Post by Andrea "Lord Lance" P. in Change to PWYW comments

Viewing post in Change to PWYW comments

Hi Michal.

I read the text, thanks to your PWYW set. I usually don't play those "micro games", so I literally read it just as I have skimmed a book in a brick'n'mortar hobby store: I'm used to do it, and then I return, and pay, only for the games I actually play at my table.

If you accept a short feedback:

- I know, it's sad to see your labor not repayed. Our hobby is really niche, so it's really hard to gain a fair price for a game. Also, there's already a good number of fine professional games, and a huge number of derivative ones (or original, but totally oscure ones...). So, if a unknown game want to emerge, it has to be a really damn good one, and create a very good community around it.

- I skip over the graphic / layout part. Simplistic, essential. However, today, even amateur micro-games search for a pleasing aesthetic (just to bring you recent examples I saw, give a look to Matteo Scuttieri's Bloodstone, or Jinx, or Tavern Stories: https://matteosciutteri.itch.io/ )

- I see that you took inspiration from PbtA/BitD games, but you removed all the "mixed success" part. I totally love that part, for me it's one of the best mechanic around, from Apocalypse World onwards. The biggest fun I have at my table with those kind of games is the whole "Yes but..." "No and..." I gain from that mixed results. Consequeces, prices, costs, hard choices, all emerge from that.

- So, from what I see, you often "mark month/s", even on successes. How many scenes you think you'll have during a game? Few, I suppose, 'cause your months/HPs are really limited. Usually games with very few rolls (ie. 1 for each scene or so) create a "detachment" by the players toward their characters: I see that it's easier for my groups to narrate smaller bit of fiction (so, resolving small bits of scenes, in contraposition to moving a whole scene on), so they can be more involved. But of course this is a preference of mine, other groups could enjoy differently.

- It's unclear (for me, at least) if those "months" are really chunks of time from a scene to another one, or not. Probably, not, however calling HPs as months could be thematic (maybe), but it's confusing, if you don't state it clearly. Also, you start with 5 months already marked off, but technically that's more than a season burned away (I'd expect to have 4 months marked off, if a season of my life has slipped away).

- I'm not sold on all the whole Rust/Storm mechanic. Theoretically, seems thematic and cool, but, 'cause it's totally predictable, ie. not influenced by GM choices (for example no "you fail, so I add a Storm sector" or "you can do it, but the Storm approaches" this is a form of mixed success that you don't have in the game), probably it will be rarely seen in game. Let's say there are 2 players and the GM. So, they have 3 Rust point, and a 4 sector Storm clock. They wouldn't fill it, probably, 'cause a +1 difficulty means they probably will have to waste 1 HP/month more for every roll (ie. the same bonus they had with their burned Rust). Also, they wouldn't fill their Rust clock, 'cause they lose immediately 2 months, if they do so, ie. in the end they wasted 2 months, more or less the same if they didn't use 2 Rust points. So, probably in the whole session you'll see those 2 players simply using the first ("free") point of Rust; maybe 1 more for one of the players: this way the Storm isn't activate, and they didn't waste 2 months.
There's no thrill, no uncertainty.

Ok, I think I said all that came to my mind during the reading. Hope you can find it helpful.

Best luck for your projects,

Andrea

Common Fortress2 years ago(+1)

Hi Andrea.

Thanks for your review! I appreciate that.

Considering Rust/Storm mechanic, I'm aware of that and I don't think that's actually an issue. When the group decide to abstain from spending more than "[3 x player count] - 4" in order to avoid The Storm, still it does mean that their resources became even more scarce.

And the previous paragraphs. "October Rust" doesn't have three-way oracle-like resolution, because it simply doesn't need it in my opinion. Every conflict you take, has built in cost: except of a case "Theme 3 vs Obstacle 3, minor intent", you always need to either spend your resources (trappings, rust points, one use of a background) or be forced to accept at least one die, so at least +1 month. In other hand, "Yes, and" or "No, and" always has that "but/however" ingrained in the engine. The uncertainity lies in details: how player/GM elaborates their stake (if given narrative rights), how GM interprets Forces of Evil ideas, how the fiction interacts with Scale of Intent, etc. It works by a clash between intents of both sides...

It creates a limit for actions through out the game, and securing "100% success/your intent" is possible just to a certain moment. OR is designed to grind out player characters.

Considering scene count, October Rust enforces at least three framed scenes by a structure (pre-Final Question play, Final Question, Epilogue Questions). In practice (and by instructions in the book), each Force of Evil can work as a different scene. Epilogue Questions can be written in a way that they'll need two separate (short) scenes for them, because of "you can't answer both EQ in one conflict" rule.

In practice, I'd expect like 5-6 scenes, depending on player count.

Anyway, thanks for feedback. The rulebook itself still needs more clarification in certain areas, or at least make few mechanics more transparent to a reader.