[No name yet] Dance of death

[Callan S.]

This is kind of an extension of this playtest, except I've added two player rules which add a very distinct dynamic.

My son set up the area again, getting some matchbox playsets (one a haunted house, the other a more traditional petrol station thing) and figures. I should make this a written part I guess - I like not setting up the materials the imagined space will be drawn from - nice to have someone else initiate.

This time we have a monster each and a hero each. I'll describe the dynamic in short - we both describe an attack and the other rates it from 0 to 50 TAC (tactical) damage. However, for each ten tac damage the describing character gets to pull a counter at random from a container. There are four gold counters and forty plain counters. If no one has any gold counters at the end, aww, everyone wins in a big old harmoginous lump, aww, isn't that nice! If you have more gold counters at the end, you win, they lose, booyah! If you have the same amount of counters NO ONE wins - no harmoginous win - it's just a draw. Once the competition kicks, you play to win! Oh, and if the monsters kill you, you lose - and likely the other player will be killed too if there's too monsters. Near the start of play we both took a fair wad of damage and I thought I hadn't assigned enough HP to players. But now I think I''ve gotten it just right, that's why it was scary!

The other side of the dynamic is that the other guys monster gets a bonus attack on you too, BUT if you rate the other guys move high, his monster gets a penalty to his attack on you. Short term gain - and it could mean life or death. That's mostly what makes it a dance of death - you can't embrace (give high rating all the time) because they'll win, and you can't pull away (give zero rating all the time) cause you'll die. Thus the dance begins!

Anyway, now my son is rating my moves, he start going 'But why are you...' in a pretty clear mimicry of my own questions about his previous moves. I'm not sure he grasped the dynamic from above, but I'm glad it was there. Because it will eventually validate this skepticism of his, and not because I rigged it to validate it, it's because it was that way from the start. We both give scores around the thirty mark, when I expected around the fifty mark. But that's great, cause thirty is more pressure (while constant scores of zeros would make me think something went wrong in design). Great!

So we fight our monsters, using various bits of the area. I'm not sure he was as imaginative as last time, but I think that's because he chose two bits of fixed scenery, instead of lots of little things that can be combined in a number of ways. The matchbox sets look cool, but don't inspire that much imagination. He beats his monster first, curse it, but my monster still gets bonus attacks on him so he's not out of the pickle yet. Eventually we beat it and...you know what, I expected the harmoginous 'everyone wins' ending. No! He got a gold counter - all the tac damage he managed to do got him enough counters and he got a gold!! Dammit! Congrats to my son!

On a side note, on the last monster, I just needed ten TAC damage to do one normal HP of damage to him, and the monster only had one HP left. So I get lazy and describe a very straight forward attack. My son rates it a five.
"A five??" I say
"Yeah...okay then, a ten"
"No, you said a five. Why'd you change?"
"I dunno, I just feel like it"
"Well, that's not a very good reason"
*pause*
"Okay, ten", I say, deciding not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

All our other talk was about the moves and what they did and such. But I think some people would see a contrast here - perhaps describe it as the "hardcore"? I thought it was notable at the time, because there is no contrast between all our moves discussion and this. It's all the same. There's as much a distinction between hardcore and roleplay as there is a distinction between rollplay and roleplay. That is, no distinction at all. Maybe I'm getting sassy now I've finally got a design where the theory becomes tangible stubstance. But for years now I've read through posts where people see talk of game world stuff as if it's made of some different material than raw bartering, and bloody hell if you try and talk any other way. It's the same stuff - constructively deny it is during play if you like, but if you really want to talk rpg design, it's all the same cloth. That's my suggestion.

Anyway, damn, I'm kind of too happy with play to think of questions to list here. I'll get around to it shortly.

[Marshall Burns]

There's as much a distinction between hardcore and roleplay as there is a distinction between rollplay and roleplay. That is, no distinction at all. Maybe I'm getting sassy now I've finally got a design where the theory becomes tangible stubstance. But for years now I've read through posts where people see talk of game world stuff as if it's made of some different material than raw bartering, and bloody hell if you try and talk any other way. It's the same stuff - constructively deny it is during play if you like, but if you really want to talk rpg design, it's all the same cloth. That's my suggestion.

I don't have anything to add, or any illuminating questions, but I just wanted to say that I agree entirely with that concept.  If it's play, it's the game.  Whether or not it's the game as designed is irrelevant; it's still the game you're actually playing at the moment.

-Marshall

[David Berg]

The other side of the dynamic is that the other guys monster gets a bonus attack on you too, BUT if you rate the other guys move high, his monster gets a penalty to his attack on you.

Awesome!  That's exactly the kind of addition I was hoping for after your last playtest thread.  Bravo!

I'm curious if repeated play will reveal a simple, optimal strategy for ratings... if so, some complication might be called for.  But I guess you deal with that if and when you get there.

[Callan S.]

I've wondered about a optimal rating. I feel it wont come up. I'll try and articulate why I feel that: Basically to make moves you have to be interested in using your imagination and describing it clearly. Once this interest is raised, it'll be listening when someone else makes their move and the part of you that has that interest will urge a rating of it's own. It's entirely possible to resist that urge, but that'd involve ignoring something about the game that your interested in. That might make sense if some amount of money were on the line. But as it is, it's just interupting your own entertainment - making the game less fun, in order to win...a less fun game. Doesn't quite work out as a leasure activity.

Though I was looking up guides on the online game 'Gunz' recently...this is kinda funny yet on topic

Korean Style
K-Style - The Ninja

Words cannot describe the power of a true K-style player, it's a thing of beauty, even though it morbidly exploits the flaws of the game...since I can't describe it I'll just show you this link:

I like how he uses the word 'morbid'. In terms of my game, although improvement is good, at an even larger social level (even beyond the level of stuff like deciding who gets the pizza), you do activities you enjoy. Not enjoying half an activity in order to win at it just doesn't fit that idea.

Heheh, thing of beauty...morbidly exploits..., heh...!

Anyway, I had a question about making the mechanics clearer. I'll explain the mechanic - when you rate the other players move, for every 10 TAC damage you rate his move at, his monster suffers a -2 penalty to hit you with its bonus attack.

Okay, my son couldn't wrap his head around that description. I'd like him to understand the dynamic in place. Any suggestions on making the format more understandable?

[Ron Edwards]

Can you make a copy of the current version available, Callan? I love monster-fights but can never get into the hex-map logistics of most applications.

Best, Ron

[Callan S.]

Yeah, it deserved a better write up than the scrap of inky paper I had it on. Written it up now, and the good people of the the forge can PM me for a copy if you want to read it or playtest (I've banged off a copy to you now, Ron). Interest appreciated! I'd prefer to PM to pass it around - I'm offering it to a real person that way, while if I post it here google makes it available to folks no matter how they wish to act.

[Vulpinoid]

That 10 damage equating to a -2 penalty now explains a whole heap..I must have missed that earlier.

Though one other question...do all of the damage rating come to descriptions of 10 point increments.

If not, why not drop the scale of all the damage factors?

Just to keep the numbers manageable for small kids...

V