Neutral cards should lead to uncertainty
We currently finished a 9-point challenge with 3 Strength, 2 Weakness, and 4 Neutral cards.
Given that 6 of the 9 cards were played towards a non-Strong outcome, why did it end "Strong"? I feel that it should've ended "Uncertain".
Otherwise, players can spam Asset / Goal / Subplot usage as a sort of filler just to reduce the difficulty of a Challenge.
Anonymous
shared this idea
-
Joel
commented
I think the point is, Sylvia... that 6 people didn't vote for a Strong ending, so why did the minority who did play Strengths get their way?
Personally, I LIKE handing power over to my narrator to include her in the game. I like her ideas and want her to be part of the storytelling. When I play a neutral card, it's because I WANT the outcome to become uncertain... not just be a waste of a card that has no effect on the outcome.
As for "the narrator is just going to end up having to write a lot more of the endings, which defeats the purpose of cooperative storytelling"... that is a grossly dramatic statement... and the opposite of the truth. Encouraging your narrator to take part in the predominantly player-driven process of Storium... is the complete opposite of what you've stated. It is co-operative and gracious.
-
Sylvia Li
commented
Assets, goals and subplots have to be played somewhere! If not against a Challenge, then where? If you make them tip the outcome to Uncertain, the narrator is just going to end up having to write a lot more of the endings, which defeats the purpose of cooperative storytelling. I like the system the way it is.
Don't think about "winning" or "losing" a challenge, but about using the outcome to create a twist in the story!