Seven Leagues (a fantasy RPG of Faerie) reawakens (split)

[hieronymous]

so after a long hiatus (part but not all of which was spent in a private group) i think i'm ready to move forward. the latest (or close to the latest) version of Seven Leagues is here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/7leagues.pdf

the file is landscape format, 9" x 6". i've severely downsampled the images for downloading (it's 2.3 MB or so), so be warned: the art is VERY blurry. but the text should be quite clear and readable. i've already noted a few typos, so i know it needs a round or two of proofreading.

as always, comments eagerly awaited.

AND i am working on an alternate Conflict system, one that is a bit more abstract, more dice-y (and maybe dicey), and perhaps more "game-like". will post a skeleton of that soon ...

[Eric Provost]

Hiya heironymous,

I haven't had a chance to read throught the text of your game yet but I have taken a quick peek at it and think it really looks fantastic.  I've downloaded it and expect to give it a read when time permits.  At the very least; excellent presentation.

-Eric

btw; What's your name? 

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The above posts were split from [Seven Leagues (a fantasy RPG of Faerie)] Please comment.

The discussion may continue here.

Please do not resurrect older threads, and when replying to what appears to be a sudden large thread, read the entire thing and check the dates. Don't figure that "Ron will just split it," wait until I do.

Best,
Ron

[Eric Provost]

Doh!  I just saw that there was a link to the game text and clicked.  Heh.  Whoops.

Shame on me!

-Eric

[hieronymous]

Sorry for the bad etiquette and not starting a new thread, Ron. Thanks for taking care of it!

[hieronymous]

in my playtests of 7L, i've found that Conflict (ie, combat) has sometimes been almost too unstructured. players who aren't in the mood, or not firing on all cylinders, or have a weak or inappropriate (to the current scene) character concept just flounder sometimes -- and i'd like everyone to have fun all the time. so i've been thinking about an alternate to Conflict resolution as currently formulated. check this out:

CONFLICT and VALOR
--make a Courage roll (Heart Roll 13); high roll starts the Narration and gets a +1 to a single Valor roll (see below) if that roll is 13+
--create a continuous narration that links one Head action, one Heart action, and one Hand action, in any order. we'll call these Valors for now
--record the order of your Valors (number them in pencil in a conveniently-placed box to be added to the already-sexy character sheet, something), ie, Heart Hand Head, or some such
--each character rolls three d6 (sacrilege!!), one for each Valor, adding each roll to the respective Virtue (ie, beginning characters will get rolls ranging from 2 (for d6 roll of 1 plus a Virtue score of 1) to 13 (Virtue 7 plus roll of 6), thus preserving the magic 13). if you won teh Courage roll with a 13+, don't forget to add +1 to one of your Valors (your choice). when you use a Charm with one (or more) of your Valors, roll a d12 instead of a d6 for that Valor. if a Keyword is used in a Valor, take a +1 bonus.
--compare your three Valors (Virtue plus die result) to your opponent's, IN ORDER. the higher respective Valor wins. eg: you roll 7, 4, 11; she rolls 3, 5, 12. she wins (even though incidentally yours has the higher sum).
--a 13 or higher is a "critical" (see below).
--best of three Valors "wins" the Conflict

DEFEAT
--the Defeated character is incapacitated through the end of the current scene, as per the current Defeat rules
--IN ADDITION, the Defeated character TEMPORARILY loses 1 Virtue score for each lost Valor, unless the opponent made a critical Valor roll, in which case the loss is 2 Virtue per critical. in the above example, the Defeated would lose 2 Virtues (one point from each of the ones associated with the 7 and 4 rolls, respectively). yes, i know: i've just introduced hit points into Seven Leagues. i am now a Very Wicked Person.
--temporarily Diminished scores are raised to their FULL value at the start of the next Tale (that is, they are lowered throughout the rest of the current Tale).
--when a Virtue drops to 1 you lose a Charm of your choice (permanently until regained via a quest, as per the normal rules). when a Virtue drops to 0 you are written out of the Tale. come back to play next Tale. you still only die when narratively suitable. in fact, ONLY the Player (NOT the Narrator) can kill her own Protagonist. no PK (player kill). sorry if that's what you want go play Halo.

