[Shab-al-Hiri Roach] Revisions, Questions, Kušu Barultag

[Jason Morningstar]

Graham, Ron, thanks.  I think I can resolve some of my own discomfort simply by renaming the cards.  Influenza in particular, although it is thematically appropriate and I quite like it. 

I'm not keen on making a zero Rep player more powerful, because that would discourage trying to actually win, which is a motivating factor for doing ridiculous things. 

I agree that if death is allowed, a dead player must be able to win.  But unless somebody comes up with a nice way to either keep the Roach in play for a dead PC or balance the advantage that freedom from the Roach conveys, I'm going to stick with "living only".  I really like the "Reputation lives on" thing, so I'll be thinking hard on this one.  PC death adds an appropriately hard edge to the game.  I'm definitely open to suggestions. 

--Jason

[Jason Morningstar]

With regard to the various things you listed: I don't have a problem with CHAMP or PUBLIC SCANDAL being posthumous (posthumous scandals are quite common, I think).

Oh, and the sticking point isn't the action, but the mechanical effect - both of these cards impact Enthusiasm, which a ghost/legacy/corpse does not have.  Actually, I need to define what happens when you have no Enthusiasm anyway, since it is possible for living PCs as well.  Problem solved, paragraph to be added...thanks!

--Jason

[Eric Provost]

See now, when it was first mentioned that the Roach reanimate the deceased character I totally wasn't thinking 'zombie'.  I was more thinking something along the lines of "Holy crap, wasn't I dead yesterday?  And this salad fork jutting from my temple is terribly uncomfortable."

But I have no idea if that would be in-line with the flavor of the game either.  Which can only lead me to conclude that Jason must promise to run this for us at one of our sessions in September.

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

You're on, Eric!  Here's a revision.  I'm still not happy with the balance, but at least this spells out the most obvious advantages and drawbacks. 

DEATH (THIS NEEDS WORK)
You can never set the stakes as the death of the Roach (its oily brood scuttles under every wainscot), but go ahead and try to murder another player character.  Or, like poor Dr. Applewhite-Jenkins, try to kill yourself.  It is perfectly acceptable to make a player character's life or death the stake in a conflict.  Being dead is hardly an impediment to an academic career. 

A dead player character has some special rules. When dead:

Your character's Reputation lives on - in fact, it is even enhanced by the fact of your death.  You automatically add a point of Reputation at the time your death is publicly announced. 

You no longer have a personal die at all.  Any Opportunity that enhances your personal die can be ignored. 

Your character immediately loses all Enthusiasms.

You still have narration rights like any other player, and can still gamble Reputation in conflicts. 

You may still frame Scenes and introduce NPCs and groups into them.  Certain card Opportunities may require a bit of creativity to play; it is fortunate that you have a devoted graduate research assistant to promote your legacy at Pemberton. 

Finally, being dead, you are immune to the Roach and, therefore, have a powerful edge in the game.  This alone should put a curb on player character bloodletting.  It may seem like a great idea at first blush, but being dead really isn't - you are down at least one die in all conflicts, and many of the best Opportunities will pass you by like fog in a graveyard.

[Eric Provost]

Oh!  So killing a PC will only make them stronger?  That's a great solution!

I can't wait to play this.

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

It's not quite right, yet. 

In this take, killing a PC makes them stronger by eliminating the Roach, which means they are automatically a contender at end-game, no matter what they do.  I dislike that. 

It makes them weaker by removing some of their juice - Enthusiasms, their personal die, about 25% of the Opportunity cards - but also makes them less fun to play.  Getting Roached up is fun!

But I love the idea of dead PCs still in the running.  It just needs to be refined.

--Jason

[Eric Provost]

Ok.  So, if No Roach = less fun, then you don't want to eliminate the possibility of the Roach, right?  That seems to lead to the fairly simple conclusion that either dead characters can get Roached or characters shouldn't die.

Questions:

Why does dead have to equal no Enthusiasm?  If it's a mechanical balance thing, ok cool.  But if it's a flavor thing then I really don't see it.  I mean, who's more emotional than the recently dead?  No one, that's who.

Would some hard-core haunting harm the flavor?  Not like a spectre of Marley floating about the place, but more like;  "Ok, he pissed me off with that eulogy.  I'm gonna fling a chair across the room to freak him out."  or  "I'm gonna start smashing things in the upstairs lounge to distract them with the noise and break up that conversation."

*ponder*

Ok, that's enough from me.  I haven't even finished reading your text yet.  I've got other ideas but I may as well be just shouting out random words.  I'll be back later.

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks Eric, I appreciate your thoughts.  No need to specify what sort of scenes a dead PC's player can frame, I don't think, although poltergeists is not what I'm after.  It's your Reputation that is on the line and central to the game, so conflicts - living or dead - should reflect that. 

Ron suggested adding a rule that the dead explicitly cannot mess with the living, which is what I'm getting at. 

I'm looking forward to your incisive comments after you've read the draft!

--Jason

[Jason Morningstar]

Some questions:

The unknown factor of deciding who to direct a Command card toward before knowing the content is so much fun.  Should Opportunity cards also be used blind?  It would up the chaos and lower one of the few advantages of being Roach-free.  Just an idea.

