My current game designing effort, Beyond the Mirror, is a roleplaying game set in a dystopian post-war period whose aim is to explore characters' memories in order to find out whether they are humans or replicants (or, as I call them in the game, synthetics). It is a masterless game for two to four players.
You create your character's most defining memory, describing it as if it were an instant photo seen from the outside. During play you gain solaces which define it and progressively tie it to your character's personal goal, and scars which put the memory in doubt. As soon as you reach a certain number of scars or solaces, your character is finally revealed as a human or synth.

The identity of each character is gradually discovered through the resolution mechanics. The aim of the game is to put players in the position of having to choose between risking their characters' humanity in order to gain what they want, or sacrificing progress their own goals in order not to wake up and discover themselves to be artificial creatures with fake memories.
Of course the game is heavily inspired by Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?" and the movie "Blade Runner".

The full text is available for playtest here: http://www.mediafire.com/?7h46adc7rjulaac
and here is the character sheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?sz2c1b8xs811hv7

Right now I am facing a dilemma.
The resolution mechanics work decently enough, but at the current stage I have many doubts.
The game, as many pointed out (including Ben Lehman, whom I thank for being my first playtester and for all the kind advice he gave me), is heavily oriented towards author stance. I am afraid that this may result in players caring little for their characters.
I must admit, I am totally ignorant of theory, I only read the glossary and those articles written by Ron which I could find, but I come from a background where theory discussion tends to be misleading and often comfusing (I'm from Italy, which Ron knows very well I think).
I would be very grateful if anyone were interested in reading, or even playtesting the game and let me know their opinions on the game.
My goal is to create a very visceral gaming experience. So any insight would be very welcome.
Thank you for your kind attention and patience.

Wait...you're two hours from Bertinoro and you didn't bring this to InterNosCon for playtesting? Why is it that the only playtesting of unpublished games at InterNosCon was by the Americans who'd flown 7200 km to be there? I'd have loved the chance to playtest this.

Paul

I would have loved to come there, Paul, and have a chance to meet you as I met Ron last year... but InternosCON has been growing in price every year, and this year it was way too expensive for me... but if you have a chance to check this game, I would really love to hear your thoughts!

There's nothing particularly worrisome about author stance, as a design principle. It just means you have to adjust your expectations about where to target rewards and punishments: a good thing happening to a character isn't necessarily a reward; a bad thing isn't necessarily a punishment. But lots of good games encourage author stance w/o too much difficulties. Like Sorcerer and Polaris and Dogs in the Vineyard.

yrs--
--Ben

Tazio,

What were the Questions mechanics that you eliminated? (You mention them in the "note on this playtest rule set".)

Paul

I wrote that history for those who playtested earlier versions and might want to know what changed.
The mechanic of question resulted in a terrible downtime and hiccup narration. Basically, once the conflict was over, the Light had to answer a series of questions which would adjust what used to be the stress die back then (and now has changed into something quite different: the goal die).
It was question like "was violence involved?", "did you act selfishly?" and similar ones. A "yes" would increase the stress die's rating and a "no" would decrease it. In the end, as soon as a character would reach one of the two extremes in the scale (it was a d10, so 1 or 10), that would trigger the end scene. However, the progression was very slow and the mechanic didn't work at all so I dropped it.
The initial inspiration for such a mechanic came from the Voight-Kampff test of Blade Runner...

Ben wrote:
There's nothing particularly worrisome about author stance, as a design principle. It just means you have to adjust your expectations about where to target rewards and punishments: a good thing happening to a character isn't necessarily a reward; a bad thing isn't necessarily a punishment. But lots of good games encourage author stance w/o too much difficulties. Like Sorcerer and Polaris and Dogs in the Vineyard.

yrs--
--Ben

Well, no, actually.
I told you that you have to find a way to put advocacy in the game.
There's nothing implicitly wrong in author stance, but in the way it is now, you are risking to go to a point where the plot comes out from "dice positioning" and subsequent descriptive narration.

I told you there should be some point in the game where the player can grab the system and say "hell, no... I stand my way". This can still remain in author stance. Just it didn't seem there is such an option, from the feedbacks you reported.

Just to bring the thread on... the version we playtested in dicember 2010 at the ArCONate was far way more engaging than how it seems it resulted this last weekend, based on the feedbacks you reported. :)

davide.losito wrote:
the way it is now, you are risking to go to a point where the plot comes out from "dice positioning" and subsequent descriptive narration.

