This is likely to be very long so I'm going to make three posts. Pre-game Clyde questions, actual play, and post-game thoughts/positions.

So here's some stuff I noticed while rereading the game as prep:

• What happens if no one rolls prime when rolling for absolute prime for setting up the scenes?
• Why does having higher clarity hinder you when dealing with teachers?
• When resolving a failure against teachers what happens if there is no human NPC to personize? If I set clarity to one or zero an and play resolution to an aspect trait of four. It seems technically possible. Not strategically wise but possible.
• Who decides on whether the description is enough to receive the fetish die? I know in the ForgeCon game you did Paul, but I don't see that in the rules.
• Under Godhood you wrote, "Once you've advanced to Scourge and it's your turn for a scene, the option for a throwdown for Ephactha is available." Should that be Anathema in place of Scourge?
• Under Ending the Game you wrote, "The game ends when... or all NPC questions have been answered." Aren't questions much easier to resolve now? Should they still be used for end game?

I ran the game for 3 people. We had myself as GM. Brett, Tim, and Len as players.

Brett and I arrived about 15 to 20 minutes late due to yummy all you can eat Chinese food. We all sat down. I explained that the game was about the players characters quest to become a Cthonic god and that they they reach that state by putting themselves over other people. I then explained the system for rolling dice to create settings. I told them they could pick zero dice if they wanted. Was that correct? I don't see that in the rules one way or the other but I thought I rolled zero dice at Gen Con? Each of them rolled around 4 dice. Len and Brett both got Absolute Primes of 7, and starting denial of 2. Tim didn't get Absolute Prime and I'm not sure what his Denial was.

Len's setting was the Aztec Empire right before the Spanish coming to South America. He defined it as having lots of Human sacrifice. Brett created Florence Italy in 1497. Both these time periods I have little knowledge of.

We then went on to character creation. I explained to them the two main strategies I know of. The balance strategy of all aspects of at least two, and the mandatory lower one set at one. The other strategy being Clyde's overwhelm strategy of high clarity and two high skills. They seemed to choose something in between.

Tim created Abbot Lorenzo, of a Catholic Monastery who at night penned blasphemous books. Brett created Benetto an Artist whose speciality was painting Fresco's, and was still apprenticed under a master painter. He stated that he was getting a little tired of his master. Len made Prince Yucaven son of the Warrior King leader of all of Aztlan.

We played through three rounds. All of the PC's were tied for clarity the whole game. I couldn't find a rule for that instance so I just started on my left with Tim. I was not forceful enough for scene framing, and my players were sometimes frustrated by where I decided a conflict was. I think I did not explain well enough my job in setting up the conflict and sometimes drew a conflict when the players wanted to continue roleplaying, because they didn't feel there was a conflict.

Tim asked for a Nobody. I brought in Giuseppe a low level monk. Giuseppe brought in one of Abbot Lorenzo's blasphemous books. He proceeded to state that the handwriting in the blasphemous book and Abbot Lorenzo's handwriting were remarkably similar. He then commented on how such a similarity could get a person excommunicated. I think I must have missed some on the delivery, because they didn't catch on to the threat of that innuendo right away. I forget how Tim fought back against that blackmail attempt but the result was he got incredibly unlucky, and the scene ended with a Dissolution for Tim. Explaining the Dissolution was difficult. Tim was trying to disadvantage himself by narrating bad things happening with the interaction with between Abbot Lorenzo and Guiseppe. It took a couple of tries to get across that it was a betrayal of his self. Maybe dissolution is not clear enough? He decided on a betrayal of Flesh and described himself as growing two small horns at the top of his forehead. He described how he kept to his study and pretended he was sick.

Len asked for a nobody. I'm not to knowledgeable on Aztec stuff so was drawing a blank and asked for suggestions. Len offered that the conflict could be between him and a prince from another nation, and that they were meeting to sign a treaty. Sounded good to me so I set up a tent that was on the nations borders that he and Pico (the other prince) would both enter and keep their guards outside. Pico informed Yucaven that if the Aztecs didn't surrender the fertile lands of the nameless disputed border regions that they would be forced to kill his sister Princess Sucalyn whom he then produced so Prince Yucaven would know they weren't bluffing. Yucaven then berated Pico and got some power from him. Then Yucaven turned Pico into a victim by marrying Pico to his Princess Sucalyn. Ha.