I'd appreciate it if someone would look over my examples ("Exempli gratia" in the rules, typically at the end of chapters) to see if they are easy to follow and representative.  These will probably change some.

I revised the sequence and topics of the six Events - are the new ones compelling and do they present good opportunities for mayhem and fun narration? 

Are the various Enthusiasms distinct enough, or should the list be tightened?  Expanded?  Did I miss anything obvious?

For ties in Reputation at end-game, I wrote:  In the unlikely event of a tie in Reputation between two Roach-free characters, create one final conflict with the stakes being "Which professor will be humiliated and brought to heel by his iron-willed rival?"  Does this make sense, is it fun or anticlimactic? 

Thanks for your input,

--Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Here's my take on those.

The unknown factor of deciding who to direct a Command card toward before knowing the content is so much fun.  Should Opportunity cards also be used blind?  It would up the chaos and lower one of the few advantages of being Roach-free.  Just an idea.

A thousand times no. Enthusiasms may be grotty (some of them), but they are human and should definitely match with human priorities - i.e., be directed toward a target whom the player thinks it should be toward, generally in the interest of his or her character.

I'd appreciate it if someone would look over my examples ("Exempli gratia" in the rules, typically at the end of chapters) to see if they are easy to follow and representative.  These will probably change some.

I revised the sequence and topics of the six Events - are the new ones compelling and do they present good opportunities for mayhem and fun narration? 

In a bit.

Are the various Enthusiasms distinct enough, or should the list be tightened?  Expanded?  Did I miss anything obvious?

"Research" is too vague. I think using it in a conflict needs to involve actual investigation, not just bringing in the topic as a conversation piece - too easy, gets overused in play without much bite. I mean, it's a given that any prof will pepper the conversation with snotty my-own-research/field references.

For ties in Reputation at end-game, I wrote:  In the unlikely event of a tie in Reputation between two Roach-free characters, create one final conflict with the stakes being "Which professor will be humiliated and brought to heel by his iron-willed rival?"  Does this make sense, is it fun or anticlimactic? 

Don't like it. It's a patch rule, because it breaks the great symmetry of one-Scene-started-per-player per Event, one Conflict per Scene. All patch rules are bad.

Finally, Jason, I really think you need to stop scribbling for a bit and really play the game. Just sharpen up the IGC version without changing much of the procedures (except for obvious fixes like the Reputation 0 thing, which you did), and play. I have seen far too many good rough games get spoiled by over-discussion in this forum, which only happens when the author doesn't buckle down and play the fuck out of it a few times.

Best,
Ron

[GB Steve]

Whilst you've put some more on how decide whether Professors get a d8 or a d6 in conflict, some more explanation about what Status, Knowledge, Power and Privilege represent would be good. This was possibly the area that caused the most discussion. It's not that we couldn't and didn't resolve it amicably but more guidance would be helpful.

I've just printed up a set of cards on inkjet business cards J8414 and printed an updated copy of the rules so I'm ready to go for the game at SteveCon tomorrow.

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks, GB Steve.  I want some things to be defined by the group, since standards for what constitutes "Status" can and should vary and even spark debate.  But some examples are probably in order, to illustrate the possibilities.

Good luck at SteveCon!  I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes. 

--Jason

[IMAGinES]

I want some things to be defined by the group, since standards for what constitutes "Status" can and should vary and even spark debate.

Basically like your average university conversation, right?

[IMAGinES]

Hi, Jason,

Something's been bothering me. In "The Cards, And What To Do With Them" in chapter 4, you write:

To be clear:  Every player must draw a Card prior to the beginning of each Event. ... Each Card has both a Command and an Opportunity on it.  If your character is currently possessed by the Roach, you must ignore the Opportunity and carry out the Command. ... If you are not possessed by the Roach, you must act on the Opportunity part of the Card

However, in the Exempli Gratia below that text, you write:

Joel is immediately tempted to swallow the Roach to get that killer Command, but decides that it is too early for such drastic measures.  He ignores the Command (written in Sumerian), and must act on the Opportunity during one of the Scenes that make up the Event.

This is a little confusing, as you have a couple of very clear "if - then" statements in the Cards description, which the example seems to contradict. You either are already Roach-bound by the time you draw a card, in which case you designate a potential target for your Command before you draw, or else you're not Roach-bound and have the flexibility of choosing a target for your Opportunity after you read it.

The example, however, gives the impression that there's a loophole that can get you around that restriction of having to designate a target for your Command before you draw. Now, you've also stated that:

if at any time you wish to have the Roach occupy your brain, simply declare that you are Roach-bound, and it is so.

Going by the example, a player has the option of drawing a regular Card, liking the Command better than the Opportunity, declaring he or she is Roach-bound and then designating the Command's target.

Admittedly, you get that flexibility at the cost of taking the Roach, and considering how difficult it is to lose the Roach that loophole isn't likely to happen often. But still, you might want to clarify how things should actually go in the rules, as I can see people arguing over this one.

[Jason Morningstar]

Whoa, thanks for that, it never occurred to me and it has yet to come up.  But some explanatory text is in order. 

My gut feeling (I'll think more on this and try out some combinations) is that it makes sense to be able to actively target that first, sweet Command. 

Again, thanks for pointing out this potential loophole.

--Jason