Last weekend I GM'd some Rustbelt for a bunch of friends. It's a game under construction written by Marshall Burns (you can find the old document I used here). After reading it and Marshall's playtest threads on this forum I was hyped to try it out. I ran some 5 min scenarios to see how well it worked in practice and it was so good I decided to try start a campaign as soon as possible.

2 hours went to shitchatting, making characters, explaining the system, getting people to stop playing Crysis and the actual session was 3 hours long.

Characters:
Morgan Freeman
Doctor who is tough and intelligent and has a crowbar fetish.
His hunger is getting out of the Rustbelt, he believes in his own competence, he grieves over leaving his family and he can't ever abandon someone who's wounded. I think I should have had him change his hunger to something more abstract that can never really be fullfilled (well he will never succeed escaping the Rustbelt with his life intact but you know what I mean) something like 'freedom' or 'civilization'.

Jane McCard
Smoking librarian type who hungers for knowledge. Would never hurt a child or destroy knowledge. Generally smart, thorough and alert. Smokes alot.

Konrad von Vets
Cynical trucker who's lost his family, job ect. ect. Likes cigars. Tough and grizzled, no limits or traits but lots of faiths who can be summed up with "everything goes to hell eventually".

Benisto
Crazy, paranoid priest who hungers for power and spreading the faith. Believes in God but doesn't ever turn the other cheek (limit) and would rather resort to violence than back down from an argument. Extremely addicted to chewing tobacco. Polarised scores, very high Cagey, Tough and Grizzled but low Savvy, Mercurial (a stat I added because I didn't like Slick covering both movement and finesse, it represents the ability to move quickly and safely through terrain of all sorts, climbing, swimming, jumping, dodging) and zero Thorough.

The characters are for different reasons travelling to the town Shirping in Vets' army truck. It's winter and a light snowfall. Suddenly the enginge stutters and dies, they're out of gas: rust has gnawed a hole into the fuel tank and they can see a long track of dripped diesel behind them. In the distance they can see a huge tent and some trailers. Everyone except the girl trecks there to search for fuel. They're about a days walk from their destination and the sun is setting.

The place is an old circus tent, wagons and game stands. The priest find some tracks in the snow made by someone with huge feet, he follows them into the back of the tent. Inside he senses a presence and is jumped by a rabid clown. A short wrestle, a hard bite and a missed shot with his shotgun later the clown flees into the darkness of the tent. The others run inside to help the priest. They stand silent a while adjusting to the darkness, the clown is heard lifting something metallic and tries to run away and is hit by some pellets in the back. von Vets who had already started walking back to the truck (hastily) to grab his gun is intercepted by the clown and beat down with a metal pipe (fixed high damage for nasty melee weapons really creates a sense of urgency and panic when getting jumped). The priest sprints up to them and saves the trucker from the second swing by shooting the clown in half point blank. Despite being grizzled he pukes from the smell and gore.

They scavange and quickly find a tank of fuel, fix the hole with bandages (that limestony thing you give to people who have fractures) and drive towards Shirping. They get there after dark and the town guard urges them to get inside fast. The town is rather small but densely populated, a high wall made of scrap metal build around a huge old printery building with shacks and cottages build against the walls and inside the facility. The guards make sure they don't bring and narcotics and they head to the inn.

The town lies adjacent to a huge river valley that looks more like a crack in the earth than anything (the bridge is collapsed too, ofc). The trucker and his hired muscle finds their costumer and start unloading the cargo. It's a huge stack of white papers. The priest finds a suspended walkway inside the factory and starts preaching fiery about coming doom, how societies degeneration is their fault for being sinners and cowards. Surpringly to him people cheer and listen instead of forming a mob or ignoring him. He is later approached by the head of the militia, Marshall Burns (had to make the name up on spot, also with out accents it sounds more like martial burns which reflects on his burn wounds he'd recieve later on). The Marshall says it's stupid to rally the townsfolk against the monster since it will only lead to death. The priest, not knowing that he's talking about an actual monster, fiercly argues and gets the Marshall over on his side. The Marshall then tells him about the huge elephant that's been stalking about after sunset, killing people who're aren't behind walls by then.

