for a page does he totally yield for the scene?  What about heroes?

You're absolutely correct that the Preview Edition is very unclear. I'm putting together a Rules Patch to cover a number of the vague areas and segue into the Full Edition. It'll be out by the end of the year. If a Hero yields a page of conflict (i.e., is defeated) he may not start a new conflict in the same scene. He does, however, have the option to discard one of his cards to the Story Arc. The same goes for villians (although they may complete any other conflicts that they've already started.)

Can you cause an aspect to suffer even if it normally would only suffer under special circumstances?  For example, can Superman's Heat Vision be caused to suffer from anything other than magic or kryptonite?

Sure. The player can describe anything that puts strain on an Aspect as a form of Suffering. So legit reasons to increase the Suffering for Superman's Heat Vision might be: "Great Scott! This building is so unsound that losing a single girder will bring it crashing down on innocent people. I don't dare use my heat vision!" Or "The lead in these walls is keeping me from seeing what's on the other side. I don't dare use my heat vision to melt through--there could be an innocent bystander on the other side." Or the exchange below could kick off an entire storyline:

Perry White: "Kent, you're our expert on Superman. Check out these reports that six people he used his heat vision while saving have developed cancer. I want a story filed tonight."
Kent: "Sure thing, chief." player grabs Thought Balloon and holds it over his head: "Great Scott! Could it be true? Could my Heat Vision really be hurting these people? I must not use it until I know for sure!"

In that set up, your could increase Suffering later in the game by seeing a perfect opportunity to use the Heat Vision, and then agonize (with liberal use of Thought Balloon) over not being able to do so.

Why should characters divide their aspects by type of struggle?  This seems to serve no purpose.

This focuses character creation on theme. Most RPGs have rules that are set up to resolve a collection of individual actions. It's assumed that the GM's story will herd those actions into groups of meaningful conflict. If grouping those conflicts along the lines of an identifiable theme comes up at all, it's often in vague GM advice that might as well be labelled "Do not try this at home." WGP... is built upside-down from this perspective. From the very first moment of character creation, the players have to look at theme: the Struggle. Everything else builds on top of that.

Nor does it seem important to Type aspects as this serves no game purpose.
What's the purpose of establishing power level for a power since this has no mechanical purpose and likely won't be simulated by the core mechanic in any way?

Type and Scale are there to provide creative constraint for the description of events. Scales (and remember, more than just Powers are rated for Scale--everything except Convictions are) help get everyone on the same page as far as what kind of ambience and what sort of special effects to look for. Someone who has a number of Cosmic-scale Aspects isn't going to go around foiling jewelry store heists. He's going to be fighting the forces that are snuffing out suns like candle flames and enslaving entire galactic empires.

Type and Scale are also necessary for changing the nature of Devastated Aspects. When they're redeemed, either their Type, Scale, or Name must change. In every Story Arc, something fundamental about the hero changes in some way.

I hope that clears up some of the vague areas in the Preview Edition. If not, please let me know. THanks again.

[Veritas Games]

What about the "shared deck" that the rules mention?

BTW -- thanks for the quick answers thus far.

Re: Enrichment scenes, I'd strongly recommend you get a copy of the Mayfair DC Heroes game and read over some of their stuff on out-of-combat roleplay.  It was a core focus of the game.  Something similar would make your enrichment section much clearer as to its role, etc.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Lee.

Glad I could help. I'm not sure what "Shared Deck" reference you mean. Can you give me a page number so we're both on the same page? (pun intended)

Also, what edition of DC Heroes are you using? I've only got a copy of the 3rd Edition.

Thanks.

[Veritas Games]

I didn't know DC Heroes had a 3rd edition.  I knew that there was Blood of Heroes and there was another totally different DC game by WEG.

2nd ed. DC Heroes has a huge chunk of the rules on "sub-plots".  Probably worth a look at for inspiration.

"You and the other players use one deck" -- page 15.  No definition of "you".  Probably a player in context.  It doesn't say, but it sounds like "you" is a player.  I would ditch the "you and the other" and just say, "the players use one deck".  Also designate explicitly in that section what the GM's "core deck" is.

The section on decks needs to be before all the other sections.  Put the core assumptions up front.

The game is unique, but I worry that the cards will be invasive, that there will be a ton of focus on the cards and not enough focus on the action.  I haven't played the game yet, so that may just be an unwarranted fear.

I haven't tried it yet.  But it's got unique mechanics.

I wish that the "struggle" was more than completely tangential to the mechanics, as it's an interesting idea, but just that.  Same with power types -- an interesting concept, but largely a vestigal organ.