Hi,

An almost complete and somewhat more attractive draft of Shadows in the Fog is now available:

Shadows In the Fog PDF

As you may recall, this is a Tarot-card based, somewhat hybrid game set in Jack the Ripper's twisted occult London. The file is big, and laid out for printing on facing pages.

There is one small section, a couple of the stock character types, that hasn't been written yet (that's about 1 page). The bibliography is also pretty much unrevised. I just don't have time right now, and I won't for a couple months probably, but some folks have been asking what's happened to the game. So here ya go.

Volume 2 is the current project (and finishing up Volume 1, of course). I expect it to take a good 6 months or more to complete, because it's going to take a hell of a lot of research.

Please: go playtest this! I'm anxious to hear what others think of it as a game.

Chris

Aarrgh. I'll check it tomorrow. Gotta go play Sorcerer. :-)

Mike

Here's some notes on reading through. I know this isn't solicited, but I promised a review on it when this edition came out. As usual my technique is going to sound hugely critical of the game. But I've only put this much effort in because I think that there's a great game here. So take the criticism in that context.
----

Firstly, you have the game apparently split into sections for the players and GM. Personally I don't like this approach. I read through literally half the text writing comments on stuff that seemed to be missing only to discover the answers in the GM section. This is a style issue, but I can't strongly enough disagree with this presentation. I'd just throw the appropriate information all in the same sections.

For example the GM notes on the Group Generation session should all be in one place, IMO. The way you have it, the whole thing makes the GMs role seem very adversarial. GMs are admonished to "stomp on (or rather be gently discouraging of) gimmick characters", for example. Basically we're seeing classic anti-gamist creep rhetoric here. Don't let the Players power game! Don't let the Players ignore the setting! Don't let the Players play a character as two-dimensional or for laughs!

How about the GM encouraging players to make the appropriate characters instead? A lot of the section on Overruling indicates that the GM can somehow overcome problems with the Social Contract by using GM total power of Fiat. I'd say that's just not going to work.

That said, it's the best-written and least likely to fail version of this sort of section that I've ever seen. For what that's worth. I think something might be salvageable there.

Second, I was unaware of the extent to which this game is meant to be an exploration of Historical Victoriana. You make that abundantly clear in the text however, especially in the beginning. This is a tad odd because the other facet of play is that it's a game about the Occult. Is it just that you want to keep the dichotomy of these things in stark relief? Or are they two separate but concurrent goals?

Being fond of things military, I was sorta disappointed to see that you said that it was unimportant as to what Unit a character belonged to (and that only status of the unit was important). But there's a more important implication here. You're touching on exactly where you're drawing your line in terms of adherence to historical fact. That is, you intimate that if one were to indicate a unit that he was in that he should indicate a unit that actually existed. That's interesting. So, if I said that my character was from the Fourth Regiment of the Highland Scots Guards, having just made that up, would that be inappropriate?

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game? After all with enough research we can probably determine most or maybe even all of them. At the very least enough of them to never have to refer to a fictitious one. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. But I am saying that you're establishing this idea passively through inference. You might want to address this more openly. What is OK to make up? What's not? I mean, obviously the characters that are created didn't exist. And you don't even require them to indicate their salary (like many games of the era would: CoC Gaslight for example). So where's that line?

Most importantly, other than having an abiding interest in Victoriana, what’s the player’s motivation to do all this studying? I have to admit that I’d skip it. There’s nothing mechanical that rewards any of this. Other than the text suggestions about it, the game seems to be all about the magic. If this is something you really want in the game, I’d consider some redesign.

And how does this all pertain to Jack the Ripper? It’s like you had some concept about it at first, and then you threw it all overboard for something else (which I’m not seeing).

Segue into the third, and maybe most important point; all this seems to be "how to do it" but there's almost no "what to do". Mentioned in passing several times is the fact that the characters will be slipping into a knowledge of things more arcane. How does this happen?

