Cycles-RPG

As I promised, first post about the play testing we had. First post about philosophy.
Cross posted : here

I have been away from this board for quite some time, but here is an issue I think this community is best suited for to help me. It is kind of a follow up of this thread I wrote here some two years ago.

But first the context :
I'm back play testing Avalanche after a long break (at least from a public point of view), and we engaged in a Burning Wheel tryout. And well, things didn't go exactly as planned.
We're happy with the play testing but some major issues, some we didn't expect, came in. Turning this "one AP post about BW" into a whole chunk of posts. This is the first one.

Now, to really understand the context, I have to explain that I was DMing the game, with two experienced players and three new players to this hobby. Also, this was our first experience with BW ; playing out with the "simple rules". We were aiming at a "one session" game ; at least, that was the deal with the new players. Good news, this turned out to be a three sessions game so far, at their request. Which I think is a good sign.
Let's put a couple of things aside for the benefit of this conversation :
- We had a real problem with the character creation. This was more of a strategic nature, not related to BW itself. I admit it, we should have done all the PCs together.
- For the first two sessions, we came up with a problem of "driving the group together" as they didn't have a common goal. This was related to the above, but also to the nature of Avalanche (I'll talk about it below), and the misuse of BIT from our part (I won't talk about it here).
- We were playing Avalanche for the first time in a context of "anchored" characters. Those PCs weren't going to explore the world. And BW really helps in this context by providing tools (character creation and BIT).

The purpose
JoyWriter at the forge, came to me with this comment, which is la raison d'être of this post. And yeah, we are talking about a game here. So, here's the quote :
If that's not clear, it's the difference between a game that fails if you do not seize the moment and the themes/conflicts of the setting, and one that slowly shifts you into the centre of them whether your character goes gladly or not. There's obviously a trade-off in terms of philosophical perspective, similar to the risk of death in other types of game; do we allow the risk of pointlessness so as to represent existential reality (as is often done with death) and the associated fear and drama, or do we soften it because we're more interested in what happens when people are fulfilled and dynamised? Is it more interesting whether we avoid loss and meaninglessness, or how we avoid it?

So, based on that, let's talk about purpose in rpg, depending on systems, settings and plots.
The default purpose
Let's take d20 or its "software" version WoW : what's the purpose of those games ? Get money, get power, kill monsters. I'm not saying you can't have a more personal purpose like, living up in a group, take part in "higher picture" stuff, but I'm saying d20 won't help you with that.

A personal purpose
Anything that goes from "avenging my sister" to "inquiring about the thieves guild" ; a reason for your PC to live. A purpose. Your own. TSOY helps a lot here, but I think BW is much more personal. In fact, I can't see how you can create a "default" character in BW. And beside character creation, BW surely helps you to drive your character toward that purpose.

Questioning your purpose
And that's a "touchy" one. Having a purpose is one thing ; questioning it is another. Am I doing the right thing ? Is that really what matters most ? To me, to the others ? Now, I believe that to be able to question your purposes, stuff must happen in the world. Stuff that do not concern you immediately. A war must have started, a catastrophe must have happened, a conspiracy must be going on.
BW (as for TSOY) really helps managing the impact of changing purpose (changing BIT or keys), but, I think, a setting, another product can really help you propose other things to the players ; help you see them questioning their purpose.

Another important thing to me : to arise this question, the "other stuff" must be highly coherent and time dependent. The existentialist question is first and foremost one about time.

We're still talking about a game, right ?
But is that something you want in a rpg ? I mean, that is something Avalanche can help you do, but would anyone do that ? To be able to question a purpose, someone must somehow stop, take a good look around. It takes time. Time you will not spend on your current purpose.
Thu, a question (JoyWriter's one) : in a game of rpg, are you best to keep your players "on track" driven and occupied by their current purposes or do you change the rhythm of the game, the pace, as to allow "space" to question the purposes of the group ?

And, we might even go as far as asking "why one is the best ?". To that, I'd say I don't know. This is a judgment's call.

Strange things happen. I was supposed to post an actual play review (AP) I have already written at the forge. But then, it turned out into something else ; which requires my attention and changes how I had plan to deal with this play test.