They drink at the inn, the priest says he's got a plan and that he needed Vets' fuel. Vet's who's sceptical about the priests new role as saviour does not want to give it away. The priest accepts but I remind the player of his limit and he goes on to take the fuel anyway. Some random drunk tries to hit on the girl who wants to be left alone. He tries to grab her but she gets loose and hides behind the doctor (who's pretty buff and drunk himself). The two men have a stare down and the drunk leaves.

The priest have people make molotovs and grab any projectile weapons they can and be at the ready on the wall by sunset. He and the doc stays outside the wall with a light to attract the beast. A few hours after sunset it approaches them and then charges. The doc panics understanding just how fucking dangerous it is and empties his rifle and runs for it. The priest stand his ground, throws a molotov in the elephants face and dodges. The elephant is hit by a couple of fire bombs from above but isn't affected, but on fire! A long, tiresome struggle in the dark follow with the doc trying to lure the elepant away by shooting at it and the priest trying to cripple it with his shotgun. The elephant has rusty chains hanging from its tusks and feet which lashes about hurting the priest. At one time during the fight the doc has to sacrifice his rifle and glasses to run away from the charging elephant. The elephant tears down a piece of the walls and enter the town just as a shot finally hurts it leg seriously. It trashes a house and crushes a family due to hesitation from the priest. The Marshall lodges a crossbow bolt into its eye and the priest cripples the elephant which then lies down to die. In the meantime, the trucker and the girl stays at the inn and the drunk guy tries to drag the girl with him now that her "boyfriend" is absent. She hides behind the trucker which then beats the drunk with the butt of his rifle breaking his nose and he leaves again (recurring villian/comic relief no doubt since the drunk will join with the Silver Legion).

The next day, doc and priest are celebrated as heroes, Marshall mourns the gibbed family (relatives somehow (I should have made those with family related woes take a hit, forgot that)). The woman who ordered the papers speak from the walkway, talking about a new chapter in Shirpings history and that they have to be united yadda yadda and freshly printed propaganda letters rain from the walkways above. She and the Marshall approaches the characters about aiding them in uniting people to form a new state: The Silver Legion.
--------

So, I was not entirely happy with the adventure. It felt kind of improvised despite me at least putting a little thought into it beforehand. A few minutes of dead time too, not uncommon in our group but it should be avoided altogether imo. I didn't handle the elephant fight that well and gave it a general difficult of 25 to fight it. The clown was handled like a normal character, it was more of a tutorial to the system and they had to push some to beat it. The players pushed alot, almost every time they didn't succeed a roll. I think this is because it was always worth it because they could either heal up afterwards or the danger was getting killed. I think I should have had a mix of lethal and non lethal conflicts closer together in time so that a push too much would've lead to pain or death later. That makes the choice more relevant.

Something that occured to me was that deadlocks didn't feel right. A common way to react in a deadlock was betting 1 or 0 and hoping their advesery would bet high. It was mostly about small figures and often we had to redo the betting several times because the price was tied, two times it happened that we had to the betting 4 times because it followed the pattern 5, 7, 8, 4. I think both sides should want to pay higher prices instead of hoping their opponent bets load in vain. Perhaps deadlocks will become more tense later on when they've gotten used to their characters and being beat almost to pulp both physically and emotionally.

This system is great. It flows good, the nature of the stats, traits and psyche components lets the same character both suck and rock and be average within the same set of conflicts. I haven't got that "spark" lit yet but there is a lot of potential for it, I've never actually played with a system that creates that spark (apart from TMW) it usually comes from the moment. Planning the conflicts better and tailoring them for the characters it will probably emerge soon enough since we'll definitely be running a second session. 3/4 characters have family related woes and 3/4 characters have tobacco related vice so if they as a group run into situations that would remind them about that tears and lung cancer would be piling up quickly. Being lost in the expanse and there's only one smoke left to share between the three of them? Petty drama ensues!

