Black Pawn, White Pawn

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, a few comments . . .

Mike has rightly voiced concern that the game is "slipping" into Narrativism. Fair enough, as I can see why he'd say that. Namely, because the game specifically encourages players who enter "Endgame" to take what I call narrative control.

Now, whether what I call narrative control is actually specific Narrative Drift or actually a specific mechanic to facilitate a shift in Stance is something I can't answer because I can't sufficiently explain Stances for my own good. In other words, I can't answer because of my own cofusion over terms.

If it is Narrativist drift, that's fine by me. As I've said, the game is supposed to be subversive in that it encourages "traditional" play, but then "drags" players to a powerful, dramatic moment over which they have control of their own fate. I don't see this as confusing, wrong or bad design. I see it as something that tries to blur the boundary of what people think role-playing is about, what games can do, and hopefully expand their experience of what's possible. (That's a common theme in Dreamspire, by the way -- the blurring of boundaries. It uses stark imagery, the black and white theme as a demonstration that such clear borders aren't so clear after all. Peek behind the curtain and you realize the house you've been fighting for are as corrupt as their enemies. The world is a murky, gray place in the end. Come to terms with that, and you're on your way to Endgame.)

Second, this discussion about ignoring/eliminating character attributes absolutely baffles me. Zak Arntson suggested leaving them out entirely, and Ron has mentioned in another thread (I think) that he sees them and immediately doesn't care/wants to ignore them.
Why? What do I gain by elminating them? In my view (and, granted, my view's much better informed) I lose a lot, and gain maybe some focus of "what players do" in the game (and, again, in my view LOSE some of what players do in the game). What I lose is a deal-breaker -- a game that's off-putting for "traditional" gamers because they see a character sheet and scratch their heads wondering what the deal is with just these Pawns and a Quest paragraph. "Where's the stats? This game sucks ... ooh, neat! A new Deadlands supplment!" ;)

Of course, these Traits aren't just some marketing scheme to get "normal" gamers to buy Dreamspire. Traits -- and Talents -- have a foundational role in the game . . . the simulationist game. Why is it that Forgers have such a hard time addressing simulationist play without implied criticisms, without injecting what are usually Narrativist tools and techniques. Why do I have such a hard time doing the same? I submit that we have an unspoken bias, a communal attitude. Stats+Skills? That's so[i/] 1991. It constantly fascinates me; narrativism play and design seems to have some kind of gravity that tugs on so much of the discussion here on the Forge in such a way that aspects of simulationist play that works for many folks are trodden upon. I do not mean this in an accusatory way; I am genuinely intrigued by my observations regarding this, and part of my effort with these posts and with Dreamspire is to create something that demonstrates the forward-looking value of sim. games.

Traits and Talents are going to be in Dreamspire, so there's really no point in discussion otherwise, though it probably is worth discussion what Traits and Talents are about, what they do, and how I might improve them. That's not to dismiss comments from Zak, Ron, Mike and everyone else. I'm not saying "Fuck off, they're in." I'm saying "What I'm trying to do with the game would suffer without their inclusion." If I've commuincated poorly what the game's about, my apologies. I have, however, made at least a couple comments saying the game's simulationist, and I've read a couple frustrating comments while thinking "Go back and read my posts again."

Trait and Talents do a good job, in my view, of modeling interesting characters in this very specific setting. There, how's that for reeking of Sim., Mike? The attributes are not complicated, nor are the associated Talents. I've done my best to make these very simple. Combat mechanics are not much different from the rest of conflict resolution. There are no "weapon stats." The mechanics of the game -- which I spelled out earlier -- are very simple, and complimentary to what one does in the game. (Talents are really the secret weapon for characters -- they let you really interect with the world, and they're suitably broad so characters may use their Talents in myriad ways to overcome conflict and challenges.)

