The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: What I'm Thinking
Started by: Ben Lehman
Started on: 9/10/2004
Board: Polaris Playtest Forum


On 9/10/2004 at 3:33pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
What I'm Thinking

So this is a brief thing about what I'm thinking about the game right now. People are welcome to offer their advice around the issue, but what I would really like is for people to play the game as it is right now with an eye to the issues brought up in this post.

The only purpose of the sub-attributes right now is obfuscation, and I don't like obfuscation, so they are very close to extinction. What this does to the trait system is a whole can of worms that I don't want to even think about right now, but the key to the obsolescence is the heart's temptations. The temptations effectively remove the fortune from the system, or rather change the system from fortune into fortune-informed drama bartering. I don't think that this is a bad or a good change, but it is definitely a change, and with it it removes a lot of the need for probability-effecting fiddly bits which, coincidentally, makes the system a lot easier to chart and explain.

Again, the most useful thing for me right now is for people to play the game and, while doing so, take a hard look at the sub-attributes. What roles to they play, mechanically and non-mechanically? Are they totally eclipsed by the bargaining? Why or why not?

yrs--
--Ben

Message 12674#135501

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ben Lehman
...in which Ben Lehman participated
...in Polaris Playtest Forum
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/10/2004




On 9/10/2004 at 4:31pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: What I'm Thinking

On that note, we'll be likely playing the game this Sunday if sky doesn't fall. I'll tell how it went some time next week.

Anyway, about the idea of removing the subattributes: you're certainly right that the structure of the game doesn't require them, but on the other hand, fortune and characterization certainly do. I expect them to be important enought to stay, but we'll see.

If it wasn't clear yet, by the by, I'm not too hot on the whole temptation bargain. We'll play it as written, but I think the system would benefit from something with less bargaining and fiddly bits to remember. I can just imagine how play gets bogged down by figuring out all those option and how they'd apply to a given conflict.

Message 12674#135511

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Eero Tuovinen
...in which Eero Tuovinen participated
...in Polaris Playtest Forum
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/10/2004




On 9/10/2004 at 6:46pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: What I'm Thinking

Just remember --

Each player can only offer one bargain. They can also choose not to offer.

The players always bargain in this order: Full Moon, New Moon, Ice Maiden.

As soon as the Heart accepts an offer, the bargaining is ended. For what it's worth, you also can't "re-bargain" if the bargain requires a reroll. You just have to take the reroll.

I'm hoping that the combination of these two things will speed up play enormously. They're buried in that text somewhere, but I thought I'd bring them out in the open.

yrs--
--Ben

edited to add the third point.

Message 12674#135541

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ben Lehman
...in which Ben Lehman participated
...in Polaris Playtest Forum
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/10/2004




On 9/12/2004 at 6:30pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: What I'm Thinking

And... good luck with the playtest. I look forward to hearing about it.

Message 12674#135686

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ben Lehman
...in which Ben Lehman participated
...in Polaris Playtest Forum
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 9/12/2004