We exchanged a few emails before this post, and I suggested plenty of advice, based on the underlying theory of the game.  Since that theory has only barely been tested, I figure it's a good idea to post said advice here on the Forge where more experienced designers can poke, prod, and examine it.  Here's the relevant snips:

On Handling Monster Fights

Marshall wrote: that elephant is WAY COOL.  An excellent Aberration if I ever saw one.  Now, when you say that it "crushes a family due to hesitation from the priest," do you mean that it happened because Benisto Gave?  If so, perfect.  Absolutely perfect.  And 25 difficulty sounds fine, although I'd probably have done d10 + 20.  You say that you weren't satisfied with how you handled the fight itself, so I'll offer some advice.  There's two ways good ways to handle it:

1.  Have the monster be so horrible that just looking at it prompts Grizzled checks.  This puts the PCs at an immediate disadvantage.  They can always overcome that disadvantage, but the fight is that much more serious because of it.  But if you do this, you gotta have a great description for the monster itself.  However, a great description is not always an explicit, detailed one.  Most of the time, if not all the time, I think that a description that is sparse but very suggestive is your best bet, because the players' imaginations will run crazy with it; they'll cook up something in their own head that's far more terrifying to them than anything you could ever say.  I mean, when you said "huge elephant that's been stalking about after sunset, killing people" I pictured it as very dark, an almost black ashy color, wreathed in mists and snow, moving silently when it wants to, with tortured eyes and blood in its mouth (somewhere in that I picked up the impression that it ATE people); people's imaginations will go a long, long way on very little information.

2.  Start with a subtle warning, then have the monster just explode onto the scene.  Keep the monster in motion, keep it aggressive, keep it overwhelming and confusing, narrate fast-paced and intense, and don't let the characters get a good look at it until it's dead.  The players will panic their heads off. 

Marshall wrote: Okay, the way your players were using the Deadlock bids distresses me.  Seriously.  My main goal with the combat system in general was to remove tactics as much as possible, while keeping the grittiness, and my goal with the Deadlock was to make it costly so that people would avoid mutually exclusive goals except when it was really important.  But if they're manipulating the bids like that, well, that's a breakpoint.  A scary, scary breakpoint.  Plus, it's kinda *dishonest*.  They should be Pushing because they really, really want their goal, not so that they can bleed out their opponent's resources.  Yikes.  Paying the loser's bid sounds like a good quick fix to me (but I'm definitely gonna give the Deadlock rules a good thinking-over).  As for ties, man, I never even considered that--but here's something that occurs to me:  if the bids tie, do one of the following:

1.  Both players back down, and neither goal is accomplished.  If even one player doesn't want to do this, go to number 2.
2.  Another set of bids, cumulative with the previous.

Marshall wrote: The issue of pressure-through-Psyche is why it's important for the players to read the Tough Questions.  They need to see them, and think about them, and realize how they are relevant to specific instances of Psyche traits (i.e., the ones they give their characters).  Once they know the Tough Questions, encourage them to make characters who address one or more of those Tough Questions, and encourage them to make it questions that they have strong feelings about--whether negative or positive, it doesn't matter.  They don't have say what those feelings are; in fact, it's probably better if they don't.  But they need to be invested in their character's Psyche turning out a certain way.  Whether they would like it to be changed due to experiences, or they would like it to stand unchanged in the face of everything, or some combination thereof; it doesn't matter which decision they make, as long as they make one.  They can even change their mind later. 

Once this is in place, your job as GM is to ask, "So, you Hunger for knowledge, eh?  Even if it costs [blank]?"  Not in words, of course; you ask it by introducing situations that ask the question, and they answer it through their characters' actions.  That's what I mean by "try to destroy them in every way that matters."  However hard you try to destroy them, they have the tools to defy you; whether they are destroyed is ultimately their choice.  If they are invested in answering the questions in a particular way, BAM, you're on your way to crackling like an exposed live wire.  At least, that's the theory behind the design.

