This is the first of several posts I hope to make over the next few days about things that are boiling in the Twisted Confessions background. So, here goes...

----


Shangri-la is sort of my current Moby Dick - a game I keep trying to create, only to eventually stop, shake my head, and walk away. It started off in FUDGE, but rather quickly expanded beyond it. It's gone from six attributes, to three attributes, to something beyond.

The meta-concept is to create a game that can keep story continuity between without necessarily worrying about player continuity between sessions - a game that can be a "Saturday, anyone who shows can show, and we can run with them."

The setting framework that I decided would best support that goal is dreams - each session would start with the protagonists all beginning to dream, and ending with them waking up. The idea is that not every dream is a lucid, interacting-with-the-dreamworld dream, and thus not every lucid dreamer is out there knocking about every night. You're kind of stuck with whoever is there.

To emphasize this, individual's dreams are off limits. The Shangri-la story is all about the collective unconsciousness that starts where each individual dream ends. In addition, the protagonists in Shangri-la cannot affect the real world - they are dreaming, and it is the dream world they need to be affecting.

This I am adamant about - the actual play-acted game should be entirely within the dreamworld, and yet paradoxically I want the real world to be important. This is one of the knots I've tried to untangle, with mixed success.

-----

Here's what I've got so far, mechanically. First, the basic die system. It came to me in a dream, so it's fitting.

You have a certain number of six-sided dice. You roll them, looking for fives or sixes, which are "successes." If a six is rolled, you may choose to remove that six and roll again, adding the successes from the second roll to the first - but if you get no successes on the 2nd roll, you lose all successes. This can be done again and again, until either you roll only 5s and stall out, or you roll no successes and lose them all. If you ever get down to one die, and it rolls a six, you can refresh the pool entirely, back up to what it was before, and continue if you wish.

Unmodified, the basic system is "roll one die, get one success." There are things that can manipulate both of those variables.

The core of Shangri-la are threads and knots, different manifestations of the same basic idea - metaphoric images/ideas wrought with meaning. I'm still working out what that actually MEANS in terms of "what you should write on a character sheet" but I've found that talking it out helps.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that threads are bonuses that come into play when the situations of the thread are in play, and actions go along with them; knots are penalties that come into play when situations of the knot are in play, and actions are taken that go against them.

The idea is that a knot could be as simple as "swords for fighting", so any physical altercation a person gets in that does NOT involve swords gets harder, but fights involving swords are still at base difficulty. Conversely, the same thing as a thread means that getting in a fight with swords is easier, but getting in a fight without swords is no harder than base difficulty.

Knots increase the target number, thus increasing the total number of successes needed; threads increase the # of dice rolled. I'm not sure if I want them ranked numerically, or if they're just binary switches - originally I wanted them ranked, but now I'm not so sure.

Threads and knots come from three sources - pure sapience (lucid dreamers, and certain dream-denizens), dream realms (which are collections of knots and threads), and nights (basically, each session will have a set of universal threads and knots that kind of infest the place, short term "fads" I guess).

The details for determining threads and knots from dream realms and the ephemeral ones can wait. As for characters... I've got a vague system coming together, but here's the general idea:



Every character starts play in the first session with exactly one thread (this is important), and a number of knots (how many, to be determined). Over time, they would gather and lose threads and knots.

New knots can be gotten at any time - they're the dream equivalent of injuries, damage, disadvantages, et hoc genus omne. New threads are harder to get, as they should be: with the re-rolls, more dice are a bigger benefit than more successes are a penalty.

Threads require making connections with real people - every person has one thread, and by connecting to someone else in the real world, you can kind of "borrow" their thread by tying it into your own. Knots are all your own personal baggage. Which means getting new threads will mostly require dealing with the between-session meta-system I haven't managed to nail down yet. I'm also not sure about changing your "core" thread, but I think that should be a life-changing experience.

Knots come about as the result of failed conflicts (details to be determined) - so yes, being knotted can make you knottier. On the other hand, my plans are that a successful conflict gives some "XP" equivalent equal to the # of successes required, so knots in turn increase the potential reward, which in turn can be used to buy off knots (along with doing other things, I'd suspect).

Okay, I gotta leave work. I'll post more later.