Tazio, I replyed to a short message you wrote me in gTalk about your doubts in a mechanic change.
You were thinking about choosing a "dice allocation" or "mixed roll with d6 and dFudge" (your words).

The solution you proposed in that chat was:

Light throws 6dFudge. Lights gets the + and Shadow gets the -
They allocate the dice on Focus, Blur or Goal.
+ and - are nulled out
and you start with an automatic -
(in the conflict)

no, I didn't tell that now you don't push on advocacy, I told that "allocation mechanics" risk to ...

Tazio,

You write that all you care about is that the game is "fun and intense to play" and that you want to create a "visceral gaming experience". Davide writes that a playtest last December was "far way more engaging than how it seems it resulted this last weekend," suggesting that you've discussed a more recent playtest with him, and that the game is somehow not realizing your design goals.

When you say that you have concerns about "players caring little for their characters," is this something you've observed? If not, then what are you seeing in your playtests that isn't living up to your expectations for the game?

Paul

Paul,
maybe something I said caused Davide's interpretation, but actually I have to disagree with him. The playtest of December showed how crude the game was and how much work I still needed to do on it. Since I trimmed the useless parts and changed some bits, I experienced a dramatic improvement in the game's fluidity. The most recent playtest I did was partially successful.

If I were to say what I don't see as working as smoothly as I'd like is mainly the culminations' resolution mechanic.
I'm trying to find something that works with as little downtimes as possible. I haven't had a chance to playtest a complete cycle with a grou or three or four players yet, due to a lack of time. It only happened twice that we managed to have our characters go all the way up to the revelation, and that's because we were playing in two.

Also the matter of narrative authorities has been bugging me a little bit. Maybe it's more of a personal bias than an actual problem, but I have an issue with games where the audience have a passive role or little influence over the narration. However, I'm still struggling with deciding whom should have the last say on what.

Lastly, In one or two earlier playtests I see a lack of flags, possibly. I.e., not always the Shadow finds it easy to help the scene move towards a culmination. However, I've seen games with fewer flags working in a perfectly smooth way, so I'm kinda comfused. Should I add something? A relationship map perhaps? Not sure about that...

Regarding my concern for players caring little for their characters, it was just related to the observation Davide made about author stance. No, I haven't witnessed that in the playtests. When a resolution roll puts players in the position of taking a difficult choice, I always saw them feeling cornered, and that was thrilling. The problem is that (having players face tough choices) right now it happens less frequently than I'd like. Blaming the resolution mechanics here. They work, but not too efficiently.

Sorry, long reply. Thanks for asking those questions. By answering to them I noticed many things I had been overlooking.

Tazio,

Both you and Davide have used the word "downtime". Do you mean Search Time (everything that needs to happen before you can use the resolution mechanics)? Or Handling Time (everything that needs to happen to completely use what the resolution mechanics have specified)? Or something else? What kinds of things are you characterizing as "downtime" during the Culminations?

Paul

hm, for me, it was a term I have been introduced by... Tazio :D

It should represent the break on game narration while players set the dice and "read them", without adding any specific content to the fiction and actually stopping it.
In a game where the mechanics require the players to place dice and wait for the opponent to place his, either one by one or all in turn, there is a lot of this "downtime".

I don't know whether there's a specific term for this, but it sounded right and explanatory enough, so I accepted it.

Paul,
Davide summed up the term pretty well.
I introduced this word in a discussion I opened on Story Games where I identified what I perceive as flaws in the design of Joshua A.C. Newman's shock: social science fiction (with Joshua's permission).

I consider a downtime a time during play where you stop making decisions and just do the game's math. It is a term I see most often related to boardgames. And in boardgames it's a design flaw (or considered so), because it breaks the game's flow. Like when you have to make additions, subtractions, calculations etc. You're not taking a real decision in game, or even considering your strategy. You're just doing math.

I also try to carefully keep a balance between a game's math and the ratio of information you get from a resolution roll. Any given conflict resolution mechanic can give you as simple an answer as yes/no (you get the stake/you don't get the stake), or it can give you tangent information (yes, and/yes, but, for instance). In such cases, some complications may be acceptable, but a full fledged downtime would be a mistake in my opinion. I think it's a very serious matter, but for some reason it has been widely understimated in rpg designing, by what I perceive. May be mistaken, mind you.

