Hi all,

I wrote my first game in response to the [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10762]Iron Game Chef - Fantasy[/URL]. In the [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11060]Reviews and Results[/URL] thread, Holmessama performed wonderful surgery on how the game was lacking. I'd like to address these issues -- both to make it a better, perhapse even playable, game and to have gone through the revision and development process. And I could really, really use your help.

For reference, the original version of ICE can be seen [URL=http://weeksfamily.net/games/ICE.html]here[/URL].

I already have a truckload of rewordings, typos, etc to make. I've also decided to include examples as long as it won't increase the size beyond 150% of the original. I also want to change the name of the game from ICE to Ice. Beyond that, I want to address Mike's critique and later, anything else the rest of you come up with.

I'll begin by summarizing what I see as the key comments Mike made. I'll address each with my thoughts, possible remedies, and questions to any of you who're willing to give input. I know this is a pretty straight and honest place, but I want to emphasize that I've been involved in years of brutal critique as an art student and any hurt feelings I might have once been subject to have long since passed away.

Mike cites a "mobile aesthetic" that might be interesting but be undelivered by the mechanics. I'd like to understand what that means better. I have largely left the trappings of setting up to the players, and that might be part of it, but I'm thinking (hoping) that more of what he meant is the way that those characteristics selected by the players of any particular game of Ice will shape the way that conflicts are engaged, resolved, and narrated. I personally hope that when this is done, that is a real strength. But I guess that can't be exactly what he means because of the assertion that the mechanics won't prodce the aesthetic consistently. Any general thoughts on this would be appreciated since it will likely impact the whole of the game.

"there's potentially like 20 lead in statements before the referee's output statement. Which seems like a heck of a lot." OK, so I ran some simulated conflict resolution with the system and while the number could rocket above 20 with a complex multi-character conflict, even 20 would be rare. But that doesn't matter too much because even like 14 is too many for common conflict resolution -- but not for the climax of an evening of play. The solution that I'm currently leaning toward is rolled into correcting another, more blatant issue so I'll outline it in the next paragraph.

"There is no advantage at all to using Ice." D'oh! It was a funny week and the mechanic went through several versions. Mike's supporting observation that the player can just throw the Ice dice back is actually an oversight on his part (players have always been required to use any drawn Ice dice) but it doesn't matter. As written, all the Ice dice do is add a fantasy tone to conflict resolution. My bad. This is really the issue that I've given the most consideration. I'm currently thinking that I want to keep the feel and premise of conflict resolution, but MUST address this Ice-die issue while also wanting to make fewer input statements during normal conflict resolution...

So I'm thinking that reframing the conflict resolution rolls so that all of the dice of a color (representing a single characteristic) are to be grouped together to generate a single outcome statement would be a good thing. The value for the group would be the highest number rolled among that group and the scope of the statement (rather than of all statements) would be dependent on the size of the group (number of dice). Now the Ice dice fit in like this: They're wild colored. They can be assigned individually to any color-group rolled after the dice are rolled. If only Ice dice are rolled, then they're extra-super-special-wild in that their characteristic for purposes of outcome statement generation can be anything. And anytime a fact is generated using one or more Ice dice, it must have a magical "tinge" to the description. I'm not certain if and how to implement this final requirement mechanically.

This modification eliminates some aspects of the game (e.g. making outcome statements accommodate multiple characteristics), but actually enhances the resource management aspect of selecting dice by adding the layer of Ice die assignation. But I might be too close. What do you think about this change to the rules?

Thoughts? (On the game at all, on my interpretation of Mike's review, on the potential correction to the game, or on any faults that Mike might have missed!)

Chris

I wrote a response to this post previously, but apparently it got eaten.

Christopher Weeks wrote: Mike cites a "mobile aesthetic" that might be interesting but be undelivered by the mechanics. I'd like to understand what that means better. I have largely left the trappings of setting up to the players, and that might be part of it, but I'm thinking (hoping) that more of what he meant is the way that those characteristics selected by the players of any particular game of Ice will shape the way that conflicts are engaged, resolved, and narrated. I personally hope that when this is done, that is a real strength.

So I'm thinking that reframing the conflict resolution rolls so that all of the dice of a color (representing a single characteristic) are to be grouped together to generate a single outcome statement would be a good thing. The value for the group would be the highest number rolled among that group and the scope of the statement (rather than of all statements) would be dependent on the size of the group (number of dice). Now the Ice dice fit in like this: They're wild colored. They can be assigned individually to any color-group rolled after the dice are rolled. If only Ice dice are rolled, then they're extra-super-special-wild in that their characteristic for purposes of outcome statement generation can be anything. And anytime a fact is generated using one or more Ice dice, it must have a magical "tinge" to the description. I'm not certain if and how to implement this final requirement mechanically.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm not sure what you're refering to in the last sentence, however. That is, for a narration, beyond admonitions to do it right, I'm not seeing how you can mechanically enforce this. You can give rewards or punishments for doing this properly or failing to do so, but I'm not even sure that's needed. Do I miss what you're getting at?

