Wow, this is weird, posting in Indie Design. I tend to keep my designing pretty private.

Playtesting so far has included the session described in [Doctor Chaos] Cards, bad guys, a hefty session at the Embassy Suites lobby (Gordon, Rob (RobNJ), Chris (Bankuei), Judd, and Michael Miller), and a brief but very useful session at the booth (Mike Holmes, Keith Senkowski, and someone else).

I'm discovering something: in a game that's to have a system-driven transformation of the rules as it goes along, that you can't playtest phases of play until you get the prior phases right. I'm not talking about anything so arbitrary as "after two hours, everyone now gets a +1 to hit," or anything like that, but rather the kind of change in play-space, resources, and opportunities that are characteristic of most card games. Capes is like this, and so is My Life with Master. As you play, the numbers change so that the same rules are now having very different impacts upon the situations.

Anyway, I was in on some playtesting for My Life with Master, and I'll hesitantly speculate that playtesting typically did Master creation, often did a few scenes, occasionally did late-stage pre-defiance scenes with Horror Revealeds, and only rarely developed an Endgame squarely by the rules (for instance, my playtests often skipped to Endgame). Hence the textual game has perfect Master creation rules, very good resolution rules, gets a little puzzling about Horror Revealed and a few things about defying the Master, and then sharpens up a lot with Endgame and Epilogues. The clarity reflects the extent of playtesting.

(And hey, if I'm totally wrong, Paul, then it's no big deal. I'm really talking about Doctor Chaos, not about MLWM, and I'm only using the latter as a possible illustration, emphasis on the "possible.")

I'm running into this with Doctor Chaos, because I'd really like to playtest the part that I don't have the best handle on, yet since it depends on earlier phases occurring through actual play, I tend not to get there quite yet. Or perhaps another way to put it is that I'd like to work on a later phase, but simply have to sharpen up earlier phases into their most refined form first.

Part 1 is merely creating Doctor Chaos and one lesser villain. The former will be played by almost everyone at the table; the latter will be played by one and only one person at all times. No superheroes are created prior to play.

Part 2 is composed of at least a couple of initial scenes, in which statistically Doctor Chaos is very likely to kick the asses of the heroes who have appeared to stop his plans. It's also statistically likely that he will be forced to abuse at least one hero, which permits that hero to return, later, with many game assets.

All the playtesting so far has only accomplished the refinements for the game as a whole and for Parts 1 and 2. For instance, as of now, the mechanics which lead Doctor Chaos to try to defeat the heroes dismissively, yet putting himself at risk to fail to achieve the current step in his plan, are pretty good. Now, playing Doctor Chaos (and using his deck) automatically move after each turn; you can steal him, but you can't keep him. I initially wanted ten cards per hand, then whittled it down to seven, which works very fast and yet very well. I parsed out what exactly gets narrated at different points. One and only one guy gets to (and has to) play a lesser villain. Stuff like that.

Part 3 is going to be the hardest part. It's composed of scenes in which the lesser villain's plan has probably managed to squeak in a success or two, and developed heroes may well be active and operating in tandem. My hope is that statistically, Doctor Chaos may succeed in the current conditions for his plan, but that he also may well not. This is where the role-playing decisions and the card-mechanics (which are not very card game like, at this point) need to be really sharp. Since I'm not as savvy about cards as I am about dice, that also means it's the phase which might end up getting playtested through various versions of total ass. You need very tolerant playtesters for this sort of thing.

Part 4, well, I dunno yet. This is the part where Doctor Chaos is basically one victory away from succeeding in his plan, or one loss away from failing entirely. I really like the end-stage conditions I've come up with, but haven't seen them happen in play yet (i.e. still refining part 2). I'm better off just letting it ride, at this point.

The text of the game has seen a lot of changes and refinement, and I've discovered that it's frustrating that the playtesters so far aren't seeing it. When you present the material verbally, it's hard to know what you need to include. In a couple of cases, people have been utterly flummoxed by something that was very clear in the text, but which I didn't say at the right moment.

One interesting development is how helpless non-comics people are. They have no idea what constitutes a superhero or supervillain, and since the only ones they've encountered are the highly-developed, highly-nuanced versions they've seen in movies, they stall out instantly. This is a case in which I have written very, very clear rules for what you say when you introduce a hero, but I think I need to put a section in the text which warns comics people to make sure the non-comics ones read those rules.