Hello there.

I was a playtester for BtM both in December and last week. First thing: I'm impressed at how much the game has grown and improved in relatively little time. Less than six months ago, it was a bunch of great ideas failing to coalesce together. A week ago, it was sleek and played like a "finished" game, so that I submit it only needs some tweaking right now, as opposed to any major reworks.

A disclaimer, though: I haven't played through a full game. In December, I couldn't because the structure was pretty rough and it ground to a halt. But when we playtested last week, I think we could have played the game to its end and I was a little disappointed we didn't, 'cause I was powerfully engaged with both the fiction and the characters.

[glow=red,2,300]A WARNING WORD: RIGHT AFTER WRITING BUT BEFORE SUBMITTING MY POST, I LEARNED FROM TAZIO THAT THE MOST CURRENT RULES HAVE CHANGED SINCE LAST WEEK. I'm still posting this because, who knows, it may still be useful to point out something or whatever. Anyway, in the last version I tried, the difficulty target for rolls was = 2+Blur; I now learn that it's currently tied to Focus, instead.[/glow]

A problem I felt last time, though, is with the dice-rolling method employed. To be clear: I don't think it suffers of excessive handling time — au contraire, it's PTA-grade fast or even faster.
Instead, I felt like luck had an excessive impact: when you roll high on your d6, you're safe. Yes, you can choose to invest "excess" points into Focus tokens and/or dodging Blur tokens or to get faster progress toward your Goal, but you do this from a position of psychological safety (yawn!), plus the optimal spending strategy is easily figured out: prioritize not acquiring Blur in order to keep roll difficulty low, always, grow Focus up first until you max it out or get close, then start pursuing your Goal — and playing any other way is like deliberately shooting yourself, so not fun. Likewise, on low d6 rolls, you're going to drop away from your Goal 1 step, but otherwise you juggle your dice optimally to minimize your losses, again either doing what's safest or shooting yourself very deliberately. In the end, there are surprisingly few hard-felt choices in this game of hard-felt choices. :(
I'm pretty sure it's just a mathematical glitch, though, while I feel like the procedural structure of the game is rock-solid.
Off the top of my head, right after the playtest session, I cobbled together an alternate dice-rolling/resolution system which may help with this, but I don't warrant anything.

Aaand... there comes Rafu, pointing the exact problem with the best clarity possible.
Thanks, friend. Your description, apart from being impossibly kind and encouraging, strikes the problem at its very core.
The game should be about the hard choice. Do I keep my humanity but risk my goal or do I pursue my goal risking my humanity?
Right now, it's too chance oriented.
But I wouldn't want the game to be completely without it.
I would like to take Gun Thief by Joe McDaldno as an example. Beyond the Mirror might be like that. Just make the choice and narrate. No dice, no random factor at all. Which is brilliant, but isn't exactly what I want in Beyond the Mirror. The suggestion you made during the last playtest is intriguing. Rafu would you please talk about it here, when you have the time? It was your suggestion after all.

Thanks again!

Tazio, what I suggested at the time was an implementation of an "Otherkind dice" system.

Specifically, it was:

• Light player rolls 6dF (and no d6s or anything else).
• "+"s become Light player's own dice to place (see below), "-"s become Darkness player's, blanks are discarded.
• Players take turns placing their dice over three "columns": Focus, Blur and Success.

Note: since they "take turns", initiative is important. Maybe tie that to current Blur vs. Focus totals?


• Focus: by default, a conflict generates 0 focus, unless "+"s are placed here. Number of "+"s in column minus number of "-"s in column equals Focus tokens generated, 0 minimum (conflict cannot result in lost Focus).
• Blur: by default, each conflict generates 1 Blur token (I suggest physical token is placed in column). 1 more token for each "-" Darkness player puts in this column, minus number of "+"s Light player allocates here (which can result in 0 Blur taken, but can't result in diminished Blur).
• Success: sum up "+"s and "-"s in column algebraically. Positive sum means Light succeeds at their intent/stated outcome in conflict, negative sum means they fail. Goal score is increased/diminished by the whole sum representing long term progress toward goal (or straying away from it). Note: lots of thing could be made to happen on a 0 sum or "tied" result.

I admit this system still involves manipulating dice with no immediate fictional outcome, but with just 6dF I purport the handling time is negligible. Compared to the d6+dFs method, I expect this one to decrease the impact of randomness and accentuate the feeling one is making choices.