Cheers- i saw this post sitting in the unanswered pile, so i thought i'd give it a read, and it sounds like a way cool idea-

Lxndr wrote: You have a certain number of six-sided dice. You roll them, looking for fives or sixes, which are "successes." If a six is rolled, you may choose to remove that six and roll again, adding the successes from the second roll to the first - but if you get no successes on the 2nd roll, you lose all successes. This can be done again and again, until either you roll only 5s and stall out, or you roll no successes and lose them all. If you ever get down to one die, and it rolls a six, you can refresh the pool entirely, back up to what it was before, and continue if you wish.

Popped

Threads require making connections with real people - every person has one thread, and by connecting to someone else in the real world, you can kind of "borrow" their thread by tying it into your own.

gorckat - Yeah, you lose ALL successes, whether it's your first reroll or your hundredth, which means that playing conservatively means playing until you get just what you need. However, I'm hoping to put a system in place such that successes over the minimum required are somehow important/useful, such that people might be tempted to press their luck.

I should point out though - you remove the six and roll the rest of the dice again. All of them. You don't remove the six and roll it again.

I'm aiming for something relatively 'narrativist' I suppose. But I don't want threads OR knots to come forth too easily, or all of a sudden every fight becomes a swordfight if you have that swordfighting thing. Knots have their own balancing factor - the more knots in play, the harder the potential difficulty, but the more "reward" you get if you succeed. On the other hand, bringing in threads makes things easier.

Perhaps (as a lightbulb goes off) that's what the bonus successes can be for. You need 6 successes, you roll 7. That extra success can be banked and spent, later, to bring a thread into a future conflict. Without banked successes, you can't bring a thread in. So, run out of banked successes, and you're for some reason unable to use your sword anymore.

On the other hand, this means tracking two sets of values. Banked successes (which will get a special name) which can be used to weave threads into a conflict, and XP (which should also get a special name) which can be used for character improvement. Hrm. Compared to some games, that's nothing, I guess. We'll see if it becomes too cumbersome in play.

On Threads and Connections

I know how men in exile feed on dreams of hope.

The starting thread is something that definitely belongs to the player (or rather, his protagonist). It is their defining image/etc. Quite literally, a starting character is "hanging by a thread." They have no other threads - no substantial connections to people. In the real world, they're cut off, feeling powerless and growing desperate. This is what drives them into the dream world.

Ralph's kind of turned my concept of the cosmology on its head. See, he's got the Lucid dreamers picking up threads in the dream world to help non-lucid dreamers. In my view, most people don't need to lucid dream, because their interactions in the real world are enough to anchor them - it's connections in the real world that weaves people's threads together after all. And people can share these threads - that's how tapestries exist. I'm tied to my friends, my family, etc., and they're tied to other people that I'm not tied to, and so on... Remember, this includes sharing threads BETWEEN dreamers.

The dreams of non-lucid individuals (which always exist, but are generally strongest in deep levels of sleep) are like tiny mountain streams that feed the dreamworld itself. Just outside of person's dreams (which are inviolable), closest to the real world, is a warped reflection of the real world, a sort of looking-glass thing (my nickname for it is "The Funhouse"). As you go farther away from the Funhouse, further away from the real world, the realms become more, well, fantastic.

At the edges of the dreamspace, the Dream Lords live. They scheme, they plot, they think in ways totally alien to humanity, but their actions affect the tapestry of the dreamscape, which in turn affects the real world. Sometimes they and their agents ally, sometimes they and their agents fight, and nobody can really be sure why the winds change when they change (or why sometimes their agents fight in one area and are allied in another).

The way I figure it, some Lucid Dreamers work for the Dream Lords (who are also sapient, and therefore can be a source of threads, maybe even multiple threads per Lord). Some are just kinda hedonists, escaping into the dream world instead of using it to improve themselves (maybe sharing threads amongst each other, probably borrowing occasionally from other rare sapients in the dream world). The rest are using their dreams to make their real world better.

In theory, starting protagonists aren't in any of these categories yet, since all they've got is just the one thread, but over time they can move into, or between, any of them. Or any other category, really, cause I'm sure there's ones I haven't come up with, and it's really hard to pigeonhole people into categories anyway.

----

What I'm trying to hammer out right now are incentives to encourage the players to explore geographically (oneirographically?) - in other words, to wander between the various realms in the dream-setting. I want a game where the players have ample reason to venture to the various dream-settings, eventually going closer and closer to the more alien realms where the Dream-Lords exist.

