Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7432380" data-attributes="member: 42582">I can't comment on the last item, as that is part of the campaign structure and we didn't explore that. (Ie each new session allows changes to PCs.)The conflict resolution mechanic suffers from two problems: the one that I mentioned in my post, and from fact that the stakes are set by the system, and are rather modest (a drop in die size to two of six stats), unless their is negotiation. So unlike DitV, or a 4e skill challenge, there is no concrete thing that is stakes - a loser can always hold out and just take the default consequence. And unlike DitV or Poison'd (the latter a Vincent Baker game I've read but not played), there is no escalation mechanic.What incentivises negotiation, to an extent, is the fact that the session ends when a PC emerges as the clear protagonist and/or as having resolved his/her &quot;best interests&quot; (this is a table call guided by the GM), and there is no guarantee that you can carry your PC forward to another session, so if you want to finish successfully you're going to have to negotiate. Still, it felt a little weak.The GMing advice is pretty good. The character/setting creation is very strong, as I said in my post: lots of colour and obvious points of possible connection between generated elements.The premise is not dictated by the game per se, but emerges out of the setting elements plus players' choices of best interests. The obvious themes are love, hate, revenge, war, sex. This emerges from the &quot;oracles&quot;, and also the six stats (For Self, For Others, With Love, With Violence, Directly, Covertly). So when the elements are chosen, and the players identify and build PCs, and then choose best interests, and the GM starts framing - well, premise emerges. With a single short session I can't say how deep or replayable it is, but I found it pretty amusing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7432380, member: 42582"] I can't comment on the last item, as that is part of the campaign structure and we didn't explore that. (Ie each new session allows changes to PCs.) The conflict resolution mechanic suffers from two problems: the one that I mentioned in my post, and from fact that the stakes are set by the system, and are rather modest (a drop in die size to two of six stats), unless their is negotiation. So unlike DitV, or a 4e skill challenge, there is no concrete thing that is stakes - a loser can always hold out and just take the default consequence. And unlike DitV or Poison'd (the latter a Vincent Baker game I've read but not played), there is no escalation mechanic. What incentivises negotiation, to an extent, is the fact that the session ends when a PC emerges as the clear protagonist and/or as having resolved his/her "best interests" (this is a table call guided by the GM), and there is no guarantee that you can carry your PC forward to another session, so if you want to finish successfully you're going to have to negotiate. Still, it felt a little weak. The GMing advice is pretty good. The character/setting creation is very strong, as I said in my post: lots of colour and obvious points of possible connection between generated elements. The premise is not dictated by the game per se, but emerges out of the setting elements plus players' choices of best interests. The obvious themes are love, hate, revenge, war, sex. This emerges from the "oracles", and also the six stats (For Self, For Others, With Love, With Violence, Directly, Covertly). So when the elements are chosen, and the players identify and build PCs, and then choose best interests, and the GM starts framing - well, premise emerges. With a single short session I can't say how deep or replayable it is, but I found it pretty amusing. [/QUOTE]

Verification