Rather than shoe-horning this game into what "I wouldn't do if I were you" I'd be much better assisted by, "What do those Traits represent, and how do they compliment what you do in the game?" I really do appreciate everyone's feedback. Really. That's why I post this stuff here. I encourage everyone to go back and read some of my original posts. If my vision of what the game's about and what players do and care about isn't yet clear, I'll be happy to answer that again however I can.

Finally, the metagame mechanics (Quest and Pawns) are obviously crucial, and this thread really is about those. I've been working on a solution to the Pawns mechanics/economy. I'll post it as soon as I get something coherent (it's almost there!).

P.S. Ron has mentioned in the past he thinks the attribute+skill paradigm is flawed. I don't see it that way, though he has a way of convincing folks. A topic for another thread, perhaps, Ron? I'm interested, I'm just not interested in this thread!

[Ron Edwards]

Matt,

Here's the relevant Forge material on the attributes/skills topic:
Attributes and skills, but not both?

You are right that my take on the topic is aligned with Narrativist goals, but you are not correct in thinking that it's a "creeping bias" - I fully acknowledge the concept as being embedded within Narrativist design. In that thread, I allude to some thoughts regarding Simulationism and attributes/skills issues, and I suppose that might make for a good RPG Theory thread one of these days.

(Although in passing, I can also say that I dislike a common mode of posting, which is to say, "Ron, please hold forth on game issue X," and to expect me to leap to it instantly. I'll do it, but it usually takes a while to get a good response composed.)

As for a desire to get good and well-designed innovative Sim games going, I'm all for it. But since you're treading into thematic issues as a focus on play in this game, as Mike H says, you're getting pretty hybridized, perhaps into that "helper" zone that Gareth and I are discussing in the Confused by N & S thread in GNS Discussion.

In that case, my attributes/skills distinction is valid, as an option for the game we're discussing in this thread. Any of my suggestions are only options; I cannot tell you what to do. Please don't write them off as "obvious Narrativist bullying" or "bias," not when your game is so demonstrably a candidate for considering their inclusion.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

What's important to the denizens of the Dreamspire, and why? That's important. For example, perhaps all of the denizens are trapped from outside. This would give them all the potential goal of obtaining whatever they need to escape. For those who are constructs of the Realm, what sort of human needs do they have. Heck, do people need to eat and breathe in Dreamspire? Are their physical forms subject to violence? Can they die from violence?

These are good questions, Mike.

* What's important to Dreamspire's denizens? Often, it's precisely what's important to folks in the real world, but in dreamspire things are more corrupt. So, things like greed, lust, power & dominance. The over-arching value might be escape. By that I mean that people both want to literally get out of the realm and that folks want to escape into whatever they can: their jobs, their guilds, their drugs/hallucinogens, their complicated schemes (as an art itself!), and so on. The latter elements have a more urgent tug and more immediate reward, so folks tend to escape by those means. The bulk of Dreamspire's denizens will never get out of the place because they can't rise above their needs and desires.

* Getting out is a matter of redemption. Dreamspire, while fantastic in in its way delightful, is a kind of hell. The only way out is personal redemption. One cannot accumulate much of anything tangible to get out (though there might be intriguing exceptions to that rule -- for example, an artifact that will get you out, but with a price, of course!).

* Metaphysics: People do indeed eat and sleep -- though they do not dream. They are subject to violence and pain. Typically, this results in them being cast into Check. Should they by "killed" they are in Checkmate (and, in this case, typically dead). Once dead, their spirit remains in the realm UNLESS their Soul Clock is destroyed. You see, the Clockworkers guild have a great clockwork archive. Within is a machine that houses the soul of every denizen.

So, once dead, a person's soul remains in existence, and retains his identity (should someone with a Necromancer Talent try to commune with them). However, since the realm has a finite number of clocks (and only the Guild knows what that number is, much to the kings' dismay), that soul may be "injected" into another inhabitant. The soul's individual identity is wiped clean, but that soul's former role is reoccupied.