But I don't want to do that by DISCOURAGING people from staying in comfortable places, y'know? If they want to be one of them dreamers who make the dreamland their home instead of trying to better their real world, that should be a possibility too.

One potential encouragement is that the farther away from the "Funhouse" you get, the more knots:threads ratio the dream realms have... so the more potential XP you might get as the knots pile on. But is that enough? Should I let that be enough?

Ideas, all thinking out loud:

1. Even though threads don't have values, relationships do. Relationships at zero can be built up, but don't give access to the thread in question. Relationships above zero give access to the thread in question.

2. Starting knots are determined by how many value-zero connections a character has to start. Thus, the more value-zero connections you have, the more knots/issues you have to worh through.

3. Dream Lord relationships do have the potential to give multiple threads. One for each point in the connection rating.

4.. There are "ranks" to Lucid Dreaming - various levels of awakening. Starting characters are at level 1, which gives them access to JUST the funhouse. Once you get to level 2, you get access to all dream realms that are one step away from the Funhouse, and so on. Higher-level dreamers can escort lower-level dreamers up higher, but will be dangerous for the 'sidekick'.

5. XP cannot be earned in a realm that is below your level. On the other hand, banked successes still can. Recall, both of these are going to get better, more appropriate names.

6. XP needs to be useful enough to want to collect, yet not so important that you can't live without it. XP will be connected to raising your level/rank/whatever. Unless levels have more to them than just access to new levels. Perhaps each new level allows a dreamer to get another thread of their own, apart from any connections?

7. Bonus successes will be spent to allow threads into conflicts. They will also be used to remove/resolve knots. Other things too, I'm sure.

8. XP only being earned in realms that are equal/greater than one's level reduces the positive portion of knots as discussed earlier. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, either by restricting the GM's ability to bring knots into conflicts, or adding more 'carrot' to knots.

9. Idea in two parts:

a. Part the First: Personal knots cannot be resolved without addressing them and wrestling with them. Thus, trying to avoid knots means you can't remove them from your sheet. (You can't resolve regional/temporal knots)

b. Part the Second: Revise earlier XP statement. XP earned is now equal to "difficulty of roll, minus the difference between the realm's rank and the dreamer's rank." Thus there's a diminishing returns, rather than a binary switch. Thus if you're in a realm one rank below your level, the XP of all rolls is reduced by one. And so on. So, it is now technically possible to gain levels and never leave the Funhouse, but it requires more and more knots to do so.

10. But what about the connections, which in turn determine the threads that are always with you? XP, banked successes, or something else? Right now I'm thinking something else (oh no, 3 things to track!). Every time you use a connection thread successfully, your connection rating goes up. Every time you use one and the conflict fails, it goes down. At zero, you can't use it anymore.

11. So, how does a level 0 connection become and/or return to a level 1 state? And how do you get new connections? (I'm assuming that, barring death, a connection never goes below level 0). No Actual Play will occur in the real world, and yet the cultivation of real world connections is important. Obviously XP is out, as that's meant to mimic entirely how much experience your character has. Banked successes, maybe?

Nobody is answering my posts anymore, but there's still views, so hopefully this thread is useful and positive and stuff. Anyway, more stuff:

Having connections raise every time a thread is used is way too quickly. Plus, it puts connection-threads way too significantly higher than realm-threads and ephemeral-threads.

Here we go, again, on my own:

* Using a connection thread allows you to checkmark the connection. This gives you the opportunity to raise its value by one with some sort of reward system (banked successes, I think). On the other hand, this also opens the thread up to the attentions of the dreamlords, who can muck with your relationship and cause it to fall by one (through the GM spending a limited resource). This still allows connections to fall to zero, but it stops one dream from turning a beautiful relationship into a horrible one, or vice versa.

* In order to allow connections to get better even without using threads, every character can raise any one real life connection by one point, for each between-session period (representing effort and actions in the real world). Connections with people in the dream-world are only able to be raised through thread use.

* A new connection is always level 1. In the real world, this can be done by using the free point at any time. Dream-world connections, you need to take on their thread as a knot (though you can work off/buy off the knot later).

* The free point can also be used to recover zero point relationships in the real world. Zero point relationships in the dream world need to be reestablished as if they were completely new (see above). If you already have their thread as a knot, you have to work it off before you can take their thread again, at which point you get that knot back.

(Oh come on, don't tell me you haven't been in a relationship like that in the real world, nonetheless a dream world.)

