Hi, all. Between my recent awesome play of The Shadow of Yesterday and some awesome discussion in the forum, my interest in TSOY has been re-sparked to a great degree. I've been writing a revision in my spare time, and it's garnered some fairly large changes.

Anyway, if you own TSOY and can spare five minutes, I've made a survey about the current version of the game and the revision. Please feel free to take it, and forward it on to TSOY players/owners you know that don't read The Forge. Thanks!

TSOY Owners' Survey

I'm on it!










post-survey:

Ah, a lot of things hinted at, and a move towards Fudge implied... interesting. Are you going to be talking about the revisions much?

dyjoots wrote:
Ah, a lot of things hinted at, and a move towards Fudge implied... interesting. Are you going to be talking about the revisions much?

Survey done!

Will the revised TSOY still be Creative Commons license?

Per

pfischer wrote: Survey done!

Will the revised TSOY still be Creative Commons license?

Per

Survey says...at least in theory (having not played the revised rules) I would prefer the current version to the Fudgier version. I pretty much like the game as it is, and the rules changes mentioned in the survey don't really excite me all that much. I think I'd stick with TSOY 1.0 and run that.

I'm with Josh. I'd keep the current rules, with only the BDTP modifications.

Of course, there's no reason why it has to be one or the other. Clinton, you seem pretty excited about the changes, so there's no reason why you shouldn't bundle together the changes with new art and sell it as a PDF and bound book. But I also don't see why the changes would have to be "The Shadow of Yesterday, Upgrade" instead of "The Shadow of Yesterday (Acid Remix)." It's like jazz--two different versions of the same song, and you can dig one or the other or both.

Personally, I've been getting pretty psyched about running TSOY, but that's based on rereading the current book and really digging on it. I've only actually played one session, but I had a really good time with it, and I rather liked the mechanics as is.

But one book doesn't negate the other--thinking it does is old-school gamerthink. Pshaw to that.

Josh and Alan,

Have either of you played it? Even more relevant, what about running it?

I think taking a few months off from running or playing it did me good - before, I had my platonic ideal of the game in my head and so it ran like a charm. Six months later, I go back to run it again, and, man - it's a wee bit clunky. Making NPCs on the fly is a huge pain - and doesn't have to be.

There's basically a lot of stuff - let's say, for example, the 1-10 ability scale and ability groupings - that are their solely because I thought they were clever or nifty. They don't add to the game. Therefore, I want to remove them post-haste.

Seriously, I'm looking for good or bad examples from play. I'm totally interested in hearing that. But that's why I made this an anonymous survey - so nothing got personal.

(Written before Josh posted. Your notes, Josh, are very good. I have been thinking strongly about supporting the old rules - the changes aren't dramatic enough that I can't.)

Asking about actual play is a damn good question, Clinton.

I haven't run it, although I've been talking it up to my new (old) gaming group in KC. I would really, really like to run it.

I played one session, which obviously isn't enough to really let me say one way or the other. At the time, we all sort of felt that PCs tended to get fairly mediocre results most of the time, until we started getting more advances. But I don't see, right now, how the new mechanics would change that. If they would, explain it to me (because, admittedly, I don't really "get" mechanics just by reading them, most of the time--I generally need to play them or see descriptions of actual play to appreciate them).

I think part of my lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact that I have played some Fudge-based games, and I didn't really like the Fudge dice and the way they interacted with the levels. Part of it may be an aesthetics thing (preferring the look and feel of d6 to Fudge dice), but aesthetics is part of what gets me enthusiastic about a game, so that's not an unimportant factor for me. I really, really like the aesthetics of the current print version--the art, the layout, the writing style, and the mechanics-as-written.

joshua neff wrote:
I played one session, which obviously isn't enough to really let me say one way or the other. At the time, we all sort of felt that PCs tended to get fairly mediocre results most of the time, until we started getting more advances. But I don't see, right now, how the new mechanics would change that. If they would, explain it to me (because, admittedly, I don't really "get" mechanics just by reading them, most of the time--I generally need to play them or see descriptions of actual play to appreciate them).

