Topic: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Started by: Jack Aidley
Started on: 5/10/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 5/10/2004 at 10:25am, Jack Aidley wrote:
[Chanter] Spit & Polish
With upcoming plans to publish the current crop of Iron Game Chef games, I want to brush up Chanter a bit for it. Couldn't have it going out without the winning entry, hey?
I have no intention of doing any major work on it at the moment - Great Ork Gods has first claim on my time - but a bit of spit and polish seems in order.
Here's what I'm looking for then, from those of you who have read the game: what do you see as the weakest points? What do you feel it needs before folks can actually start playing it?
Oh, and is there anything in the rules which is unclear?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 11103
On 5/10/2004 at 1:04pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Aside from the "what do you do" problem that you correctly identify in the text itself, I also have some problems with the resolution system, particularly with regard to magic.
First: All rolls are opposed, yes? And only opposed by one pool, yes? Okay, given that:
How does cooperation work?
If using fire magic in combat, such as in the example, does the target matter at all? I feel that it ought to, otherwise fire magic will be the weapon of choice against foul monsters.
Second: Every roll should use the extras, and there need to be clearer guidelines about what they can be used for, and what mechanical effect they can have on later rolls. In particular, magic fails at this wildly.
Third: Setting based problem -- why not let players start at any social level? Chanter seems, to me, more Simmy than Gamey in its system support, so making everyone start off as scrubs seems out of sorts.
Hope this is helpful.
yrs--
--Ben
On 5/11/2004 at 8:56am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Hi Ben,
Ben Lehman wrote: Aside from the "what do you do" problem that you correctly identify in the text itself, I also have some problems with the resolution system, particularly with regard to magic.
Yeah, making up magic systems in a short time is hard. I originally wanted the magic to have a ritualistic, formalised feel in keeping with the rest of Chanter culture - but the time just wasn't there.
First: All rolls are opposed, yes? And only opposed by one pool, yes? Okay, given that: How does cooperation work?
I don't know. There are rules for fighting multiple foes, but they're not very general. I guess co-operation would count as an advantage? I'm really not sure. Any ideas?
If using fire magic in combat, such as in the example, does the target matter at all? I feel that it ought to, otherwise fire magic will be the weapon of choice against foul monsters.
The target doesn't matter, unless they happen to be resistant to fire, or something. Fire magic has a whole load of drawbacks however: you can only use it for the three hours of dawn; if you fail your roll it burns you; it doesn't have great range and it just isn't as effective as winning a melee fight against your foe (since success then means you can pin, kill or maim at your leisure vs. dealing them a few injuries).
I'm inclined to think those drawbacks will be sufficent.
Second: Every roll should use the extras, and there need to be clearer guidelines about what they can be used for, and what mechanical effect they can have on later rolls. In particular, magic fails at this wildly.
Yes.
Third: Setting based problem -- why not let players start at any social level? Chanter seems, to me, more Simmy than Gamey in its system support, so making everyone start off as scrubs seems out of sorts.
Because the idea is that players follow through the life of a Chanter, from their first steps into Chanter life (as a 'sat') through the years of their accesion and decline, with their characters reaching their greatest political influence as their actual abilities begin to fade away. Allowing them to start with older, and more powerful, characters would go against this concept.
Thanks,
Jack.
On 5/11/2004 at 10:21am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
First: All rolls are opposed, yes? And only opposed by one pool, yes? Okay, given that: How does cooperation work?
Iron Chef Aidley wrote:
I don't know. There are rules for fighting multiple foes, but they're not very general. I guess co-operation would count as an advantage? I'm really not sure. Any ideas?
BL> Well, my first idea was that you get a bonus dice for each person helping you. My second idea was that the helper rolls the dice vs. and opposed pool of six, and get to throw in any matches higher than the opposed pool. Both of these are cludges, and the system needs a better way of pooling dice, preferably without the overhead of multiple rolls.
If using fire magic in combat, such as in the example, does the target matter at all? I feel that it ought to, otherwise fire magic will be the weapon of choice against foul monsters.
Iron Chef Aidley wrote:
The target doesn't matter, unless they happen to be resistant to fire, or something. Fire magic has a whole load of drawbacks however: you can only use it for the three hours of dawn; if you fail your roll it burns you; it doesn't have great range and it just isn't as effective as winning a melee fight against your foe (since success then means you can pin, kill or maim at your leisure vs. dealing them a few injuries).
I'm inclined to think those drawbacks will be sufficent.
BL> I disagree. Or, rather, I disagree with the way that this plays out when examined further. Given that Fire magic is no less safe than Melee (both "burn" you if you fail) and that a stack of injuries can kill, I think that this plays out disasterously.
Will anyone ever use fire magic against bandits? No.
Will people use fire magic against medium sized targets, like lizards? Depends on their attribute strengths and the situation.
Will anyone ever use melee against a Four-Headed Black Troll? No. Fire magic is much safer (you set the odds) and, as long as you are using it, you're pretty much Troll immune. Much safer than going toe-to-toe, all in all, and so fights with monsters become a matter of surviving until dawn.