My current vision for the game is a stapled booklet very much like My Life with Master, although in standard digest dimensions, perhaps 6 by 9 inches. I'd like the covers to be stiff and glossy, and for the interior to be eminently fun to read. In fact, some of you will probably be pretty surprised at the tone and general approach - not jokey, but fun and clear.

I'd like to open this thread for open questions, especially for people who haven't seen anything at all. Your questions will help me figure out what sort of text I'm totally forgetting about that needs to be in the game.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

What I haven't quite got yet is the tone of the game. Is it an affectionate parody of superhero comics, or an attempt to recapture how exciting they were, or something else? Will it go into deeply dark areas or will it be deliberately superficial? If I play this, will I be yelling at people around the table or sitting quietly trying to work out how to defeat their evil plans with the cards in my hand?

And again, I'm fairly new here, so if the questions are irrelevant, please ignore.

Graham

Ron wrote:
One interesting development is how helpless non-comics people are. They have no idea what constitutes a superhero or supervillain, and since the only ones they've encountered are the highly-developed, highly-nuanced versions they've seen in movies, they stall out instantly.

Heya,

I would at this point appologize for not being the most qualified to comment/ask questions about your work, Ron, but I've found that you've never cared for appologies and seem to value everyone's contribution.  So I'll skip all that.

Anyway, I may just be misreading a few things, but right now what you've written doesn't tell me a lot about your game.  It sounds cool, and I really like the line that Jason quoted.  But I have a few questions that help me evaluate a design and form a base for further questions I might have.  If you could, answer them at your own convenience:

1. What is your game about?
2. What do the characters do?
3. What do the players do?

I think the answer to #1 is that the game is about villains and superheroes, but what aspects about them are you focussing on?  What makes the heroes of your game different from the heroes in other games, say Capes for instance?

For number 2, I gather that the characters fight Dr. Chaos.  But is that all they do?  And how do they do anything?  Lastly, what is advancement like, if it exists at all?  Is success guaranteed, or is something else at stake?

In the last question, I'm basically asking what the relationship between the characters, Dr. Chaos, and the players is like.  It looks like Dr. Chaos floats around, but how does that not create a conflict of interest at times for players?  What is the reward for playing Dr. Chaos?

I may have more questions later, but this is enough for now.  I hope this line of questions is helpful to you as you continue to work on your game.

Peace,

-Troy

Hi Troy,

Ah, I've always wanted to answer these questions in Indie Design. Don't forget to check out my first thread too; some of your questions (especially at the end) indicate to me that you haven't.

1. What is your game about?

2. What do the characters do?

3. What do the players do?

The whole game is about Dr. Chaos’ plan and where play-as-a-whole is, relative to that.

• Maybe you want Dr. Chaos to succeed while you control him
• Maybe you want Dr. Chaos to succeed and don’t care who controls him
• Maybe you want him to fail, regardless of who controls him
• Maybe you shift among these outlooks or among others as play goes along

Ron,

Here's a couple of questions for you:

- Is the Plan laid out at the beginning, or is it revealed in play (and how?)
- How rigid is each stage of the Plan? Under what circumstances can the Plan be modified?

The reason I'm interested in this area, is that it sounds like an important quality of Dr Chaos is that the players can identify with his goals and/or his methods. As he's created by the group, it may be that each player is attached to different parts of Dr Chaos' vision. I'm wondering if this could lead to struggle in play.

For example, we all agree that Dr Chaos is attempting to save the earth from ecological disaster, but this requires 90% of the population to die ("Plan: Kill several bilion people without destrying the ecosystem."). One player wants Dr Chaos to achieve this through stirring up political trouble amongst the most aggressive nations (let the vmost violent peole kill each other, the meek shall inherit.) Another player suggests spreading a virus keyed to certain genetic markers that renders a lare section of the population sterile. A third player advocates just killing people, but as painlessly as possible.

Is all of this negotiated between the players at the beginning and an agreement stuck to, or is it negotiable in play? If the Plan hinges on a gene-tailored virus, and I don't want this to happen, can I deliberately hose this option and force the group to choose a different approach?

Perhaps this should all be wrapped up into the wider question of: where do players compete with each other, if at all?