Rafu wrote:
I admit this system still involves manipulating dice with no immediate fictional outcome, but with just 6dF I purport the handling time is negligible. Compared to the d6+dFs method, I expect this one to decrease the impact of randomness and accentuate the feeling one is making choices.

Oh, so this mechanic idea was yours ^^ nice to know :)

What I added tonight in the "suggest" list was... to add in a piece of narration with each die placing, maybe tuned to the chose column.
Which Tazio just pointed out while I was posting...

Uh, I forgot: the above system also needs IMO some way Light player can "gamble" with Blur.
For example, this:

After rolling dice Light can choose to place an extra token in the Blur column (to be added as a Blur token by end of conflict unless reset with an extra "+"). If they do this, they roll additional 2dF to replace any two other previously rolled dF of their choice.

As long as a player cares about the different possible dice allocations, the Otherkind mechanics can definitely feel like difficult decisionmaking in play.

One of the notes I made as I was reading Beyond the Mirror exactly matches Ben's concern. "Will anyone actually want to be revealed as human?" If you've confirmed in playtesting that players aren't much interested in being revealed as human, here's a thought. Maybe have different epilogue tables for humans and synths. And the tables grant and withhold thematically substantial aspects of player goals. Maybe it's harder for a synth to get his goal. Maybe the options even give the player a choice that they answer during their epilogue narration. "You find short term happiness on Earth. Or, if your goal involved getting offworld, you're destroyed in the attempt." "You get your goal, but an important memory turns out to be false, tainting your happiness." The important bits are earth vs. offworld, true vs. false memories, getting your goal or not, and whether you or others turn out to be synths or not. Am I missing anything?

Also, ditch the "You gain your goal completely" option. It's not dramatically interesting, and it's easy for a player to not prioritize it.

Paul

Awesome insight, Paul. Being or not being a replicant may make the difference. Now logic would dictate a rather tragic ending for a replicant, right? The happiness on Earth would be short term, in your example.
My problem would just be that I, instinctively, would pursue a tragic ending (blame Hollywood and the nausea I got with happy endings, I guess).
But you're pointing a definitely good direction, and now I'm going to think how to pursue it. Thanks!!

(side note: in no playtest but Ben's so far did it ever happen that anyone actively pursued being revealed as replicant... that's one reason why I haven't considered the though thoroughly enough, maybe... but it's a definitely crucial point).

Paul, your idea on separate endings put quite some gears into motion.
I've been thinking about a possible simplification and took your suggestion of ditching the complete success.
It might work with lists like this:

for humans
If your goal is above 3, choose one for each point by which it is higher than 3. If you do not chose one, then the Shadow Speaker has authority on whether and how you get it (have to think this over: the other possibility is "you don't get what you don't choose").
You reach your goal
You stay alive
You save your relationship

If your goal is below 4, you do not get your goal. In addition, for each point by which it is lower than 4, you must choose one:
You end up in mysery: all what made your existence bearable in this dying planet is lost, including any chance to go Offworld
You die
You lose the most precious thing you had

Notice how the two lists are mutually exclusive. If your goal is above 3, then the second list just does not apply.
Also I'm thinking of introducing relationships. One per character, and it's a png controlled by one Shadow Player (not the Shadow Speaker, unless it's a two-players game). These basically work as flags for the Shadow and as something that gives you extra options during the ending phase. I've been talking with Rafu about it.

If I introduce relationships, they'd have to work like this, I think.
Relationship. At any time one of the Shadows (not the Speaker, unless it's a two-players game) may create an NPC to be the Light’s relationship. This character is defined by a name, a generic description and is created by the shadow who introduced it.
Only one relationship per Light. If the light introduces the relationship in game during the framing of a scene, one of the shadows (not the speaker) must control it. If possible, the same shadow who created it. Only the Light can introduce a relationship in a scene.
A relationship can only be revealed as replicant as the result of a culmination, typically in the “if you fail” clause declared by the Shadow Speaker. Same goes with the death of a relationship, because that would count as risking something, a condition for a culmination taking place.

The problematic part is getting a list for the synths. Much more challenging.
Might be:
By default, a synth’s epilogue implies that the character’s identity is wiped clean. It is the same mechanism that made the synth’s true identity hide itself behind a layer of false memories, a cycle that is restarted. The character loses memory of everything that happened during the fiction. His memory was a mere construct, any solace tied to it also is a lie. In addition, choose from the following list.

