Specifically, I designed a game for a 24 hour RPG contest a friend of mine was running - the brief was to design an espionage-themed game in a pre-1914 time period. The competition entries have gone up here (http://www.modus-operandi.co.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=83&Itemid=26) - mine is "Dictatus Papae". What do people make of it? I thought I'd ask here seeing how I can be reasonably assured of cutting and insightful criticism in this place. ;) I am vaguely interested in expanding the thing for a second edition.
On a quick read through I don't see an explanation of spending skill points--skills have a base percentage, and no "levels" so I presume you spend Skill points on a one for one basis--1 point gets base skill percentage, the rest directly add to skills percentage? or is there another method of spending skill points?
Also is that a typo on the date for Henry IV(?) begging to end excommunication?
Or is it really 1977?
Anyway not bad, solid base system, interesting information. It could use a lot more explanation of things, but it was written in a day so I understand how that goes.
I think it's an excellent start, I got to read it finally today. Start by the way isn't a dig, it's a recognition that it's a 24 hour rpg and those are designed to be seeds of later, more developed, games.
That said, you won't win anything I'm afraid, in Forgey terms it's pure sim with a roll under mechanic and a clear GM/Player divide. Works for me, and indeed for most gamers, but I suspect it's insufficiently thematic for the competition.
But I may be pleasantly surprised, who knows?
I'll try creating a Bishop and Henchman in a bit and see if that throws up any issues.
Quote from: BalbinusThat said, you won't win anything I'm afraid, in Forgey terms it's pure sim with a roll under mechanic and a clear GM/Player divide. Works for me, and indeed for most gamers, but I suspect it's insufficiently thematic for the competition.
But I may be pleasantly surprised, who knows?
I think it might go both ways - I could end up being the token traditionalist. :) I also think some of the other games have put a little too much effort into coming up with an eccentric dice-rolling system and not enough into, you know, making an espionage game set in an unusual time period.
For what it's worth, the announced marking scheme is:
* 25 points: Use of theme
* 25 points: Overall creativity
* 20 points: Playability
* 20 points: Rules mechanics
* 10 points: Layout, spelling and grammar
For a total of 100 points. I don't expect an unfashionable rules system to wreck my chances too much; we'll have to see how the marks break down.
(Oh, and you really should check out The Sun Never Sets, because the Flashback mechanic is lots of fun.)
Ok, here goes, this is an attempt to portray a character I actually play in a PBEM. He's not yet a Bishop and that's set in 1517 so some tweaks will be necessary.
Period is 1414.
Bishop Bartolomeo Gagliardi
Integrity 60, Bartolomeo is a respected scholar and mathematician
Wealth 60, Bartolomeo is well off, but not as much as he would like
Contacts 60, Bartolomeo is a liked guy
Underlings, six thereof (cost 20)
BG does not have any additional Henchmen
Health Points 60
200 points seemed enough actually.
Skills wow Bishops get few skill points
Eavesdropping 15
Negotiation 55
Oration 25
wow Bishops get few skill points, that felt like too few. I'd expect BG to be a skilled negotiator and orator and had wanted some obfuscation, for a percentile system 80 is way harsh. I'd probably double it.
Traits
Secret Lover (Male) (-15)
Personal Confessor to Giovanni de Medici, banker to popes (cost 15)
Papal Inquisitor (cost 30)
I could have used more traits, both positive and negative, the list was a bit short. Also, it wasn't clear to me if negative trait points could only be spent on traits or could be spent elsewhere also. Since BG lacked the skill points to buy obfuscation, his male lover trait will probably have him dead within a year. I couldn't find another -15 I wanted, I was torn between Papal Inquisitor and Cardinal, but PI seemed to have more immediate power.
Allegiance: The Roman Papacy.
Henchman next.
Menachim Yadin, henchman
Resources 50, Skills 300, Traits 20/-20
First off, 50 for resources is way low, I had to abandon my initial idea of a merchant as I couldn't afford him.
Integrity 20, Menachim is an usurer, but fairer than some
Wealth 20, which is incredibly low for an usurer I would have thought
Contacts 20, Menachim knows virtually nobody it seems
Health 60
50 is far too low, again I'd probably double it.
Skills
Eavesdropping 55
Investigation 60
Negotiation 45
Obfuscation 60
Observation 60
Rumourmongering 62
300 wasn't too bad here actually. That said, I suddenly find myself wishing I had a second henchman as Menachim is good for intrigue but useless at following people or fighting. Still, I have my underlings for the fighting I guess...