Okay. It's about time to collate all this into a single pre-alpha-stage document which can then be posted for perusal. Any comments while I work on that would be much appreciated.

don't worry- i'm still here :) just took me awhile to process what i was reading, and i actually just printed it out because my eyes were burning trying to wrap my head around this :?

anyway- in regards to you're concern about tracking 2 values- just tell people to go to wal-mart or target and buy a $5 pack of poker chips (i love poker chips) and one color can be for banked success and the other for that other thing- maybe there could even be some sort of 'pot' at stake for the dreamers (although this could just be my reading of The Pool earlier influencing my thoughts...)

actually, why not just have them be used for the same thing- i can use my successes now for a short term victory/advantage, but saving them for use before the next 'dream' will let me take-down or resolve him/it/whatever for good

question (and this could just be me flailing at an idea i in its infancy that i don;t wholly understand) but could the PCs be targets of the dream lords because they are isolated from others so much that they are trying to anchor themselves in dreams- do the dreamlords need them for some purpose, does 'losing' in the real world and then the dream world allow them to 'own' you for real world machinations or some other use?

i can't wait to see a rough draft- the idea just invigorates me so! this looks like a lot of fun to explore and play with- good luck getting it together

Cheers
Brian

I'm working on getting all this organized still. Maybe I'm a bit too much of a perfectionist, but I'm not putting out the alpha-test until it reads RIGHT to me, you know?

sounds sweet- didn't mamma used to say if it ain't worth doing right, don't do it at all?

nah- she just used to beat when it wasn't good enough :P

can't wait to see it

Okay. The pre-alpha document is available. Obviously there's a lot more work that needs to be done, but this is a good start, I hope.

http://www.twistedconfessions.com/files/shangri.doc

Good luck!

In each dream, each Awakened can bring their own threads into a conflict once for each tier level they have, without cost. They can also bring in any thread from an active relationship for free once for each level that relationship meets or exceeds their tier (they may not bring in threads from relationships that are below their tier level at all). After these free limits are maxed out, the cost is simply one spooled victory per thread.

If the character got no victories at all, or lost their victories in a reroll, they get either a new knot, or an extra knot level in an existing knot that was used in the conflict.

Heh. Obviously I need to make things clearer in the text. But that's what this is for. Thank you, Mike.

You get one die for free in any conflict. Bringing in a thread gives an additional die, so you'd be rolling two dice if you brought in your one beginning thread.

The Weaver is basically the GM, and yeah, I don't have nearly enough of that. But it's meant that the player decides their own "damage".

Lxndr wrote: You get one die for free in any conflict. Bringing in a thread gives an additional die, so you'd be rolling two dice if you brought in your one beginning thread.

But it's meant that the player decides their own "damage".

Well, one chance to use their thread for free. After that, there are two methods to bring a thread into a conflict:

(1) Spooled victories. Sure, you start with none, but you can convert heddles into spooled victories, or get some with a particularly lucky roll. Plus, there's the Spindle. If one person loses on a reroll, their victories can potentially be picked up by the next person, if they win.

(2) Heddles spent by other players. They can use a heddle to bring a thread into a scene FOR you. Alternatively, they can bring their own character in as an ally. Either way, this can increase the # of dice rolled as well. In theory, players are encouraged to spend these heddles, since only by reducing the number of heddles they have can they get a turn of their own.

I'm hoping that will be enough. Playtesting will let me know. What do you think?

Finally, tiers are just one way to advance. Players will also be able to raise their relationships, which will give them access to more threads (and more free uses of said threads) even before rising up in tier. Even without any spooled victories, they may raise one real-world relationship for free after each session. So by session two, they'll have, minimum, two separate threads they can call upon, once each for free.

Lxndr wrote: (1) Spooled victories. Sure, you start with none, but you can convert heddles into spooled victories, or get some with a particularly lucky roll. Plus, there's the Spindle. If one person loses on a reroll, their victories can potentially be picked up by the next person, if they win.

(2) Heddles spent by other players. They can use a heddle to bring a thread into a scene FOR you. Alternatively, they can bring their own character in as an ally. Either way, this can increase the # of dice rolled as well. In theory, players are encouraged to spend these heddles, since only by reducing the number of heddles they have can they get a turn of their own.

I'm hoping that will be enough. Playtesting will let me know. What do you think?