Brett asked for a ? It's already leaving my head apparently. If a turn by turn is important I can see if I can strive harder to push it out of my brain. I did take decent afternotes, and I hope those are more helpful.

Here's a rundown of the after game discussion:

• We weren't sure if the player need to narrate a dissolution of the aspect that was used for the failed roll or if any aspect was appropriate for narrating dissolution.

• The text seems to indicate that when doing a Congruence the player can set the Agency stat at one. Is this correct?

• When asked if they felt a connection to the NPC's the answer was a resounding no, with Len stating that he almost did but the mechanics cut off the scene before it could happen for him.

• They all stated that they felt players in the same setting made it a more difficult game.

• They felt all the players should start in the same setting.

• They felt the first roll for setting was too important, and brought a taste of old school D+D randomly generated character creation to their mouth.

• Len's character Yucaven became a Scrouge on his second turn, none of the other players had the Power to interfere. Do you want that to happen that quickly?

• They all felt that if one player was getting ahead, they not only were winning but were dominating game time as the amount of rolls they could make increased.

• The players didn't feel invested or even interested in the other scenes. I bear partial blame here.

• Tim and Len felt invested in their characters. Brett did not.

• They all felt that the game was unlikely to be very good with more players. They suggested putting a recommended number of players on the cover. I think the consensus was about four maximum.

• Brett felt that not having input into the set up to the conflict was deprotagonizing for him and left him somewhat disinterested in the conflict. Tim and Len agreed to an extent.

• They felt the game felt like a resource management game with narration tacked on to it.

• Len felt that the first person to grok the rules would be the one to win if they didn't flub the dice. He felt this would lead to leaderbashing and could make the game go on forever.

• They all wondered what the reward was for roleplaying.

• Len suggested that a if you want to increase X do Y on the character sheet would be very helpful.

• I think Tim suggested there should be a GM sheet. I think lines for the name with checkboxes for victim/nobody/underling/etc, and a place to write agency and purpose would be really helpful.

• They wondered how you increase Ambition.

• Len suggested that the first person to Scrouge could continue to jump to new scenes to have low purpose NPC's. I think there is supposed to be a roll to travel to another time or place but I couldn't find it.

• They felt that Victims causing you to gain rage was not comprehensible since you can only gain rage by losing to victims and you only use it with victims. Is the idea that it gets harder and harder to lose to victims?

• They felt they spent most of their game time watching rather than playing

• All that said two want to play again and the other is willing.

I'm sorry the list doesn't appear to help readibility at all and I'm too tired to go remove all those tags. If you have questions, or need clarifications feel free to ask/order/compel. Also if you are interested in getting my players opinions straight from them, Brett and Tim are willing to make accounts and post here.

Hey Clyde,

Awesome.

* What happens if no one rolls prime when rolling for absolute prime for setting up the scenes?

An excellent question. I hadn't even considered it. My knee-jerk answer is that the GM then creates a setting. What do you think?

* Why does having higher clarity hinder you when dealing with teachers?

In early playtests it was reported that Teachers were pushovers that lost too easily against player character occultists. The current formula ensures that "Teacher" isn't a hollow title. A Teacher is always beyond you. Your option to prove otherwise is to make them a Rival.

* When resolving a failure against teachers what happens if there is no human NPC to personize? If I set clarity to one or zero an and play resolution to an aspect trait of four. It seems technically possible. Not strategically wise but possible.

Do you see any reason not to just invent one?

* Who decides on whether the description is enough to receive the fetish die? I know in the ForgeCon game you did Paul, but I don't see that in the rules.

The GM, but with the same guidance to be generous that I have for the Intimacy, Desperation, and Sincerity dice in My Life with Master.

* Under Godhood you wrote, "Once you've advanced to Scourge and it's your turn for a scene, the option for a throwdown for Ephactha is available." Should that be Anathema in place of Scourge?

Yes.

* Under Ending the Game you wrote, "The game ends when... or all NPC questions have been answered." Aren't questions much easier to resolve now? Should they still be used for end game?

Yeah, that's legacy text. It only persists because I'm needing confidence the resolution mechanics are driving interest in the Nobodies and Victims before rethinking the game ending.

