Automatic successes and notes on what different levels of resources mean is probably worthwhile.

Thanks for all your suggestions!

My two cents: it looks like a fun, playable game, with a well-researched premise, but not too much historical detail for enjoyable play.

First off, I like your putting the game premise and setting right up front. Letting us know what the game's about and what's cool about playing it is way important and you do a good job. I personally might consider moving some of the more detailed historical overview stuff to later in the document though. Hard to say.

I think Max is right about the Resource and Skill points for Bishops and Henchmen; reviewing his experimentation it looks like the doubling works out about right for playability. I'm not so concerned about the Wealth score, though, since there all kinds of modifiers that can be garnered. No, you don't want to be faced with your straight Wealth score for an important check, but if you just take out a little loan, fund a little crime, engage in a little religious fraud. . .then, well! the check looks a lot better. 'Course, you'll have to make sure you're not caught. . .

I think this is brilliant. It gives a tempting option for a desperate situation, but which carries its own risk of dire consequences. Great for producing difficult choices, especially if you want to play a more idealistic sort of Bishop. Looks like it would be lots of fun in play.

I also think the format of playing both Bishop and Henchamn, as well as playing on a scale of calendar years, is perfect for adhering to the historical situation without killing fun. You get to scheme and maneuver, AND skulk through the shadows on daring missions. Best of both worlds. And the scake of time passage avoids the pitfallsl of either lots of boring play where nothing much happens, or else throwing out historicity and allowing faster transportation and communication.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Health system. I'm kind of wondering, with a system so otherwise elegant, and in which Integrity is in many ways your TRUE "health total," you're going with such an oddly granular health/physical injury system. i'm not saying you should ditch it altogether; it's pretty integral to the structure to the game. But it seems like health loss should be more decisive: I ran a henchman on henchman combat with Attack and Defense 60 (and weapons and armor which canceled each other out) and after about 10 round of whiffing and plinking the pair had lost 24 and 28 health points respectively. i'd say combat should generally be a bigger risk than that, since it's supposed to be a thing to be avoided in most circumstances (as you say, a Bishop BETTER rely on bodyguards for combat situations). Maybe a change as simple as losing 1 health for every point you fail defense by, instead of for every 2, would be enough to tip this.

That said, I do think the combat system is pretty elegant, both in applying the attackers roll surplus in penalty to the defender, and the easy-peasy fighting as a unit rules. Very cool.

I'm curious, though, how are percentages in excess of 100 handled by the system (like a unit of 6 underlings with combined Attack 120)? it's unclear from the text. Is there still an auto-fail chance, like 96-00, or is it just always a success and then the defender has to beat it (good luck)? Also, given that a unit of guards creates such an unstoppable meat-shield around a Bishop (120 Att AND Def, and 300 Health!), perhaps there should be options for a would-be assassin to bypass that protection? Or do skills cover this? (They don't seem to.)

One last thing; I found the GM's role somewhat unclear in the text. For a cooperative game it's pretty clear; the players are united against outside forces, and the GM provides those forces. But in competitive play, since players have control over a whole power-structure under their Bishop, and they are "generating conflict, discord and action through their mutual backstabbing," i.e. providing each others' opposition, one wonders what's left for the GM to do. Play the secular authority under which the Bishps must carry out their skullduggery? Introduce other Bishops with their OWN ambitions? Act bit parts (like the Lover trait and such)? Those are all legitimate answers, but clarity would be nice. Also, I hesitate to mention it, but it does seem that for the Competitive model, much fun could be had without a GM at all.

I recognize that it's a 24-hour entry and you don't have the luxury of spelling everything out. It just strikes me that the game assumes that everyone will just "know" what the GM is supposed to do, which isn't always true. Especially in a game like this where the situation and procedures are (innovatively!) a bit off the beaten path.

I'm pretty excited to try the game out, actually. I'll let you know if I get a chance to. And good luck with the contest!

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorFirst off, I like your putting the game premise and setting right up front. Letting us know what the game's about and what's cool about playing it is way important and you do a good job. I personally might consider moving some of the more detailed historical overview stuff to later in the document though. Hard to say.

My thinking there was that people are going to want to look at which particular bit of the timeline they want to play in before they really start tackling the rules - note how I suggest that people sit down and think about the time period and location for their campaign before they start creating characters. I'll have a think about that one.

QuoteI think Max is right about the Resource and Skill points for Bishops and Henchmen; reviewing his experimentation it looks like the doubling works out about right for playability. I'm not so concerned about the Wealth score, though, since there all kinds of modifiers that can be garnered. No, you don't want to be faced with your straight Wealth score for an important check, but if you just take out a little loan, fund a little crime, engage in a little religious fraud. . .then, well! the check looks a lot better. 'Course, you'll have to make sure you're not caught. . .

That's the intent. Really - and I should stress this more in the text of the game - in any situation you want to be looking for ways and means to claw back a few bonus points to your roll. This is, for example, why I strongly advise players not to get into fair fights: fair fights are for suckers.