Now, you gotta be careful in doing this--it's easy to expect a character to choose a certain path.  It's easy to start thinking about it like it's chess: "Oh, if I do X, it should cause him to do Y..."  FIGHT THOSE THOUGHTS.  That's where railroading comes from; I found out the hard way.  You just ask the questions, and let the players answer however the hell they want to.  Once you've got their answers, you challenge those too.  "Oh, so that's your answer?  What about in [blank] situation?"  In doing this, it's probably also not an idea to go hardcore from the beginning; let the players rev their engines, while you escalate gradually, up to the climax which should always be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  It's a bit of a reversal from the games I'm used to; in most games I've played, the GM sets up a situation and the players try to react to it in meaningful ways through their characters.  In this game, the players set up characters and the GM tries to react to them in meaningful ways through the situation.  This is why I recommend that the starting situation be created collaboratively prior to play, after which PCs are created by the players and the GM takes full ownership of the situation (including NPcs).  Now, if a Yarn goes over one session, like yours is, I think it's best for the GM to do prep for the next session by himself; the players have contributed their share of the next situation through the choices they made in the first session, and by this point the GM probably needs a chance to catch up and regroup (especially if the players burned through an antagonist or five, like mine have).

Krippler wrote: Also you should mention how psyche components are created mid game, even if the text say it out loud the whole creation/modification/supression/absolution should be accentuated strongly. Especially limits are hard to come up with from the start since everyone has got limits and most of them are so obvious that they don't feel like stating them (don't murder, don't be a jackass ect. social contract). Now you've bascially got a different set of guidelines for each component. Don't get me wrong, they should be treated differently but maybe a one page tree should be included also (printed all the psyche pages out, felt a little clumsy flipping through them and I think they intimidated the players since they didn't even glance at them).

Marshall wrote: 1.  Opportunity by itself is nothing.  "You want [blank]?  Okay, here's some [blank]."  That's nothing because there's no decision to make; the only viable option is to take the opportunity.

2.  Pressure by itself is nothing. Again, there's no decision to make; the only viable option is to avoid the pressure.

3.  Opportunity + Pressure is gold.  "You want [blank]?  All right, here's some [blank], BUT there's a risk/price/consequence."  NOW there's a decision:  do I take the opportunity and risk the consequences?  Do I forfeit the opportunity to avoid the consequences?  Is it nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

4.  Situation by itself is nothing.  "Okay, so [stuff] is going on.  What do you do?"  There's not much to do except to go around and look at the [stuff].  Which can be fun, but it's only half of the game.

5.  Flags by themselves are nothing, even if the players really mean them.  By themselves, they're just more [stuff].

6.  Flags + Situation yields Conflict, IF that situation is shaped to be relevant to those flags, and vice-versa.  Conflict is gold.

It's not an easy game to GM; I've been having a hard time of it too.  These techniques are pretty much brand new to me. I came from a Purist-for-System Sim background, which is a lot like model trains:  setting up all the little pieces, then watching with pride and wonderment as it moves practically by itself.  This game is a totally different animal.

Marshall wrote: I've got some more fleshed-out ideas regarding ways to pressure the PCs in your game.  Now, let me know if it starts feeling like I'm "stealing your campaign" :)

First off, I foresee *lots* of uses for the Silver Legion.  Tenacity and Depravity are easy to get into a Rustbelt story, but Hope is a little tougher, and I think it's important that all three are there, and it's even better if you can wrap 'em all up in one thing.  But you can't just force the players into joining up with it, because that's railroading.  I suggest asking them prior to play if they want to.  If not, you might have to come up with something else.  But hopefully they like it, 'cause it's hook-tastic.  I think it would be really cool if there was something ugly hidden underneath its "Save-the-world" veneer.  Maybe I'm just cynical, but whenever I see a group like that, with the propaganda and the hegemonic goals and the martial capability, I start digging for a criminal or maybe even fascistic agenda.  But I wouldn't make them into a Galactic Empire "bringing order to the universe, even if it means choking the life out of it" sort of thing; I would make some of them Salvation Army-type people who just want to help, some of them religious zealots, some of them old lawmen who are more than ready to see things change, some of them very ambitious, and some of them shady people with sleazy ulterior motives.  In the 'Belt, a good man is hard to find, so I figure they've been forced to take on some people who are less-than-savory because they need all the help they can get.  Also, I have this awesome mental image of their uniforms, grey and vaguely militaristic, with large silver stars on the left breast similar to a sheriff's badge...

