Hello,

This game floats my boat, so here are some comments I've worked up from reading. More will come, I'm sure, after I get a chance to play. The comments aren't in any special order.

1. I suggest that abilities never give a bonus to rolls, under any circumstances. All they should do is add breadth. As written, there's kind of a "they do but they don't except when they do" content in the current explanation.

2. When is the Zodiac bonus/minus to Trust applied? Only at the beginning of the game, right? No further adjustments between scenes? (I hope not; that would get complicated.)

3. Should confronting Yama-Ubu require a certain numerical condition (like Endgame in My Life with Master or Violence Future)? Or can it just be Part Four and left at that? It does strike me that direct conflict with Yama-Ubu might have some special feature, quantitatively.

4. The GM never gets bonuses to his or her die rolls, correct? Also, in the interest of clarity, the rules would be easier for me to read by saying, "Higher roll wins," rather than "subtract GM's roll from player's, player wins if result is positive."

5. I recommend providing examples for the sorts of conflicts that are appropriate for the different phases. The first one might include weather conditions, scouting the castle's perimeter, waking or not waking the giant, etc. The second one might include mainly fightin' mooks and guardian creatures. It strikes me, anyway, that Yuki-Onna and the doll-critter (brr! scary doll) go nicely with part three ... anyway, I'm not calling for outright "do it this way" rules, but for suggestions to consider about how the GM-imposed conditions lead well to the issues that each phase encourages.

6. The "Fail Your Best Friend" Fate is distinctly different from the others, and I think it has a lot of potential for trouble in play. All the other Fates are wide open in terms of the outcome of bringing them into play. This guy committed a wrong against me, and it's time for me to address that - but I can forgive him, kill him, betray him in a subtle way, or whatever I decide. And how it works out (depending on dice, etc) is up to the circumstances of play itself. The same goes for all the others except for the Fail Your Best Friend one - which tells me how it works out, no matter what. I strongly suggest that this is a problem, and that this Fate needs to be eliminated. In many ways, the Trust rules make it redundant anyway - every character automatically has a "best friend" (whoever they Trust most at the moment) and will or will not succeed in helping them in a given scene.

7. When a character dies, I suggest that the player is not removed from the game. I suggest that the remaining characters may still place Trust in the "dead character," and that this Trust may be spent for narration purposes (not for aiding or influencing, as the character is dead). Another question is whether the player of the dead character keeps his Trust pools - if he does, which I think is a great idea, then he can still spend Trust to influence actions and to join in narration (but not to be aided, obviously).

This would give the whole game a mighty powerful edge over many similar designs, in my opinion, and it fits very well with the source material. The in-game justification concerns memory and legacy, not "ghostliness."

8. I suggest that the scope of narration be given some attention. How much Director Stance (i.e. influence over the game-world) is involved? I suggest relatively little, and that narrations be focused mainly on Color. On a related note, I most especially recommend that the text explain that the dice really do resolve conflicts - if you lose the fight, you lose it, no matter whether you were hurt or not. Good old conflict resolution, straight out of The Pool, HeroQuest, Dust Devils, and Trollbabe.

Awesome game! Can't wait to play.

Best,
Ron

Wow, alot to respond to...

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. I suggest that abilities never give a bonus to rolls, under any circumstances. All they should do is add breadth.

Ron Edwards wrote: 2. When is the Zodiac bonus/minus to Trust applied? Only at the beginning of the game, right? No further adjustments between scenes?

Ron Edwards wrote: 3. Should confronting Yama-Ubu require a certain numerical condition? Or can it just be Part Four and left at that? It does strike me that direct conflict with Yama-Ubu might have some special feature, quantitatively.

Ron Edwards wrote: 4. The GM never gets bonuses to his or her die rolls, correct? Also, in the interest of clarity, the rules would be easier for me to read by saying, "Higher roll wins," rather than "subtract GM's roll from player's, player wins if result is positive."

Ron Edwards wrote: 5. I recommend providing examples for the sorts of conflicts that are appropriate for the different phases ... I'm not calling for outright "do it this way" rules, but for suggestions to consider about how the GM-imposed conditions lead well to the issues that each phase encourages.

Ron Edwards wrote: 6. The "Fail Your Best Friend" Fate is distinctly different from the others, and I think it has a lot of potential for trouble in play. All the other Fates are wide open in terms of the outcome of bringing them into play... In many ways, the Trust rules make it redundant anyway - every character automatically has a "best friend" (whoever they Trust most at the moment) and will or will not succeed in helping them in a given scene.

Ron Edwards wrote: 7. When a character dies, I suggest that the player is not removed from the game. I suggest that the remaining characters may still place Trust in the "dead character," and that this Trust may be spent for narration purposes (not for aiding or influencing, as the character is dead). Another question is whether the player of the dead character keeps his Trust pools - if he does, which I think is a great idea, then he can still spend Trust to influence actions and to join in narration (but not to be aided, obviously).

Ron Edwards wrote: 8. I suggest that the scope of narration be given some attention. How much Director Stance (i.e. influence over the game-world) is involved? I suggest relatively little, and that narrations be focused mainly on Color. On a related note, I most especially recommend that the text explain that the dice really do resolve conflicts - if you lose the fight, you lose it, no matter whether you were hurt or not.

timfire wrote: As it stands now, yes, Zodiac-Trust modifiers only apply at the start of the game.

Anyway, yeah, I agree, there should have some sort of condition for confronting Yama-Ubu. What do you think of this: Working off Mike Holmes's comments that I need harder rules for the Fates, what if the characters are not allowed to directly confront Yama-Ubu until after their Fates are resolved, or at least made public?

Hello,

At this point, what's needed is play. You'll see how much the Fates get brought in, how much Trust rises and falls, and how those factor into player-character protagonism.

Then you can figure out whether Yama-Ubu needs special conditions or special conflict rules. For all you know, all the story-meat is fine through just the Trust and Fate stuff. Or maybe it needs Yama-Ubu to throw it into high gear. No one knows yet, and any opinions about it would be the worst kind of front-end speculation.

Also, I do think that the abilities would be more than Color, even if they afford no bonuses. Without a bow, you can't make a ranged attack ... so all you can do when the bats dive-bomb you is dodge and try to get under cover - you can't actually kill the bats. Without an occult amulet, you'll be really fucked if the doll-thing (brrr!) wins against you, whereas with it, you'll merely be rattled. Stuff like that.

That means abilities wouldn't be general categories like "cunning as hell," which is good - because those things should be already accounted for in the Zodiacs. Instead, the abilities would be specific "spheres" of specialized activities and effectiveness - just right for niches without taking over in terms of effectiveness-brokering.

Best,
Ron