Hope this is a fruitful line of enquiry - I'm interested in the answers, but the main goal here is to help the game progress, so if answering me doesn't help, don't feel obliged to answer.

Heya,

WOW! This sounds like a kickass game.  I totally dig how characters (and the proto-hero-characters) advance and the reward cycles.  I did go back and read your first thread, and it did answer a lot of my questions.  Thanks for reminding me.  Your answers to my other questions were great, and I feel I understand your game much better now.

I do have a couple more foundational questions to ask.  The first kinda goes along with Doug's. 

First: When it comes ot the Lesser Villain's Plan, who makes it?

Second: How do the superheroes interact with the Lesser Villain?

Third:  It seems to me, that the problem you're having right now is transitioning form Stage 2 to Stage 3 and from Stage 3 to Stage 4.  Is this correct, and if so can you give an example of how you hit a wall there?

Peace,

-Troy

Doug,

Great questions! And yes, although some of them are explicit and easy to answer based on the current draft, it still helps a lot for me to see them framed by others.

- Is the Plan laid out at the beginning, or is it revealed in play (and how?)

- How rigid is each stage of the Plan? Under what circumstances can the Plan be modified?

The reason I'm interested in this area, is that it sounds like an important quality of Dr Chaos is that the players can identify with his goals and/or his methods. As he's created by the group, it may be that each player is attached to different parts of Dr Chaos' vision. I'm wondering if this could lead to struggle in play.

For example, we all agree that Dr Chaos is attempting to save the earth from ecological disaster, but this requires 90% of the population to die ("Plan: Kill several bilion people without destrying the ecosystem."). One player wants Dr Chaos to achieve this through stirring up political trouble amongst the most aggressive nations (let the vmost violent peole kill each other, the meek shall inherit.) Another player suggests spreading a virus keyed to certain genetic markers that renders a lare section of the population sterile. A third player advocates just killing people, but as painlessly as possible.

Perhaps this should all be wrapped up into the wider question of: where do players compete with each other, if at all?

First: When it comes ot the Lesser Villain's Plan, who makes it?

Second: How do the superheroes interact with the Lesser Villain?

Third: It seems to me, that the problem you're having right now is transitioning form Stage 2 to Stage 3 and from Stage 3 to Stage 4. Is this correct, and if so can you give an example of how you hit a wall there?

Whoops, forgot about these two! Sorry guys.

Graham, you wrote,

Is it an affectionate parody of superhero comics, or an attempt to recapture how exciting they were, or something else?

Will it go into deeply dark areas or will it be deliberately superficial? If I play this, will I be yelling at people around the table or sitting quietly trying to work out how to defeat their evil plans with the cards in my hand?

I'd find Doctor Chaos much more accessible if the hero/villain roles were somehow mechanically reinforced, or the secret code was spelled out, or it supported a pretty broad definition of hero and villain. Could you set the dial way low to handle office politics, for example?

Ron,

Thanks for the detailed response: I'm going to focus on a specific part of it here.

Ron Edwards wrote: Doctor Chaos's Plan is part of creating him as a character, before card play begins. It's composed of several Conditions, each very sketchily stated, in order. He will start at the top of the list and work his way down. Particular details of the Conditions get established by whoever's playing his cards at the time. One of the most interesting dials to spin at these points concerns just how horrific or destructive the Plan is, which is not established pre-play.

Heya,

-Thanks for the great answers, Ron.  I feel that I have a decent handle on your game now.  Cool.  So, if I read your first post in this thread correctly, this is where you're wanting assistance from us:

I'm running into this with Doctor Chaos, because I'd really like to playtest the part that I don't have the best handle on, yet since it depends on earlier phases occurring through actual play, I tend not to get there quite yet. Or perhaps another way to put it is that I'd like to work on a later phase, but simply have to sharpen up earlier phases into their most refined form first...

I'd like to open this thread for open questions, especially for people who haven't seen anything at all. Your questions will help me figure out what sort of text I'm totally forgetting about that needs to be in the game.

Hi there,

Here goes!

Doug's questions:

- Although there is a "shopping list" of actions or events that Dr Chaos wants to happen, are the actual consequences (the outcome of the Plan, if successful) still 'up for grabs' during play? If so, how does this get fleshed out? How dooes the group decide exactly what happens if Dr Chaos succeeds?