Here's what all that goobledigook means. Say the local constable is murdered. His tortured soul might be able to tell some PCs who killed him or give some other clue. But, assuming his Soul Clock remains in the Guild's archive, his role remains (that of constable, in this case). So, when one of the next unlucky bastards to get trapped in Dreamspire comes along, he'll assume the role of constable. Most of the poplulace doesn't miss a beat, and sees that, oh hey, another constable's just appeared -- maybe he came from another burrogh or shuttled in from the Station . . .

In gameworld terms, this is why the Clockworkers are so powerful. The kings have to answer to that, even though they try at every end to get control of that archive or the clocks. Doing so would allow them to either destroy the "other side's" army, or shift the populace in their favor.

In metagame terms, this is how I explain archetypes.

So, characters can die, but their place in Dreamspire's corrupt society is assured. The "energy" of their soul is wiped (hence an ugly oblivion) to empower the next unlucky bastard, and so on. Unless you can escape . . .

As for the in-game currency of Pawns, I'd rather keep things "behind the scenes" in the sense that the chess stuff remains largely metaphorical.

[Lance D. Allen]

Quick Question: So, like, what happens if the clock is destroyed, but the character was still alive? For that matter, what happens if the PC decides to destroy his own clock?

[Matt Snyder]

Quick Question: So, like, what happens if the clock is destroyed, but the character was still alive? For that matter, what happens if the PC decides to destroy his own clock?

The quick answer, then, is that the character is wiped out from the realm. Oblivion. How this happens, then, is left to the players. Players should describe/frame this as the character "winding down" as he fades away or just disappears when no one notices. The character's role is destroyed.

Doing this in actual play is verydifficult for a couple reasons. First, getting to the clocks should be very difficult. Second, players should be able to spend pawns and other metagame mechanics to avoid this destruction.

A character who destroys his own clock would very likely be a character in Endgame in which he's accumulated the fateful number of Black pawns. He could then describe his Quest's failure and ensuing self destruction.

[Mike Holmes]

Now, whether what I call narrative control is actually specific Narrative Drift or actually a specific mechanic to facilitate a shift in Stance is something I can't answer because I can't sufficiently explain Stances for my own good. In other words, I can't answer because of my own cofusion over terms.

If it is Narrativist drift, that's fine by me. As I've said, the game is supposed to be subversive in that it encourages "traditional" play, but then "drags" players to a powerful, dramatic moment over which they have control of their own fate. I don't see this as confusing, wrong or bad design. I see it as something that tries to blur the boundary of what people think role-playing is about, what games can do, and hopefully expand their experience of what's possible. (That's a common theme in Dreamspire, by the way -- the blurring of boundaries. It uses stark imagery, the black and white theme as a demonstration that such clear borders aren't so clear after all. Peek behind the curtain and you realize the house you've been fighting for are as corrupt as their enemies. The world is a murky, gray place in the end. Come to terms with that, and you're on your way to Endgame.)

Drift usually refers to play that shifts mode from that supported by the game as written to some other mode. So it's not appropriate here, FWIW. The term that people have been bandying about (but I'm not sure if it's been through the Jargon Committee, yet ;-) ) is Transition. Your rules seem to be providing a place for a transition from Simulationism to Narrativism. And that's very hip, and cool, right now. I suggested just such a thing not too long ago with a game about playing Sim before death, and then a Narrativist afterlife. And the first game to talk about it  explicitly was, AFAIK, Scattershot. The discussion of Pale Fire's game has gone over this a lot. Your particular application is distinct, however, as it is structural as opposed to open.

Thing is, your Narrativism is backtracking. It's starting to affect the so called Sim Portion of your game. By making central rules that focus on the particular thematic elements, you are making it more Narrativist. Which is fine if that's the way you want to go. But instead, you say you want a Sim beginnig portion. In mixing the two earlier, you may risk presenting conflicting mechanics as far as supported mode. Which may be a problem. You might get some players who are playing in a Sim mode, and others playing in the Narrativist mode, and both bugging the heck out of each other. Just something to watch out for.