Even without any spooled victories, they may raise one real-world relationship for free after each session. So by session two, they'll have, minimum, two separate threads they can call upon, once each for free.

Mike, and everyone else,

http://www.twistedconfessions.com/files/shangri.doc

has now been updated, taking into account Mike's comments, as well as comments from other readers in indie-netgaming and, well, me.

Thanks to everyone who's read through it so far and provided comments. Let me know if I broke anything!

Things to note:

(1) The Weaver is now much more nicely defined. I was waffling in the last version between whether the Weaver was a traded role or a static role, and didn't fix all the text when I sorted it all out. Now it's better.

(1b) I also clarified some other text, and kind of rearranged it to hopefully be more orderly.

(2) I've slowed down the knot-gathering mechanism of failure - now, you only get a new knot if you forfeit (i.e. reroll and lose), rather than every time you get zero successes. The other method was stomping a bit too hard on new characters.

(3) Added a gimmick that pretty much means players will be rolling a minimum of two dice, not one. This should overall increase victories. We'll see. I'm not totally sure if I like this gimmick, though. Seems too permissive. Plus, I think people should roll one die on occasion.

Here's a thought. How about leveling up with EXP equal to the level of the tier. So it only takes 1 EXP to get to second tier. Should happen sometime in the first session. Then it takes 2 EXP to get to the second? Or will this produce too many tiers over time? Is there some reason to keep threads limited?

Hey, Lxnder: Are you quite sure that Threads and Knots are different things?

Because, y'know, a character with "Swords are for fighting" need not have a "baseline chance" at fighting. He could be good with a sword, and bad otherwise.

Then the way to progress is much like Dogs in the Vineyard: Get hurt. Damage means more knots/threads, and the more you get roughed up the more powerful you become.

Lxndr wrote:
(2) I've slowed down the knot-gathering mechanism of failure - now, you only get a new knot if you forfeit (i.e. reroll and lose), rather than every time you get zero successes. The other method was stomping a bit too hard on new characters.

(3) Added a gimmick that pretty much means players will be rolling a minimum of two dice, not one. This should overall increase victories. We'll see. I'm not totally sure if I like this gimmick, though. Seems too permissive. Plus, I think people should roll one die on occasion.

It's vaguely like the starting Connections in My Life With Master - it tells you something about the character. Plus, having a level 1 relationship at the start kind of goes against the concept - that a starting Awakened character is completely cut off from the real world, and needs to put in some elbow grease to get back on track.

Tony:

Threads and knots are two sides of the same coin, but they are different, and should be represented differently. It's a dream-setting, so everyone has a baseline chance at pretty much everything - a thread gives a greater chance when someone goes along with it, and a knot gives a greater difficulty when someone goes against it. A dreamer can have both a knot, and a thread that goes along with it.

Mike:

The thing is, I like the gimmick that connects the scenes; I've been pondering various ways to thematically connect the scenes, even when the stories aren't actively connected.

However, the more I think about it, the more I dislike the way it's currently written, which gives people a baseline of two dice, pretty much, after the first scene of a given night. Making it always a thread, however, is part of the problem.

Ideally, there should be either (a) a thread, (b) a knot, or (c) a character from a previous scene (either PC or NPC) in the next scene, to maintain the sort of contiguity I'm imagining. As long as there's at least one of those in each scene, I should be happy.

This makes me think the following:

"If any character, including the Speaker's character was, in the scene just previous, no additional rules apply. Otherwise, if the previous scene's conflict was successful, the Speaker must choose a knot from that scene to incorporate into the current scene. If the previous scene's conflict failed, the Speaker must choose a thread from the previous scene, and use it in the current scene - but they get to use that thread for free."

It's a bit wordy, but perhaps it accomplishes what I'm setting out to do.

This implies the following:

• A player whose character was just in a scene can bring their character into the next one, thus cutting off a potential free thread for the Speaker (or perhaps protecting them from a knot).
• A player could bring their character into a scene just previous, in plans for their turn coming up, to manipulate these rules somehow.
• The Weaver could bring the same NPC into multiple scenes, again to blockade the Speaker from getting a thread (or protect from a knot) - or may refrain from doing so to allow a thread.



It's something worth ruminating on, anyway. It's got three more stomachs to pass through.

Interesting. Can you make the metaphysics match this somehow? That is, what you have seems something like karma. Except that it passes from character to character.

