[FH8] Bronze Age Lizardfolk and the Gods of the Dream World.

[Eric Provost]

Gaw.

Did it really take us 2.5 hours for just those three conflicts?  It sure as hell didn't feel like it from my point of view.  Maybe that's because I was the PI and was involved in every conflict.  But it just seemed to fly by for me.  Let's intentionally chart the time for some of our next conflicts, shall we?  Maybe the SD or someone else who happens to be sitting out of a scene would take those notes.

Bidding in the inital Setting Creation...  I've got an idea for a version that will likely feel kinder and gentler.  But I object to the idea that a system, such as I understand PTA has, where the setting suggestions are freeform is kinder and gentler than FH8.  If a person can win the conflict through force of personality while the quieter people get their ideas run over I don't find that to be kinder.  YMMV.

I'm also looking forward to seeing how the system handles more than two players in a conflict and how things work out when a player has both a character in the conflict and is the SD.  But then, would you imagine that the Conflict + Setting Director thing might become a problem?  The classic GM does it all the time.

As for Jason being unsteady with the math... I'm looking forward to seeing if he gets any more comfortable with it later on.  Perhaps I should have printed those charts on the character sheet.  I'd like to hear from Nik and Lisa on the subject of the math and handling time.  

In fact;
To Nik, Lisa, and Jason,
Apart from how much time actually passed during a conflict, did the conflicts feel drawn out, slow, or bumpy in any way?  I'm concerned with how it felt at the time and how you feel about them now, in retrospect.

There were a few things I pushed on past during the game last night in an effort to get to all the Preludes and a few things we missed by not moving onto an Episode.  The Preludes have a few rules that differ from the usual scene-to-scene rules of the Episodes.  Like Scene Framing is half-handled already.  There was no real opportunity for the players to discuss what scene might come next as we knew we had three Preludes to get through first.

As for the "Fantasy" aspects of FH8.  Heh.  I'm pleading the fifth on that until I come up with a better answer than the one I had last night.  *L*

-Eric

p.s.  What's up with the marsupial vengance?  Dang!  :D

[Paideuma]

To Nik, Lisa, and Jason,
Apart from how much time actually passed during a conflict, did the conflicts feel drawn out, slow, or bumpy in any way?  I'm concerned with how it felt at the time and how you feel about them now, in retrospect.

No.  Aside from having brain freeze which eventually lead to me losing my conflict, it was not abnormally drawn out, slow or bumpy.  I will admit that using cards instead of dice took a bit of a brain leap, but numbers come easily to me so it wasn't a problem.  That being said, I can only speak for myself.

Surprisingly, I found I preferred the pacing and timing of the 7-10 round set conflict resolution system of FH8 as opposed to the open-ended pacing and timing of DitV's conflict resolution system.  Chalk it up to my cubical mentality, I guess.  There seemed to be added suspense by knowing pretty close when the end would be.  Like a poker hand, you know you have to win with only so many moves.  One trait it has in common with DitV is the choice to stay in a conflict after it's clear you've lost (or are going to lose) for the express purpose of causing pain to the opposing party.  (In FH8 it's possible to predict your winning or loosing the conflict as soon as round 4.)  Finally, I adore FH8's ability to win an individual round *and* receive "pain" (or fallout).

-Nik

[Eric Provost]

In a game itching to quantify everything, the PI still has wide metagame latitude - just a note.  If you are going for an "among equals" vibe by controlling PI currency acquisition, it did not feel that way to me. 

I saved that bit for this post because I wanted to consider it a little bit.

I think that the "among equals" thing might show up later.  I was working with the assumption that most conflicts are going to invlolve the PI and two or more other players.  With the way the tokens-to-victory system works, more people on one side means more likely to win the conflict for that side.  As players team up and more Twinings are activated (giving the PI more power) we'll see how the balance of power goes.

But my goal?  No, I think my only goal for the currency of the PI was to allow the PI to go as hog wild on a conflict as he'd like and still not be dominating the game.  It was inspired by one of our most recent sessions of DitV where I had an entire mob of townsfolk on the side of the Singers against the Dogs.  And I wondered to myself;  If each NPC in a group past the initial stats are worth 1d6 each, then what's a third of a town in anger against the Dogs look like?  I went with 5d6 cuz it felt right.  But then I was in that bog o' responsibility again.  A shallower version of the same bog that got me down playing D&D.  If I lost the conflict then I'd wonder if 5d6 wasn't enough to make it properly exciting.  If I won the conflict I'd wonder if I was too harsh on the PCs. 

So, my reasoning was, by making sure that the PI has to earn any method of... 'boosting' the conflict, I felt that the GM could push things just as far as the system would allow and still avoid that bog of uncertainty.

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

Hey Eric,

A re-reading of the rules made the PI power differential thing much clearer.

As for drawn out, bumpy, etc, I have to disagree with Nik.  I thought the conflicts took too long, although they were compelling.  Maybe just a "new system" issue that will go away as familiarity increases.  I like the fact that they were finite, but felt the range of options was limited.  You *must* win 4 of the seven, if you are to get your way in the conflict.  So at a certain point it is a choice between giving or taking whatever damage is necessary, with nothing in between.  That's how it felt.

--Jason

[xenopulse]

I thought there was a "It ain't over till it's over" rule for winning even when the other side has won 6 turns already...

[Jason Morningstar]

There is, but it never came into play.  Nobodyhad to try it, but the odds of it making a difference seem exceedingly small.

[Eric Provost]

Nobodyhad to try it, but the odds of it making a difference seem exceedingly small.

I'm gonna conspire to make you eat those words, Jason.  :D

So at a certain point it is a choice between giving or taking whatever damage is necessary, with nothing in between.  That's how it felt.

Then... the system did just what I intended it to do.  If you don't draw the cards necessary to win it hands-down, then it's supposed to be about how much sacrifice you're willing to go though to get the stakes.

I thought the conflicts took too long, although they were compelling.

I'm getting unclear signals here.  Did it feel too long?  Did you, while playing, feel like things were dragging out?  Or was it simply a matter of looking at the clock and making the observation that the resolution of the conflict took longer than you felt was necessary?

-Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

I thought that the actual time it took, on the clock, to get from "what's at stake?" to a resolution was too long.  As I mentioned, this may just be an issue of unfamiliarity, but I wanted it to go faster and feel more organic.  Maybe there is more strategizing/navel-gazing opportunity with cards and combinations of cards?  Not sure.