X-Games Update (1)

[Blake Hutchins]

We finished the characters and played our first session of The Pool: Irongate yesterday.  Wow.  VERY cool experience.  I have a lot to relate, so let me get started.

Characters<Comments on character generation: The players had fun, though we still went through some parsing to get the stories to stand up and mesh with each other.  Someone commented that these certainly weren't first level characters.  Despite the dearth of stats and skills, they felt more fleshed out than many characters at the start of play in other games.  Jeff wasn't sure whether he liked not having clearer limits on what a player could or could not do.

Much discussion went toward choosing the right words for traits.  Jeff went through a few other terms before settling on "crisis of faith" to describe what he wanted to play.  He kept the "tormented by guilt" I suggested, but made a trait of the redemption seeking aspect, going with a pull rather than a push as a primary motivator.

The biggest discussion pre-game went into trying to define how magic worked, and what the limits were.  I told them that aside from sticking to the colors' themes and the necessity of a cost for each spell or ritual, magic would work loosely, and players would define how magic actually functioned during gameplay.  Again, I see this as initial discomfort at the lack of bright line rules.

Creation of a common backstory worked well, though they changed the mercenary band concept to more of a standard adventurer band, adding the codicil that they served Kooren'Dar.  The idea is that they met in the White City and fled in the wake of the Shadow's victory, accompanying a host of refugees to Irongate, where Kooren'Dar (now insane) took up his old residence and plotted against the Shadow.

Creation of a group kicker didn't go so well.  I'd suggested they incorporate elements of smoke, a black pig, and a tower into the scene, but they started getting silly about the black pig part, and in the end we decided simply to start in Kooren'Dar's house where he received a message from a mysterious patron: go on mission outside city, get McGuffin.  I used the smoke, black pig, and tower in the message to give it the requisite high fantasy riddle flavor.

And so they set off.  Comments welcome.  I'll post a report on the play session later today.  I'm still digesting it.

Best,

Blake



[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-10-29 20:53 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Blake,

Great post!

I know what you mean about the group Kicker thing. I tend to do a lot better if the characters have personal Kickers and then see how they might be integrated with the other stuff.

Paul and I had a good dialogue about the tendency to "pre-play" during character generation or pre-scenario organization ... people often tend to create convoluted stuff that really doesn't contribute much to the potential of upcoming play.

It's in the Art-Deco thread on the Sorcerer forum.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

b]STORY SUMMARY<SYSTEM THOUGHTS
1. My Impressions:<2. What Worked:<exciting.<3. Quibbles:<The Pool<The Pool<The Pool<The Pool<4. Final Thoughts:
1.   Everyone had fun.
2.   From a Narrator standpoint, The Pool<The Pool is like an unexpectedly fast sports car which can be tricky on corners.  The speed and power take some adjustment, but the driving experience is amazingly cool.

We may not be able to play this week.  Next report will deal with the resolution of the story and further observations on the system.

Best,

Blake




[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-11-01 17:56 ]STORY SUMMASYSTEM THOUGHTS
1. My Impressions:<2. What Worked:<exciting.<3. Quibbles:<The Pool<The Pool<The Pool<The Pool<4. Final Thoughts:
1.   Everyone had fun.
2.   From a Narrator standpoint, The Pool<The Pool is like an unexpectedly fast sports car which can be tricky on corners.  The speed and power take some adjustment, but the driving experience is amazingly cool.

We may not be able to play this week.  Next report will deal with the resolution of the story and further observations on the system.

Best,

Blake




[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-11-01 17:56 ]

[Bankuei]

  I understand about the nebulous combat/extended contest rules...It seems pretty harsh that players are giving up 2 dice to the pool(taking the MOV) AND still have to keep making tests...  

Maybe the MOV can go up to the point of "and I finish with a mighty swing" to which you reply,"beating him down to one knee..." indicating the battle is not yet over, or ,"cleaving into his chest..." indicating the battle is over.

Any other ideas?

Bankuei

[Mike Holmes]

How about a number of successes to defeat, not MoVs. Or combinations. So a player can be required to roll two successes and an MoV for a particular villain. This means that the player may take dice or do an MoV for two of the three successes required. For really baddies, you would require two or even all three of the successes to be MoVs. If any MoVs are required for defeating a villain the last one is required to be an MoV.

Anyhow, the idea is that the player doesn't have to blow a whole MoV on the standard "Our swords clash and after a few exchanges the villain is pushed back" description of a partial victory. The GM can just come up with that sort of thing, and the player can take his dice.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Get thee behind me Mike Holmes!

How about a number of successes to defeat, not MoVs. Or combinations. So a player can be required to roll two successes and an MoV for a particular villain.

Every step down this path with the mechanics is a step away from conflict resolution, toward task resolution.

Blake, I think your players will get used to the occasional, "You can't kill him in this scene." They already seem to have an understanding of how adversity drives protagonism. An understanding of "you can't kill him yet" isn't far behind. Plus, as your scenario progresses, there's less need to preserve your key NPC's for future scenes. The power of the MoV increases for them from session to session.

Great thread, by the way.

Paul

[Blake Hutchins]

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback, gents.  I was a tad concerned that these posts of mine were too bloody long. :smile:

Jeff and I discussed allowing a larger number of ones on a successful roll expand the MoV for purposes of overriding NPC plot immunity only.  In other words, if he attacked the Black Knight, and the Black Knight had a Plot Immunity Threshold of 4, Jeff would have to score 4 ones on a single success roll to have his way unfettered in narrating the outcome.  I would use the PIT as a very general guideline to how many MoVs might be necessary to take out the Black Knight.  This estimate would be subject to being lowered depending on the events of the story.

We also discussed allowing the players to use the number of ones or sixes rolled as a non-binding guideline for expanding the scope of their MoV's or MoD's.  This kind of guideline could help players triangulate away from a seesaw bipolar set of outcomes.

Thoughts?  We're thinking about trying some of these ideas in the next session.

Best,

Blake

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Blake,

Your posts are not too long. They are superb. I am finally, FINALLY getting to read discussions of real play without them being breathless litanies of "and then, and then, I rolled a 20!"

My goal is for someone new to the Forge to be able to come to this forum in particular and see intelligent, engaging accounts of play that lead to solid discussions. It ought to be the conceptual entry point.

As for Pool comments, I confess to being a sullen purist. I don't even like the Monologues of Defeat, and the idea of any granularity based on the number of 1's, or even the number of successful rolls, does not sit well with me at ALL for this game.

(This opinion is specific to the Pool; as Elfs owners know, I used a "cumulative successes" approach to combat in that game.)

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

Ron,

Thanks for the kind words.  They are much appreciated.  Interesting point you have about the MoD, as I felt it added an enormous dimension to the game.  As I said, James told me it was in his early version of the rules, and he wanted to get some playtest results on its use.

I'm of mixed feelings about the granularity, though I want to stress that I conceive of it as a guideline, not a rule.  Paul may be correct in saying it's purely a question of players acclimatizing to The Pool and its use of delegated Director power as the central engine.  Given that the only thing rolls determine is who narrates outcomes, I can certainly see and agree with the concern that adding granularity to the mechanics constitutes a shift toward vanilla task resolution instead of scene resolution.

My primary issues with The Pool remain as follows: (1) Would some kind of die parsing help players understand the scope of an MoV/MoD?  (2) Is there a less intrusive means of conveying the plot immunity of principal antagonists to the players than breaking into the narrative with a warning?

Best,

Blake

Quickly edited to add: OK, rolls also determine success/failure as in every other Fortune system, but IMO the success/failure is less important than the determination of who exercises Director power.



[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-11-03 19:23 ]