Mike

Isn't it already similar to another part of the game's metaphysics (or at least, another part of the game mechanics, which reflect the metaphysics)- the Spindle? That also passes from character to character - one person can take a risk, and another can reap the rewards.

So couldn't this just be another aspect of the same philosophy already inherent in the Spindle? - everything in Shangri-la is connected, even when it's not. What you do in one part of the world, will reflect itself in another part of the world. Everything is connected. In the dream world, even when you think you are alone, your actions have meaning, and impact others - and not always in the way you might desire.

I'd buy that. You might have to make it more explicit for people to see it. Rather, is there any synergy that you might find by linking the mechanisms together somehow to make it clear?

Mike

Well, I decided that character continuity in Shangri-la is actually secondary to knot/thread continuity, and this is the result. It'll be uploaded into the newest draft likely by the time you, Gentle Reader, download it.

newest draft wrote: As the Spindle already suggests, everything in Shangri-la is connected, even things that have no right to be. What happens in one part of the world is reflected in another. Every action an Awakened mind performs sends vibrations across the tapestry of the dream world, echoes seeking out other Awakened minds, having impacts they might not always desire. Shangri-la is a delicate and complex weave of disparate, often inimical elements, and any change encourages it to try to correct the imbalance elsewhere.
So, if the previous scene's conflict roll was successful, the Speaker must choose a knot from that scene to incorporate into the current scene. Conversely, if the previous scene's conflict roll failed, the Speaker chooses a thread from the previous scene, and must use it in the current scene without cost. This way, the dream world attempts to bring itself back to a state of equilibrium.

I'm not sure if this is a problem or a feature:

Let's say that there are two players for argument's sake (though this works with any even number of players). Player A succeeds, and Player B ends up with an extra knot. So he fails because of the knot, and passes a thread back to player A who succeeds because of it.

See the pattern. The same player gets shit on over and over again until he finds some way to succeed. The odds may be long on that, however, so there might be a tendency for cycles like this to occur. With an odd number of players it's not a problem really. And with 4 or 6 players you might see people team up with their partner across the table to ensure that the flow goes with them.

At higher tiers this will be less important. But early on in the game it might be pretty significant, and actually lead to players advancing where others do not meaning that it becomes even more important to maintain this advantage.

Now, all of this assumes that the hebbles don't mix things up appropriately. They might. But it's something to watch for in playtesting.

Mike

http://www.twistedconfessions.com/files/shang.pdf

This is the new Shangri-la document, updated with new text and rules and whatnot. The previous doc file is no longer available.

Damn, Mike. For some reason I completely missed that you'd posted in this thread. I've been sitting here thinking nobody'd posted, and then I got involved in trying to go back to school, etc., and other personal issues. I'm very sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

First, I left something out, which might change the pattern as you're imagining it: if player A wins, but there were no knots in his scene, player B doesn't get an extra knot. Same if player B loses, and there's no thread in his scene. You can't get something that's not there.

Okay. Even with that, though, there might be problems. So let's look at this with heddles, and with the assumption that there's always at least one thread and knot in each scene (which, especially at higher tiers, will probably be the case).

We start the game with three people: Player A, Player B, Weaver. This is their first game, so A and B each have one heddle, and the Weaver has none.

The first scene is given to Player A (Weaver's choice). Whether Player B spends his heddle right now or not is unimportant to turn order, because he'll be next anyways. So let's say he chooses to hold on to his heddle for now. Player A and the Weaver put some stuff in the scene, and whammo, Player A succeeds.

So in the second scene, Player B starts out of the box with a penalty - a knot from the previous scene. Player A spends his heddle to give Player B an additional penalty, wanting a free thread in the next scene - this heddle goes to Player B. Player B rolls, and loses.

Player B now has two heddles, Player A and Weaver both have zero.

So, next scene is Player A's. He now has a free thread. But player B can go "ha!" and bring in not one but TWO knots with his two heddles. These are both given to Player A, and changes Player A's chances of winning. Player B is now more likely to get a free thread, but Player A, in return, will have two heddles.

On the other hand, Player B can hold on to his two heddles, and not spend them at all. Then, when Player A wins with his free thread, he gets another turn (since he's still the player with the least amount of heddles) and picks up a knot, since the previous scene was a winner. Player B can now take advantage of that, spend a heddle, whatever.