MELEE
--when characters band together in a Conflict, they still make three Valor rolls (again, one Head, one Heart, one Hand, in any order), but as a group.
--each character must contribute at least ONE Valor
--the allies decide who will contribute what Virtue in what order. obviously, narrate a sequence where each character plays to her strengths. have the smart one scout; have the strong one hit, etc. but the narration can have only one Head, one Heart, and one Hand Valor.
--losses are borne by the group (everybody on one side is incapacitated if Defeated, everyone on a defeated side loses a Virtue per lost Valor roll, even if that Virtue wasn't in play for that particular character.

Creakbone (Hd 2 Ht 4 Hnd 7) and Sheshoya (Hd 4 Ht 7 Hnd 2) encountered Mother Winter (Hd 5 Ht 3 Hnd 6). It had already gotten very cold; Sheshoya's butterflies were curling and shriveling at an alarming rate, and something in Creakbone's sap told him his old nemesis was nearby. As battle was joined, Both sides made a Courage roll; Mother rolled a 3 on a d12 for a total of 6; the Players decide between them that Sheshoya would make the roll. Whispering to her friend to take heart and gird himself for battle, she rolled a 6 (plus her 7 Heart) for a 13. The Protagonists will get a +1 Courage bonus to be applied to any single Valor.

The lepidopteral nymph glided virtually invisibly ahead (using two Charms), materializing behind the ice crone to distract her away from Creakbone, then calling forth a bloom a flowers (Keyword) underfoot, challenging Mother Winter to match element for element, and spoke in her sibilant tones, "Seek another path, wintry one, for these fields are mine and my attendants." Meanwhile, Creakbone strode forward from a stand of trees to grasp Mother Winter and fling her far from them (using his giant strength Charm). The Valors are thus: Head (Sheshoya) for flying invisibly. Heart (Sheshoya) for her challenge, and Hand (Creakbone) for the flinging. They also decide to apply their Courage bonus to Creakbone's attack.

Mother Winter, for her part, looked to the thin powdering of snow (Keyword) that coated the ground everywhere she went and saw in it telltale, secret signs of Sheshoya and Creakbone (Head). She summoned a strong winter gale to shudder the flimsy nymph (Heart)  and called forth a palisade of huge, jagged icicles to pierce the tree giant in his attack (Hand).

The Protagonists now roll their Valors: 6 on a d12 plus Sheshoya's Head of 4 for 10; 5 on a d6 plus Sheshoya's 7 Heart plus her Keyword for +1 for 13 (a critical!); and a 3 on a d12 (he used his strength of a giant Charm) plus Creakbone's 7 Hand plus the Courage bonus roll +1, for 11.

Mother Winter's Valors are: Head roll of 8 on a d12 (she has a snow Charm which reveals secrets to her), +1 for her Keyword, plus her 5 Head for 14 (critical!); 5 on a d12 (presumably she has a wind blast Charm) plus her 3 Heart is only 8;  and finally a 6 on her final d6 roll (she doesn't actually have a Charm of "pointy icicle spears", but they easily fall within the purview of her Aspect of Queen of Winter, so they are allowable, but she rolls a d6 for this Valor instead of a d12), plus her 6 Hand for 12.

With Valors of 14, 8 and 12 Mother Winter Defeats Sheshoya and Creakbone, who have 10, 13, and 11. The Protagonists EACH lose 2 Head (due to Mother Winter's critical) and 1 Hand for the rest of the current Tale. Sheshoya's Hand is now only 1, and she elects to lose her invisibility (her butterflies and moths can no longer realign to camouflage her. Worse yet, Creakbone's Head drops to 0; he is speared and transfixed by the ice spears, freezing his sap and sending him into a deep wintry sleep. Mother Winter snaps off a branch of the great tree as a keepsake (or worse) and goes about her nefarious way, as Sheshoya flitters about poor Creakbone, herself grievously wounded.

note that it just so happened that both sides went in the the order: Head, Heart, Hand, but is needn't have been so. either side could have set out their Valors in any order.

is all that clear? does it place too much emphasis on random die rolls? does it kill the narrative aspect of the game? is the concept sound but the exact mechanical implication are "broken"? is it fun?

i realize that the above proposal is more traditional (if streamlined) RPG fare. but give it a whirl, try it out, then let me know what you get.

thanks!

[Green]

I really like Seven Leagues!  I'd love to playtest it sometime.