Plus
You go Offworld
You reach your goal, but lose all you had
You retain your identity

Minus
You are scrapped
Your relationship betrays or abandons you
*****thinking about the third one at the moment*****

Rafu wrote:
Tazio, what I suggested at the time was an implementation of an "Otherkind dice" system.

Specifically, it was:

• Light player rolls 6dF (and no d6s or anything else).
• "+"s become Light player's own dice to place (see below), "-"s become Darkness player's, blanks are discarded.
• Players take turns placing their dice over three "columns": Focus, Blur and Success.

Note: since they "take turns", initiative is important. Maybe tie that to current Blur vs. Focus totals?


• Focus: by default, a conflict generates 0 focus, unless "+"s are placed here. Number of "+"s in column minus number of "-"s in column equals Focus tokens generated, 0 minimum (conflict cannot result in lost Focus).
• Blur: by default, each conflict generates 1 Blur token (I suggest physical token is placed in column). 1 more token for each "-" Darkness player puts in this column, minus number of "+"s Light player allocates here (which can result in 0 Blur taken, but can't result in diminished Blur).
• Success: sum up "+"s and "-"s in column algebraically. Positive sum means Light succeeds at their intent/stated outcome in conflict, negative sum means they fail. Goal score is increased/diminished by the whole sum representing long term progress toward goal (or straying away from it). Note: lots of thing could be made to happen on a 0 sum or "tied" result.

I admit this system still involves manipulating dice with no immediate fictional outcome, but with just 6dF I purport the handling time is negligible. Compared to the d6+dFs method, I expect this one to decrease the impact of randomness and accentuate the feeling one is making choices.

Tazio,

I have some additional feedback. Two items actually. I've been holding off because in the past I think I've given designers too many pieces of disparate feedback on their games, and it wasn't productive.

First item:

It's obvious that you've put incredible effort into the English language text of Beyond the Mirror. It's impressive work, knowing that English isn't your native language. But I want to suggest that you write it and organize it differently. You want a text that inspires people to want to play the game. Your text begins with, and includes lots of language like:

"a story game whose aim is to explore"
"help you recreate"
"gather some of your friends"
"introduce her character in play"
"move her, describe what she does..."
"maneuvering scene elements and external characters"

This kind of language casts the prospective player into an "author" mindset relative to play. You're telling prospective players that the game is supposed to be an authoring experience, where characters are "introduced" and "maneuvered," like the script committee for a TV show. And before you even talk about what the characters and setting and situation is like, the kinds of things that inspire creative enthusiasm, you're talking about the theme. No one gets excited to read a novel or see a movie by being told about its themes. I don't think gamers get excited to play roleplaying games by being told about their themes either. They get excited by being presented with characters, situation, and setting that they can visualize, and from this stuff the themes are intuitive to them.

Also, before you present inspiring game situation and setting, you also have language about how the characters are placed into "a situation of crisis" and "experience how it changes them," and about what sacrifices and choices they'll have to make. Players won't be inspired by this. Nobody fantasizes about having to make difficult decisions, about having to make sacrifices, or about having to change.

I recommend starting the text with the situation of the synths: created for war, in hiding for fear of being hunted and scrapped, with their memories buried and covered over with false ones, waiting for the opportunity of a better life.

I think the themes should be emergent from actual play, and the stuff about difficult choices and sacrifices and about the practices of introducing and manipulating scene elements and characters should only appear, if necessary, when you're explaining the procedures of play.

Paul

Hi Paul,
again, thank you very much for the interest you're showing in my effort. It means much to me. And as always, very solid points, which I will definitely consider when I write a final version of the game. I'm sure it will significantly change the gaming experience for the better once I've implemented your suggestions, which I'll be sure to do.

Side note, I've re-built the ending rules. I'm fairly satisfied at the moment, but maybe because what bugs me most is the  conflict resolution mechanic which does not seem to work as well as I would want it to.