If all goes well, the Pawn mechanic could be an excellent Transitional mechanic. Essentially, as you gain Pawns you slip further over to Narrativism. That's great, if it works right. Which is yet to be seen.

Second, this discussion about ignoring/eliminating character attributes absolutely baffles me. Zak Arntson suggested leaving them out entirely, and Ron has mentioned in another thread (I think) that he sees them and immediately doesn't care/wants to ignore them.

Just for the record, I never said such a thing. Clarification below.

Why? What do I gain by elminating them? In my view (and, granted, my view's much better informed) I lose a lot, and gain maybe some focus of "what players do" in the game (and, again, in my view LOSE some of what players do in the game). What I lose is a deal-breaker -- a game that's off-putting for "traditional" gamers because they see a character sheet and scratch their heads wondering what the deal is with just these Pawns and a Quest paragraph. "Where's the stats? This game sucks ... ooh, neat! A new Deadlands supplment!" ;)

What you would gain from losing such stats is further focus. The concept is that normal traits/skills would detract from the focus, which I agree with. Note I have not contradicted myself.

Traits -- and Talents -- have a foundational role in the game . . . the simulationist game. Why is it that Forgers have such a hard time addressing simulationist play without implied criticisms, without injecting what are usually Narrativist tools and techniques.

I am partisan of Simulationist games. The problem here is your assumption that the only way to address a simulation is through a traditional trait/skill system. This is simply not true. Simulationist does not equal traditional.

Why do I have such a hard time doing the same? I submit that we have an unspoken bias, a communal attitude. Stats+Skills? That's so[i/] 1991. It constantly fascinates me; narrativism play and design seems to have some kind of gravity that tugs on so much of the discussion here on the Forge in such a way that aspects of simulationist play that works for many folks are trodden upon.

This contrapositive is also not true. One can make a Narrativist game with fairly standard rules. Take Sorcerer for example. It still has the trinary stat set. Certainly modified, but not unrecognizable.

Let me make an analogy, and a good one. Wargames all used to follow a particular paradigm in creating a simulation of conflict. Each player took a turn moving all his pieces, and then you counted offensive factors against defensive factors, rolled a die and checked a chart to see what happened. People played this way for about a century (the first set of rules introduced into the US was written by HG Wells). Until the nineties. Then all of a sudden people started saying why? Why must it be so? Does this simulate how things work in combat well? Or are we just using it because it's traditional. Suddenly you start to see rules from The Gamers for writing orders for your troops, and the possibility that they are ignored, or countermanded. Even more telling, the I-Move-You-Move thing gets done away with in some games (See Breakout Normandy), in favor of an fog of war initiative system in which you have to prioritize your maneuvers. And to top it all off no CRT!! but other mechanics to adjudicate the results of conflict.

The really odd thing is that some wargamers cannot accept that these are serious wargames. Despite the fact that they produce a more accurate and entertaining simulation of the events (IMO).

Look at it this way. What if you were to make a silly game about simulating conflicts between two chess players. Would you include a combat system? I think that most traditional designers would simply because, "Well, a fight could break out between the contestants, and then we'd need rules to adjudicate it."

All I'm saying is that if you use traditional mechanics, you'll get traditional play. G,S, or N, independent.

Traits and Talents are going to be in Dreamspire, so there's really no point in discussion otherwise, though it probably is worth discussion what Traits and Talents are about, what they do, and how I might improve them.

)Snip(

Trait and Talents do a good job, in my view, of modeling interesting characters in this very specific setting. There, how's that for reeking of Sim., Mike?

I agree. My only caveat has been, and will continue to be, that the Character Generation method that produces these, and the selections available to the characters, and the way in which these things will resolve will all either work to create focus or detract from the desired focus. Traditional trait/skill systems have produced effects that would be detrimental to your game, IMO. So you must proceed with care. You say that your system will be careful, but I see some bad signs already...

The attributes are not complicated, nor are the associated Talents. I've done my best to make these very simple.