Okay, the play test, first :
- We were going to play test Burning Wheel, by Luke Crane, in the context of Avalanche
- While at it, we decided to introduce rpg to Julie (and Denys), who's going to give us a hand with marketing and promotion
- We were supposed to play a single session
- There was a BIG mess concerning character creation in the context of introducing new players
- We turned out to play three sessions
- I was evinced as a DM from the game
- I reported those three sessions at the forge and then "JoyWriter" came in and ask some philosophical questions
- We also talked about the use of "short sessions", or "introduction product"
- Francis has much to say about the game

So, well, the thread at the forge is a real mess. Too much stuff there ; I need to segment it.
That brings me to :
- Maybe tell you a bit more about how we plan to use the blog (and we have used it so far) ; the reason for which I need to separate stuff down.
- Get an overall strategy for BW. This system, used in the context of Avalanche, won't be settled in a single play testing.
- Prepare something like a review, once the play test is over ; and see where it fits best.
- Finish to present the webcomic "from the deep", as I need it to explain the crescendo of Avalanche, but also to have a complete product for a demo.
- Present our strategy for the "beta" testers and define our strategy for the alpha ones.
- Write something down about philosophy and Avalanche.

well, seems like those are the stuff this is coming.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Version abrégée. Je devais faire un compte rendu de partie tout simple. Et bien non, cette partie va nous générer pas mal de travail et d'explications. Un programme à mettre en oeuvre par le biais de ce blog.

Almost two years ... since any activity on this blog. But, our project, Cycles-rpg didn't stop ; it just slowed down. Anyway, here we go again, for the last time I hope.

I say "we" since I am in the incorporation process for a small company with four other persons. So, I'm not alone anymore !!! That said, they should not allow me to make all the calls by myself anymore. Big changes for me.

So, what are we going to talk about here, on the basis of one article per week ?
- Incorporation process, including IP management, licensing, branding ; stuff like that. Of course, at this point we're talking to our lawyer and some stuff need to stay secret, but we wish to keep you posted on this. And strange as it sounds, those subjects are very interesting.
- People who will work with me. We're five. This is our blog from now on.
- Greg Taylor, our new artist. Be prepared for a hell of a ride.
- A new teaser we're preparing ; new extracts.
- Actual play reports, with different systems.
- About the site.
- Some theory since we haven't finished to present you how to use Avalanche.
- Some planning about our releases ...

Well, see you each week from now on ... again. Let's hope this is the right one !!!
Wish us luck.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Deux ans ou presque déjà ... que ce blog est inactif. Pourtant, notre projet, Cycles-rpg ne s'est pas arrêté pour autant. Il n'a été qu'au ralenti. Enfin bref, nous nous y remettons ; pour une dernière fois je l'espère.

Alors, rendez-vous à toutes les semaines, à partir de maintenant à nouveau. En souhaitant que cette fois-ci est la bonne !!!
Souhaitez-nous bonne chance.

I'm taking part in this discussion at the forge, talking about service based model and how, in a world where almost everything can be copied, can we produced things that can't.

It all started with a link toward a blog's article about this which, of course, I advice you to read.

Also, it turns out the author is a speaker at TED.
You don't know this site ? It is great !!! I strongly recommend you take the time to sit and take a look around.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Je participe à cette discussion sur the forge, où nous parlons de services à valeur ajoutée et comment, dans un monde où tout, ou presque, peut être copié, créer des "choses" qui ne le peuvent l'être.

Et finalement, il s'avère que l'auteur du blog en question est un intervenant de TED.
Vous ne connaissez pas ce site ? Courez-y immédiatement et prenez le temps d'y jeter un coup d'oeil.

Cross posted at boardgamegeek

Overview
I was kind of septical when I first heard about this game, but being a big fan of fantasy flight games, I've decided to give it a try. I've also been a fan of the original video game.
So, after five games, always with three players, I can say I am really surprised about the game and I intend to play on a regular basis.
But, for the moment, let's see why ...

