TSOY owners' survey

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Hi, all. Between my recent awesome play of The Shadow of Yesterday and some awesome discussion in the forum, my interest in TSOY has been re-sparked to a great degree. I've been writing a revision in my spare time, and it's garnered some fairly large changes.

Anyway, if you own TSOY and can spare five minutes, I've made a survey about the current version of the game and the revision. Please feel free to take it, and forward it on to TSOY players/owners you know that don't read The Forge. Thanks!

TSOY Owners' Survey

[dyjoots]

I'm on it!










post-survey:

Ah, a lot of things hinted at, and a move towards Fudge implied... interesting.  Are you going to be talking about the revisions much?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ah, a lot of things hinted at, and a move towards Fudge implied... interesting.  Are you going to be talking about the revisions much?

Yep. I'm hoping - really hoping - to have "The Solar System," my system/no-setting document in first-draft by the end of the July 4th weekend. At that time, I'll talk a lot more, once I have something to show off.

And I've always wanted to do a Fudge-based game that didn't blow weasels. I'll go ahead and say that the new TSOY won't be Fudge, but it might look like it from a distance.

[Per Fischer]

Survey done!

Will the revised TSOY still be Creative Commons license?

Per

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Survey done!

Will the revised TSOY still be Creative Commons license?

Per

It most certainly will be, yes.

[joshua neff]

Survey says...at least in theory (having not played the revised rules) I would prefer the current version to the Fudgier version. I pretty much like the game as it is, and the rules changes mentioned in the survey don't really excite me all that much. I think I'd stick with TSOY 1.0 and run that.

[Alan]

I'm with Josh.  I'd keep the current rules, with only the BDTP modifications.

[joshua neff]

Of course, there's no reason why it has to be one or the other. Clinton, you seem pretty excited about the changes, so there's no reason why you shouldn't bundle together the changes with new art and sell it as a PDF and bound book. But I also don't see why the changes would have to be "The Shadow of Yesterday, Upgrade" instead of "The Shadow of Yesterday (Acid Remix)." It's like jazz--two different versions of the same song, and you can dig one or the other or both.

Personally, I've been getting pretty psyched about running TSOY, but that's based on rereading the current book and really digging on it. I've only actually played one session, but I had a really good time with it, and I rather liked the mechanics as is.

But one book doesn't negate the other--thinking it does is old-school gamerthink. Pshaw to that.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Josh and Alan,

Have either of you played it? Even more relevant, what about running it?

I think taking a few months off from running or playing it did me good - before, I had my platonic ideal of the game in my head and so it ran like a charm. Six months later, I go back to run it again, and, man - it's a wee bit clunky. Making NPCs on the fly is a huge pain - and doesn't have to be.

There's basically a lot of stuff - let's say, for example, the 1-10 ability scale and ability groupings - that are their solely because I thought they were clever or nifty. They don't add to the game. Therefore, I want to remove them post-haste.

Seriously, I'm looking for good or bad examples from play. I'm totally interested in hearing that. But that's why I made this an anonymous survey - so nothing got personal.

(Written before Josh posted. Your notes, Josh, are very good. I have been thinking strongly about supporting the old rules - the changes aren't dramatic enough that I can't.)

[joshua neff]

Asking about actual play is a damn good question, Clinton.

I haven't run it, although I've been talking it up to my new (old) gaming group in KC. I would really, really like to run it.

I played one session, which obviously isn't enough to really let me say one way or the other. At the time, we all sort of felt that PCs tended to get fairly mediocre results most of the time, until we started getting more advances. But I don't see, right now, how the new mechanics would change that. If they would, explain it to me (because, admittedly, I don't really "get" mechanics just by reading them, most of the time--I generally need to play them or see descriptions of actual play to appreciate them).