QuoteI also think the format of playing both Bishop and Henchamn, as well as playing on a scale of calendar years, is perfect for adhering to the historical situation without killing fun. You get to scheme and maneuver, AND skulk through the shadows on daring missions. Best of both worlds. And the scake of time passage avoids the pitfallsl of either lots of boring play where nothing much happens, or else throwing out historicity and allowing faster transportation and communication.

Here I've got to acknowledge the influence of Pendragon (with the timescale) and Ars Magica (with the troupe-best play), the two best medieval-flavoured games on the market. I specifically wanted to implement troupe play because I think the espionage genre requires both spies and spymasters, and I thought it would be nice to have the players controlling both.

QuoteI'm not sure how I feel about the Health system. I'm kind of wondering, with a system so otherwise elegant, and in which Integrity is in many ways your TRUE "health total," you're going with such an oddly granular health/physical injury system. i'm not saying you should ditch it altogether; it's pretty integral to the structure to the game. But it seems like health loss should be more decisive: I ran a henchman on henchman combat with Attack and Defense 60 (and weapons and armor which canceled each other out) and after about 10 round of whiffing and plinking the pair had lost 24 and 28 health points respectively. i'd say combat should generally be a bigger risk than that, since it's supposed to be a thing to be avoided in most circumstances (as you say, a Bishop BETTER rely on bodyguards for combat situations). Maybe a change as simple as losing 1 health for every point you fail defense by, instead of for every 2, would be enough to tip this.

Possibly, although I would argue that two equally-skilled equally-equiped guys having a fair fight damn well should be stalemated - and really, the number of situations where you can have a fair fight like that and count on other people not intervening are actually quite small.

QuoteI'm curious, though, how are percentages in excess of 100 handled by the system (like a unit of 6 underlings with combined Attack 120)? it's unclear from the text. Is there still an auto-fail chance, like 96-00, or is it just always a success and then the defender has to beat it (good luck)?

The latter is the case. The defender can still beat it - especially if the attacker rolls miserably - but if one of those 6-underling units come at you and you don't have your own bodyguard unit handy you had better watch out. (This is intentional: lone individuals cornered by a troop of 6 well-armed men should die.)

QuoteAlso, given that a unit of guards creates such an unstoppable meat-shield around a Bishop (120 Att AND Def, and 300 Health!), perhaps there should be options for a would-be assassin to bypass that protection? Or do skills cover this? (They don't seem to.)

I might incorporate some surprise rules and rules making it more difficult to protect your liege from missile weapons in a later revision. Generally, though, the idea is to manipulate things so that you can catch enemy bishops without their meat shields: I specifically didn't want a situation where a player in a competitive game could stat up an uber-assassin Henchman, have them kill all the other bishops one by one, and win by default.

QuoteOne last thing; I found the GM's role somewhat unclear in the text. For a cooperative game it's pretty clear; the players are united against outside forces, and the GM provides those forces. But in competitive play, since players have control over a whole power-structure under their Bishop, and they are "generating conflict, discord and action through their mutual backstabbing," i.e. providing each others' opposition, one wonders what's left for the GM to do. Play the secular authority under which the Bishps must carry out their skullduggery? Introduce other Bishops with their OWN ambitions? Act bit parts (like the Lover trait and such)? Those are all legitimate answers, but clarity would be nice. Also, I hesitate to mention it, but it does seem that for the Competitive model, much fun could be had without a GM at all.

All that, plus - and most importantly - act as a referee. I think that a GM is very important for the competitive model because you need to have someone with a bird's-eye-view of what's happening. Players are naturally going to be cagey about what their characters are up to, after all, and a GMless situation will require a lot of mutual trust on the part of the players. You need to have a referee handy so that you can set up your secret contingency plans; otherwise you'd either have to tip off the other players that you have such plans, or spring them on them at the last minute and have them say "Aw, you never prepared that!"

A GM who is not part of the competitive hurly-burly can keep track of what is going on in the shadows, make sure nobody forgets important factors ("Hey, remember that secret army you were raising in France? Are you going to do anything with them soon? They're getting hungry and bored and grumbling about not seeing any action..."), and otherwise ensure things tick over smoothly. This would be especially important in an online game.

Thanks for your kind words about the game, and your suggestions. I'm glad to see that therpgsite seems to "get" what I'm going for with Dictatus Papae; all the criticisms I've seen here have been very much in keeping with the spirit of the thing, which is always more helpful than people saying "nice game, but it could be a bit more narrativist..."

Hi Warthur! Glad you're finding the commentary helpful.

Quote from: WarthurMy thinking there was that people are going to want to look at which particular bit of the timeline they want to play in before they really start tackling the rules - note how I suggest that people sit down and think about the time period and location for their campaign before they start creating characters. I'll have a think about that one.

I can see what you're getting at here. I'm kinda of two minds myself. I like the info and the grounding it gives you for the game you're about to play. It probably is pretty important to absorb before moving on to chargen. it's also rather long. I kinda wanted to skip ahead to the rules, though I didn't. And it was all interesting stuff (for me, anyway). So hey, your call.