Traits
Known to be Jewish (10)
Special Friend (Opposite Sex) (10, added to the pitifully low Contacts trait)
I didn't have any more traits I much wanted and there weren't any negatives that seemed to fit, again, far more traits are needed.
Wow, Underlings only get 20 skill points, that allows me to have a bodyguard with Attack 20 and Defence 20 with no other skills, combats are going to be a bit of a whiff-fest.
Again, it seems too little.
Overall, Bishops get too few Skill points by far, Henchmen too few Resources points. I appreciate they're supposed to be imbalanced, but I think it is so much so as to be a problem. Underlings seem pretty much useless even as bodyguards.
More traits would really help, also some guidelines on what numbers mean. What kind of person has an integrity of 10, 20, 50 and so on. What wealth is represented by Wealth 20, 30, whatever. Contacts makes sense as is given you get +30 for contacting people in your profession within your own area, although even at that Menachim has only a 50% chance of contacting other Userers in his home town.
That's my thoughts for now, any comments welcome.
As an experiment, here's Bartolomeo with skill points doubled and Menachim with Resource points doubled.
Bishop Bartolomeo Gagliardi
Integrity 60, Bartolomeo is a respected scholar and mathematician
Wealth 60, Bartolomeo is well off, but not as much as he would like
Contacts 60, Bartolomeo is a liked guy
Underlings, six thereof (cost 20)
BG does not have any additional Henchmen
Health Points 60
Skills
Eavesdropping 15
Negotiation 65
Obfuscation 60
Oration 45
Hardly overpowered I think.
Traits
Secret Lover (Male) (-15)
Personal Confessor to Giovanni de Medici, banker to popes (cost 15)
Papal Inquisitor (cost 30)
Menachim Yadin, henchman
Resources 50, Skills 300, Traits 20/-20
First off, 50 for resources is way low, I had to abandon my initial idea of a merchant as I couldn't afford him.
Integrity 20, Menachim is an usurer, but fairer than some
Wealth 30, which is incredibly low for an usurer I would have thought
Contacts 60, Menachim knows some people
Health 60
Again, hardly gamebreaking IMO.
Skills
Eavesdropping 55
Investigation 60
Negotiation 45
Obfuscation 60
Observation 60
Rumourmongering 62
Traits
Known to be Jewish (10)
Special Friend (Opposite Sex) (10, added to the Contacts trait)
One issue I noticed, because I need to roll wealth to buy stuff having a wealth below 50 is crippling, as any purchase requires a wealth check. A wealth of below 50 means anything I roll for I am likely to fail. I think the game needs some automatic successess, perhaps matching levels of wealth to levels within society and giving an automatic success if your wealth level is equal to or greater than the wealth level for someone who could normally afford that thing.
For example, a wealth of 30 might mean you don't need to roll to buy a horse, though you would to buy horses for a cavalry unit.
Quote from: BalbinusWow, Underlings only get 20 skill points, that allows me to have a bodyguard with Attack 20 and Defence 20 with no other skills, combats are going to be a bit of a whiff-fest.
Again, it seems too little.
Overall, Bishops get too few Skill points by far, Henchmen too few Resources points. I appreciate they're supposed to be imbalanced, but I think it is so much so as to be a problem. Underlings seem pretty much useless even as bodyguards.
Points taken...
except for the bit about underlings. Check the segment on combat: if you take your underlings, give them arms and armour, and have them fight as a unit and protect you in combat, they're pretty decent bodyguards.
Another tweak that I really ought to add is that Henchmen should be able to obfuscate for their Bishops: that would make life much easier.
In addition, I might consider letting Bishops and Henchmen pool Integrity and Contacts as well as Wealth if they want to - then I wouldn't have to give Henchmen more Resource points. Henchmen really aren't meant to be big-time movers and shakers - you have to take a mighty flawed one to get Royal Blood, for instance. That's why Actually Important is a positive trait for Henchmen: by default, Henchmen are of a lower social class than their Bishops.
Quote from: WarthurPoints taken... except for the bit about underlings. Check the segment on combat: if you take your underlings, give them arms and armour, and have them fight as a unit and protect you in combat, they're pretty decent bodyguards.
Another tweak that I really ought to add is that Henchmen should be able to obfuscate for their Bishops: that would make life much easier.
In addition, I might consider letting Bishops and Henchmen pool Integrity and Contacts as well as Wealth if they want to - then I wouldn't have to give Henchmen more Resource points. Henchmen really aren't meant to be big-time movers and shakers - you have to take a mighty flawed one to get Royal Blood, for instance. That's why Actually Important is a positive trait for Henchmen: by default, Henchmen are of a lower social class than their Bishops.
It may be a lack of automatic successes, with Henchmen sure their contacts and wealth will be of a lower order, but merely having a lower percentile just means they fail all the time. That I think is the key issue.
Pooling integrity and contacts, dunno, does hobnobbing with a Jewish merchant really improve Bart's integrity? Can he sensibly access the same contacts?
Pooling underlings, I take your point, six bodyguards is pretty heavy duty but I guess if I want to take a full time competent personal bodyguard I take him as a henchman, yes?
Edit: I assumed Henchmen could obfuscate for their bishops, but it's worth stating. Generally incidentally I'm criticising because I like the game, if I didn't like it to be honest I wouldn't bother critiquing it most likely.
Gunther Zumwald, henchman bodyguard
Integrity 20, Gunther is feared, not loved
Wealth 10, Gunther is perennially broke
Contacts 20, Gunther knows few people
Health 90
Skills
Attack 90
Defence 90
Healing 25
Observation 60
Sneaking 50
Traits
Miraculous Health (15)
Professional Mercenary (I made this one up based on career criminal, adds +10 to contacts when seeking out mercenaries, maximum Integrity of 30 'cos nobody loves a paid killer) (cost 5)
Not bad, I still struggled with traits though, there weren't many obvious negatives to take and nothing else to buy anyway.
Quote from: BalbinusIt may be a lack of automatic successes, with Henchmen sure their contacts and wealth will be of a lower order, but merely having a lower percentile just means they fail all the time. That I think is the key issue.
Pooling integrity and contacts, dunno, does hobnobbing with a Jewish merchant really improve Bart's integrity? Can he sensibly access the same contacts?
Pooling underlings, I take your point, six bodyguards is pretty heavy duty but I guess if I want to take a full time competent personal bodyguard I take him as a henchman, yes?
It depends what sort of bodyguard you want.
If you want a group of trained men to take care of your life, take underlings and arm them well. People are reluctant to fuck with groups of armed men unless they have more groups of armed men on their side.
If you want someone who can be a leet ninja, take a henchman. But people can underestimate henchmen, and so conversely that make it
more likely that you'll be attacked.
Quote from: WarthurIt depends what sort of bodyguard you want.
If you want a group of trained men to take care of your life, take underlings and arm them well. People are reluctant to fuck with groups of armed men unless they have more groups of armed men on their side.
If you want someone who can be a leet ninja, take a henchman. But people can underestimate henchmen, and so conversely that make it more likely that you'll be attacked.
Sure, but I can take a henchman into an inn with me or have him by my side inconspicuously as I walk the streets, six armed dudes attacts unwelcome attention, if I'm trying to get information on Cardinal Gutierrez's mistress I may want to be less obvious.
None of that's a criticism, I think in fact that is exactly the kind of thinking the game intends to evoke in players, what strategy do I want to adopt? How do I pursue my goals?
Great game concept, I'd love to see you develop this further.
Quote from: BalbinusSure, but I can take a henchman into an inn with me or have him by my side inconspicuously as I walk the streets, six armed dudes attacts unwelcome attention, if I'm trying to get information on Cardinal Gutierrez's mistress I may want to be less obvious.
Dude, you're a bishop, you're expected to be ostentatious. And why are you investigating the matter yourself anyhow? That's Henchman's work!
QuoteNone of that's a criticism, I think in fact that is exactly the kind of thinking the game intends to evoke in players, what strategy do I want to adopt? How do I pursue my goals?
Great game concept, I'd love to see you develop this further.
What I think needs to be clarified is the relationship between Bishop and Henchman: Bishops are like spymasters, whereas Henchmen are their agents. Bishops tend not to do the undercover stuff, and Henchmen tend not to do the big political moves. Y'dig?
Quote from: WarthurDude, you're a bishop, you're expected to be ostentatious. And why are you investigating the matter yourself anyhow? That's Henchman's work!
Because my henchman is busy, guarding me while I do his work. Hm, I may need to chat with Gunther.
Quote from: WarthurWhat I think needs to be clarified is the relationship between Bishop and Henchman: Bishops are like spymasters, whereas Henchmen are their agents. Bishops tend not to do the undercover stuff, and Henchmen tend not to do the big political moves. Y'dig?
I think that's fairly clear, though it does no harm to underline it.
What do you think about giving some guidelines for what different levels of intrigue and wealth mean and some automatic success rules for stuff plainly within your wealth category? Without that as written having lower than 50 wealth even for a henchman is not such a good idea.
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...