since Ron suggested this time that everyone, not just people "sitting out" this round of the Ronnies, should help start thoughtful analysis of the Ronnies submissions, I figured I'd start at least one thread on a game not my own. I picked The Saint's Golem vs. The Devil's Dragon by Tobias op den Brouw to start, because I've always been intrigued by the golem legend and because it sort of reminded me of the (aborted, incomplete) monastic order game several of us were discussing a couple years ago.

the game has a very clear, interesting concept: each player plays the head of a religious sect, called a flock in the game, and is responsible for the Doctrines of that flock. one player is the exception: the Dragon player, who represents the forces of the Devil attacking the faith of the true believers.

the game as described seems to intended as a single-session game. it looks very Gamist with a high Gamble factor; in fact, it's almost a board game, possibly influenced by the recent discussion of the role of Color in Snakes and Ladders. this might be an issue, because I noticed there's not a whole lot of interaction with the shared fiction or even between the players, with the exception of sharing resources in the form of Doctrines. if that's not what you want, Tobias, you might want to consider allowing fictional embellishments to affect the number of coins tossed.

there might also be an issue with scope. the Dragon player is encouraged to describe Dragon attacks at any scope desired, either interpersonal conflicts or apocalyptic events. however, there's a built-in escalation mechanic: if the Dragon's first attack did not succeed but the attack score is still positive, the Dragon player must build on the attack, making it more intense. if you opened round one with  dragons flying across the sky spewing fiery venom, how do you escalate it? and how do you keep the tension building?

I'm not sure the interplay of Doctrines and the Dragon's attack will work in the way intended. I like the basic concept: a direct attack against an area governed by a Doctrine is less effective than an attack against an unprotected area of faith; Doctrines for other areas of faith can be used to defend against the Dragon's attack, but risk damage (tested but found wanting) and may be eliminated if damaged three times. however, the complete immunity from attacks directly against a Doctrine, combined with the way a tested Doctrine is automatically healed when it challenged by an attack it is immune to, weems a little wrong. if a Doctrine has been tested (damaged), it might be better if it loses its total immunity to direct attack until healed. this gives the Dragon player more incentive to use strategy, figuring out which Doctrines to attack first. if the Doctine defends successfully, then it can heal.

there's got to be a rule that the contents of the Doctrine have to be narrated into play in some way when it is used and/or tested. this will enrich the roleplaying side of it. and if this is really going to be a one-session game, I'd suggest taking a tip from Aristotle and limiting the events of the game to a single day and night. I'd even suggest dispensing with the separate flocks and having all the players be religious leaders vying to get their Doctrines accepted as the true doctrines of the sect. the religious leaders don't have to be in the same place all the time, but they know the same people and their actions should interact.

oh, and: where's the golem? he gets mentioned two or three times, but just as passing Color. no mechanical effect, no elaboration of the idea as either a literal or figurative concept. I was a little disappointed!

still, this seems like a cool game to try.

Ah cool, feedback. Thanks!

To those read the following and might think I'm rather down on my game or my design methods: I'm not. Just airing the negatives, skipping the positives.

Is it a single-session game? Yeah, I guess it would be (yes, it would be better to make that clear). I am still flexing my fledgeling design-muscle - as with Companion Fever (for the IGC), I tend to build 'core mechanic test' games. They tend to be single-shot events for now - I should investigate reward-over-multiple-evening-cycles at some point as well.

As with Companion Fever, this game has a low number of rules and mechanics (that shape gameplay strongly), letting emergent game-play(fruitful void, hopefully), emerge. I think I'm probably not very good at getting the kind of investment in character that is needed in my first drafts - companion fever wasn't ever playtested (although it's core mechanics have been over and over again), SGvDD might suffer from the same fate. I should get down to testing, with friends, though. This, Schrodinger's War, YGAD/Augurann - I'm an armchair designer, I guess. Part of a priority issue, probably. That would teach me what works and doesn't work better, which I could incorporate into the next designs.

Enough reminiscing.

Is it Gamist (with high Gamble factor)? Hmmmm... probably. My design interest in this game (which makes me want to read feedback) is to read about why (and how) players form their doctrines, which ones they defend and which ones they will not incorporate into their belief, even under high (dragon) pressure. Adressing the issue of 'what is important'. It may be true that the Gamist/Gamble tendency with the high pressure overrides these 'reflective' choices, though, which would be a design flaw - I want their to be wriggling room to adress 'what matters' - but not a lot! I want 'I was destroyed, but stayed pure to myself' to be a viable option for a player.

Is it influenced by Snakes and Ladders? Perhaps subconsciously, to some degree. I was thinking more of DitV (back and forth narration, variable opposing powers decided by dice/coin toss results), Uni (doctrines=traits, and conflicts), and MlwM (semi-predefined variable endings depending on player choices (in Doctrine)).

'Interaction with the shared fiction' - the feedback from the shared fiction back into player's decisions may be better is the dragon's power is not 'reset' to the new d10 roll all the time - I was thinking the 'wanting' state of the Doctrines (and the level of the health bar) would be the memory/interface between what happened the previous round and what will happen this round. But it's a mechanical memory, not a shared-fiction memory that guides the player's next action - true. (Similar, again, to Companion Fever).

Focussing completely on Doctrines as a shared resource (and possibly one that is not shared, even when it could help, Game-wise) is deliberate, yes.

As to scope: nothing restricts the Dragon from starting at a level he is comfortable as a start to start escalating from. So you could narrate yourself into a tricky spot, true, but you'd have done it yourself. A bigger issue is probably that this 'escalation' doesn't actually ramp up the danger - the strength of the back-n-forth blows is always equal.

On your "interplay of Doctrines and the Dragon's attack" and "damaged doctrine loses its total immunity" - I'm not sure it will work, either. I've run it dry a few times, of course, and it seems to work (although nothing beats actual playtest). I've also considered the loss of total immunity for a damaged doctrine (it sounds like a good, thematically appropriate plan to me too!) but there seems to be enough strategy for the dragon player with the current rules already. Plus, the dragon is STRONG, as it stands now - I'm not sure it should be stronger (or some other compensation needs to be built in).

The rule that "the contents of the Doctrine have to be narrated into play" - yes, it should be there. It's so bluntly obvious, did I forget to put it in? *scans document* It's in there to a degree, certainly in the examples ("The world quakes - but some are sealed" and "Man strives"), but if you think it's not explicit enough, I probably need to make it more so.

Your suggestions on Aristotle's tip and being seperate leaders of one sect also seem quite viable... to some players that will be more interesting/palatable than the tension between three religions, I'd guess.

"Where's the Golem?" Yeah, he's the weaker of the two images. He's there, but I would have liked to make the mechanics and the play more 'golem-y' and about him. He deserves a game built around him! (don't remind me of Frankenstein :) ). Ever since we met in Prague...

Right. Thanks for the feedback, I'm getting to see the bagage and methods I'm bringing to design more clearly. Interesting stuff, this.

Actually, thinking on these comments and other games I've made in the past - it struck me that this, with some adaptation (the 'competing leaders of the same sect'), this could work great as a game with an explicit audience (the flock).

LARP, or theatersport (does English have that word? Improv Theatre Gaming?) are options!

I, too, like the idea of having all the player-characters (player-prophets?) vying for followers from a common pool, which creates an additional tension to counterbalance the benefits of borrowing Doctrines. Given the setting -- and I love the setting -- you have lots of different communities coexisting but also assimilating, converting, and contending with each other: As I recall the history, this is about the time when the southern Slavs split among those who converted to Islam to get right with the Turks (the Bosniaks), those who went with Catholicism and looked towards the Austrians (the Croats), and those who stayed stubbornly Orthodox (the Serbs). I'd be tempted to give different communities different game-mechanical traits that can be changed as they lean towards one spiritual leader on another.

My problem with the game as it stands is that it's very straight-line. The Dragon player, in fact, could be replaced by a purely random mechanic (roll 1d10 to see which commandment is attacked, the player with the strongest Doctrine immunity in that area gets to narrate how everyone else gets hammered). But even the Man players have a fairly narrow rang of choices. Every scene is a Dragon Attack, rather as if My Life With Master consisted only of scenes of Minions committing Violence & Villainy without the alternation of Connections scenes and Master scenes. Perhaps each Prophet could get a Flock scene for the internal affairs of his congregation, with success there putting the community in better stead for the external attack fo the Dragon?

Good points, Sydney.

This 'vying for the common pool' is exactly what might make this game interesting with a participatory audience (theatre/larp) - have the sect leaders state their doctrine, their method of resistance, etc., and have the audience choose who they support, each time. It would also give actual meaning to the people of what is being stated - not just tactical interplay.

As to the role of the dragon - it is deliberately limited in options - you're playing the role God intented you to play, and it's quite limited mechanically. If you can spur falling out just by talk (good demon, you!), that's where you can excel. Perhaps a part of the flock could choose to be disappointed in the leaders - and appeal to the Dragon instead, begging for his mercy? Ooohhh....

As to the Man players... yeah, if things get boring to them, so additional scenes of 'interaction with the audience' could be good. Building support, and all that.

Why do I get the feeling I'm stumbling into MlwM turf so heavily? It too is short, strong mechanics that drive toward an end, with meaning made by the players....

Possibly useful tangent: My semi-coherent rant about Steve Hix's still-not-as-cool-as-it-could-be Dirty Virgins applies equally to Golem vs Dragon, I think.

Tx for the referral, Sydney.

No time for something more insightful at the moment, though. Sorry.