Paul

Hey Clyde,

I told them they could pick zero dice if they wanted. Was that correct?

That's correct. But there's no chance of you creating a setting if you do, and your starting Denial will be equal to the number of Lebesgue primes rolled by the player who rolled the most without also rolling the Absolute Prime.

And your scenes all sound great. I like Tim's horns. And Len's turning of Pico to a Victim by marrying him to Sucalyn is awesome! Can I ask what other games you guys have played together?

Paul

Hey Paul,

Brett and I have been gaming and friends for over ten years. Strangely he hasn't played in any game I've run except maybe one of my Outside playtests. He didn't like my game. Tim and Len have both only played with me in my Outside playtests, they've both been very helpful and after seeing how thick-skinned I am they are becoming brutal in commenting and observing. I can't wait to see what they think when I've got Silence Keeps Me a Victim in a playtestable state. Now Tim and Len have a long gaming relationship. I think Len has been involved in much of Tim's drifted diceless Vampire the Masquerade game that Tim's been running for like 13 or 14 years. Now to address your questions.

Paul wrote:
* What happens if no one rolls prime when rolling for absolute prime for setting up the scenes?

An excellent question. I hadn't even considered it. My knee-jerk answer is that the GM then creates a setting. What do you think?

Paul wrote:
* When resolving a failure against teachers what happens if there is no human NPC to personize? If I set clarity to one or zero and play resolution to an aspect trait of four. It seems technically possible. Not strategically wise but possible.

Do you see any reason not to just invent one?

Hey Clyde,

Continuing the response to bullet points.

* We weren't sure if the player need to narrate a dissolution of the aspect that was used for the failed roll or if any aspect was appropriate for narrating dissolution.

I don't think that's necessary. Do you? It seems to me a character could fail against a Nobody using Flesh, and then be subsequently plagued by memories of the non-occultist's childhood.

* The text seems to indicate that when doing a Congruence the player can set the Agency stat at one. Is this correct?

Yes.

* When asked if they felt a connection to the NPC's the answer was a resounding no, with Len stating that he almost did but the mechanics cut off the scene before it could happen for him.

I'm really really interested in the particulars of this. Can you detail that scene? Was this Len's own scene with the NPC in question, or was he almost interested in an NPC in someone else's scene? Can he say what it was about the NPC that had the potential to capture his interest?

* They all stated that they felt players in the same setting made it a more difficult game.

I'm almost certain this is true. I'd like to think it incentivizes the setting bid. What do you think?

* They felt all the players should start in the same setting.

Can you provide details on this? Is it because they felt the players not in the same setting had too much of an advantage? Or because the events in the storylines of the isolated characters were less interesting?

* They felt the first roll for setting was too important, and brought a taste of old school D+D randomly generated character creation to their mouth.

Good to know. Thanks.

* Len's character Yucaven became a Scrouge on his second turn, none of the other players had the Power to interfere. Do you want that to happen that quickly?

Not particularly. I don't think I want the game to have a single clearly advantageous point allocation strategy. But even shaving a point from the starting chargen allowance won't solve this issue. I could say that no more than two Aspects can start with equivalent values. Hmm...

* They all felt that if one player was getting ahead, they not only were winning but were dominating game time as the amount of rolls they could make increased.

Again, good to know.

* The players didn't feel invested or even interested in the other scenes. I bear partial blame here.

Did you personally experience this in either the Forge Midwest playtest, or the Embassy Suites playtest?

* Tim and Len felt invested in their characters. Brett did not.

Tim and Brett were in the same setting. And it was Brett who created the setting. Did Brett start out interested in the game and in his character and then lose interest in the course of play? Or did he start out not interested?

* They all felt that the game was unlikely to be very good with more players. They suggested putting a recommended number of players on the cover. I think the consensus was about four maximum.

I think four is probably the sweet spot. But I can't say I wouldn't love to run it for seven or so at a time, just to see how the rivalries play out.

* Brett felt that not having input into the set up to the conflict was deprotagonizing for him and left him somewhat disinterested in the conflict. Tim and Len agreed to an extent.

* They felt the game felt like a resource management game with narration tacked on to it.

* Len felt that the first person to grok the rules would be the one to win if they didn't flub the dice. He felt this would lead to leaderbashing and could make the game go on forever.

