'Last one to play always wins'
In the current framework, the last person to play a card on a Challenge gets to write the outcome for that Challenge (assuming it's not the Narrator).
That's a bit problematic in that other players can do all the 'work' (so to speak) of playing Strengths and lining up a strong outcome, but it's the person who gets in last that actually gets the narrative control.
Best case scenario, that can mean that a player who simply hasn't had the time to respond right away (which is the case in my group) suddenly gets the narrative power and is put on the spot. Worst case scenario, players may try to game the system and deliberately hang back with their plays so that they can be the last one to make a move, giving them the chance to write an outcome that heavily favours their character.
I think it would be good if there were a few different options for who gets to write the outcome of a Challenge. Our group has a gentleperson's agreement that the 'winner' of the last Challenge can't write the outcome for the next one, and that'll work for us, but perhaps alternatives should be hardwired into the system.
'Hardwired'. Yes, you can tell we're using the Cyberpunk playset.
Artbroken
shared this idea
Thanks very much for that thoughtful feedback. This is one of the key mechanisms we are evaluating in this playtest, so it’s great to hear what you think about it.
The idea behind this mechanism is the “winner gets to narrate” model encourages people to play more cards sooner and make moves faster, so as to win control more often. Essentially, it’s a carrot to motivate people to “play harder”. And since playing your cards gets you closer to getting new cards, it is always a good thing to do it, even when you don’t end up winning the challenge.
Now, whether or not this is all actually true — and effective — remains to be seen. We’re keeping a close eye on it and will keep your feedback in mind for sure! Stay tuned…
-
Fredrik Svanberg commented
Something I found confusing was that I "won" the scene *during* my last move, and I was apparently expected to write the outcome during that move. I was expecting the Outcome system to work more like this: players make moves and play cards, and the Narrator describes what happens based on the cards played - strong or weak. I suppose the way we have now is more collaborative and less roleplay-gamey. I keep thinking of the narrator as the Dungeon Master, who sits with all the information, and who is the only one who can really move the story forward. It's hard to get past this way of thinking, for me.
-
Lillith Avalon
commented
Other possible models would be for...
1) The Narrator to designate which of multiple players who contributed cards to a challenge gets to write the outcome for that challenge.
2) For the Players who contributed to the outcome to vote on which player writes the outcome. (Narrator should probably get a vote too.)This way players who are writing well, who contributed significantly to the challenge, and who are truested to be considerate of other players contributions and point of view get to write the outcome.
-
Brian Tkatch
commented
I ran into this as well. I played after the other players and was expected to get all four characters to talk to each other. I was a little uneasy writing how each player would respond, even though i was okay with directing the method.
All the players should be able to write the outcome! This form of collaboration would be hard, and might encourage people to wait, as stated in the feedback.
I wish to offer offer a solution:
Solution 1:
Outcome is a separate box where each player writes their *expectation*.
Actual outcome written by final player, constrained by earlier expectations.Solution 2:
Outcome is a separate box available to all players, like a wiki.In both cases,
Outcome is only continued when all players vote they agree.
Narrator can accept or rewrite when there is too much conflict.Perhaps the amount of cards one plays will give greater influence on the outcome.
-
Chris Meadows commented
The problem is that the person who chips in last is going to be in a position to write "what happened" anyway.
-
David Reed
commented
Voting with cards toward challenge outcome seems to be neutered by giving narration of the challenge completion to the player who contributed last... Reverse chicken will always be the result. Consider giving completion credit to the character who invested most heavily in the outcome.
-
dareyoutojump
commented
Perhaps it can be added as a part of the customization options for the narrator? A drop down selection of what determines who "wins" the challenge, ranging from the person that completes it, to the one that plays the most cards on the challenge, etc. This option could even be included in the obstacle/challenge card itself, where we also select difficulty and outcomes.
-
Artbroken
commented
I think one of the things that has to be communicated more clearly is that playing multiple cards is an option - and more importantly, that running out of cards is a *good thing*, because they refresh and you can look at varying the new intake to match the story. I don't think that comes across very strongly right now.
I think another issue might be that there are two (very broad) types of games and groups within Storium - competitive and cooperative. In a competitive game, where player-player conflict is part of the game, being the winner of the scene is a really big deal and players are going to push hard to get that prize - you'll get that 'play harder' style you mentioned, but you'll also see players gaming the system so that they can go last or win without expending Strengths. All of this is totally valid, and I'm interested in the idea of trying a game like that.
In a more cooperative set-up, like the one we're playing, the players are trying to give each other the spotlight and develop outcomes that benefit everyone equally, and they feel some concern about writing the outcome if they haven't contributed appropriately to the scene.
Trying to fit both these playstyles with one set of play principles could be tricky. Maybe Narrators could decide on an outcome-writing rule when creating the game?