In The Firestarter Feedback Thread

Ron Spake Thusly:

3. Basing the system on the concept of "success = introduced fact" is a tricky issue, and I'm not really confident about it myself despite its widespread use across Universalis, Donjon, Fastlane, and Capes. I've seen it break down too many times in a specific way: a tendency toward negotiation just above the currency level. In other words, people losing track of what the conflict is about, and therefore not being invested in the dice turning out in any particular way.

My concern is that Bob might say, "Fact: X," and across the table, I simply don't think X is paid for by a single fact. I'll think instead that X is worth a whole bunch of Facts and needs to be paid for as such.

Bob disagrees. He wants X in there, and he only has one Fact to buy it, or perhaps he has more but simply doesn't want to spend them. He should be able to buy X with his one Fact, he says.

Saying "bid for it" is no solution at all. If Bob happens to have more bid-points, or if I do, it's the same problem just given a few extra steps, that's all. Either Bob or I will become irritated with the resolution, and it's quite likely that we will also become irritated with one another at a more significant social/creative level.

Wouldn't this be solved in large part by introducing guidelines for what can be bought with one fact?  Something like:

One Fact may buy:

• A character of competent reason and ability
• An unruly mob of power but no reason
• A useful tool of utility but no intitiative
• A place with two useful aspects
• I dunno, pajamas.

This thread topic needs to be focused into Actual Play of some relevant game like Universalis (in which case I'll move it) or into Indie Design for a specific game, perhaps Firestarter. Otherwise it must be closed.

Ralph, help out with either of those, thanks.

Best,
Ron

I wasn't really interested in focusing it into a specific game.  Obviously I'm interested as it applies directly to Universalis, but I could have started the thread there myself, or just left it in the Firestarter thread.

But you made some pretty broad claims that suggested that the "buy Facts with Successes" paradigm had some flaws that you have witnessed across several different applications.  Flaws severe enough that it gave you pause when you saw it crop up again in Firestarter. 

That's what I am interested in discussing, I didn't want to clog up the other thread to do it.

Am I not being clear? I did not ask for any reasons for why you started a new thread.

Please focus the thread in either of the ways I described. I would be happy to continue the discussion but you have to accord with the criteria. This is the last call.

Best,
Ron