I've updated the rules as suggested above. The new version is living [URL=http://weeksfamily.net/games/ICE_1_0.htm]here[/URL]. If anyone out there is reading it, please let me know of any issues you can think of.

Chris

People are reading this. Since I'm one of them, I might as well add my two cents. While I don't think there are any changes you need to make, I do have some questions about the game.

In regards to whether or not the game needs a mechanic to enforce the magicality of using Ice dice - I think you have one already hidden in the rules. The Guild, as stated, exists to collect and destroy the Ice. Not to use it. You already have rules for how far away those with the Sense can detect the use of Ice. Using Ice dice is fundamentally different than using other types of dice, whether or not such use is overtly magical. Sensitives will come when you make use of Ice, the only question is what will they do when they discover you are also in the Guild?

This may be a question that needs to be answered on a game-by-game or session-by-session basis, but what does the Guild do when its members use Ice? If it ignores the issue, then maybe it really is greedily hording this resource. On the other hand, if it attempts to transfer Ice from members who cannot withstand the temptation (have a high ratio of Ice dice to total dice in the sack) to those better suited to the task (lower ratio and/or larger number of dice in total) then maybe it is in fact a group of benevolent guardians. The characters will also be faced with these same choices. If the Ice use they detect is that of another sensitive, what do they do about it?

Perhaps those are more thoughts than questions. In either case, Ice looks to be an interesting game.

dalek_of_god wrote: This may be a question that needs to be answered on a game-by-game or session-by-session basis...

I second Dwayne's thoughts. I think that giving a vision on what the Guild does here (or how to determine it), would go a long way to making the game more playable.

Mike

Right after reading Dwayne's comments, I added the following text as a sidebox:

[code]In addition to the generic setting issues mentioned to the left, there are some specific questions that you should answer about The Guild and their role in society. How strongly does The Guild monitor and influence the members? Is The Guild a force of good or evil, or just a bureaucracy? What, if any, motives and practices does The Guild hide? And what stance does The Guild take members using Ice? In your game, The Guild may be a powerful force with which the characters interact constantly or it may be a far-removed source of idle speculation and these are some of the most direct things you need to shape for your game.[/code]

Do you think that covers it? I'm really just asking the reader to decide those things, but not telling them how to do it.

Chris

Couple of cool examples wouldn't hurt.

If you can't do it easily, then consider how difficult it will be for people without your vision. :-)

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Couple of cool examples wouldn't hurt.

Ooh, with all the examples, I'd say the game is roughly twice as good as it used to be. Very nice.

Mike

That certainly answers any questions I had! The examples are completely different from my initial impression of an appropriate setting, and in the process let me see exactly what it was I had envisioned and roughly how I might implement it when running a game of Ice.

In this thread, Ian Armstrong offered to do art for the IGC. I hired him. I am very happy with the work. The four pieces of art have now been inserted into the rules on my web space. I can't recommend him highly enough -- easy to work with, bargain prices, and great work!

Now that I've spent all this money, I sure hope the IGC goes to press.

Chris

The art looks cool, Chris, especially the large piece.

I'm disturbed that you would even suggest that IGC might not go to press. I think that I must not be talking enough about it or something. But from my POV, editing 20 games or so, we're working furiously to see that it gets done in time for GenCon. And I have no doubt that it will. So is there anything that I can do to quell people's fears about this? Yours Chris?

Anyhow, I'm contacting Dav to get him to check out the specs on the art to make sure it's all good.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm disturbed that you would even suggest that IGC might not go to press. I think that I must not be talking enough about it or something. But from my POV, editing 20 games or so, we're working furiously to see that it gets done in time for GenCon. And I have no doubt that it will. So is there anything that I can do to quell people's fears about this? Yours Chris?

Anyhow, I'm contacting Dav to get him to check out the specs on the art to make sure it's all good.

Christopher Weeks wrote: Well, unless I've missed stuff (and I don't think I have) it's been about a month of complete (public) silence from you and Dav about the IGC.

Also, I PMed him ages ago (before contacting my artist) about page size so that I could generate art that would fit the publication and haven't yet heard back.

If you specifically mean mine, I have 300DPI tiffs, too.

Mike Holmes wrote: I guess we just need to post, "Still working on it!" somewhere public at regular intervals?

I had considered getting a yahoo group for this purpose. But it wouldn't really be relevant to the Forge. Hmmmm....

Mike

Publishing games, and the steps inherent in such a project -- particularly games that were developed strictly in conjunction with a Forge project, isn't relevant to the Forge?

I think that your "diary" of updates would be a potentially invaluable resource for the Forge if you were willing to put lots of steps into things and both you and Dav were adding to it substantially as you went.

Chris

Christopher Weeks wrote: I think that your "diary" of updates would be a potentially invaluable resource for the Forge if you were willing to put lots of steps into things and both you and Dav were adding to it substantially as you went.