I think part of my lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact that I have played some Fudge-based games, and I didn't really like the Fudge dice and the way they interacted with the levels. Part of it may be an aesthetics thing (preferring the look and feel of d6 to Fudge dice), but aesthetics is part of what gets me enthusiastic about a game, so that's not an unimportant factor for me. I really, really like the aesthetics of the current print version--the art, the layout, the writing style, and the mechanics-as-written.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I played one session, which obviously isn't enough to really let me say one way or the other. At the time, we all sort of felt that PCs tended to get fairly mediocre results most of the time, until we started getting more advances. But I don't see, right now, how the new mechanics would change that. If they would, explain it to me (because, admittedly, I don't really "get" mechanics just by reading them, most of the time--I generally need to play them or see descriptions of actual play to appreciate them).

You would start quite a bit better. Most characters would start with the equivalent of five in one ability, and three in three others, as well as one in six others. (The new character creation's written, as you can see.) With a smaller scale, it's not too complicated or prohibitive to make advancement costs exponential. Before, I didn't because I kept getting snagged in doing so, and therefore I made beginning characters weak. It was kind of a cop-out.

I think part of my lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact that I have played some Fudge-based games, and I didn't really like the Fudge dice and the way they interacted with the levels. Part of it may be an aesthetics thing (preferring the look and feel of d6 to Fudge dice), but aesthetics is part of what gets me enthusiastic about a game, so that's not an unimportant factor for me. I really, really like the aesthetics of the current print version--the art, the layout, the writing style, and the mechanics-as-written.

I know - the aesthetics will change some. A non-gamer friend of mine who helped me make the game - so he's familiar with it - and I talked over the revisions Monday. My big deal was that I can't conceptualize a character with a 4 in Scrapping. I can, however, conceptualize a Greenhorn in Scrapping. He felt the exact opposite, but he's very, very left brain and I'm very, very right brain. (Do I have those right? Basically, he and I were the coding team at my workplace. He's the engineer and I'm the hacker. He's the numbers guy and I'm the creative guy. He develops, I design. You get it.)

So, yeah, I'm making the aesthetics suit me more. But, following the Axiom of Awesome Games, that'll make it even better, I think.

This all happened, by the way, because of two things: (1) BDTP needed revising, and (2) I was trying to make an NPC quickly and thought "what the fuck does she have in Scrapping? What is a 4? She's OK at it..." and then I figured out what I had to do.

[dyjoots]

Making NPCs on the fly is a huge pain - and doesn't have to be.

You know, that's my only real complaint with the system.  There are, what, three different ways to make NPCs?  And each of them is more complicated that I can manage on the fly.

If you have to make changes, that's definitely one to make.

As for the rest of the stuff that you've mentioned changing, it's not all that important.  When I first read the game, the things that stood out to me were BDTP and Keys.  To me, the conflict resolution mechanics (but not the specific dice mechanic) and the advancement mechanics are the coolest parts.

[James_Nostack]

Clinton, I ran two TSOY sessions around New Year's, I've been a player on-line for maybe 6 sessions now, and I've spent a fair bit of time designing cultures for it & stuff.

IMO the game works pretty well as-is.  I think any modifications you wanna make, should be made with the target audience in mind, which will help you identify what's really a problem, and what isn't.  I come from a traditional gaming background, and TSOY chargen is already loads easier than just about any version of D&D I've ever seen.  The only time consuming part is calculating advances, so if you have template-blocks for that, it would simplify things.

BDTP should resolve faster.  

There should be more GM'ing advice, particularly:

* distinctions between conflict and task resolution, if that matters to TSOY--with examples of how it's used

* examples on how to use stuff effectively for the desired playstyle.  Obviously if someone has two keys, an SG ought to design scenes that put those keys in conflict.

* advice on how to create new species or cultures

[Alan]

Hi Clinton,

Wil ran a game of TSOY a while back and I enjoyed playing.  BDTP was the only weakness we found.

However, I'm all in favor of game designs that make easy NPC creation on the fly.  So maybe I might accept some changes in the interests of that.

Maybe Wil can comment further.

[Jeffrey Straszheim]

I'd be happy to see the ability range change, and scrapping ability groupings is a great idea, but please, please, please, no Fudge dice.  There just has to be a way to stick with standard dice.