Something you might like to try out:  set things up to encourage the PCs to split up from time to time.  Don't force them to do it, just encourage it by setting up situations with simultaneous and divergent goals.  Your players might freak out a bit if they're not used to it; for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that there will be large chunks of time when they're "just watching and not doing anything."  In my experience, though, you spend just as much time as "audience" in party-based play as you do when the PCs split up--after all, only one person can say stuff at a time, otherwise it's chaos.  Jump-cuts back and forth between different PCs' scenes, *especially* at cliff-hangers, goes a long way toward dissuading this fear.

The players need to realize that the game is set up to protect their ability to bring the awesome, as it were.  Benisto's player doesn't look like he needs any help with this, but the others don't seem to be capitalizing on their characters' potential.  If you haven't already, let the players know that they have some pretty intense control over their characters' equipment and skill sets; this goes a pretty long way.  The doctor should be allowed to produce whatever medical-related thing he wants from his doctor's bag:  morphine, vaccines, antivenin, tranquilizers, speed, an electric bone-saw, whatever (in my game, Kitt the shady doctor has even had blowfish poison and a truth serum).  The librarian should be able to say, "I read a book about this once," if they need information or know-how.  And Konrad seems like he's been through a lot of jobs, and I'd assume that they're all driver-related, such that he could shrug his shoulders and say, "Sure, I know how to hot-wire a truck," or, "Sure, I know how to rig a gas tank to explode," or "Sure, I could drive a Herkemer Battle Jitney."  It doesn't have to be on their character sheets to be true.

Now here's some ideas of things you could do to the characters:

MORGAN FREEMAN
1.  His Hunger is weak.  In fact, I'd say it's not a Hunger at all, just a goal related to a deep-seated Hunger, which would seem to be either "security" or "To rise above barbarism."  Try suggesting these changes to him; if he changes that Hunger to something like "rise above barbarism," you'll be cooking with gas, since it ties into the Silver Legion, and especially since it ties directly to his Limit (tightly-integrated Psyche is made of awesome).   
2.  Challenge that Limit by looking for an opportunity where helping someone wounded puts his own life at so great a risk that it's a tough decision, no matter what he decides; Horrors are good for this, but it's not every day that you have an opportunity to throw one out there.  A warzone is another good chance to do it, and sounds likely if he hooks up with the Legion. 
3.  Challenge his Faith in his own competence by seizing a moment when someone gets so terribly wounded that it would take a miracle to fix it (you would not be remiss in setting difficulty at 30 or higher).  Maybe he'll push for it, and maybe he won't; either way, he would have to suffer, and the player has to decide which sort of suffering is worse.  And note that a miracle is a possibility, using the Uncanny stat!  Basically, it'd be an act of naive magic, which means that (A) the local level of Rust adds to his chances and (B) you can interpret the stuff he uses as Complexity (medical apparatus for Accoutrement, words like "Stay with me!  I won't let you die" for Vocality, maybe a scalpel for a Focus). 
4.  For his Woe, you can start by throwing in things that remind him of it (a happy family, f'rinstance).  Eventually, give him an opportunity for redemption (a widow with a few kids, who could really use a strong, capable man in their lives, maybe).  Make that redemption either hard to obtain, or hard to maintain (i.e., put it at risk.  But never destroy it without giving him an opportunity to defend it!).

JANE MCCARD
1.  Okay, I might be off-base here, but I could see the Legion burning books, especially if there were some zealously religious types involved in it.  If Jane hooks up with the Legion, try having this happen, and giving her the opportunity to, if not prevent it, at least save some books.  Or, she'll allow it to happen; I doubt she will Lose her Limit, she'll probably take on Woe.  Either way, it's something.  Make the books classics, from Plato to Melville to Dickens--and one strange, ancient book bound in suspcious leather.  Some sort of mystical text of unspeakable content.  Her Hunger for knowledge would either draw her to it, or she would have to decide that there are things humans are not meant to know.  Now, what if this book was so terrible that it needed to be destroyed?  There's a Limit. 
2.  What if the book turns out to possess a sinister intelligence, and demands the sacrifice of a child?  Either she breaks the Limit about harming children, or she stands up to the book.  I imagine that, if she stands up to the book, she would probably try to bury it somewhere or otherwise get rid of it; if she does this, have it resurface and the worst possible times.  And the only way to stop it is to burn it...
3.  To revisit the smoking Vice:  thank you for asking about it; I now realize that the Vice rules need to be re-written.  This is what they *should* tell you:  people in the 'Belt take on Vices to help them cope.  Anytime they use a Vice to cope, THAT'S when the Grip increases.  Slam her with stuff that rattles her nerves.
4.  If she ends up alone, without the others to protect her, put her in serious danger.  Don't *force* her into being alone, just seize the opportunity when it happens.  Once it happens, don't pull your punches.  Eventually (don't do it right away), she needs to take care of herself or be destroyed.