If there is a criticism of this game, it's that you initially spend a lot of time saying things about how Seven Leagues differs from other RPGs.  I'm more interested in Seven Leagues by itself.  In addition, if you could add a bit about Narrating Seven Leagues, it would be great.

I have a question for you, though: Are you planning to have other developments for Seven Leagues, or will this be a standalone?

[hieronymous]

I have a question for you, though: Are you planning to have other developments for Seven Leagues, or will this be a standalone?

Thank you for taking the time to check the game out and comment. I'll review my intro; maybe there's some material that can be pared out there.

I don't have any concrete plans for Seven Leagues supplements (or alternative genre source material); I fully intend for this to be a viable game as a standalone. Secretly, I feel Seven Leagues might be well suited to a supers adaptation (Super Leagues?), but that's frankly more of a notion than a plan.

[Green]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of different variations of fairy tales.  Perhaps separate supplements for different fairy tale traditions.  Russian fairy tales, for instance, are quite different from African ones.  However, Seven Leagues is marvellous as a standalone.  I'm really looking forward to playtesting it because it's the only fairy tale game that I think really gets it right.  It has a great balance of structure and mutability that I think is key for creatures and stories of this type.

As a fellow game designer, I'm really interested in understanding your design goals and how you came up with the system to fulfill those goals.  I'm also interested in the particular dilemmas you faced when designing Seven Leagues.

[hieronymous]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of different variations of fairy tales.

There's a section in Part Two on Provinces where I outline seven Seven Leagues-appropriate regions. Is that along the lines of what you have in mind?

[Green]

There's a section in Part Two on Provinces where I outline seven Seven Leagues-appropriate regions. Is that along the lines of what you have in mind?

I'll have to read it again to be sure.

[hieronymous]

As a fellow game designer, I'm really interested in understanding your design goals and how you came up with the system to fulfill those goals.  I'm also interested in the particular dilemmas you faced when designing Seven Leagues.

My goals were (in this order):
1. To write an RPG whose rules were easily assimilated and didn't have a large footprint. I didn't want a rule system where making a character or playing the game was like doing your taxes. I especially wanted the game mechanics to be approachable to non-gamers or new gamers.
2. To have a fundamental game mechanic that encouraged narration and storytelling, rather than rulesmanship.
3. To try to capture the flavor and mood of fairy tales while still allowing for a deeper level of complexity when warranted. Interestingly, as crucial to the foundations of RPGs as fairy tales are, there are few games that deal with the (classic) version of the genre.
4. For players to be able to play the character they wanted within the genre, from the start (as opposed to having to progress towards an ideal character).

Deciding on a core mechanic ("roll 13" in my case) was the first dilemna, but not that hard. A linear progression was simpler, obviously, but at the same time I didn't want it to be too simple. The solution there (for now anyway) was to devise numerical ranges where narrative modifiers ended up being potentially more significant than how high the stat was or even how well one rolled.

Character generation rules basically all hang on the Aspect; coming up with that led me to purely descriptive Charms and Taboos. And it's amazing how deciding from the onset that I wanted to limit the length of the rules made a lot of decisions for me. For example, I knew that I didn't want to come up with an exhaustive list of possible Charms. In the first place, I was sure I'd miss some; secondly, I couldn't be certain that I wouldn't create some unbalancing, much less that players I had never met wouldn't do so.

So from the start I decide to throw out any notion of game balance out the window. Let players have pretty much any Charm they wanted. Interestingly enough, game balance snuck back in the game anyway. Here's how. Success is determined by:

Virtue score + d12 roll (a linear roll) + a potentially open-ended series of narrative Embellishment bonuses

Note there's no place in the above formulation for a Charm's "power" (other than arguably the Virtue score). Furthermore, with Virtues initially ranging from 1 to 7, and a single Narrative bonus being potentially as high as +3, a character with a few great Embellishments will do better than one with poor Embelishments and a high score. So the dirty little secret in Seven Leagues is that Charms don't really matter all that much: the real purpose of a Charm is to give the player some juice for her narrations, a toehold for telling a story or recounting an event. It is not, in and of itself, of much intrinsic value.

Which leads me back to my fourth goal: once Charms are given their full narrative potential but cease to be wrecking balls, then I don't have to be parsimonious with them. Have two, three, even six from the start—you won't kill the game. In fact, you'll make it better. Making players buy more Charms with Taboos is not even a game balance mechanic, it's really just to encourage people to have Taboos because they make interesting characters and stories.