For one thing, I'm certain that your excellent ideas on the Soap plot model should be included as standard. This at least gives a little bit of framework for "what to do". But I didn't read one thing about a Sorcerer, Magician, Mummy, Astrology, or anything that would give me even the slightest idea of what sort of strangeness that the PCs are supposed to encounter. And how do they encounter it? And why do they encounter it together?

That last is particularly troublesome. I mean, already we have characters that wear masks from each other living in a society where abnormalcy, even abnormalcy that's not a person’s own fault is damning. So what character, upon discovery of something supernatural is going to share it with any other character? Or is it supposed to be a group discovery of some sort? I'm just not seeing what a game would look like in play past the opening tea party.

But that’s all in volume two, right? Better be. :-)


On to more specific points:

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason? You seem to be going for characters who are associated in less strong ways. In fact, it seems like you are trying specifically to not allow characters that would be on the same Relationship Map as Ron defines it. Is that just co-incidental, or is there a specific reason?

We're told in the beginning section that one shouldn't make "Gimmick" characters. But then later in the "Internal" section we're told that we might play a character who's a cross-dresser, or, much worse, not entirely human. Then that's followed by the Gimmick caveat again. I think I can see how these might be reconciled, but perhaps some text to that effect would be appropriate. I mean, as it stands, it seems that the way that you are supposed to avoid the Gimmick problem is by taking more strange background ideas (so the character isn't a one-trick pony). But doesn't that make the character all the more odd instead of less? I mean, now, instead of being a cross-dresser, I'll be playing a Cross-dresser who once saw a demon summoned by a sorcerer who sacrificed children for the ritual. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Further, I'm fairly uncertain as to why you see a lower class character as more gimmicky than a not entirely human character. I mean, I can see the potential for Gimmicks at all social levels. Why pick on the lower classes? If it's because this makes it hard to explain PC inter-relation, or some other consideration, I'd by it (though I'd wonder at the aristo PCs then). But it just seems artificial as it stands.

Also, is it really appropriate for PCs to have had some experience with the supernatural to start? Doesn't that hurt the concept of the shift to that POV? I mean some players might think it's OK to say that, in fact, it's their character who's the Sorcerer (even if ineffective to start). Wouldn't that be problematic? OTOH, I see that every character starts with some experience with the Occult later under skills. Huh. Why doesn’t that have it’s own section discussing the ramifications to the character? (Can you see why I can’t figure out what the characters do in the game?)

The sidebar on Women is interesting. You say that the game isn't about balance (even stating clearly that there are no 'points for disads' as it were), and then you say that playing a woman is a sacrifice. Looks all like good stuff to me. All grist for the mill of exploration. I'd change the tone to be something like "playing a woman has it's own specific and interesting issues".

The vices section doesn't seem to include the sorts of indications as to what to do with it that the other sections have. Should everyone pick a Vice? Or just consider each? What should they note about a vice if the character has one?

And I resent the implication about Watson and I. Oh, wait, you meant Sherlock Holmes...

You have to have GM approval to create GMCs for Contacts? Or do you mean that the GM has power of approval over any you create? I think you mean the latter, but it reads like the former.

All your references to mechanics in other games can just be deleted. For example,

You also get more cards at the end of a session, like experience points.

If there was no bidding on the action at all, no Trumps were played, and you choose not to play a card, you
may take half the Concessions called for, after subtracting for skill. Thus if the GM played a 7, nobody bid
anything, and you are Good at the skill (7-1), you can take 3 Concessions if you don’t play a card. Round halves
up: a 7 against Brilliant (7-2)/2 is 3.

The object of GM card play is, in short, to get those cards out of the players’ hands without just outbidding them all the time.

Yikes! That's a lot of analysis, Mike. Thanks!

I'm not going to respond to all of this; it would bore the pants off you. But I do want to pick up some clarifications, for you and for other readers out there.

Mike Holmes wrote: Firstly, you have the game apparently split into sections for the players and GM.

