itch.io

I have two reads on this. 

First: Only Moon Sentences on the sheets are actually in play, in that way. A GM cannot say 'oh, you can't put that sentence down, I have a secret one that actually contradicts it.' If you want to establish something important and big about a moon, consider putting it in play on the sheet RIGHT AWAY.

Second: You can put (seemingly) contradicting sentences on the moon sheet! The two sentences you gave do not actually contradict, in the way that the Wordwrights see the world at least. A Moon can have two sentences that come into conflict. In fact, if a player was to Act by playing their token and saying "The moons are always visible" you could *counter* that sentence with "The view of the heavens always submits to the will of the Rabbit Lord." And even if they did that to Counter one of your own Sentences, you could then reveal your Rabbit Lord sentence to actually SHOW it happen.

You know, if you were writing a Moon sheet for our own Earth, it might have both "The days are always bright' and "An eclipse always blots out the sun." Having both of those on the sheet doesn't mean the sheet is broken. It means that you have put some really fun pieces into play!

I really appreciate the question because it led me to realizing that I should put it in those words directly in the book!

Hey there, pages 72 and 73 have guidance on Realization. I would say "When I push myself to the limits" is probably too broad, at least for my table, or at least without going in knowing that we'd really limit to "push myself to the limits" really far. A good rule of thumb for Realization is: Can it be falsified? I.e., could there be a situation where the user freely and unworriedly says "Yeah I can't use my sentence in this circumstance." If the answer is no, then it probably isn't Realized. So, if your table is really willing to judge whether you are "pushing yourself to your limits," then yeah, it probably works. But if you're just using it to characterize what the use of the sentence looks like, then no, probably not great.

A one on one game is totally doable, with the note that you'd have to make some decisions about Bonds and Band Sentences--both of which are designed to tie player characters (and their players) together. Either house rule that those can operate with NPCs or else the GM should account for the fact that the PC does not have their full toolbox available to them.

That'd be a great house rule and I'd love to hear how it works out! But as written, no. Countered Sentences are "unable to be used for the remainder of the scene." A fully character with all Countered Class Sentences must rely on Moon Sentences, Bonds, Ephemera, and, of course, their Dream to get them out of whatever scrape they've found themselves in.

Thanks so much for giving it a read.

I can't speak for all GMs, but as I've played it:

Faction and NPC Sentences begin entirely secret, and are only revealed on use.

Moon Sentences can begin secret or public or some mix thereof, depending on PCs and their relation to the given Moon. If they're from the Moon in question, or have spent a lot of time there, they probably know the big ones. But a Moon might have some secrets (like the one about Daniley's Unyielding Engine) which they discover during play. Plus, Moons can have Sentences added on the fly by Players by spending their Tokens. 

In the Podcast play example, the public Sentences reflected that the character in question had been to those places before, encountered those Factions and NPCs, etc. Also, once a Sentence is public, it is marked in public and only through play--so players should always have the ability to know if a Sentence has been Primed and could potentially be Realized the next time they come up against it.

And important note: Illuminating failure doesn't require opposition, though it can include that, if you'd like. It requires only uncertainty. (That's also true for requesting a Means from a player, you don't need to have specific opposition, you can just say 'Hey, that sounds like something that might be uncertain. Do you have a Means to point to that would make it doable for you?')

Hope that helps!

Oh this is absolutely true. This is what I get for trying to handle some of the edits from the passenger seat of a car. Tyler and I will adjust for clarity soon!

Not an official one at this point. Running and moderating a server well is a lot of work, and not one that I currently have the bandwidth for, especially since making TTRPGs is not my full time job. 

Yes, absolutely, in two major ways.

First, tonally, saying the word 'always' really has an impact in play. The initial draft of this game allowed for other phrasings, and it didn't really hit. 'I always do X' really shifts the sense of deploying a Sentence.

Second, mechanically, Class Sentences aren't only deployed in Conflicts, they're also used when facing uncertainty, which is only possible because of "always." If the Runner didn't always "find a way through or around," and they came to a locked door, how would we know that they could get past it? Well, in another game, where they had something like a skill like "lockpicking" or an aspect like "knows how to find a way through or around" we might ask "well, how well  do they know that?" and to find out we'd maybe roll some dice. Here, we don't have to: They always find a way through or around. 

The only thing powerful enough to stop that "always"--in the Wordwrights' vision of Realis--is another Sentence.

A GMing and/or Play Guidance section(s) is high on the list of new material for the full release!

Thanks for the catch! Page 37 is correct. We'll fix this ASAP. The rule for Bonds used to be that they didn't Realize, they were only ever rewritten as new +0 bonds. Once I changed that, I also returned them to being marked only on failures, like regular Sentences. Hope that makes sense!

A GMing guide is on my list for the full release for sure!  A lot of play testers have been able to get campaigns up and going with what’s here, so I’m confident it does work.

One important note: the PCs should NOT be the only ones doing things, or be the primary Actors. This game doesn’t work only on “what do you do,” it requires “Someone is trying to use [sentence X] with [Y intent], can anyone counter that?”

I’m traveling today, but sounds like a typo or holdover from when something else happened in that play example. I’ll take a look once I’m at a computer!! Thank you~

edit: okay, fixed!!

Really rad work capturing the "cinematic" pace of cyberpunk action-hacking.

This is super neat Ansh! The thing I think it's missing the most right now is a way to quickly start playing again, so that I could become better at understanding the mechanics and play without needing to watch the intro/credits. Really excited to see this develop.