There are, of course, unintended consequences. For example, I find that Seven Leagues plays best with MORE players, as good action descriptions tend to feed off of each other. I like it with about 5 or 6 players, and the games don't get bogged at all.

[hieronymous]

My friend T.L. has responded off-line and asked me to post his remarks (I hope this isn't a netiquette or Forge protocol breach; if so, please accept my profuse apologies in advance). He writes:

Hi everyone.

Of course, the more narrative you get, the more the game's success depends on player commitment (which can be jeopardised by fatigue, personal issues, temporary lack of inspiration, etc.)

I like the idea of linking mechanics & narration together. I'm wary of using character stats mechanically, though. That a balanced character relies on Hand, head & heart is probably true (an interesting outlook on character building anyway) ; that all conflicts call to those 3 aspects in equal parts is quite a bold statement. I fear that, for instance, some players will have several head ideas they must cull till only one remains, and only lame, forced heart ideas they must live with anyway. BTW, you may have more than 3 actions you'd like to figure in.

And as the 3 actions are supposed to be sequential, what happens to action #3 when action #2 is thwarted ? Except that you're "defeated", what does it mean from a spectator's pow that this action was thwarted by that, this valor by that ? S/body listening to the game should be able to picture the fight in their head. If what they hear is people shouting intentions at each other that
have no feedback loop to each other, then dice rolling and an arbitrary figures-based verdict beng pronounced, I can see their mind's eye having a hard time figuring anything ;o)

For instance in the example, Sheshoya's critical (and winning 13 to 8) challenge is of no consequence whatsoever. What happened in fact ? Was she blown away before she could even voice it ? Did Mother's wind drown her voice ? If a die roll doesn't help you visualise what happens, it's a mechanical roll of little RPing value.

Beware the dread boardgame syndrom : a nice, elegant, thorough, balanced way of computing the figures on the character sheet doesn't assuredly make for a great RPing system element (qv our private discussion about RPGs having no rules, just systems).

Now to be more constructive, what counter-proposition can I make ? Obviously you've ditched the 3-step conflict (pity). Yet you stick to the magic figure 3. Let's see :

- each contestant Roll13s their Heart ; they go in this order during the fight (higher heart, then higher Renown breaks ties) ; anyone achieving 13+ has an Edge ;
- each contestant describes an action and rolls the corresponding Virtue (according to the GM ; the player may suggest). They can figure their edge in if they can explain what it is narratively ; it gives them +1 to that roll ; failed 13 fails ; succesful 13 countered by another contestant's action with a higher roll is thwarted ; succesful uncountered 13 succeeds (at whatever the described action aimed for) ;
- repeat twice ; anyone having succeeded at more uncountered actions than their opponents beat them (3 to 2, 1 or 0, 2 to 1 or 0, 1 to 0). This is in keeping with the "ties are common" principle ;
- please note that as you have at most one edge, you may want to keep it for your next roll, but if you can't find a use for it till the end it's wasted ; - please note as well that though you still do only 3 actions (still a bit mechanical, so we can keep rolling till s/one has 3 uncountered successes more than their opponent or gives up, but this will make for looong fights), the attribution of Virtues is a matter of circumstancial choice ; also, you only describe further actions when you know how the 1st one went ; - of course Charms & Taboos will enable (prevent for Taboos) you to do more things with the same roll (say, fly, mesmerise, see invisible things...) and keywords will enable you to include convenient elements (weather conditions, handy items, helpful persons...) ;
- this needn't change when you deal with mass conflicts (not duels) ; in fact, several people can fight each on their own side against all the rest. Only everyone rolls for themselves 3 times. They can even direct their actions at a different opponent each roll. This also prevents me from losing a hand just because one of my allies just got his cut off ;o)

I wouldn't temper with the consequences of defeat as they are, only that the narrative elements leading to defeat will of course help define the consequences (defeated by fire : gain Taboo pyrophobia ; defeated by punching your brains out : lose a Head point).

Well, this is a very rough 1st draft so don't hesitate to comment & react.