GMs are admonished to "stomp on (or rather be gently discouraging of) gimmick characters", for example. Basically we're seeing classic anti-gamist creep rhetoric here. Don't let the Players power game! Don't let the Players ignore the setting! Don't let the Players play a character as two-dimensional or for laughs!

For what that's worth. I think something might be salvageable there.

I was unaware of the extent to which this game is meant to be an exploration of Historical Victoriana. ... This is a tad odd because the other facet of play is that it's a game about the Occult.

Being fond of things military, I was sorta disappointed to see that you said that it was unimportant as to what Unit a character belonged to (and that only status of the unit was important). But there's a more important implication here. You're touching on exactly where you're drawing your line in terms of adherence to historical fact.

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game?

There’s nothing mechanical that rewards any of this [research]. Other than the text suggestions about it, the game seems to be all about the magic.

And how does this all pertain to Jack the Ripper? It’s like you had some concept about it at first, and then you threw it all overboard for something else (which I’m not seeing).

all this seems to be "how to do it" but there's almost no "what to do". Mentioned in passing several times is the fact that the characters will be slipping into a knowledge of things more arcane. How does this happen? ... I'm just not seeing what a game would look like in play past the opening tea party.

But that’s all in volume two, right? Better be. :-)

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason?

We're told in the beginning section that one shouldn't make "Gimmick" characters. But then later in the "Internal" section we're told that we might play a character who's a cross-dresser, or, much worse, not entirely human.

Further, I'm fairly uncertain as to why you see a lower class character as more gimmicky than a not entirely human character.

Also, is it really appropriate for PCs to have had some experience with the supernatural to start?

The sidebar on Women is interesting. You say that the game isn't about balance (even stating clearly that there are no 'points for disads' as it were), and then you say that playing a woman is a sacrifice. Looks all like good stuff to me. All grist for the mill of exploration.

Should everyone pick a Vice? Or just consider each? What should they note about a vice if the character has one?

if I had an Acting Character in two resolutions, do I get two or one cards? Going by the chart, I'd award one. By the later text I'd award two. And lastly, it says that you can get a card after an Action for being cool. This isn’t described there, nor supported anywhere else.

In footnote 12, you say that a player can't buy equipment with cards. What would imply that he could?

In your otherwise very nice Intent and Initiation section, you fail to mention who it is that determines if an action is automatic.

This implies that there's some level associated with the skill ranks, but that's never explicitly stated anywhere. Also, this infers that if bidding occurs that this can't be used? Why not? Just curious.

It's implied, but not clear (even looking at the specific section on it) that Trumping by another player during the bid of an Unopposed action ends the resolution with the players interpretation. The player whose character is involved in the resolution can't trump back, for instance, right? Or can they like in Opposed resolution?

There's some confusion in my mind as to when an action is Magical or not.

I think it might make sense to say that if you would need more than 3 concessions that it’s just a failure (maybe four at the outmost).

As far as Getting Hurt, can’t you just have each concession be one described effect of the outcome?

You mention penalties assigned for failing. But I don’t see rules for assigning them or applying them.

Now that we’re done with Action Resolution, I can get to this:

The object of GM card play is, in short, to get those cards out of the players’ hands without just outbidding them all the time.

There may be more to say about this, but I’ll just ask if it might seem like the GM has conflicting goals here.

In actuality, however, this is the classic comparison thing that we talk about. I’d just drop it entirely. It’s becoming a cliché, but don’t tell us what the game is not, just focus on what it is (didn’t I say recently that everyone does this?). OTOH, you do seem to note that the whole section is a rant. I assume you intend to rewrite it then?

I liked the couple of “People of London” that I read. Good stuff. This isn’t that second volume, is it?

Now, a biggie. Assumption. I’m still thinking that it ought to be a core mechanic. Why isn’t it at the moment? Given that it’s a player option in play already, why not include this as something that’s always potentially available for when they feel they’re ready? I really don’t want to dig into it without knowing your perspective on this.