Quote from: WarthurThat's the intent. Really - and I should stress this more in the text of the game - in any situation you want to be looking for ways and means to claw back a few bonus points to your roll.

Yup, I figured it was intentional. Too slickly designed not to be. I just felt like highlighting it because it deserves the attention and praise. :cool:

Quote from: WarthurPossibly, although I would argue that two equally-skilled equally-equiped guys having a fair fight damn well should be stalemated - and really, the number of situations where you can have a fair fight like that and count on other people not intervening are actually quite small.

Not a bad point. It just seems like it would be great to preserve this feature while also allowing for a nice slick kill (which is the very idea behind assassination) instead of a slow hitpoint grind.

Quote from: WarthurI might incorporate some surprise rules and rules making it more difficult to protect your liege from missile weapons in a later revision. Generally, though, the idea is to manipulate things so that you can catch enemy bishops without their meat shields: I specifically didn't want a situation where a player in a competitive game could stat up an uber-assassin Henchman, have them kill all the other bishops one by one, and win by default.

The additional rules would be nice to see. You do have a great start here and it'd be great to see how you further develop it (not that it isn't playable and fun-looking right now!). On the other hand, you have a point about the "uber-assassin" danger. Wouldn't want to throw off a precarious balance. All in all, this is the kind of stuff that playtesting would address of course.

Quote from: WarthurAll that, plus - and most importantly - act as a referee. I think that a GM is very important for the competitive model because you need to have someone with a bird's-eye-view of what's happening. Players are naturally going to be cagey about what their characters are up to, after all, and a GMless situation will require a lot of mutual trust on the part of the players. You need to have a referee handy so that you can set up your secret contingency plans; otherwise you'd either have to tip off the other players that you have such plans, or spring them on them at the last minute and have them say "Aw, you never prepared that!"

Sound reasoning, and I can see how a GM is important to this particular competitive model. I word or two in the text would be nice, but I understand it's a 24-hour endeavor and all that. (Hell, I tried a 24-hour comic once, and only made it to like page 16! Hat off to you for coming through so spectacularly in such an endeavor!)

Good luck!

peace,
-Joel

For what it's worth: I came joint 2nd in the contest, with 81 out of 100. The winner (the *superb* Sun Never Sets, which really deserved to win) got 83 out of 100, so it was a tight race.

Awesome! Well done.

Peace,
-Joel

Congrats, good to hear.

Out of interest, did I miss the bonuses to Wealth rolls?  I don't remember spotting how I could manipulate events to get a better roll in that particular area.

The modfiiers are on page 9, towards the bottom of the modifier table. It badly needs expanding.

I am going to be converting DP to a roll-over system as opposed to roll-under for the 2nd edition (so you roll percentile dice, add your score, and try to beat 100 in uncontested checks, or the other guy's roll in contested checks), since this actually makes the maths in contested checks marginally easier (there's no need to apply penalties to other people's rolls based on what other people rolled), so I am going to add a "take 50" rule - in non-stressed situations where you can take your time about things and nothing exciting is happening (for example, when you are buying stuff in downtime), so if I do that and change the Wealth modifiers a bit the Wealth problem should be sorted.

Oh, and I've had further thoughts on Henchmen: I think I need to boost their Resources a little more - but not too much - and make it clear that Bishops should be using their Resource scores to help their Henchmen more - for example, using their Wealth to buy their Henchmen equipment, using their Contacts score to open doors which would otherwise be closed to the Henchman, that sort of thing. I think this would emphasise that Henchmen need their Bishops just as much as the Bishops need their Henchmen; you don't become the bloody-handed dogsbody of a greedy Bishop unless they're providing you with something you need, whether it be political protection, monetary help, or introductions in high society.

I'm also thinking about modifying the Contacts rules so you get a bonus for arranging appointments with people who are your social equals or lessers and penalties for trying to get a meeting with people who are well beyond your league; so a Bishop, for example, should be able to get a meeting with a Duke but a scummy Henchman shouldn't... unless, of course, their Bishop gets them an introduction.

Anyhow: 2nd editions of DP (as well as Grunting and The Sun Never Sets, the other winners) will be put together in a nice printed book in the coming months, so you'll probably be able to get a version of DP which is actually playtested in the near future.

Those changes sound good, if you need help playtesting please let me know.

I should add my own personal note of congratulations to Arthur. He and I engaged in some very spirited debate over his design on the Modus OPernadi forums. His commitment to his design goals and reasoning for having certain elements in the game/not in the game was admirable.

I look forward to hearing how the playtesting goes.

Cheers
Malcolm

Warthur, any updates?

I am working on a second edition, but I'm also working on a doctoral thesis. You might see something next year.

Quote from: WarthurI am working on a second edition, but I'm also working on a doctoral thesis. You might see something next year.

Cool, let me know if I can help, with the game, not the thesis that is...