The ending part would be something like:

Endgame when you reach your Focus cap (human):
If your goal is above 3, choose one for each point by which it is higher than 3. If you do not chose one, you do not get it.
You reach your goal
You stay alive
You save your relationship***

If your goal is below 4, you do not get your goal. In addition, for each point by which it is lower than 4, you must choose one:
You end up in mysery: all what made your existence bearable in this dying planet is lost, including any chance to go Offworld
You die
You lose the most precious thing you had
(this list is the one I'm actually least satisfied with)

***relationship. At any time one of the shadow players (not the speaker) may create an NPC to be the Light’s relationship. This character is defined by a name, a generic description and is created by the shadow who introduced it.
There may be one relationship per Light. It's the relationship. The most important one. If the light introduces the relationship during play, one of the shadows (not the speaker) must control it. If possible, the same shadow who created it.
A relationship can only be revealed as replicant as the result of a culmination, typically in the “if you fail” clause declared by the Shadow Speaker. Same goes with the death of a relationship, because that would count as risking something, a condition for a culmination taking place.

Synth List
If your goal is above 3, choose one for each point by which it is higher than 3. If you do not chose one, then you do not get it.

You go offworld
You survive
You retain your identity (i.e. your artificial brain does not simply reset, as it would in an inconscious protocol in order to save your
existance, burying your true identity behind a new layer of false memories)

If your goal is below 4, you are scrapped. They get you, and you die.

Getting back to the conflict mechanics, I've been brainstorming with my dear friend Rafu and Joe (Mcdaldno), from which one rather important point emerged. It's: How should conflict be in the fiction? My answer was that I want to see something akin to how conflict is in the movie Blade Runner.
It usually starts physical, but it is revealed to be more about ethics and emotions and humanity.
It is rare but extended: its consequences span over more than one scene. It involves reassessing and repositioning, and fallout that occurs afterwards. Possibly it involves escalation towards physical harm. It is about taking risks to preserve and pursue one’s goal.
Is my mechanic delivering this? I would say partially.
It is extended because de facto you've been having an escalating scene which culminates in a resolution roll in its apex. You have a fallout afterwards, when you create scars and solaces. Which brings the emotional side, possibly the ethical one, and ultimately make you question your humanity.
The reassessing and repositioning is what bothers me. It exists, but right now it's only on a mechanical level (adjusting the roll by turning dice), not on the narrative one. So I'm considering this part at the moment.

Major Update:
During this weekend I had a chance to run a very satisfying playtest, thanks to the kind help of Ben Lehman (who came to visit us during EtrusCON) amongst the others. After this playtest I finally edited the current playtest version, which now has come to 1.2, and if you're interested in playtesting, you will find a package including the rules, the character sheet and the story sheet here: http://www.mediafire.com/?0gdwcx6bsbza518
I would greatly appreciate any playtest actual play report, and in the last page of the rulebook you'll find an address to which you can send your reports.
Thanks and I hope you have fun!

Tazio,

I have a couple of additional suggestions, both of which are aimed at making play less workshoppy.

For establishing a Location, I would recommend you say something like: "If this is your first game of Beyond the Mirror, you want a location on the scale of a city district. Choose from the following list:...For later games you'll go smaller. Suggestions appear later in the rules."

For Involvement and Purpose, I recommend a game ritual reminiscent of the Voight Kampff test. Have one player illuminated by a table lamp and the others in darkness. The other players ask questions, following from the player's chosen Trigger. "As a child you witnessed a suicide attack by a synth. Tell me about that." "Your brother works for the company. What do you stand to gain from this accident?" You answer in character and the other players note the answers on your character sheet. They probe, and don't stop the interview until they've discovered what makes your character a credible suspect. Then, turn off the light and the player answers the Purpose question. "What I hope to gain now is..."
And the other players record the answer.

Paul

Paul, you're a genius.

Oh. My. Gods.

Tazio,

What does the title, Beyond the Mirror, mean to you?

Paul

I wrote it in a first draft. It was something on the lines of "the androids are hiding amongst us, and you may be one of them. When revelation dawns, what will you see beyond the mirror?" But then it sounded kinda too rethoric and ditched it. Why?

It doesn't do much for me and I was curious if it was particularly powerful for you for some reason. Have you considered possibly a less abstract title?

Paul

Actually no, but it's also the title through which the game has always been called, and I would be somewhat afraid of changing it.
The title's explanation is just that "beyond the mirror lies the true self," be it android or human. It's a title with which I'm satisfied.

I hope this does not count as necroposting, but I'd like to point that since I'm quite close to finishing the game, I have created a site where character sheet, story sheet and culmination summary can be downloaded.
The culmination summary contains an abstract of the resolution rules and the endings.
https://sites.google.com/site/thechiseledgear/