Scott made copious notes of observations and feedback during this playtest, so I'll leave the bulk of the feedback to him. I'm just going to take the bullet on one point as it was me who broke the game and I think Scott feels guilty enough without having to deliver this.
As we were playing it, players took turns to direct scenes in which a conflict occurred; the player got a base draw of 3 cards in each conflict but could earn more by creating a resource.
Creating a resource meant you had to add 1 to the risk of your stake, but the resource had 3 impact in it, which could then be anted to draw more cards (we got this slightly wrong and were drawing fewer cards than we could have done, but I don't believe this affects the problem situation coming up)
Now, the game is designed so that the nemesis will definitely lose: thats locked into the game structure. Therefore, what the players are aiming towards is saving/redeeming their stake. In the endgame, if the risk placed on your stake, as a result of creating resources, is greater than the number of successes you get when facing the nemesis in the finale, then the stake is lost in some manner.
The problem created then is: whats my incentive to win conflicts? Why should I push to win them by drawing more cards, when that only places my stake at further risk and the villain is going to lose regardless of whether i win or lose any of the conflicts on the way? As a player, my optimal strategy is simply to play each conflict out using only my base 3 cards, as i don't care what the outcome is. All I care about is saving my stake, which I can do best by not drawing any extra cards. Drawing more cards risks the one thing my character cares about at no benefit to them or the story.
Assuming we didn't misunderstand something fundamental in the rules, I'd suggest a fix along the lines of earning a point from each successful conflict and then using those points in the endgame to determine which player actually defeats the villain, e.g. whose climactic conflict finishes him off and saves the day?
Damn that is a good point
Submitted by Iain McAllister on Thu, 17/04/2008 - 21:53.
Thanks James, that is a rather good point. There does need to be a better incentive for the players to win individual conflicts as the story progresses.
There is a little incentive to make resources. In the finale the heroes must throw everything at the nemesis, and their individual outcome is determined by how well they do. This ain't enough though.
So how about this, and it also incentivises creating action:
Every conflict a hero overcomes or triumphs in, gives them 1 or 2 points of 'grit' or something similar.
When it comes to the finale the hero with the most grit gets some kind of bonus. This means there would be competition between the players a little which I think would be a good thing for the game.
Thoughts appreciated as always.
Cheers
Iain
Mob Justice now available!
'The Giant Brain':Small games, big ideas.
Sounds good! I keep
Submitted by James Mullen on Sat, 19/04/2008 - 09:03.
Sounds good!
I keep thinkingof the MLwM model: going into that, you know that the Master's plan will fail and that one of his minion's will kill him. The competition is therefore between the players to see who will be the one to actually finish him off, as well as determining what their own fate will be out of six possible outcomes. Meanwhile, the GM, in the guise of the Master, continually pushes the minions to risk the destruction of their relationships and force them to attack each others'.