Some days ago, I ran a one on one playtest of Illumination. Well, kind of. The game is my Mage: the Ascension heartbreaker, and it started as an alternative system for Mage - only later did I decide to change the setting and base an autonomous game on the rules. Since the playtest was completely spontaneous, and I hadn't got the rules for powers completely worked out yet, I simply ran M:tA using my system, with Spheres. I was mainly interested in how the resolution and currency flows work anyway, so it made no real difference.

I written down the rules a month back, and during the playtest I kept forgetting some minor stuff (maybe I didn't need it in the end?). E.g. I had things characters can do with an automatic success outlined, but I ignored it for the most part, bidding more than would be necessary by the rules. Consequently, the bidding contests occurred more often than I planned them to. Now, the funny thing. I intended the resolution to work as a broad task resolution with explicit player intents. However, Radek (the player) - who have been into Forge theory for some time now, but haven't got a chance to try Forge-ish games yet - somehow automatically assumed that the system uses conflict resolution, and we winded up doing it that way.

Also, I wasn't sure how coherent the rules are, as my design priorities were a bit mixed. Although it's hard to say much on the basis of a two-scene session, I think we got a gamist play. But then, somehow I feel like I drifted my own game. Now I wonder if the rules as they are could support some non-gamist agenda well with the right group and techniques.

I like how the secret bidding mechanics work. As Radek described it: "a war of nerves". Resolution was taking us more time than was really needed, due to the tension - and since we've been bidding with glass beads, the sound they were making constantly made us try to figure out the other's bid. And when we were done with bidding, we often took a while to keep ourselves uncertain as to which hand held the tokens, grinning. Fun ^^

Well, the bidding mechanics and currency flows work, although they sure could use some improving here and there (mostly, balancing stuff). There are reasons both to bid low and high, as the tokens one bids change for an xp equivalent for the other side. Also, it's all about "how confident I am in my idea", as there is always an option of making a zero bid in order to reward the other side - in such a case, the challenger succeeds automatically and his own bid changes into a big amount of xp. It's basically "say yes, but still keep up the tension".

There is a constant flux of resource pools, as a fanmail equivalent can be spent after every bidding contest to regain a number of tokens equal to the difference of the final totals (only one player can do it per contest, and the loser has the chance to do it first). An amount of tokens depending on the stats is added to the pools at the beginning of every scene, too, but since we played only two scenes I couldn't really observe the impact of this (on the other hand, I think the scenes should have been shorter than they were). I had some timing issues with this before, as it could be possible for someone to prolong the scenes in order to exploit other's lack of resources - and I solved it by giving the players an option of force-closing the scene when they get to zero tokens in one of the pools (normally the GM has the right to frame the scenes, and this includes closing them whenever he wants). But despite a lot of bidding none of us ran dry of tokens in this playtest, so unfortunately I didn't manage to observe it in practice.

Radek didn't use Sphere magick much, as his character was rather focused on non-supernatural performance, so I still need a chance to examine the Paradox rules better (but then, the reality shaping rules change slightly in Illumination anyway). Paradox worked more or less how I wanted it to. Generated by vulgar effects, it can be later spent by the losing side of a bidding contest to improve the total, at the cost of adding some complication caused by the backlash (and then, if spent by the player, it goes to the GM's pool at the start of the next scene). Although only a few vulgar effects were used by Radek (mainly Correspondence stuff), there certainly were the mechanical dilemmas I expected - going vulgar pays immediately, but it can result in later consequences.

There was a problem with the fanmail equivalent. I included an option for the players to buy scene framing rights or introduce new facts and characters, but I allowed the GM to veto it - in the playtest we came to a conclusion that it kind of undermines the idea. Also, Radek used this rule once, to introduce a squad of Technocracy hit-marks invading Sabat tunnels - but found himself assaulted along with the vampires, as a reality deviant. I wonder if there is a need of giving the players some control of the newly introduced elements, as currently after establishing the fact it's all up to the GM unless the player has a connected trait.

Generally, I think it wasn't a bad playtest, although it gave me a chance to examine only some of the game's features in action. It motivated me to start gathering my notes and writing a playtest document of Illumination, in any case (and I'm working on it).