Well, that’s it. Hope it helps.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, a biggie. Assumption. I’m still thinking that it ought to be a core mechanic. Why isn’t it at the moment? Given that it’s a player option in play already, why not include this as something that’s always potentially available for when they feel they’re ready? I really don’t want to dig into it without knowing your perspective on this.

clerich wrote: Yes, this was brought up last time as well. I don't think it's necessary. I think that making it a basic part of the game implies that this is what the game is about, and it isn't. Besides, Assumption is basically sick and warped, and I don't think it's necessary for the game to focus on that. It's one of the ways I think SitF isn't like Unknown Armies.

clehrich wrote: This was emphatically not intended to be "the GM's special secret section" or anything. The point was simply to get at some stuff that I didn't think fit too well elsewhere. I'll go through again and see whether more of it could be folded into other sections.

Yes, this needs to be toned down. It's just that every time I've tried to run a Victorian campaign (run-ups for this, actually), at least two players decide to run a gimmick character for laughs, because they don't want to think much. I wanted to be explicit that GMs should (1) be ready for this when it happens, and (2) head it off at the pass, Tex. But as you say, it's probably a bit too adversarial as it stands.

For me, it's the part about begging rather than overruling. There is an element of the players trying to beat the GM here, and I want that. I just want it channeled in healthy directions, not "let's break the whole game!"

The occult here is real. That is, the effects are subtle (things that could mostly be ascribed to something else by outside observers), and the occult practices are based on real history. This is exactly what I wanted to explore, if you will.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast line here. All I really meant was that I don't think you need to look up not only the name of the unit but also its longstanding reputation. If you're into that, I say go for it. "Oh, I was with Gordon at the Summer Palace in China, in the X Regiment, blah blah." Sounds good. This is like Faking It though: all you need is to sound plausible and appropriate.

I mean at what point does the Detailism stop? Can we not make up street names in the game?

Why bother? I give a web link to period maps you can print out from the web.

The business about doing all that research (which is mostly reading some Sherlock Holmes stories and stuff like that) is about Faking It well. Look, there's a kind of player -- I know lots of them -- who likes to look things up. You're in an Ars Magica campaign and this guy wants to investigate Avebury, or Glastonbury, or wherever. In a Victorian London Occult game, he starts asking weird questions about whether the statues of Gog and Magog are actually at the Monument or not, and checking up on famous people. You don't have to go nuts about this, but historical games can be a lot of fun.

The problem is when one player thinks, "Hell, I don't care, it's all magic anyway, I'll make it up." But then to everyone else in the game, it feels cheap and silly and anachronistic. My experience is that this sort of player is the one who thinks, "All I have to do is talk in a silly accent and I get to throw fireballs," or else thinks, "Hey, I know, I'll play a South American indian native who doesn't speak English and has a bone in his nose and goes Ugh all the time; that way I don't have to do any research, won't that be fun." And that kills the whole history thing for everyone else. This is what I'm trying to push against.

Yes, what's missing here is adventure and campaign hooks. Quite right. Oops. Those will appear soon.

And no, Jack the Ripper is not background: for me it's THE initial hook that drags everyone into the occult world in the first place.

Weird shit happens, and they investigate. And in the process, make up more weird shit. Which happens. And has to be investigated

The Points of contacts that you suggest in the sidebar do not include Relatives, Marriage, or Lovers. Is this for a reason?

Yes. It's because I'm an idiot. :)

But cross-dressers exist -- George Eliot leaps to mind. If you want to do this, think hard about what you're getting yourself into. Same if there's something not quite human about you. If you're doing it to be wacky, don't. If you're doing it because you want a really difficult character-exploration challenge, go for it.

Most don't. Experience of the occult? Sure, if they want it.

I would like people to think about what they want in this area, though, because otherwise they go from clueless to clueless. If you want to get into astrology, it's no big deal to go from "clueless but somebody gave me this necklace" toward "I understand the forces of the stars."

