In a Wicked Age

edited October 2007 in Pitch
«1

Comments

  • Hott! I SO want to play this. I don't want to end up overcommitted to games though. I'll see if there's much interest here, and if you need another player, I'm happy to oblige.
  • Ok cool. Although I'd have to say that often it take more than a day for everyone to check the page, so there's a good chance some more folk are interested who just haven't checked in recently. If it's cool for them to jump in later, that's fine by me. Can you run through the format of the game for us, so we get an idea what we'll be doing? I've read an AP report, but I'd like to know what you're planning for PBP.
  • I'm game to try it. The AP's of games so far are pretty cool (I admit my judgment influenced by the one that brings in Dictionary of Mu which I adore), though what the PBP version would look like is a good question.
  • Hmm. If there's a lot of negotiation involved, it might require some special attention. Negotiation can be a nightmare over PBP, since back and forth can take so long. I'm pretty keen to keep the number of players down for the same reason. Is there a way to streamline or formalise the negotiation process?

    Can you run us through the basic conflict resolution so we know what we're dealing with?
  • edited October 2007
  • Hmm, ok. I've just got through the rules wiki. Here are a couple things I'd jchange right off the bat. I'd change every instance of "turns" into "first in, first served", just to save time. Then there's the negtiation stuff. What with time zones and things, one sequence of suggesting consequences and either accepting or declining and suggesting an alternative could take days, during which time no one else can post, pending the outcome of the conflict. Even without negotiation, we're going to be taking weeks to resolve a conflict. How much do you think it would cripple the game if the loser always decides the consequences of losing?

    I'm up for playing this, but we should be aware that it's going to take a long time. I'd be wary of more than three players for this reason.

    Valvorik, I'm happy to step down in your favour, or we could switch in and out. How about you play the first round, and I'll jump in the second? By that stage we might be ready for four players, or someone else might want a break. I'd like to stay involved in the OOC discussion though.
  • edited October 2007
    Simon, that's very cool of you. Wouldn't want to step out completely as you have the mechanics worked out above (what we really need is to get Ryan Stoughton into this, he has a knack of taking any set of game instructions for resolving something and making pretty flow charts that are so easy to follow - you can see his ones for Universalis over at Forge).

    So the "half in/half out" to get things rolling would be fine.

    Some time limits on stages of things converting a "loss of < half" to either (a) suck it up (and hang in) or (b) Give would make sense. I would like to play as close to the system as possible to actually be testing it and providing some value back to world as well.

    Rob

    PS, linked from another thread (Hans) in Storygames there is this "annotated" version of wiki rules with posts where Vincent elaborated things etc. filled in:

    http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/InAWickedToronto:Annotated_Rules
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
    No strong preferences, Unquiet Past appeals to me most, God-Kings of War least, okay with Nest of Vipers or Blood and Sex.

    One question, does the presumed setting flow from characters (e.g., if I describe character as a crack shot with musket, well okay, there are muskets) or do we set some parameters other than in play? I'm fine to be "all in play, negotiate what someone finds iffy."

    I agree about playing unadulterated, the only thing I can see being an issue might not ~ the negotiations phase, where it's consequences or loss if that's an issue we can go to "best and final offers" etc.

    Rob
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
  • That's a really good idea. Clarity of intent is a really good way to make the negotiation go faster, and also feel more like "play". Your terms are good, too. I think resticting the winner to "only if" "and" and "ok" is a really good idea too.

    For oracles, I'm with Valvorik on not being into "God-Kings of War", and liking "Unquiet Past". I think if I were playing at home, I'd do "Blood and Sex" but maybe it's a bit intense for PBP?
  • After fiddling with the oracle for a while, I think that I'm coming around to Nest of Vipers. "Unquiet Past" grabs me more, straight off the bat, but Nest of Vipers threw up more situations that seemed immediately playable.
  • edited October 2007
    Sounds like we're getting there. Nest of Vipers is okay by me. I would give whoever is GMing a bit more weight not because GM's "rule" but because he's (sounds like we're all he's) got to be grabbed by the story etc. to "bring it" to his role.

    Do we want to "wikify" any of our "house rules". Ensuring clarity over "accepting", "rejecting" etc. sounds good. Also establish the formal procedure for when we're rolling dice, such as we post the dice we're rolling and are on honour system not to mouse over (that's a very cool little thing the board has going there) another's until we should see them in game.

    I'm for getting to the play sooner and working out procedures as we need them.

    Rob
  • edited October 2007
  • edited October 2007
    Re rules, I hadn't spotted the issue of conflicts such as "endeavour - influence others" vs "endeavour - asserting myself", with the potential of "exhausting" as opposed to "injuring" (either being able to subtract dice) and whether they are meant to or not. Subject to others weighing in, that seems fine that they do (it would be 'exhaust' not injure in that case).

    Yes, I agree with integrating the "uncouth spirits" with either "ghosts" or "devils" as what the sorcerer entices (whoever gets dibs on sorcerer gets to decide which, whether player or GM), ties the situation together a bit. I think 'weaving together' is useful.

    I suggest adding noting that ghosts and devils can be individualized as characters (a particular ghost, a particular devil).

    I would leave it to whoever creates a character (GM or Player) out of such to create "leader of" or "one of" and if latter not have them made a "follower". If all are left GM characters, GM can decide. If a player creates a ghost character and doesn't do so as "follower" a leader cannot be created later.

    Further "networking" to tie together, I suggest:

    • ghosts of those slain by the innkeeper (also may be individualized), that manifest at the mansion
    • kin of a wealthy guest slain by innkeeper (could turn out to be the self-same wealthy guest)

    Oh, and a bit of a comment on the "generator", I suggest reading all the gender-indicating pronouns as non-binding until character created. It could be "her daughter", "her uncouth spirits", "her guests" ~ once again the controller of character decides. The list posted doesn't note gender for these characters and I'm saying "right on".

    When do we move from pitch-thread to "IC-Thread"? Suggest once the "list" above finalized.

    Rob
Sign In or Register to comment.