I think part of my lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact that I have played some Fudge-based games, and I didn't really like the Fudge dice and the way they interacted with the levels. Part of it may be an aesthetics thing (preferring the look and feel of d6 to Fudge dice), but aesthetics is part of what gets me enthusiastic about a game, so that's not an unimportant factor for me. I really, really like the aesthetics of the current print version--the art, the layout, the writing style, and the mechanics-as-written.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Making NPCs on the fly is a huge pain - and doesn't have to be.

Clinton, I ran two TSOY sessions around New Year's, I've been a player on-line for maybe 6 sessions now, and I've spent a fair bit of time designing cultures for it & stuff.

IMO the game works pretty well as-is. I think any modifications you wanna make, should be made with the target audience in mind, which will help you identify what's really a problem, and what isn't. I come from a traditional gaming background, and TSOY chargen is already loads easier than just about any version of D&D I've ever seen. The only time consuming part is calculating advances, so if you have template-blocks for that, it would simplify things.

BDTP should resolve faster.

There should be more GM'ing advice, particularly:

* distinctions between conflict and task resolution, if that matters to TSOY--with examples of how it's used

* examples on how to use stuff effectively for the desired playstyle. Obviously if someone has two keys, an SG ought to design scenes that put those keys in conflict.

* advice on how to create new species or cultures

Hi Clinton,

Wil ran a game of TSOY a while back and I enjoyed playing. BDTP was the only weakness we found.

However, I'm all in favor of game designs that make easy NPC creation on the fly. So maybe I might accept some changes in the interests of that.

Maybe Wil can comment further.

I'd be happy to see the ability range change, and scrapping ability groupings is a great idea, but please, please, please, no Fudge dice. There just has to be a way to stick with standard dice.

Well if you want a similar odds curve you can roll two dice, one considered positive and one negative and take the lowest number showing. Ties are 0.

best

Trevis

Jeffrey Straszheim wrote: I'd be happy to see the ability range change, and scrapping ability groupings is a great idea, but please, please, please, no Fudge dice. There just has to be a way to stick with standard dice.

Fudge dice are nice if you have them, an inconvinience when you don't.

It makes the game a little less accessable. IMO.

And yes, you can use d6s and just badger your FLGS to take them in. And yes they are very intuitive. But in the end it makes the game just that little bit less . . . easy to simply pick up and go.

I like the fudge dice myself.

But I think, Clintion, if you want, you could include something like my suggestion above in a sidebar, in case people only have normal six siders available.

Trevis.

Fudge dice are weird. Got a friend who raves about them. GM's a Fudge group every week. So I've been exposed to them, but they're still .. inaccessible. Just like the Heroquest Boardgame dice. In fact, more so. (But probably less than Dragon Dice.)

d6 is my favorite, and that makes TSOY v1.0 attractive to me.

As a point of comparison, I adore the move in DitV to create heterogenous pools. Higher maximums = better performance. I get it. And the funky, non-cube shapes don't bother me at all. But once you start changing the symbols on the die face .. [rubs forehead in frustration] .. it breaks some aesthetic I can't express.

Trevis-

How would you combine positive/negitive dice rolls with bonus & penalty die? Could you do it without a number of color coded dice to keep the positives and negitives appart?


-K

Regarding my dislike of Fudge dice,

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
I keep hearing this, but I never hear why. So, if you're going to make this complaint, please let me know why. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to gamer-think.

Looking at it my instinct would be to say that since you can't have both bonus and penalty dice that you use a neutral color for the bonus dice (or just roll them in a different spot) and if you know they are positive or negative you read them like you read the roll now.

i.e. my character has an ability roll with penalty dice so I roll my two main dice and two penalty dice and you take the highest number of the penalty dice as the negative.

The disadvantage is you couldn't use the 'read lowest die' method. You'd actually have to do the addition of the positive and negative dice. A mental shift but not too hard to pick up. It's not the most elegant solution for sure.