I agree. My point is just that several players of my acquaintance have tried to parlay female characters into "but I should get something for my pains" or "they can't treat me this way." You don't, and they can. If you can't stand that, don't play a woman.

In footnote 12, you say that a player can't buy equipment with cards. What would imply that he could?

People do ask. Again and again. "Can't I trade in this card to get that?" You'd be surprised. That's why it's a footnote.

The GM [decides whether something is unimporant in terms of getting a resolution]. If the group objects, it goes to resolution.

If a player wants to do something magical, i.e. cast the equivalent of a spell, then the first card he or she plays in a Trump. But every time a Trump is played, in any circumstance, brings magical wackiness into play. It's just that the characters are probably not aware of it directly.

As far as Getting Hurt, can’t you just have each concession be one described effect of the outcome?

This was very strongly objected to last draft, by lots of folks. Until I see a proper playtest, I'm staying flexible on this.

The GM makes [penalties] up. But we need some more detail, you're right.

This is part of what might be called the Gamist element. Yes, the GM does indeed want to do this. The players don't want her to. Because if GM = universe and players = PCs in terms of the analogy, the fact that the PCs are trying to bend the universe is parallel to the players trying to twist the GM. So the GM has to push back.

In actuality, however, this is the classic comparison thing that we talk about. I’d just drop it entirely. It’s becoming a cliché, but don’t tell us what the game is not, just focus on what it is (didn’t I say recently that everyone does this?). OTOH, you do seem to note that the whole section is a rant. I assume you intend to rewrite it then?

Are you talking about the analogy? I don't know of any such example. What are you referring to?

Hell, no. Volume 2 is already 40 pages, and I've only done one section out of 12.

Yes, this was brought up last time as well. I don't think it's necessary. I think that making it a basic part of the game implies that this is what the game is about, and it isn't. Besides, Assumption is basically sick and warped, and I don't think it's necessary for the game to focus on that. It's one of the ways I think SitF isn't like Unknown Armies.

Mike,

Thanks a lot! Now I really get what you're saying (I think), and I think these comments will greatly improve the game. A few brief remarks; please note that I'm mostly remarking on things I disagree with or want clarification on, so the vast majority of your post (I the stuff I don't comment on is stuff I agree with and like):

Mike Holmes wrote: Here's an idea. Do the beginning of the book as an overview of the parts or play. To give a general idea of how it all works. Then have expanded sections on everything. You'd have to ensure that people understood the layout, but it could be pretty cool. The parts up front would just have to reference the expanded notes in the back. That way people could "drill down" into whatever area they wanted to.

[J]ust make sure that the chargen does not allow for gimmicks. Not by saying, "you can't do this", but by saying, "you have these options" (none of which include the things you want to discourage). You'll find that if you provide a list of things that are acceptable, rather than leaving it open and making caveats against certain kinds of characters that have to be enforced by the GM, that you'll get what you want, and the GM will not have to force judgement on the players as to the suitablility of the characters.

I wrote: For me, it's the part about begging rather than overruling.

Yeah, but leave the GM with some dignity, willya? I mean, point out that it's a trasaction, sure, but then also point out that as long as the players and GM are on the same sheet of music, agreeing to what needs to be done, that these negotiations are usually quite amicable, and leave everyone with a sense of fair play. Even if someone does "lose".

What I don't get is the preoccupation with all the other extents of the verisimilitude. That is, it seems that the further you get from investigation of the occult, the less important it is to worry about elements being true to Victoriana. It seems to me that the really important ones are the occult elements themselves, and the mores of the time. Because it's the stress the character experiences between these two things that seem to me to be the crux of the game.

I would like people to think about what they want in this area, though, because otherwise they go from clueless to clueless. If you want to get into astrology, it's no big deal to go from "clueless but somebody gave me this necklace" toward "I understand the forces of the stars."

Cool. That just needs to be more clear, IMO. Like I said, it seems to me that the whole concept would demand it's own section.