KONRAD VON VETS
1.  I love the fact that this guy has no Limits.  In most cases, I would discourage it, but it looks good on this guy.  But, you know what?  You can challenge that too.  Look for an opportunity to set things up such that success comes at the price of doing some seriously sleazy shit; if he does it, well, he really is that bad.  If he refuses, well, it looks like he's got some Limits after all (remember that players can add Psyche traits whenever they want).  I would try to tie this in with #4 below.
2.  OR introduce an NPC who's even more sleazy than he is, setting things up for him to make "I'm not like THAT guy" statements.  Or not; maybe Konrad really is that ugly.
3.  The Silver Legion looks like a good way to challenge his Faith:  if he sees these people doing good, he might change his mind about everything going to hell anyway (and he might not; it's his choice).
4.  And if the Silver Legion can give him steady, gainful employment, that's a chance to redeem himself for losing his jobs all the time.  But throw in complications from time to time, things that put him at risk of screwing it up and losing this job too.

BENISTO
1.  I love the fact that this guy has zero on his Thorough score; it paints him as very impatient and impulsive, which plays nicely with his Limit about arguments.  I think it would be great to get this guy into conflict with another preacher, a really clean-cut one that turns the other cheek and thinks tobacco is of the devil; basically, a preacher who is everything that Benisto is not.  Make her a woman, literally everything that he's not. And make her a member of the Silver Legion. And make her argue the hell out of him; just because she's non-violent doesn't mean that she can't be fiery.
2.  What if he has the opportunity to gain a position of power in the Legion, but there's some sort of vote for it, and the other preacher has a lot of sway in the council or whatever?
3.  If you're very, very lucky, the player might have Benisto develop an attraction to the woman.
4.  If you do the thing with the book for Jane, it would be a good idea for Benisto to find out about it.  Either he would demand its destruction as a thing of evil, or he would try to use its power for his own gain.  Either way, awesome.

A brief note to say that this, session and system, is very much full of awesome.

Rustbelt is definitely on my radar as a game to watch.

Marshall asked me about the family that got killed by the elephant, wether it was due to Benisto Giving in a conflict or not. It was not, I described  the elephants goal as wanting to crush the family and that it would succeed unless somebody interfered with it. So it wasn't inside a conflict, it was Benistos choice to do another action instead of trying to interfere that resulted in their death. I probably would have had more emphasis on the family if Benisto had had any psyche related to it. If any of the other three (all with woes related to family) would have been there I'd promted to trigger their woe and add another. Now, since he didn't "actively choose to be passive" he didn't get any guilt for it, I realise that's why setting up situations were the Push or Give question is raised is important.

Lance,
Thanks, I agree totally :)

Wilmer,
As long as Benisto had a legitimate chance to prevent it, you did it right.  But I agree that it would probably be more intense if it was a Give or Push situation.

Using insights gained from all of this, I'm re-writing the Psyche and Dynamics systems; they're looking a lot better (I'll try to have 'em up somewhere tomorrow, Wilmer).  Faith can now be used to cope with appropriate experiences, similar to Vice, but this increases its "Zeal" value.  The higher that Zeal, the more you beat yourself up (i.e., the worse the Woe) over breaking that Faith.  Hooray for playtesting!

I'm also working on a flowchart, but it turns out to be a hard thing to do.  I'm probably gonna have to do 5 charts, one each for Hunger, Vice, Faith, Woe, and Limits.  But I reckon I can get 'em all on one page.

