[MADCorp] damage rules must contribute to driving gameplay

[JoyWriter]

Hmm, interesting. How do you see monster conflicts playing out? That's the bit I can't picture doing away with a GM for, the tactical angle (ignoring the advantages of a designed dungeon over a random one).

Does look endearingly focused doesn't it!

[Callan S.]

Callan,
I don't think there's much mileage in comparing a session of roleplaying to a session of chess or football. A session of chess or football is a whole game. A whole game of roleplaying is almost always multiple sessions. Also, roleplaying sessions need not (and usually don't, in my experience) contain an entire, discrete reward cycle.

Why repeat that history? Towards what benefit? It only seems to damage the gamist payoff, to me? I've tried to look for a benefit and I can't see one as yet?

[Marshall Burns]

Just how much do you have left to write for this game before it is ready for playtesting?

I need to finish the sanity track, touch up the experience track, and finish writing out the class profiles before I'm ready to playtest it. Before other people can playtest it, I gotta figure out how to explain the flow of gameplay -- particularly the non-mechanical negotiation stuff, and how that intersects with the mechanical play.

Why repeat that history? Towards what benefit? It only seems to damage the gamist payoff, to me? I've tried to look for a benefit and I can't see one as yet?

Callan, I don't think it's a problem. As far as I'm concerned, it's not broken, so I don't need to fix it.
Ever play Romance of the Three Kingdoms or Nobunaga's Ambition with other people? It takes a huge number of sessions to get through a whole game, but I've never felt like the payoff was damaged.