Complexity is not an issue. I would personally argue for wayyyyy more complex rules. But then that's me. My point is, however, that if the system is focused correctly, that added weight means added benefits. Big if, however.

Combat mechanics are not much different from the rest of conflict resolution. There are no "weapon stats."

I will take it on faith that what you say is true, and that your game may require these rules. But I have to make a comment about the subject. So, my appologies if it is misplaced here. I'll just link to it so as to avoid thread derailure.

>Trigger Mike's Standard Rant #3<
http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19343

The mechanics of the game -- which I spelled out earlier -- are very simple, and complimentary to what one does in the game. (Talents are really the secret weapon for characters -- they let you really interect with the world, and they're suitably broad so characters may use their Talents in myriad ways to overcome conflict and challenges.)

Cool, that sounds like you have some good ideas. When can we see them?

Rather than shoe-horning this game into what "I wouldn't do if I were you" I'd be much better assisted by, "What do those Traits represent, and how do they compliment what you do in the game?"

That's the real question, isn't it? And that's what I've been tring to provoke. The game as I've been reading it seems to be focused on exploring this Grand Game. Well, where are the mechanics for such? Yes, traits/skills is a fine way to address this if you like, how will you slant them towards providing the appropriate focus.

Or will this just be GURPS: Dreamspires?

P.S. Ron has mentioned in the past he thinks the attribute+skill paradigm is flawed. I don't see it that way, though he has a way of convincing folks. A topic for another thread, perhaps, Ron? I'm interested, I'm just not interested in this thread!

I will agree that many handlings of the split are flawed, from a simple mechanical POV. There's a simple mathematical reason why, but almost nobody sees it. All I can say is that you have to be careful. But go with it, and see if you can put it together correctly.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, finally I get around to replying. Sorry for the delay, Mike. Been busy . . . and tired!

Anyway, this is a helpful bit of information, particularly your explanation of Narrative "backtracking" and related comments. You, along with a private message from Ron, have helped me clear up some confusion. I'm pretty confident I'm on the right track, and as rant-y as I sound, I really do appreciate everyone's help in this regard.

I do indeed hope the Pawns mechanic will be a good transition vehicle, and I've been working like crazy to work it out. I'm almost there -- finally decided on how pawns are exchanged, and largely what they're used for. Now all I have to do is finish writing it up!

All I'm saying is that if you use traditional mechanics, you'll get traditional play. G,S, or N, independent.

And all I was saying is that, often, this isn't such a bad thing, particularly for S play. Innovation for the sake of innovation isn't as valuable to me as is innovation for the sake of improvemen, and I think many of us -- certainly myself included -- neglect that observation from time to time. If it ain't broke . . .

Of course, traditional play (whatever the hell that is) does have many broken issues. To which I can already hear a choral "Duh."

So you must proceed with care. You say that your system will be careful, but I see some bad signs already...

Can you specifically identify those signs, Mike? You may have already done so later or prior to this comment, but it'd be nice to have a specific, concise acknowledgement of those.

Cool, that sounds like you have some good ideas. When can we see them?

Soon, Mike, very soon! I'm working on writing up the Pawn mechanics and editing the rules write-up now. I will make it available for download on www.dreamspire.info as an early playtest when it's ready.

The game as I've been reading it seems to be focused on exploring this Grand Game. Well, where are the mechanics for such? Yes, traits/skills is a fine way to address this if you like, how will you slant them towards providing the appropriate focus.

Or will this just be GURPS: Dreamspires?

Good god, GURPS Dreamspire. I shudder to think. Though, it was this close to Dreamspire D20.

As for mechanics for exploring the Graet Game, Pawns, again, will be the means by which players -- including GM -- fuel intrigue and politicking in the game. (Traits & Talents, then become the tools for their behaviors, empowered & bolstered by Pawns) So, Pawns have a dual role -- they are the currency of greed, fear, and power, and players manuever to constantly exchange these (and force other players to do the same . . . nasty). Also, Pawns serve as the tokens to a "narrative plane" by ultimately initiating Endgame.