* They all wondered what the reward was for roleplaying.

All good to know.

* Len suggested that a if you want to increase X do Y on the character sheet would be very helpful.

An excellent suggestion.

* I think Tim suggested there should be a GM sheet. I think lines for the name with checkboxes for victim/nobody/underling/etc, and a place to write agency and purpose would be really helpful.

A good suggestion. Almost certainly necessary, I think.

* They wondered how you increase Ambition.

Yep. You don't.

* Len suggested that the first person to Scrouge could continue to jump to new scenes to have low purpose NPC's. I think there is supposed to be a roll to travel to another time or place but I couldn't find it.

My unreexamined thinking on this is that time travel content in a scene would Aspect for Memory and cosmic or dream travel content would Aspect for Imagination. But otherwise, if the GM frames the scene and you've already transcended time, there's nothing keeping him from framing you into a scene with a pre-existing NPC in whatever time he wants you to be in. It means that transcending time and space is actually a source of adversity, rather than advantage. But like I said, I haven't completely thought it through. So I'm definitely open to opinions.

* They felt that Victims causing you to gain rage was not comprehensible since you can only gain rage by losing to victims and you only use it with victims. Is the idea that it gets harder and harder to lose to victims?

Not exactly, but that's certainly a true characteristic of the mechanics. The actual idea is that failures against Victims represent an increasing distraction, a get rich quick temptation that actually isn't likely to keep you independent and progressing toward godhood.

* They felt they spent most of their game time watching rather than playing

* All that said two want to play again and the other is willing.

So they did have fun :)

Also if you are interested in getting my players opinions straight from them, Brett and Tim are willing to make accounts and post here.

I'm very interested. Send me a private message with their user names and I'll ask Clinton to add them to the forum.

Thanks again Clyde. And in particular please keep me posted on the details and reactions to Agency and Congruence as played out in forthcoming scenes.

Paul

Tim's account name is TJ. I'll ask Brett to create an account.

Paul wrote:
We weren't sure if the player need to narrate a dissolution of the aspect that was used for the failed roll or if any aspect was appropriate for narrating dissolution.

I don't think that's necessary. Do you? It seems to me a character could fail against a Nobody using Flesh, and then be subsequently plagued by memories of the non-occultist's childhood.

Paul wrote:

* When asked if they felt a connection to the NPC's the answer was a resounding no, with Len stating that he almost did but the mechanics cut off the scene before it could happen for him.

I'm really really interested in the particulars of this. Can you detail that scene? Was this Len's own scene with the NPC in question, or was he almost interested in an NPC in someone else's scene? Can he say what it was about the NPC that had the potential to capture his interest?

Paul wrote:
* They all stated that they felt players in the same setting made it a more difficult game.

I'm almost certain this is true. I'd like to think it incentivizes the setting bid. What do you think?

Paul wrote:
* They felt all the players should start in the same setting.

Can you provide details on this? Is it because they felt the players not in the same setting had too much of an advantage? Or because the events in the storylines of the isolated characters were less interesting?

Paul wrote:
* Len's character Yucaven became a Scrouge on his second turn, none of the other players had the Power to interfere. Do you want that to happen that quickly?

Not particularly. I don't think I want the game to have a single clearly advantageous point allocation strategy. But even shaving a point from the starting chargen allowance won't solve this issue. I could say that no more than two Aspects can start with equivalent values. Hmm...

Paul wrote:
* The players didn't feel invested or even interested in the other scenes. I bear partial blame here.

Did you personally experience this in either the Forge Midwest playtest, or the Embassy Suites playtest?

Len's reply to the question. This is his third scene so he has transcended time and gone forward in time to a setting where he is a security guard.

Len wrote:
Scene:  I am a security guard, trying to challenge a nobody for power. The nobody was an inmate in a South American prison.  Possibly he accosted me for drugs.  I lost the challenge, but more importantly, the scene ended without any real resolution, other than because an inmate had intimidated me, I had lost some confidence in my ability to achieve god hood.

If the scene had continued, my goal was to explore what the inmate was in for as I continued to draw power from him.  Eventually I would have made him a victim, and used him for my own personal gain in this time and place. similar to what I had done in my original time and space.