[hieronymous]

I like the idea of linking mechanics & narration together. I'm wary of using character stats mechanically, though. That a balanced character relies on Hand, head & heart is probably true (an interesting outlook on character building anyway) ; that all conflicts call to those 3 aspects in equal parts is quite a bold statement. I fear that, for instance, some players will have several head ideas they must cull till only one remains, and only lame, forced heart ideas they must live with anyway. BTW, you may have more than 3 actions you'd like to figure in.

And as the 3 actions are supposed to be sequential, what happens to action #3 when action #2 is thwarted ? Except that you're "defeated", what does it mean from a spectator's P.O.V. that this action was thwarted by that, this valor by that ? S/body listening to the game should be able to picture the fight in their head. If what they hear is people shouting intentions at each other that
have no feedback loop to each other, then dice rolling and an arbitrary figures-based verdict being pronounced, I can see their mind's eye having a hard time figuring anything ;o)

I'm not sure that's true, actually. In fact, given the genre, a certain level of abstraction may not be a bad thing. In the example narrative I provide, for example, the whole has a narrative cohesion, ex post facto. Now, maybe I'm kidding myself given that the example is a fictional account, but it seems to work. Also,

For instance in the example, Sheshoya's critical (and winning 13 to 8) challenge is of no consequence whatsoever. What happened in fact ? Was she blown away before she could even voice it ? Did Mother's wind drown her voice ? If a die roll doesn't help you visualise what happens, it's a mechanical roll of little RPing value.

Does it matter to the final result which of the above options we choose? Could we simply narrate our way through that choice? Could it even be left ambiguous (I am reminded of an issue of Miracleman in which a multitude of religious cults arise simply over the multiple interpretations of the question of exactly how Miracleman and his allies destroyed the evil Kid Miracle (or whatever his name was) as he rampaged throughout London).

And another way to look at it is that the narration and Valor rolls represent intentions, rather than fait accompli. And a single die roll doesn't have to have consequence as a standalone in order to have validity. Look at Rollmaster's open-ended up rolls, or Reve de Dragon's draconic die rolls; each is a string of die rolls to achieve a final result. In the alternate conflict system I am exploring ("proposing" is too definite a word), a single Valor roll is only relevant in the context of the whole Conflict, and I don't have a problem with that.

Beware the dread boardgame syndrome : a nice, elegant, thorough, balanced way of computing the figures on the character sheet doesn't assuredly make for a great RPing system element (qv our private discussion about RPGs having no rules, just systems).

Well, the one thing I lament in this proposal is the loss of the Narrative Bonus (and I should mention it isn't required to go away, as I could find a way to bring it back). The Narrative Bonus does some nice things: serves as the basis for a nifty "experience point" system, for one. And here I am faced with an opposite dilemma: a purely narrated Conflict system is a little too unstructured to feel comfortable. Sometimes it seems the players are grasping for something to do. Now, maybe I need new players (:-o), but I suspect the case is that a few die rolls (and yes even the "artificial" structure of Head Heart Hand Valor rolls (in any order mind you) might provide that wisp of a skeleton on which to hang some good narration. Mind you, a Player could create a lengthy narration in which she has 3 Heart actions, 1 Hand, and 2 Head; but we just roll one Valor for each Virtue.

Now to be more constructive, what counter-proposition can I make ? Obviously you've ditched the 3-step conflict (pity).

I thought I was just recasting it into 3 Valors, rather than a linear, chronological 3 phases.

Yet you stick to the magic figure 3.

Right!

Let's see :

- each contestant Roll13s their Heart ; they go in this order during the fight (higher heart, then higher Renown breaks ties) ; anyone achieving 13+ has an Edge ;
- each contestant describes an action and rolls the corresponding Virtue (according to the GM ; the player may suggest). They can figure their edge in if they can explain what it is narratively ; it gives them +1 to that roll ; failed 13 fails ; successful 13 countered by another contestant's action with a higher roll is thwarted ; successful uncountered 13 succeeds (at whatever the described action aimed for) ;
- repeat twice ; anyone having succeeded at more uncountered actions than their opponents beat them (3 to 2, 1 or 0, 2 to 1 or 0, 1 to 0).

This is in keeping with the "ties are common" principle ;

No, in fact a feature of this system (and mine) is that ties are impossible; someone has to win 2 out of 3. This is in fact a serious flaw that I should retool, as I'd like ties to be possible, even common, as we've discussed in the past.