I will agree that many handlings of the split are flawed, from a simple mechanical POV. There's a simple mathematical reason why, but almost nobody sees it. All I can say is that you have to be careful. But go with it, and see if you can put it together correctly.

Well, here's to hoping I've handled this well, and I actually could use your number-crunching wizardry to analyze the mechanic. As for the mathematical reason, can you explain, taking into account that we journalists usually can't figure out how to split up a lunch tab or tip 15%?!? ;)

[wyrdlyng]

So, when one of the next unlucky bastards to get trapped in Dreamspire comes along, he'll assume the role of constable. Most of the poplulace doesn't miss a beat, and sees that, oh hey, another constable's just appeared -- maybe he came from another burrogh or shuttled in from the Station . . .

I just really like this idea and it fits in so perfectly as it ties into the revolving cast of Number Twos on the Prisoner series. (Hell, one of them was even a woman and no one even blinked twice.)

[Mike Holmes]

As for the mathematical reason, can you explain,

I've done this one in PM so many times, it's time to post it in the open, too.

http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19604

I'd like to see how your system handles it.

Mike

[Zak Arntson]

* What's important to Dreamspire's denizens? Often, it's precisely what's important to folks in the real world, but in dreamspire things are more corrupt. So, things like greed, lust, power & dominance.

You are going with Traits + Talents, which is all good. But I want to see how you implement it. If your PCs are interacting with Dreamspire, what's important to the denizens is important to the PCs. When you're ready to disclose the Trait/Talent system, let me know! Unless you already have and I'm being forgetful (which I am, frequently).

Since you've cemented the Trait + Talent in your design, I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise, and spend my energies working with your design rather than against it. I can imagine a strong Trait + Talent System, as long as it's done "right" (meaning: I like it :)

[Matt Snyder]

An explanation of Dreamspire's Traits and Talents:

Characters have five defining traits. They are: Wits; Charm; Passion; Prowess and Vigor.

Character also have 8 (or more) Talents. These are broad descriptors that 1) Define part of who a character is and 2) indicating his relative ability at a fairly broad range of skills, abilities and even magic.

So, for example, the game's featured "Rook" archetype character example has the following Traits and Talents:

TRAITS
Wits: 3
Prowess: 1
Passion: 2
Charm: 1
Vigor: 2

He's a clever, resourceful and alert fellow, as indicated by his Wits score. His prowess score makes him not too nimble, nor particularly good in physical confrontations. He is Passionate, which indicates his strong willpower, dedication and general verve. His charm indicates he's poor in social situations, while his vigor indicates moderate health and stamina, as well as brawn.

TALENTS
Spy: d8
Delver: d12
Sneak: d10
Guide: d4
Locksmith: d6
Knife-fighter: d8
Skeptic: d6
Climber: d4

We can see here that the Rook is a utility character -- someone who can move around the realm and get the job done, so to speak. He has a number of very useful Talents that cover a reasonably broad range of skills and abilites, but he isn't a particularly good warrior or diplomat, say.

Let's take an example: Our Rook is spelunkering about in the subterranean Labyrinth and comes to a near dead end -- a steep wall (funny, it wasn't there before was it?). Now, without any relevant conflict, he'd just scale the thing and play would progress. However, a pair of shades pursue our Rook, and he must escape. What better way than up and over? So, the player asks the Grand Master whether he can climb the thing. The GM decides to let him find out for himself by making a guess (at a pretty easy task). So, the player rolls his Climber talent (d4) with a number of d4 equal to his Wits rank. He rolls a 1, 2 and a 4 for a final result of 4 (keep whichever die you want). The challenge was exactly that, and he succeeds. The GM informs the player, with some lovely description, that the damp stone is tricky, but not impassable, and the Rook knows he could climb it with some extra effort (challent threshold 6). So, the player decides to climb the thing, but wants to spend a few Pawns to make sure he can ascend successfully. So, he Sacrifices 3 pawns and rolls his Climber talent. This time, however, rather than his Wits trait as a modifer, he must use his (poor) Prowess as an indicator of how many dice to roll. In this case, it's only one die (d4), and he rolls a 3. But, thanks to his sacrificed pawns, he gets +3 -- up and over!

