When Your Great Idea Isn’t Being Received Like You Expected

[doctorbadwolf]

I recently started a thread in which I was way too long winded and got 1 reply lol but in it I got down some thoughts I needed to get down about my game.

My example of the thread title is this.

In my game, Crossroads: The Quest for Chevar, you start out okay at a lot of skills, and really good at maybe like 2. That’s on purpose, as it means that you have to rely on your Attributes, allies, contacts, taking complications in order to succeed, etc.

This is done by:

• the primary use of Attribute Points being to Push a skill check up one step on the success ladder.
• Most skills are at 1-3 ranks, which will usually put in you in the mixed results of Mitigated Failure, or Mixed Success. (MF means you fail but can mitigate it by getting soemthing else minor out of it or setting up an ally, MS means you get part of what you want buts it’s pretty bare minimum or you get what you want at a cost)
• You have a good amount of AP, and you get a few back every time you rest at all, but need extended rest to guarantee full replenishment.

Then at higher levels you gain traits that cost AP to use, that are better than normal actions within a circumstance. Advanced conflict stances, special moves, codified spells, etc. and you gain more skill ranks, becoming more reliable in your skills, and thus needing AP to succeed less often.

The idea is that as you gain competence the game itself gets easier in a sense, because you just succeed more often, and get to use your resources to do bigger or more complex stuff or take more narrative control in ways you couldn’t afford to as much before.


My playtest (read: longtime play group) isn’t having an easy time with just spending the damn AP, though. I think part of it is that they all started with D&D (well one started with WEG Star Wars and didn’t D&D until after 3.5 was out IIRC) and the whole pass/fail dichotomy of those games, and older mindsets of narrative control being weird stuff.

So two questions: First, what do you think about the design goals and the dynamic I described, and have you ever had a similar problem with mechanics you were excited about that fell flat, even if you iterated and found a sweet spot that was received better?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Plenty of times.

I recently introduced a new crit house rule, where they roll damage normally and add the maximum on top of that (instead of rolling double dice).

They have no problem remembering that one.

I've had many other house rules (oftentimes granting additional narrative control) that they never remembered unless I prompted them. Even when they were 100% beneficial changes (like Luck Points).

Since it's a play test, and they're probably not very experienced with the rules, you might just need to prompt them regularly for a few sessions. "You know, you could use an AP to bump that MS up to success..." I would give it a chance before deeming that it's fallen flat. Could just be that they need some time to make the adjustment.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Plenty of times.

I recently introduced a new crit house rule, where they roll damage normally and add the maximum on top of that (instead of rolling double dice).

They have no problem remembering that one.

I've had many other house rules (oftentimes granting additional narrative control) that they never remembered unless I prompted them. Even when they were 100% beneficial changes (like Luck Points).

Since it's a play test, and they're probably not very experienced with the rules, you might just need to prompt them regularly for a few sessions. "You know, you could use an AP to bump that MS up to success..." I would give it a chance before deeming that it's fallen flat. Could just be that they need some time to make the adjustment.

Great points.

I think that it really may take a few sessions for sure, to know what the response really is. I asked every time they got a mixed result or failure, and they were just reluctant to do it. I'm thinking about ways to change how it's all presented to make it more clear that you're meant to just spend the points pretty freely.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Plenty of times.

I recently introduced a new crit house rule, where they roll damage normally and add the maximum on top of that (instead of rolling double dice).

They have no problem remembering that one.

I've had many other house rules (oftentimes granting additional narrative control) that they never remembered unless I prompted them. Even when they were 100% beneficial changes (like Luck Points).

Since it's a play test, and they're probably not very experienced with the rules, you might just need to prompt them regularly for a few sessions. "You know, you could use an AP to bump that MS up to success..." I would give it a chance before deeming that it's fallen flat. Could just be that they need some time to make the adjustment.

In a more abstract sense, what do you think of the dynamic of transitioning from

few special moves and spending resources to succeed
to
many special moves and succeeding more often without spending resources?

That change in what you spend resources on, and in how you interact with your skills.

Note that is is the primary, nearly only, medium of advancement. You don’t do more damage, except by virtue of doing strong damage more reliably, and you don’t get much harder to take out (toughness increases quite slowly, and not by much regardless).

 

[Fanaelialae]

In a more abstract sense, what do you think of the dynamic of transitioning from

few special moves and spending resources to succeed
to
many special moves and succeeding more often without spending resources?

That change in what you spend resources on, and in how you interact with your skills.

Note that is is the primary, nearly only, medium of advancement. You don’t do more damage, except by virtue of doing strong damage more reliably, and you don’t get much harder to take out (toughness increases quite slowly, and not by much regardless).

This explanation is somewhat abstract, but it sounds like a solid approach, assuming it suits the style of game. It sounds like you're going for a 'Han Solo' approach to advancement (as opposed to the 'Luke Skywalker' model used by games like D&D).

Obviously, a lot would depend on the actual details of implementation. I'm unclear whether its possible to obtain additional special moves through advancement. If not, then the game is probably better suited to shorter campaigns, since the characters really won't change much over time.

To put it into D&D parlance, the above would be like if everyone was playing a wizard that gained additional spell slots as normal, but no new spells (such that you can cast your existing spells more often). If you can gain additional special moves, then that would probably lend itself better to longer term play, since how you play that character could evolve over time (gaining new spells in addition to more spell slots). IMO, that kind of variety is useful in keeping players invested long term, whereas it isn't so important for a shorter term.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This explanation is somewhat abstract, but it sounds like a solid approach, assuming it suits the style of game. It sounds like you're going for a 'Han Solo' approach to advancement (as opposed to the 'Luke Skywalker' model used by games like D&D).

Obviously, a lot would depend on the actual details of implementation. I'm unclear whether its possible to obtain additional special moves through advancement. If not, then the game is probably better suited to shorter campaigns, since the characters really won't change much over time.

To put it into D&D parlance, the above would be like if everyone was playing a wizard that gained additional spell slots as normal, but no new spells (such that you can cast your existing spells more often). If you can gain additional special moves, then that would probably lend itself better to longer term play, since how you play that character could evolve over time (gaining new spells in addition to more spell slots). IMO, that kind of variety is useful in keeping players invested long term, whereas it isn't so important for a shorter term.

Oh yeah new traits (including techniques) are right next to more skill ranks as the main types of advancement.

You gain more versatility a lot faster than more power, but you do gain both. It’s a much less steep curve than D&D .

 

[Laurefindel]

That's 99% of my experience on these boards.

"Why doesn't everyone bow down to my bottomless wisdom?" I ask myself every time one of my posts fails to draw good support. A logical conclusion may be drawn off of this, but I prefer thinking that everyone else is just wrong

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's 99% of my experience on these boards.

"Why doesn't everyone bow down to my bottomless wisdom?" I ask myself every time one of my posts fails to draw good support. A logical conclusion may be drawn off of this, but I prefer thinking that everyone else is just wrong

Exactly! Not my fault of the crowd can’t tell a hawk from a handsaw!