- please note that as you have at most one edge, you may want to keep it for your next roll, but if you can't find a use for it till the end it's wasted ;
- please note as well that though you still do only 3 actions (still a bit mechanical, so we can keep rolling till s/one has 3 uncountered successes more than their opponent or gives up, but this will make for looong fights), the attribution of Virtues is a matter of circumstantial choice ; also, you only describe further actions when you know how the 1st one went ;

Speaking of mechanical, look at how fairy tales are commonly structured. Baba Yaga chases someone, and first they thrown down a magic comb to create an impenetrable hedge; she gets around that and then her prey throws down a magic mirror, which becomes an impassable lake; etc. I forget the third ingredient in this instance, but it is common for there to be three narrative points before the conflict is resolved. My point is: fairy tales can be somewhat mechanical themselves. The joy is in playing within that structure.

- of course Charms & Taboos will enable (prevent for Taboos) you to do more things with the same roll (say, fly, mesmerise, see invisible things...) and keywords will enable you to include convenient elements (weather conditions, handy items, helpful persons...) ;

Taboos simply prevent certain actions, period. I allow for charms by having Protagonists roll a d12 rather than a d6 when directly using a Charm for making a Valor roll. Keywords give you a +1 bonus. But maybe it should always be a d6, with a Narrative Bonus, thusly;

   -1 to -3   Foolish, insipid, or out of character
   0   Average
   +1   Well delivered or embellished, or uses a Keyword
   +2   Exceptional use of a character trait (uses a Charm) or exploitation of an opponent's weakness (plays off a Taboo)
   +3   The Narrator is completely caught off guard by the originality of the action, and the narration perfectly uses the character's traits, possibly even turning a Taboo to advantage.

In fact that's almost verbatim the current Narrative Bonus table.

- this needn't change when you deal with mass conflicts (not duels) ; in fact, several people can fight each on their own side against all the rest. Only everyone rolls for themselves 3 times. They can even direct their actions at a different opponent each roll.

I'm note quite sure how that one would work; I'll have to think about it.

This also prevents me from losing a hand just because one of my allies just got his cut off ;o)

See, I actually liked that everyone loses the same Virtue. But that's a small point.

I wouldn't temper with the consequences of defeat as they are, only that the narrative elements leading to defeat will of course help define the consequences (defeated by fire : gain Taboo pyrophobia ; defeated by punching your brains out : lose a Head point).

I guess I felt Defeats needed a little more structure, and having a temporary loss of Virtue seemed like a nice way to do that. But Defeats might also have the current consequences as well (loss of a Charm, new Taboo, Curse, etc.)

Thanks for your (as always) thoughtful and thorough comments. I hope the new system (if I end up going that way) isn't a disappointment.

[Bill Masek]

hieronymous,

Congratulations.  Your .pdf is beautiful, your rules are far more clear and you've cleaned up the game significantly.  There were a couple of very gray areas in the last one (such as GM narrative bonus) and you've done a beautiful job of cleaning those up.  Also, the new character advancement rules are golden, I love how you use your narrative bonuses as the currency to improve your character.

That said, in 7 Leagues, your charms are innately balanced.  The more general one is, the more situation its useful in and the more difficult it is to use it creatively.  A very elegant way to balance it.  However, in your character improvement rules you make general charms cost vastly more then specific ones.  Instead of linking the cost to breadth of the charm, consider linking it to how closely it resembles the characters legend, other charms or in game occurrences.

Character death also bothered me a little bit.  Not that your rules for character death are bad, but you make such a strong point regarding immortality of characters, then turn around and make the third tier of most of your disasters (I like the disasters by the way, nice job) death.  There is roughly a 1 in 6 chance in every disaster that the participating characters will die.  This is fairly high.  And all it takes to kill a major character is an appropriate charm.  Again, this will be fairly commen place in truly scary villains like baba yaga.  I recommend reworking the beginning of your rules where you explain how rare character death is in your game.

You have an excalent conflict resolution system.  There are two minor questions I had after reading through it, however.

1:  What is the relationship between aspects and legends in regards to the overture?  To what extent to the aspects and legends need to mesh with the characters goal in order for it to succeed?  What guarantees automatic failure?  You mention this relationship briefly, but it has a lot of depth and deserves to be fleshed out a bit.

2:  In the Finale, who narrates?  The GM?  The victor?  You never actually say.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

You have made definite improvements to this game.  Keep up the good work.

Best,
        Bill