Product overview
- Game pieces : There are nice (not gorgeous) but some are physically broken. This is due to the way they are done and stocked into the box. In my opinion, this is unbelievable, given the price it is being sold and the quality it is aiming at. Also, the box is kind of dump !!! There is no way you can use it to stock back the pieces. Then again, unbelievable. It seems to be a general problem with some of FFG products (tide of iron, for instance), but what I don't understand is that games like a game of throne has a perfect box to put back the pieces.
- The rulebook : very badly done. Then again, it seems to be a general problem with FFG. This rulebook is built à la Arkham horror. So, good luck reading it !!!

In general, this product is of good quality, but franckly, some details really leave an unfinished touch to it. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying the game, but I tend to be discouraged each time I open the box to play (how can this be so badly done ???).

Game setup
I really, but really prefer games with short setup. Starcraft is kind of a different beast to me. Setup seems long, but once you get to know how to play a little, you soon realise you don't need all the elements of the setup. The way we came to play it, setup is very short : about fifteen minutes, with people getting pieces along the course of play, depending on their strategy.

Game mechanic
Game turns are basically divided into three steps, described here :
Planning
For those of you familiar with a game of throne, you'll find back some common mechanic : orders are putted facedown on the board. But, there are major, and very interesting differences :
- Players only put four orders, which restricts a lot what you plan to do (for instance, if you fight a lot, you won't build or research).
- Mobilise (or figth/march) orders are not placed on the starting location of the troops but at the destination. You want to attack an ennemy ? He'll know it for sure ...
- A single territory can have more than one order placed on it. Orders are played from the top to the bottom. And this is a mess !!! Very interesting mechanic here that really depends on whom is the first player (first guy to put an order on a location : the last order who will be played for that location). Many surprises (and mistakes at first) comes from this. For me, that's the core and more interesting part of the game.
Executing
Orders are executed. I won't go into details, but mention things I like or hate.
- Research tree : I was afraid of a tree that would look like civilisation ; a very big tree that every players will go thru. But this is quite simple in starcraft : you won't buy all the tech, that's for sure. You can even play without buying any tech. I think this is very nice and that allows more different kind of play.
- Buildings : then again, I was afraid !!! But like the tech tree, every player will need to focus on some strategy, some buildings he wants to build. Also, since players can play multiple build orders, it is very interesting (well, you won't do much other things that turn) because, then again, it allows more room for different strategies.
- Combat system : skirmish based combat. Individual figures oppose each other and for each "skirmish", players display a card (hidden). Most people like this, but I'm not a big fan ; too much luck involved. But, is it fun ? You bet it is fun !!!
- Resource gathering : very respectful of the video game. You'll need those "peasants" to gather the ressources ... but, if you build them, you might turn out to be slower on other things. Also, you can lose those units.
Regrouping
Essentially, the last part of the game. My comments :
- Special victory conditions : each faction has a unique special victory condition, which will greatly influences the way the game is played. Each and every game I played was won thru a special victory condition. Well, some people don't like this, but I do, and a lot.

Play overview
Here's what I think of the type of games starcraft generates :
- The spirit of the video game is very respected. But ... from a PvP point of view, not a campaign one. That means, games are fast, very fast ; and each player will use one or two elements of strategy. Forget about seeing all types of units. The game won't last that long.
- Each race is quite different to play and needs a different approach toward the strategy. Then again, quite respectful of the video game.
- Luck is an element, not a major one, but still ... From your starting planets to your combat cards, some elements of luck are involved. I normally don't like this, but the games are so quick that I can easily live with it !!
- Replay value : great, if not awesome. Different races, different planets and starting positions. Also, the games are so fast that many are needed to try many strategies.

Final words
Well, so far, I've only played three players games, but I'm really ready to play games with more players. I would especially like to this a six players game with three teams (one per race).

Overall, I'd say this is a very nice game and I'm very glad about that purchase. Most concepts of this game are not new ones, but they are used in a very efficient way that generates very quick games. So far, we've been playing two games by evening, which is quite nice and less involving then games like agot.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Vous m'excuserez, mais je n'ai pas l'intention de traduire les articles de cette catégorie ... Désolé.