The solution to this is to pump up the effectiveness of fire magic a bit and add it to the monster's Assault, once you have an effective addition system.
Iron Chef Aidley wrote:
Because the idea is that players follow through the life of a Chanter, from their first steps into Chanter life (as a 'sat') through the years of their accesion and decline, with their characters reaching their greatest political influence as their actual abilities begin to fade away. Allowing them to start with older, and more powerful, characters would go against this concept.
BL> Actually, the first group I thought of for Chanter was a group of servants of a powerful lord, because that's a cool scenario. So my real beef is that you can't start weaker -- playing a landed noble just doesn't really strike my fancy as much as a wandering marshal or magically empowered super-agent, I guess.
Iron Chef Aidley wrote:
Thanks,
Anytime.
yrs--
--Ben
On 5/11/2004 at 7:49pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
For cooperating, I'd have the "helping" PCs roll against the normal difficulty, and add one die for a success, plus one for each "extra."
Yeah, it's a lot of rolling, but it sounds like fun rolling to me. :-)
The neat thing about such a system is that it implies a rollover mechanic where you can help yourself out round to round.
Otherwise, what's wrong with just adding pools together? The interesting nature of the matching mechanics mean that its not an overwhelming choice automatically. Or you could put in a diminishing return subtracting one die from the total pool for each contributer for each beyond one. Thus if I'm adding 8 and you add 6, then the total is 8+6-1= 13. Add a third person at 6, and it's 17. With enough people, eventually it becomes pointless.
Big combats can then be resolved as one side rolling one big pool against the other.
Needs some testing, but there's a solution in there somewhere.
Mike
On 5/12/2004 at 11:33am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Hi,
None of these co-operation suggestions are really clicking with me (but thanks anyway). It's not that they're awful - they just seem, well, cludgy. The main resolution system is (I think) highly elegant and I see that as one of it's core strengths. I really want to keep that in any co-operation mechanic. This is all rather assuming that there is such a solution - I'll keep looking.
Ben, re: fire magic.
No, I don't think so.
You could start a fight using it, but that's all - the range isn't enough to allow you to burn them to a crisp from afar, so that troll (the four headed black troll) is going to wade right in, biting you with all four jaws and that bring things into a melee situation pretty sharpish. The fire magic will give you an edge - those injuries could well tip the balance - but I don't see that as a bad thing. Fire magic should be useful. Even a priority A for Dawn Chanter is going to have trouble throwing more than about three injuries of fire at the troll (unless there is a bonfire or something nearby they can source from).
Oh, and you can't be killed by injuries. Only disabled.
Cheers,
Jack.
On 5/13/2004 at 6:48am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Jack Aidley wrote:
Ben, re: fire magic.
No, I don't think so.
You could start a fight using it, but that's all - the range isn't enough to allow you to burn them to a crisp from afar, so that troll (the four headed black troll) is going to wade right in, biting you with all four jaws and that bring things into a melee situation pretty sharpish. The fire magic will give you an edge - those injuries could well tip the balance - but I don't see that as a bad thing. Fire magic should be useful. Even a priority A for Dawn Chanter is going to have trouble throwing more than about three injuries of fire at the troll (unless there is a bonfire or something nearby they can source from).
BL> (For some reason, I thought that there were four four-headed black trolls. Now I see that I read the text wrong.) I think the difference between scene and task resolution needs to be firmly and immediately resolved in the case of magic. Because, at least to me, it seems like the current text defines all rolls as conflict resolution and then turns around and defines magic as task resolution, and this weakens magic rather unpleasantly, or strengthens it enormously, depending on a freely ranging interpretation. (They way I read the rules, there is no limitation to only using fire once before closing to melee combat. You can just keep using it as long as you like.)
Have your considered just subsituting Dawn for the appropriate conflict? By which I mean:
Is it dawn in game? If so, you can use Dawn instead of Assault to resolve combat scenes with the added color and extras (and failure penalties) that fire magic brings.
Because, otherwise, I'm going to skip out on the magic and just carry a bow, a bandage, and a note pad, thanks. According the rules as they stand, a bow can conflict resolve, and fire magic can't.
yrs--
--Ben
On 5/13/2004 at 11:56am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Hi Ben,
I don't want Chanters fighting battles with all fire magic. That's not how I see the world working. I want magic to be primarily a support role, rather than alternate means of killing folks.
Do you not think that the other magical powers are sufficent reason to have a Chanter prioritising Dawn without fire magic being a major combat technique? I see Plant and Animal magics as being the Chanters primary magical means.
You are right though that there is a conflict between the general conflict resolution of the system, and the rather task based resolution of the magic. I am tempted to remove the direct attack capabilities of fire as a possible resolution.
Cheers,
Jack.
On 5/18/2004 at 7:13pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Did you come to a decision on the issue about fire magic?
Mike
On 5/19/2004 at 9:57am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: [Chanter] Spit & Polish
Not really. However I'm incling towards removing it is a direct attack form. I think this would help free up the fire rules as well - as they are they're a little clunky I think.