Alternatively, the Rook could have simply used his supernatural talent Delver. This lets him open locks and portals, and even create doors where there are none, and passageways to far reaches of the realm. In that case, he might have rolled his Devler talent (d12) with a number of d12s equal to, say, his Wits or maybe Passion, depending on how he wants to go about it and whether he can convince the GM the trait he wants to use is relevant. Using such a supernatural Talent might cost a pawn or two (for no bonus, just to power the ability, though he could add a bonus w/ more pawns), and he would then describe his character's creation of a passage through the wall itself, which then disappears after he passes through.

So, as you see, this isn't any kind of additive Stats + Skills, though they certainly are causally related. Rather, it's a means by which players might apply a number of character aspects to solve conflicts and problems -- everything from combat to court diplomacy and so on.

Is this a little clearer, I hope?

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. We need to know more about how CharGen and Pawns work. Can Pawns always be "Spent", or are some tasks just impossible for some characters?

I can say right off that if you choose to go with a fixed cost point based CharGen (which would include trading off of templates) that you will have an "exchange rate" like I mentioned in my rant. It will be hard to calculate, but it will be there. You have included two things that make the calculation difficult, "delinking" Stats and Skills (lots of systems going this way these days), and cross-product value calculation. The first enters a slightly subjective element and so almost fixes the problem (actually for some player types this exacerbates the problem). The second is just more difficult math.

The problem with hiding behind math is that if you fool the players, and they can't figure out the rate, some players will end up randomly with less effective characters than other players. Which they'll then assume means that the game is broken as "Unbalanced". Or they'll figure out the math and then you have the original problem all over again.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

Hmmm. We need to know more about how CharGen and Pawns work. Can Pawns always be "Spent", or are some tasks just impossible for some characters?

Players assign 8 points to the five Traits as they see fit (though fairly obviously, they have to assign 1 to every ability, so I might write that as 3 points to assign with everything starting at 1).  Also, each archetype

For Talents, they assign to any Talents they wish the following allotments of dice to represent the back row of a chess board: d4, d4, D6, d6, d8, d8, d10, d12.

I'm guessing this does indeed create some kind of exchange rate to be abused, but I'm not seeing this yet, nor how it's problematic. Still trying to grok your latest "rant" in RPG Theory and how it relates.

As for Pawns, yes players may sacrifice these at any time. However, they have a finite number AND doing so may put one at risk of Endgame, perhaps prematurely (perhaps not!). As I said, I'll post more on Pawns as soon as I can.

[Valamir]

Your example left me with a question about pawns.

If "filling up a row" i.e. 8 pawns moves to end game, isn't this a little inconsistant with burning 3 pawns to get a +3 to climbing a wall.  If you only get to do this 8 times in your character career, shouldn't the effect be more dramatic (like automatic critical success, or something)?

Or am I missing a key element.

[Matt Snyder]

Your example left me with a question about pawns.

If "filling up a row" i.e. 8 pawns moves to end game, isn't this a little inconsistant with burning 3 pawns to get a +3 to climbing a wall.  If you only get to do this 8 times in your character career, shouldn't the effect be more dramatic (like automatic critical success, or something)?

Or am I missing a key element.

No, that is a fair question. Previously, I did indeed indicate that "accumulating" 8 pawns of one or the other variety caused one to enter Endgame. This is no longer the case -- now the issue is relative. Should the difference of your current total of white and black pawns ever equal 8 (or greater, I guess), then you enter endgame. You might have 0 Black Pawns and 8 White to do this, or 57 Black Pawns, 49 White to do this. The exchange of Pawns in the game will be pretty fluid, with players and GM Sacrificing and Capturing Pawns regularly to various effects and consequences.