It would change the odds somewhat. I mean I don't know what the mechanism Clintion is planning to use is. Assuming that it is like the current one, and if you are using Fudge dice, then the most additional dice could do is a 33% chance of lowering the score by 1 per penalty die (or add by 1 for bonus die.) The range of variance would be greater with the method above.

But the core mechanic may change so much as to make this speculation worthless.

Trevis

To add some fuel to the fire against Fudge dice, it really comes down to:

The probability curve on a 4dF is so heavily centered, you might as well not bother rolling the dice.

In fact, I'd argue that Fudge is one of the closest things you can get to a Karma system that involves a randomizer.

Assuming that each new level of skill (journeyman, etc) gives you 1dF, have you thought about the fact that your skill level has a roughly flat effect on your result, regardless of your skill level?

Whereas, basing your system on a 2d6 curve + skill level, that gives you a nice spread -- still relatively centered, but with good variation.

IMHO, leave well enough alone.

Just had another thought as I hit "post".

I understand your desire to reduce the number of skill steps. This is cool.

Why not do that, but keep the old 2d6 system...just tweak it a bit.

Now, each rank of skill grants a +1 die mod and a bonus die. Then, you don't need any fancy rules to deal with unskilled actions -- 2d6 no bonus, no help.

Seems elegant enough to me (and it gets more dice hitting the table -- which is always good in my books).

For what it's worth.

Eggo von Eggo wrote:
Assuming that each new level of skill (journeyman, etc) gives you 1dF, have you thought about the fact that your skill level has a roughly flat effect on your result, regardless of your skill level?

I'm not sure what you guys are smoking in regards to system. It's the same thing as before - just with less steps on the skills and dice.

I could type it all out now, but just read this:

http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy2/solar_system.html

The only part of the above stuff that was right at all is the fact that Fudge dice - when using 4dF, as in Fudge - are heavily centered. I use 3dF, de-centering it some. It's still more center-focused than 2d6, which I like - bonus and penalty dice are more necessary now.

Geeze, big "C". That link might have been helpful earlier. ;)

Makes sense now that you sort things out for us. Puts a stronger focus on in-game play (as in playing hard, or working, or giving 110% or whatever other sports euphemism we could use).

Have you considered that with the increased impact of bonus/penalty dice that this will to a degree degrade the value of "skills"?

Just an open question.

Should we start a new thread as discussion for the Solar System?

(edit: I like it, and want to discuss, but I didn't know if there was a better place... After a quick overview, it looks good. I'm probably starting a game soon, and I'll definitely consider giving these a try.)

Also, I *love* Shin Qui. That is a great non-fantasy example, and set my firefly-sense tingling.

We should start a new thread - I'll do that now.

I just answered the survey myself. I think TSoY is an awesome game. I think its failings* have been the fact that Bringing Down the Pain takes a little too long to resolve and it is unclear whether you can create new abilities for your character or are limited to the core abilities + cultural abilities.

* I don't really consider the failings as much as mechanics that are slightly less awesome than they could be.

It sounds as if your revision ideas will address both these areas. Awesome.

As I noted in the survey, I think it would be beneficial for the revision to spend a little bit more time on Intent in conflicts and also discussion of the consequences of failed Intent.

Some discussion/guidelines on how to create new cultures (i.e., Abilities, Secrets, Keys, etc.) would be great.

I'm gonna chime in on the side against fudge dice on purely asthetic reasons. I already own a lot of six sided dice. I like six sided dice. My players and I already have these dice. We don't have fudge dice, and since we don't play fudge aren't so likely to buy them.

Requiring us to purchase an additional set of dice creates another barrier to entry for this game. As an indy game it already has a pretty high barrier, because people don't want to invest a lot of time in something they aren't familiar with. Adding another hoop to jump through moves the barrier higher.

I agree that Bringing Down The Pain takes too long. I don't think that changing the type of dice is the way to solve that problem. Changing the scale for damage will speed things up, allowing each individual blow to have a more serious effect on the target.