Okay. At least with a small on-paper test, even a minimum amount of heddles can allow for changes in this situation, with only two players + one Weaver. Additional players will only complexify this group's dynamic.

Nonetheless, I will definitely be keeping an eye on this in playtest, which hopefully will be happening soon.

Aha! I had read the turn rule as saying that it passes to some other player with the least heddles. As opposed to the possibility of double turning, and the vagaries that this will toss into the mix.

But I'm still concerned that the players have loads of incentive to spend all of their heddles on knots quickly. In order to get the next scene, after the other player has failed. Because players will want scenes, of course, and because they'll want ones with the free threads. I mean, let's look at another hypothetical like yours.

Player B spends all heddles on knots for player A, and player A loses getting B the free thread on his scene (having the least heddles). That's one extra die. But A now spends the two heddles making failure quite likely. So they B loses, and A gets the scene with one thread. B spends the two heddles again...

Basically everybody loses until somebody gets lucky. When that player does get lucky, then he can really slam the other player easily (three knots instead of two knots and a thread). So that player has to use your tactic and allow a success. Refrain from spending, just to get back to the "normal" cycle where the opponent has lost and has the most heddles.

With the rash of discussions of the Prisoner's Dillema, actually it could be noted that the players could "team up" to make each other succeed back and forth. But then they run out of heddles quickly.

I think a lot may depend on how often the heddles get replaced with respect to the number of rolls that happen in between. You may have to tweak that a lot. And with more players...who knows? This might be a complete non-issue.

Mike

Okay, let's take your example.

We start the game. Player A and Player B both have 1 heddle, Weaver has none. Player A starts. Player B spends his heddle instead of holding onto it, giving player A a knot. Player A loses. Player B now has a free thread, but Player A now has two heddles he can use to make Player B lose.

Now, if Player A spends both heddles, he's now given Player B that same power. But that's not his only option. He can spend zero, as we said before. However, if he only spends one, he still gets the next scene, and at least has an even chance of getting a thread on that scene.

I definitely can see a situation where B and A just continually slam each other with 2 whole heddles.

Of course, B can throw two knots at A, and A can just go "ho de hum, I'll just not throw any threads in this scene" and thus B gets no benefit, because there's no thread. B might be better off spending 2 heddles to give A a thread AND a knot, 'cause then he still has a pretty good chance of failing, and there'll actually be a thread on the table to take.

The thing that worries me most about this potential scenario isn't even the comedy of errors until someone wins. It's that the Weaver wouldn't be getting enough heddles, and the economy assumes that the Weaver would be getting some heddles eventually. On the other hand, the Weaver's available free resources might eventually wind down.

Let's consider an alternative. Let's imagine that when the previous scene is a success, a thread comes over, and if the previous scene is a failure, a knot comes over. So, inverted of the current Shangri-la situation. All other items remain.

Let's take Players Z and Y, along with the Weaver, playing with these alternative rules in another dimension. They both start with one heddle, like before. Player Z goes first.

Player Y immediately spends a heddle on a thread for player Z, which is given to the Weaver. Player Z most likely wins, thus giving a free thread to player Y. Player Z now has 1 heddle, player Y 0, and the Weaver 1.

Now it's Player Y's turn. He has a free thread. The Weaver spends his heddle on a knot, giving that heddle to Player Y. Player Z wants to see Player Y win, so he spends his heddle on another thread, giving it to the Weaver.

Hm. Just from that quick blot test, that feels like a better way to go about it. What do you think?

I think that might work. The incentive here, however, is to spend heddles to help the other guy. I mean, he'll then be likely to help you, and you're both more likely to be passing threads on.

But, fortunately, they'll run out of heddles if they do this. If you pass the heddle, with a knot, then it's like Unsung in that you're "gifting" the other player with adversity and a reward for accepting it. You could allow the recieving player to veto knots, too...

Actually I'm not convinced that the original mechanism wouldn't work. I think playtesting both is really called for at this point. We could be missing all sorts of third party factors here.

Mike

The original mechanism, as much as I liked it aesthetically, seems to discourage, extremely, ever giving heddles to the Weaver (since giving a fellow player a knot will always be better for me than giving a fellow player a thread). As opposed to inverting it, which seems to encourage heddles flowing to the Weaver a lot more while not being too discouraging of giving heddles to fellow players.

So while I'm not completely giving up on the original, I'm inverting it in the text for now and will probably start my playtests with this.

Sounds logical.

Mike