How does the "group object"? This sounds like a standard proceedure that needs to be outlined well. Is this a majority vote? Unanimous? Something else? The buck has to stop somewhere in case of disagreement, and that needs to be clear.

I'm getting the feeling that the playtesters were "traditional gamers."

The GM makes [penalties] up.

See, I see this as really neat. Characters get penalty descriptors based on what sort of conflict. So, in a fight? Get a -2 "gashed leg". In a battle of wits to convine a third party? Get a -1 "Untrusted by Bob" penalty. These go away when appropriate. This sort of general system seems really cool to me.

Right, but the GM is warned not to push too much. Why not allow the GM to go all out, and just balance his resources so that he doesn't have an advantage. The conflict is giving the GM what he needs to win, telling him to compete, and then saying, "but don't win all the time".

It's become a standing principle that we try to encourage in Indie games that one ought not compare.

What I don't get is the preoccupation with all the other extents of the verisimilitude. That is, it seems that the further you get from investigation of the occult, the less important it is to worry about elements being true to Victoriana. It seems to me that the really important ones are the occult elements themselves, and the mores of the time. Because it's the stress the character experiences between these two things that seem to me to be the crux of the game.

This and the thing about street names go together. Again, what's needed is some examples and supporting material. See, the thing is that the line between what's occult and what isn't is really fuzzy. It's not like CoC, where you can tell by working out whether something makes you insane and smells like fish. In one game I ran, a series of quite real churches turned out to be aligned on a figure of the Eye of Horus, inscribed in streets on London. Real streets. Which really do sort of look like that. And smack in the middle of which (like in the pupil of the Eye) there were several Ripper murders. [See Ian Sinclair, Lud Heat and Peter Ackroyd, Hawksmoor for my main sources here.] This is what I'm trying to get at and really not expressing: you twist totally real events and places and people and stuff like that just ever so slightly, and it all turns out to be vast cosmic conspiracy without making up practically anything. And when the lunatic history-buff player goes looking, and pops up with some bit of "Aha" trivia, it'll all work smoothly. See? I'm totally not explaining this -- I reread it today, cover to cover, and I'm shocked that this stuff just doesn't appear anywhere. I've been saving for Volume 2, but the result is that Volume 1 doesn't actually have enough material to run an actual game intelligently. Sigh.

Rob,

You are clearly my kind of maniac. :)

Let me think a bit about your questions and comments; I want to give a carefully thought-through response. And as to Unknown Armies, I don't see why you can't use this system for the modern world as well. I was just thinking that this evening, actually.... You might want to be a little more New Age-ey about the Tarot interpretations, of course.

Chris

Rob, thanks for saying what I was trying to say in a much better way. Basically pin down the level of setting exploration and realism, and make the game actually promote that, or at least have coherent tools for using more than one methodology in an informed manner. The potential problem is leaving it to interperetation. Which will tend towards drift and incoherence of all sorts of nasty flavors (like "you-didn't-say-it wasn't-ism").

I'm sure you'll nail that down, Chris.

As for using the game for present day, if that's the case, then you're saying that play isn't about the setting at all. That's fine, but then I'd de-emphasize it a lot. OTOH, I think that it's actually the right setting, and what you ought to do is reinforce that in the mechanics. But that's just my take.

clehrich wrote:
This is a good example of a lot of your comments, which seem to come down to this: rather than stomping on things I don't want, structure towards what I do want.

Have you ever seen a GM do this (beg, I mean)? I have, and believe me, it's very amicable. There's a lot of friendly laughter and happiness going on, and the GM gets to really ham it up. Give it a shot, Mike -- you might be pleasantly surprised. GM dignity? What dignity? Phooey!

Sorry - what whole concept needs a section? I'm confused here.

It's pretty obvious, actually -- what happens is that somebody objects, and then others either second this or roll their eyes. If everyone is pretty aware of the group dynamic, this pretty much takes care of itself, but a mention to this effect would help.

Yes, what's needed is more examples.

