Hello, all. It's been a while since I've written, for which I apologize. But, I thought that I'd let you know how Alyria is coming.

Believe it or not, I am going to be trying out a rules adjustment, and it's all Ralph Mazza's fault.

I was reading Ralph's excellent essay when I came across his explanation of IIEE. I'll admit that I never understood the term until I read his explanation of it. At the end of his explanation, Ralph wrote this:

Clearly if all players are not on the same page when an offer is made, then there will clearly be radically different results expected from acceptance. Both sides will feel that there has been a breach of contract; that the other side’s interpretation was not what was agreed to. With something as important as this at stake it is quite surprising that games have treated the issue fairly casually in the rules. Perhaps the single greatest contribution a game designer can bring to their new design is clear, unambiguous, and easily applied rules for IIEE.

I nodded to myself. Made lots of sense. So then, how does Legends of Alyria measure up? How's my IIEE?

It was this cogitation that led me to a realization. I never established how much action was resolved by a single die roll in Legends of Alyria. I mean, when playing with my group, I generally made that decision, and it worked. It was generally understood that climactic conflicts required more die rolls than ones earlier in the story. We also all understood that good die rolls led to quicker resolution. But that's my group. The game text never actually spells this out. Oh, I had a section on "narrative units", but it wasn't really helpful, nor did it specify who gets to say what.

This is a problem.

So I started turning over ideas in my head, and I have hit upon a solution. Interestingly, as it began to settle into place in my mind, I realized that it was quite similar to the Pace rules from Trollbabe. My respect for Ron's design-fu clicked up a couple of notches.

So then, here is the rule adjustment that I intend on testing.

When a conflict is declared and players select goals for their characters, the Narrator determines if a character will need one, two, or three rolls to achieve complete success in the conflict. This allows the Narrator to assign narrative weight to a conflict and to have a measure of control over the pace of the game. This seems to fit well with his job as a facilitator without overwhelming player control within the game.

Die rolls occur as per the current rules. However, a given Trait can only be activated once per conflict. (If your opponent activates one of your Traits, then it is used up for the conflict.) This means that longer conflicts will require that characters draw on a variety of Traits.

Action is narrated for each die roll, using the success/failure of that specific die roll as a guide. However, final success cannot be declared until the player has accumulated enough successful rolls.

If the loser rolls Devil's Hour (the new version of the Weeping Moon) or the winner rolls Noon (the new version of the Full Moon), then the winner adds two successes to his total instead of one. In the case of a Noon/Devil's Hour result, the winner adds three successes to his total (i.e. he achieves final success).

A player can still spend I/C to dictate the outcome of the conflict. If unopposed, the player dictates the final outcome of the entire conflict, not just the individual die roll.

Finally, at the end of the conflict, the Narrator must award a certain amount of I/C to the characters involved. The amount of I/C to be awarded is equal to either the number of rolls required to win or one less than the number of rolls. (Example: the Narrator must award either 2 or 3 I/C for a three-die roll conflict.) This amount is the total amount to be distributed, not the amount per character. Of course, the Narrator should award this by judging the characters' decisions during the conflict (e.g. Traits activated, actions taken, etc.)

From where I sit, these rules solve a few problems.

First, it addresses the IIEE concerns that had been identified. Second, it fixes the "one-Trait character" problem that has been noted by some playtesters. Finally, it provides some structure to I/C awards. I've been uncomfortable with the current rules for awarding I/C, primarily because I think that too little I/C gets awarded. I think that the addition of concretely calcuated awards will address this problem.

I'm going to organize a game to try out these new rules. After that, I just need to buckle down and finish the stinking manuscript.

Thank you all for your continuing patience.

On my first read of this, I nodded in agreement ... then I realised there were a couple of sections that were unclear to me:

Seth wrote: When a conflict is declared and players select goals for their characters, the Narrator determines if a character will need one, two, or three rolls to achieve complete success in the conflict.

Did you mean "dice-rolls" or "successes" here?

Seth wrote: If the loser rolls Devil's Hour (the new version of the Weeping Moon) or the winner rolls Noon (the new version of the Full Moon), then the winner adds two successes to his total instead of one. In the case of a Noon/Devil's Hour result, the winner adds three successes to his total (i.e. he achieves final success).

Maybe I don't understand how the new moon-dice will look, but the result in the second sentence seems to be the same as the first (to me). Why does the winner add 3 successes?

hix wrote: On my first read of this, I nodded in agreement ... then I realised there were a couple of sections that were unclear to me:

Seth wrote: When a conflict is declared and players select goals for their characters, the Narrator determines if a character will need one, two, or three rolls to achieve complete success in the conflict.

Did you mean "dice-rolls" or "successes" here?

Duh. I mean "successes". Good catch. Thanks.

Seth wrote: If the loser rolls Devil's Hour (the new version of the Weeping Moon) or the winner rolls Noon (the new version of the Full Moon), then the winner adds two successes to his total instead of one. In the case of a Noon/Devil's Hour result, the winner adds three successes to his total (i.e. he achieves final success).

Maybe I don't understand how the new moon-dice will look, but the result in the second sentence seems to be the same as the first (to me). Why does the winner add 3 successes?

Here's the idea. A regular victory is worth one success. If I win by rolling a Full Moon/Noon result, then it's worth two successes. If I win by your rolling a Weeping Moon/Devil's Hour, then it's worth two successes. If I win by rolling a Full Moon/Noon result and you rolled a Weeping Moon/Devil's Hour result, then it's worth three successes.

Does this clarify?

I was going to playtest this new system on Sunday, but I wasn't feeling well and so the game didn't happen. Grr. We have a storymap and characters and everything. Argh! Anyways, I'll post an update when I have actual playtest data.