[Shock] Antagonist Story Goals?

[TomTitTot]

Hello!

I'm going to be helping to organize a game of Shock on Saturday, and since I have never played a game of Shock and only just got v1.1 for Christmas, I was hoping that I could get a slight clarification on a couple things.

1) pgs 25-28 discuss building Antagonists, however it's unclear to me how Story Goals work for Antagonists, as that isn't mentioned in the rules but there is a section for Story Goals on the Antag sheet. Does the Antag have his own Story Goal? Or do you merely write the Protag's Story Goal in that space?

2) pg 38-39 on risking links says that when you risk a second link, you gain a feature for the second failed intent. Is the also the case for the first failure? ie even if you risk a link to reverse a result, do you still gain a feature?

Thanks!

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Hi, Tom.

The Protag's Story Goal is precisely the opposite of the Antag's. That is, the Antag is going to oppose whatever position the Protag takes on that final conflict. They don't have Story Goals of their own, other than opposing the Protags.

Yes, you gain a Feature both times.

[TomTitTot]

Joshua,

Speedy response!

Actually, looking at the sheet again this is pretty clear, since the Story Goal part is directly below Protagonist info. I feel somewhat silly having asked that question now.

Features both times, gotcha.

A quick question - any hints for playing with a large group (five people) that might not apply as well to smaller groups?

Thanks so much for the answers. I'm now pretty confident that I can play this game and help others play it.

[TomTitTot]

Ah! Another question...

3) p35 - "(If more than one is the highest, everyone with the highest die should roll another die each. Whoever gets the highest number on that die gets to use hir Minutia.)" versus p36 - "If two Minutia dice are the same, the player who wants the *Tagonist in question to win gets to use hir die and Minutia."

Do these contradict each other, or am I misreading them (entirely possible)? My gut reaction is to go with p35, but I might be missing something.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

[TomTitTot]

Well, no, it's not particularly clear as written. But I found the v1.1 text to be very understandable and clear, for the most part, so don't worry about it. It just needs to be slightly reworded.

I'll certainly suggest the option of one player being full-time audience. I'm tempted to volunteer myself, but I've been waiting nearly a year to play Shock, and would rather play a character, personally. If nobody else goes for it, I'll take the bullet.
Getting used to the game would be great, but this is a one-shot session at a gaming get-together that is unlikely to happen frequently. Then again, it's a four-hour slot....

I'm hoping to record the session, if all the players are cool with it, and I'll be sure to let you know how it goes.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

All great!

Feel free to link here when you've got a recording or an AP report!

[TomTitTot]

I don't have time to type an AP at this very moment, but I just wanted to say this game was fucking amazing.

Possibly the best game I've ever played. Undoubtedly in my top 3 ever.

Will tell more in the next few days.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Fucking sweet! Now I can't *wait* to hear about it!

[Per Fischer]

Holy Philip K Dick! What a game session. What a game. It works. Can't wait for the AP thread - there are things in there you people wouldn't believe.

Per

[TomTitTot]

AP is up here!

I want you, it's long and my formatting may be shit. But it's dead late and I'm tired of typing AP.

I have a couple of rule questions off of the back of our game, if you'd indulge me, Joshua?

p.37 "Turning Up The Heat" - we are a bit foggy on escalation, in that sometimes we escalated as if the previous intent happened but got more complex, and sometimes we escalated as if the previous intent just got harder or more serious. Are those both valid approaches to escalation, or is there one correct way to do it?

p.38 "This Result Sucks" - can you risk a link to make the antagonist reroll her conflict, in hopes of a failure? Or does it only apply to Protag success?

Thanks!

[TempvsMortis]

Awesome, awesome game there. Even summarized so much it was some incredible stuff. I can't wait to play it, because I'll have a lot of time and only three people, so we can really flesh out our stuff.

Which makes me wonder something: Joshua, what if you did want to play a longer game? I mean, still in a single session, or two in a single day, so it doesn't break your intent on that ground, but is still more than a handful of general scenes? Shouldn't there be a mechanism to allow for at least 50% more Antag credits? With a game like that you can play out the more detailed conflicts instead of just limiting yourself to the major ones. I mean, I guess one could write them in or something.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Nope. End one story, do the next. More Credits just makes it get sort of low-impact. So if you want more play, make another story! Follow the rules for changing your character between episodes, maybe add a Shock or an Issue, and do the next one!

[TempvsMortis]

The thing is when I read people's summaries I get a little worried that when I end up playing the game it will be *too* focused and will just run out of steam really fast. I know people say it takes them at least two hours, but sometimes I read their stuff and I have trouble believing it because the whole thing was basically under 10 conflicts.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Three. Three or four.

Don't worry, that's how it works. The addition of Credits *makes* it run out of steam. To maintain that metaphor, an increase in Credits is an increase in volume, not pressure.