- It sounds like Dr Chaos' Plan isn't particularly flexible. In other words, there is no Plan B - if a hero thwarts part of Dr Chaos' plan, there doesn't appear to be a contingency, Dr Chaos just moves on to a different part of the plan. This doesn't seem to fit with Dr Chais being a genius, why doesn't he have a fall back plan? (I suspect that I'm not appreciating the scale of the plans, or what the conditions actually look like. Any chance of fleshing out my previous 'save the world by killing 90% of the people' example with a few example Conditions?

-So are the main difficulties your facing in getting to the latter stages (3&4) a result of lacking time to get there in your playtests, loss of player interest, or not being able to transition from one to the next?

-Also, what sets apart the Lesser Villain from the superheroes? All that I have seen so far is that he is played by a single person. I realize he has a Plan, but in a way, so do the heroes- to stop Dr. Chaos. So besides that, what other significant impacts does he have on play?

-Lastly, you talked about adding new Conditions. That seemed a little less fleshed out, but one question I do have regarding that mechanic is if you have planned any built-in limits on adding new Conditions to the Plan? It would seem to me that another way to stop Dr. Chaos is just to keep adding Condition after Condition and play would continue endlessly. It's not a "play to win" strategy, it's a "play to tie." Which would seem a type of railroading and very unfun way to play that game.

Heya,

I think you're fixating on this "stage" business as a problem. It's not a problem; it's normal, especially since I only thought of the game less than a month ago. Clearly, when you have a game with strong internal development, you'll have to playtest it in a kind of "two steps forward, one step back" way until the earlier phases get well-honed. This is just part of the landscape of development.

The significant impact you might be missing is that if Doctor Chaos controls the lesser villain...

As I see it, when it gets modified in the face of their interference, then it becomes Plan B. Or if anyone wants it to become different (in terms of actual Conditions), then the rules I'd like to work out for adding new Conditions would be just right for that purpose. (Strategically, sometimes it benefits Doctor Chaos to add new Conditions and sometimes it doesn't.)

Hello,

This is becoming quite helpful.

-This is very interesting to me. I really like how you work the relationship between Dr. Chaos and the LV, especially the Hook. By the way, is the Hook created by the player of the LV or is it conceived during Dr. Chaos's generation to explain how he came to have an underling?

-Also, I'm curious to know if the Plan of Dr. Chaos can call for the death of the LV? Say he's performing some ancient Aztec ritual, is the Doc aloud to kill the LV or even a superhero character without the consent of the person playing those characters?

Is there a Final Condition that cannot be destroyed or avoided that is intended to be the final showdown between the villain and the heroes? Or can Conditions keep being added and rearanged without regard to a chronological, step-by-step plan? I guess what I'm asking is do Plans still make sense (have to make sense) once Conditions are added, subtracted, and moved to the bottom?

Lastly, do both villains have to be defeated for the game to end?

Heya,

Everything about the lesser villain is created by that one player, including the Hook. Also, the lesser villain does not start under Doctor Chaos' control. Finally, it's hard to get across, especially to gamers, just how sketchy everything is starting. We don't start with a back-story for any character, and in fact, absolutely nothing, zilch, regarding heroes.

The Plan is made prior to the lesser villain's creation, and it must concern in-game elements, not rules of the game. So no, it's not possible for a Condition to read something like "kill the lesser villain." Also, I think I'm perceiving a certain bloodthirstiness on your and others' parts ... again, Conditions are stated without reference to the death and destruction they may entail

Oh, one more question I had to add to the above was what kind of deck are you using for the game?  Is it a standard Poker deck or a custom one you made yourself?

Peace,

-Troy

Hi Troy,

There are two standard card decks used, absolutely normal ones, without Jokers. One of them is utilized exclusively by the person playing Doctor Chaos for that turn ("Episode"). It will follow Doctor Chaos around the table. The other is shared by all the other players, lesser villain player included.

I have been pleasantly surprised to find that customizing the backs of normal playing cards with a single image is within my budget. I am contemplating getting a Doctor Chaos deck printed up. It would be, of course, the first of the decks I mentioned above, and the second would be any old pack of standard cards. I also like the facts that the Doctor Chaos wouldn't be required (two standard packs is fine), and that it would also be a perfectly good standard pack for any card game.

Best,
Ron