This is what I mean about the GM begging. The GM really can lose; in theory, the GM can always win by what amounts to cheating (overruling), but he's got to abase himself if it comes to that. As a rule, however, the GM can be beaten, because those Trumps are so damn powerful -- you can really do anything you want. For example, you say "you can't create NPCs and" -- oh yes, you can. Why not? You can't create an NPC by magic, but it's sort of like Mage is supposed to work (but doesn't, IMO): your interpretation says that when you go around that corner, there's going to be this costermonger who's going to be very helpful. Or alternatively, you can Trump and take over (and GM!) the damn scene, in which case you can make the costermonger buy all his flowers from a Kew distributor and consequently happen to know where John Dee used to live in Mortlake (near Kew). If you can make it sound really plausible, what's the GM going to do about it? Overrule, or suck it up. But everything hinges on that "sound good" thing: if the group agrees "that rocks," then it rocks; if the group agrees "that sucks and is a weenie move," then it sucks and gets overruled or bent right quick -- because somebody else will Trump and overrule it, chances are. That way Player 1 gets trounced by Player 2 (did I mention the Gamist element? :> ).

Well, shit! I put all this sort of thing in at least partly because I thought folks like you and Ron were all saying that RPGs really ought to make such comparisons, to refer to other RGPs overtly and not pretend to exist in a vacuum. Now you're saying I shouldn't do this? I mean, easy enough, but is it really so bad? As I said in that section, the point is not that these other games stink, but that the magic is differently constructed and for X, Y, and Z reasons. Magic in D&D is fun, so is magic in SitF, but it's totally different.

How do others feel about this?

Ok, for my 5 cents worth…

Love the idea of the game, and the setting. I agree that victorian games to tend to veer to easily into the farce/comedic and the idea of seriously playing a victorian occult game is quite appealing.

Some comments on the draft:

Overall, time to make the text more lean, be less didactic. There is a lot of ‘scaffolding’ there, stuff that was important to you in the writing process but this can be pruned back now your vision is together. An example – the discussion about gimmick characters. I agree entirely but this can be left at a short note. Let’s face it, some of the readers already know, some don’t care and will play however they like and some don’t think they are playing gimmick characters, no matter how you try to convince them. Short and snappy is better.

Likewise, the rules need editing for clarity. Your examples are good and clear up confusion but the first statement of the rules need revisiting from scratch. With any kind of technical writing it is often a good idea to get someone else to rewrite the concept/paragraph from scratch – it won’t be exactly what you want of course, but it will bring what you do want into sharper focus…

Like the use of cards, wish there was some way to retain the suits as a game mechanic, seems to good to pass up. Something that recognises resonances (eg wands with conflict, cups with mediation, swords with logic, pentacles with material solutions). Could just give a bare bonus but that seems a bit boring…

Really really like the use of concessions. Some of this stuff needs to be moved up front – what are the distinguishing features of this game: card interpretive mechanics, concessions and so on… I would try for more guidelines on concessions in certain contexts – fights, stealth, persuasion, etc… Every group needs to find its own level of comfort with these, but some more guidance from experience would be useful.

Really don’t like the ‘oscars’ approach to xp. I never have liked the ‘carrot/stick’ social engineering approach to xp, especially in the gms hands (too many con games spent waiting to see which drama queen would squirt some tears first). I don’t think that transfering responsibility to the group makes it much better – cohesive players are likely to ignore the mechanic and insist on equal distribution and if your group has conflicts, this will likely entrench them. ("OK, John nominates Yoko for best player, what do the other three of your think?"). Anyway, this is just me, I don’t like this approach and prefer to downplay xp wherever possible. Likewise, not keen on spending cards instead of xp, can see lots of potential for pissing off other players.

Love the setting, more on this later…

Assumptions are interesting but I think need to be a central mechanic ala Unknown Armies or best ignored completely.

So great work. It really needs some severe pruning, but that is a natural stage of writing. Can’t wait to see more.

scobie