[Showdown] Mayhem and trauma, start your engines

[GreatWolf]

Tim,

Hey, one more thought. Instead of increasing the number of Qualities, you could reduce the number of dice. This has been one area of the design that I've revisited from time to time. The obvious answer is to drop the d12s; however, dropping the d4s would increase the uncertainty of winning Flashbacks. So I could see either way working. Playtesting on both these options would be helpful.

[GreatWolf]

How do you feel about the following suggestions?
standardize the dice mechanics, say, always roll d10... have a specific number of Rounds... more robust stance selection... instead of injuring dice you gain "victory points"... the outcome of the duel would be decided by the final victory point total... ties represent both characters dying with the player that has the Upper Hand token narrating the outcome... perhaps aligning Maneuver then Resolve and Memory then Resolve...

Hey, Matthew.

At this point, I'd be more interested in hearing about how the current set of mechanics work. The changes that you're suggesting are fairly radical, and they would significantly alter the feel of the game.

For example, standardizing the dice mechanics would actually remove one of the important decision points of the game. Choosing a low die type means that you are more interested in earning your chosen outcome in the Flashback. Choosing a high die type means that you're more interested in earning your chosen outcome in the Duel. At the same time, losing dice means that you have to weigh how important this outcome is, versus the potential of using these dice in the future. For example, using the d4 dice pair means that you're virtually guaranteed to gain your Flashback agenda...and virtually guaranteed to lose that dice pair to Injury. Then, running out of dice means that you're running out of options.

Could this be achieved by expanding the Stances? Perhaps. However, you lose the visceral feeling of the whittling down of the dice. The moving of those physical objects is important and reinforces the reduction of options in a way that simply checking off Stances won't accomplish. There's also the issue of the double-blind choice. It's generally more ergonomic to secretly choose your dice instead of secretly selecting a Stance.

Similarly with the victory points. I want the feeling of exhaustion in the game. As you lose dice, you lose "hit points". This provides a different feel from earning VPs, which is closer to a sports analogy or a race.

So, yeah, there are specific reasons for the design decisions that I've made. In general, the play experience that Ron and Tim are reporting is the play experience I'm wanting out of this game. Making major changes at this point doesn't seem to be a good idea.

[MacLeod]

Heh, I won't lie... I pretty much expected this response but I figured that I'd give it a try. =)
Ah, well, I already sent you the revised version... Take it with a grain of salt, I suppose. When I get a chance I'll play test both versions and outline the major differences in how the game plays out.

[Tim C Koppang]

Hey, one more thought. Instead of increasing the number of Qualities, you could reduce the number of dice. This has been one area of the design that I've revisited from time to time. The obvious answer is to drop the d12s; however, dropping the d4s would increase the uncertainty of winning Flashbacks. So I could see either way working. Playtesting on both these options would be helpful.

Seth, that's an interesting idea, but it would have the unfortunate side-effect of shortening the overall length of the game -- which I thought was just right.

[GreatWolf]

Hey, one more thought. Instead of increasing the number of Qualities, you could reduce the number of dice. This has been one area of the design that I've revisited from time to time. The obvious answer is to drop the d12s; however, dropping the d4s would increase the uncertainty of winning Flashbacks. So I could see either way working. Playtesting on both these options would be helpful.

Seth, that's an interesting idea, but it would have the unfortunate side-effect of shortening the overall length of the game -- which I thought was just right.

Yes, that was the other effect that I had been toying with. Usually the game is the right length, though I've been concerned that sometimes it feels like it takes just a hair too long.

How long was your game, by the way? Timewise, not turnwise.

[Ron Edwards]

Considering that it was split across two sessions which included playing another game as well ... the total probably clocked in at three-plus hours. It didn't feel that long in play itself.

I would like to lobby for keeping the range of dice and the consequent time in play. I think that less Flashbacks automatically means letting the players off the hook for plumbing the depths of just how badly whatever relationships or events prior to the duel went sour. At present, the current experience includes a certain, "What, one more?" stage which I think is productive: "Yes, one more, and it is this."

Best, Ron