I wrote a big, useful post and it was swallowed in a DB error. w00t.

Malc,

I don't know how different this version is from the version we played at Spodley. I'll admit that I haven't read this version properly and thus some of what I am about to say might be redundant. If you can précis the changes, that'd be ace.

First thought is that there are a lot of blank pages, which make the document seem bigger and more intimidating than it really is.

But on with the specific questions:

1) I like the scene structuring a lot. There is structure and guidance: this is a game which is laser focussed on telling exactly one type of story and it's one I'd have no idea how to tell if I didn't have that guidance. If the new version is any different I think it's an improvement, because I think there is more structure.

2) This doesn't seem to have changed much and thus I give a hearty "HELL YES" to the death spiral problem. I still think that the character's fate is really sealed in the first one or two scenes, or even at character creation. Once there's a big difference between the positive and negative attribute, there's really no way for anyone to change that. In fact, I felt very much like there was nothing at all I could do to change the success or failure of any scene. Basically, I get some cards (based on the stats I have) my opponent gets some cards (based on the stats I have). I get an extra card because I've narrated an NPC connection into the scene and my opponent gets an extra card because he's narrated the antagonist's advantage into the scene. Then the gift cards come in, which I have no control over. They generally go to my opponent because failure for a protagonist is generally more interesting for the observers.

I think that in short, my complaint about the game is this: I cannot see any way in which I, as a player, can make any decisions which change the outcome of the game for my character. What I do is irrelevant, how I decide the character behaves is irrelevant, the choices I make are irrelevant to the outcome of the story because all that matters is how well I do in a card draw and the only thing which affects the size of the hands is how well I did in the last card draw.

3) It's rigid, but that's good. Just like 1), this is a laser focussed game and guidance is good.

I'm still not sure that there's much scope for me playing this game over and over. But that's fine, I like focus and this isn't a painfully complex game.

...and it looks quite different from the version on 1km1kt.

Real quick, as I haven't had time to digest it fully...

7 points and the example very cutely balances a 3/4. What about 6/1 does the maths go to hell? In which case why do that? Make it 1/2 or whatever.

If I can make my stats 1/6, 2/5, 3/4, 4/3, 5/2 or 6/1 then I want them to generate different stories but not damn me from the outset into one path.

Epilogue: what about equal stats in a pair? what about equal stats across the board? what about a stat of 0 (or whatever the base minimum would be)?

What Rich said

1. I'd say the scene setting is too defined, there's not much wiggle room for the players' creativity, all they can really do is add colour.

2. The mechanics are a bit weak and seem divorced from the setting and feel of the game. Basically Okhrana is a pure game of chance as it stands. Two positive and two negative stat gauges are not very interesting - all characters are effectively equal. The death/win spiral is a big problem.

Can this be resolved? Yes but it involves radically reworking the mechanics. Perhaps with the players being able to risk more in achieving their plans.

3. Epilogue seems sound, the situations Gregor mentions need to be factored in of course.

At the moment Okhrana is 90% story 10% game (which might be what you want) though there's not much scope for thematic decisions from the protagonists.

Cheers

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

If the game is about spies, covert plotting and tragedy in Belle Epoque Paris, then where is the mystery and all that stuff? At the moment we all watch the cards coming out and play to the crowd for extra cards. That we all see come out. I don't see any strategy or choices in some ways.

What if everyone is an emigre and one of you is Okhrana? I don't know. It is a really evocative setting and I know that Max Cairnduff is superjazzed about that. What I don't get is this BBC Drama style walk through of the defined scenes. Great acting if you have great actors, great events as dictated by the scene structure and a defined end as defined by the Epilogue. But where were my choices? Can I conceal my cards and keep one (some) for a later scene? Effectively losing early to help me later (but you can't keep more than you are allowed in your hand obviously).

I just feel reading through it last night that there isn't anything for me to enjoy as a game, or for me to find a premise with my character and address it, or the chance to really revel in the setting and do things that I'd want to do. Though there is room for immersion and other ephemera of course within the straightjacket of the script and the fates of the cards.

Rich and Joe are on the money I think.

But, this is worth working on for sure.

Thanks for all the feedback so far, it's all valuable stuff.

Rich: To be honest, I can't remember how many changes have been made since Spodley and I suspect they were minimal, if any. The project has lain fallow since then.

Joe: The mechanics are indeed the weak centre of the game, something that did come out of play at Spodley.

Gregor: Your point about spies and so forth is bang on, as are your other comments.

So what does this all mean? Well, it confirms the inherent weakness of the mechanical elements of the game the 'drama walk through' nature of the thing as a whole (good description, Gregor). There need to be more openness, but retention of the focus of the game. I've no desire for it to become wide open, it needs to retain what is currently good about it (mainly the fundamental idea and setting).

I've been twiddling around in my head with ways of making it less chancy and more mechanically sound. Some current thoughts, in a very early form:

Scene structure is junked, to be replaced with a limited choice of scene types. This keeps the focus, while allowing for more openness and contribution to the story.

Scene types: Rest/Social, Political (a rally, meeting, some kind of non-violent action, etc), Violent (any action that involves violence on the side of the emigres).

The way the protagonists are defined is somewhat different.

Determination (always at least one die, rises during game)
Suspicion (used again the protagonist, rises during game)
Traits (start with a defined pool of dice which are used to create traits for character as game progresses. Once traits are named, those dice are fixed in place)

Violence (something that only the Okhrana have and can be used against the protagonists. Increases during play).

Cards are abandoned to be replaced with dice (probably D6s). Rolling for success (4, 5, 6) and narration (highest die). Result could pan out as follows:

Protagonist

Success + narration = +1 Determination

Success = +1 Suspicion, +1 Determination

Nothing = +1 Suspicion

Violence pool for the Okhrana starts at (number of players +1) and goes up by one each turn.

During a conflict, the player to the left of the acting player decides on what the fallout might be for them if they fail, the player to the right takes the roll of the Okhrana and decides what dice to use, how many, etc. The story of the protagonist ends when Determination and/or Suspicion reach defined levels.

This is all pretty vague and amorphous at this point. Consider this throwing the contents of my brain onto the page. It needs to be determined if this basic framework is sound and how it needs to be modified to get it right (such as levels of Determination vs Suspicion, death spirals, the same pitfalls as before and so on).

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

Might be worth re-visiting your work on Revolutionaries, I think some of that could be merged into the Okhrana system.

It would be a good idea to focus design on the dramatic heart of the game. To me it seems like the key is achieving your ambition whilst avoiding detection. I guess the question most PC's should be answering is "Is it worth me getting caught for this cause?"

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

Ah, Revolutionaries, another game that was not without its flaws. As an aside, in retrospect, I'm not sure Contenders was the right choice for the system (which is no slur on Contenders). It's a game that is wholly setting-focussed (for me). Which is not surprising, as it was for a seting design contest.

Back onto Okhrana...

The stuff about Determination and Suspicion is doing the rounds in my head, and I think that those two words get to the core of the game. Determination is what you need to succeed, while Suspicion is what the forces of the Okhrana use against you. They have the advantage of having the license of state violence, the ultimate expression of state power. You can use violence, but it is a function of your determination.

So, to use your thoughts on the dramatic heart of the game Ambition = Determination and Suspicion = Getting caught. The question is really: how to make this function in the game, as mechanics that will offer satisfying, dramatic play. And that's where I bang my head against the brick wall to a certain extent.

However, I think one thing that has been clarified for me is the inability of the mechanics as written in the PDF to give this. Do the current mechanics, in any form, offer this? Maybe, but that remains to be seen.

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios