Just had an interesting playtest with a couple of friends. It felt good to stretch the system's legs. A couple of points are worth sharing:



• Writing the player characters as enemies breaks the idea of having a second GM dedicated to running antagonists. Is this really so much to lose?
• Player interplay is the baseline for interest in story creation. Once I explained that, basically, two of us would be helping the other guy to tell his story, they just stonewalled. Kevin even said, how is that not me sitting at home just writing some notes on a page and drawing lines between them? I think they were losing sight of the interplay between the Heavy and the Play Lead, but it's interesting nonetheless: with three people at the table, it's still like solitaire with a support group.

Given that two players are required to assume GM duties and at least two non-GM players are required for narrative thread weaving, the standard of role peer interplay requires four people to play, without compromising exclusion to duty sets. What's the downside of allowing players to wear two or more hats?

• Complex conflict just sings. The changes in format to the Action Matrix Table have greatly clarified conditions for opposition and striking. Players are consistently receptive to the idea of access being actionable. Another thing that puts these ideas across in a huge way is watching the tracking system transform; it's hypnotic.

Nick expressed some reservations about position as color. There is some longing to bow before the hex grid, there. But this has been a long anticipated point of confusion; tracking in action is the best explanation of how banal are facing and distance.

• Aspects of conflict underpin every match. It amazes me how most questions about the interplay of prescribed actions boil down to these; and how that once you classify and qualify the reduction, all confusion disappears.
• Dice as wound counters promote player investment. I've experimented in the past with tracking the player characters' hit points for them. (The system was 1st ed. AD&D.) Pulling the shroud over life levels brought home the issue of consequence, but the shift of overhead onto the DM was too costly. TYT has such small and uniform margins that it's no bother, really. And tracking by counter instead of with pencil and paper just seals the deal.
• The GM screen has toppled over. And people get on board with the idea. In some way, there being nothing to hide gives way to bad guy dice rolls becoming entertainment. Kevin even asked me what an opponent's attribute score was at one point, trying to target the greatest potential threat. That's the exact direction I'm trying to promote: full disclosure supporting tactical choices.
• Man advantage, range superiority and striking actions interplay so desirably that I'm just about to burst with happiness. Players have mixed feelings about this. When they're getting screwed, they really suffer. But when they're doing the screwing, they fill with glee. That's kind of what I was after. I find that explaining the procedure to overturn positions of disadvantage to be most helpful in accepting the inherency of negative consequences.
• People love the Powers mechanic. Which, it's really just permission to explain to the GM how you're going to cheat. But brother, everyone wants to come up with their own cool way to break the rules.



There was a moment of confusion that occured as to whether an action may strike another's opposing action that precedes the striking action. It's not an especially intuitive conclusion, but I think the answer is yes. This suggests that a pass of resolution for striking should precede one for opposition. It's a fresh idea. We'll see if it pans out.