Now, another thing that Wilmer suggested was a list of example Prices.  That sounds like a good idea, but I'm having trouble with it, because the point value of the more qualitative Prices depends on the situation at hand.  The greater the consequences of the Price, the more points it oughtta be worth.  I mean, losing all of your bullets is worse (and thus worth more points) during combat than outside of combat.  And, like an idiot, I never wrote this into the rules because I thought it was "obvious."  Getting stuff I did without thinking into the rules?  Hooray for playtesting!

Another issue:  I keep going on and on about "creating the starting situation collaboratively prior to play," but I've never said HOW you do that.  And, to tell the truth, I'm not really sure how; I've been starting with something vague that comes to me at the moment, and the players and I start fleshing it out.  That part's easy enough, but what if no one has any ideas to start off?  We need springboards.  Some kind of randomly generated ideas, in the vein of the Client Roll Chart from InSpectres.

Continuing on the deadlock problem:
If your opponent pushes, is there any reason NOT to go into a deadlock? Because you could still bet 0 or 1 and hope your opponent bids high, the result is only positive for you. From a gamist point of view it's impossible not to chose deadlock. A starting price paid by both sides could solve this but it feels way too artificial to be satisfying. Did you ever encounter this problem in any of your games? If not, why not?

Great playtest!  It's awesome to see how the system works in the hands of someone other than its creator.  Two questions....

Krippler wrote:
Jane McCard
Smoking librarian type who hungers for knowledge. Would never hurt a child or destroy knowledge. Generally smart, thorough and alert. Smokes alot.

...

Everyone except the girl trecks there to search for fuel.

...

The next day, doc and priest are celebrated as heroes, Marshall mourns the gibbed family (relatives somehow (I should have made those with family related woes take a hit, forgot that)). The woman who ordered the papers speak from the walkway, talking about a new chapter in Shirpings history and that they have to be united yadda yadda and freshly printed propaganda letters rain from the walkways above. She and the Marshall approaches the characters about aiding them in uniting people to form a new state: The Silver Legion.

Krippler wrote:
The players pushed alot, almost every time they didn't succeed a roll. I think this is because it was always worth it because they could either heal up afterwards or the danger was getting killed. I think I should have had a mix of lethal and non lethal conflicts closer together in time so that a push too much would've lead to pain or death later. That makes the choice more relevant.

The Librarian problem is a mix of both. Our group is very used to railroading, or at least semi railroading with one or two of the players making all the decisions important for plot development. The Librarians player either plays a boring girl character or a big dumb warrior character and I've never GM'd one of the boring girl characters before. Also my preplanning was little to none so the players who took the scene got it. I probably could have improvised better but I couldn't get anything exciting out of her actions. Like, she wanted to identify the elephant and I missed the opportunity to either tell her to tell me what kind it was or say that there was something odd about it possibly making her dissect it. Now I just said "african". Till next session I've loaded up on bangs for the Librarian, one for each psyche component. It looks like I'm having a game tonight (I haven't slept in 30 hours though, remembered I had like 10 pages of essays to write) so I'll report how it went soon.

The problem with pushes was most of the session was spent within the safety of city walls. The only one who avoided "the action" due to price was Konrad who had lost 10 blood and had a concussion. I think most of the problems we have atm are due to me and them being unused to unorthodox games, the only one we've played before besides freeform was a one shot TMW (with different rules since I took the rules I could gather from reviews and play logs).

Next session: enter the expanse, face the limits, woes and half a dozen of child soldiers armed to the teeth.

Krippler wrote:
The players pushed alot, almost every time they didn't succeed a roll. I think this is because it was always worth it because they could either heal up afterwards or the danger was getting killed.

Krippler wrote:
Continuing on the deadlock problem:
If your opponent pushes, is there any reason NOT to go into a deadlock? Because you could still bet 0 or 1 and hope your opponent bids high, the result is only positive for you. From a gamist point of view it's impossible not to chose deadlock. A starting price paid by both sides could solve this but it feels way too artificial to be satisfying. Did you ever encounter this problem in any of your games? If not, why not?