Badass Dragoons of the Highlands - Player Postmortem

About matching up,

High STRength+ REFlex players were systematically excluded from pairings because of how PERception drove the pairing process. In hindsight, this ended up discouraging certain players.

At a minimum, there should have been a rule that noone would ever sit out two consecutive rounds.

Alternately, unpaired players could have been swept to some sort of arena to face each other. My preferred outcome would have been unpaired players would face a historical non-player character at the destination city. Imaging being in the Melee at the battle of Kosovo and coming face-to-face with the Janisari commander!

I realize this is more work for the GM, but ideally, the destinations would have been public but the stances would have been concealed. Someone like, oh, me, would have tracked this and regularly posted who was going where, and what the likely pairings would be. As people slowly realize who they were likely to fight, they could “settle in” and perhaps modify their stances, or change destination to try to match up with someone else.

Another possible addition is each turn two individuals could declare the desire to fight each other and stay in the “armistice” city past the year of truce. Any survivors could then choose their own destination bonus. This rule would create some really interesting co-operative behavior, as there would be an incentive to find a dueling partner and NOT kill them as a way to custom enhance one’s stats. One could also see some serious narrative developing around the posturing.


Crucially, there needs to be a mechanic where everyone duels every turn to maximize player engagement.

Additionally, I strongly support someway to enhance control of who one’s dueling partner will be. This would greatly enliven gameplay, and probably also the enhance narrative

8 Likes

Yeah, I think it would have enhanced both gameplay and verisimilitude if players had had more choice over whom they fought.

3 Likes

I would particularly like to encourage some of our first-time players to contribute as well. Some of y’all are old hands at this, but we had a bumper crop of new folks along for the ride this time. Fresh eyes often see things that the old timers may consider unremarkable.

@eve
@Hadley
@Nightflyer
@strokeybeard
@MalevolentPixy
@ChickieD
@TobinL
@KeisterButton
@manwich
@durhamindurham

I’d love to hear any feedback if you have the time and inclination to provide.

Also - if you enjoyed being on this crazy ride, I cordially invite you to participate in Redoubtable Downtown Space Abbey, which has just been announced as starting in mid-February.

7 Likes

May I offer some thoughts as someone who was just observing but not participating?

6 Likes

Absolutely! I had no idea we had an audience of greater than 0.

8 Likes

First of all, thank you to @messana not only for putting together a fantastic game, but for also putting up with the late-game disruptors (mea culpa) and nudging us back on track.

For the type of game this was, private orders made sense – otherwise it becomes a game against the deadline as people keep waiting for their opponent to post so they can respond appropriately (putting first poster at a disadvantage).

I found the stance system fairly intuitive, but didn’t spend a lot of time trying to guess what my opponent might pit against me – I think this is where the “not knowing who your opponent is” mechanic shaved off some disadvantages for me. Rather than worrying what my opponent might do and trying to outthink them (and then overthinking it or missing a detail), it let me focus on my own character, building on her strengths and helping to compensate for her weeknesses. Keeping it simple like that is a boon to those of us who are new to the system and for whom poring over statistics is not a form of entertainment. At the same time, for those who do enjoy that, the combination of detailed fight results and our own secret advantages gave plenty of material to work with as the game went on. I honestly didn’t expect to last as long as I did – and probably wouldn’t have if I’d had to consciously outmatch another player.

For me, at least, the near-end game disruption wasn’t planned, but more of an organic outgrowth of the game itself, and the luck of the draw: here are people you’ve known for centuries, chatted with, exchanged ideas, gotten to know. Now, some mysterious force says you have to kill them – it’s only human to resist. It’s possible that with a different set of survivors, I would have made different choices. My natural writer preference is character > plot, which is why I claim my share of the blame: a preference for plot > character clashes with that, but is sometimes necessary to keep the game going, and something to remind myself of going forward.

Familiarity with the Highlander universe left me open to the possibility of souls remaining along for the ride from the start, but I didn’t know if it was going to be incorporated into the game. Even when it became obvious, I wasn’t certain if it was a game mechanic, or an adaptation from those also familiar with the Lore who decided to bring it in. Either way is awesome.

Like @teknocholer , I enjoyed the characters, their backstories, and their creative (and varying!) descriptions of their battles. I didn’t spend as much time agonising about submissions for the reasons stated above. I was genuinely sorry when the actual defeats started rolling in. Huge shout-out to @daneel for giving us an awesome villain.What Jane called “cheating” in her crushing defeat,I imagine Zero (aka PB) would most likely see as “I’m not an idiot, Jane.” I enjoyed the way people captured a balance between historical verisimilitude and ridiculousness of concept.

I agree with @David_Falkayn in that there should be a mechanic that ensures everybody gets a piece of the action early on – and/or (if this wasn’t in there) a compensation for those who do end up as odd-player-out to ensure that they don’t end up at a massive disadvantage.

Overall, I thought this was buckets of fun, and would love to come back if our GM doesn’t see me as too much of a subversive force.

10 Likes

I like stories, and I’m a fan of Highlander, so it seemed like something to keep an eye on.

Let’s start with the good bits.

First, I’ve read through the logs of a couple of previous Badass campaigns, and this one was much easier to follow. Whether it’s because I’m more familiar with Highlander in general, or that the mechanics have changed (or I’ve just become more familiar with them), or whether the consequences were just simpler, I just found I could understand not just what was happening, but why, and that made a big difference.

Second, I think that this campaign benefited from having lore to fall back upon: both the ideas of the original Highlander movie and series, as well as actual historical events. I’m a world-builder by nature, so it always bugged me when reading the other logs that I couldn’t get a good sense of the universe in which the campaign is taking place. In this campaign, that sense came through in spades.

Finally, I loved the character interactions, and that the losing character was responsible for writing the events. It gave the exiting character a nice send-off, and seemed like a good move to prevent both sore losers and sore winners.

As for what I think could be improved:

I didn’t get the mechanic of the Kurgan. I know why he was there (to weed out players who decided to abandon the game), but he just didn’t make sense after a certain point. In the movie, Kurgan was just another Immortal competing for the Prize (albeit someone we wouldn’t want to win it). And hunting down stragglers after a truce would have been a good take on that. However, once everyone got to New York, Kurgan didn’t show up, and that was really odd, given that he wanted to win the Prize, and had good incentive to not wait until the end to start killing people.

I think that Kurgan should have been given visible stats, and should have felt more like a looming threat then a game mechanic: start him off a little better than everyone else, and then have him fight someone (an NPC if no one else remains behind) in each truce city. If he wins, he becomes a little more powerful and more of a threat. If he draws, he gains a rival and the person gets to ponder how close they got to dying. If he loses… There’s a thing from the TV series called a “Dark Quickening.” Basically, if the evil souls that you’ve absorbed overwhelm the good ones, you become evil yourself. In the unlikely event that Kurgan loses, you get a new Kurgan (possibly a PC, which could be a really cool role to play).

And once you get to New York, Kurgan (or whoever has the Dark Quickening) should have shown up and actually started playing. “The Kurgan has caught your trail” doesn’t make sense if everyone’s in New York - of course Kurgan knows you’re in New York. But “Kurgan fights a random PC if any remain unpaired in NY” - that might have invoked some well-deserved fear and dealt with the attempted truce in a way that didn’t feel like railroading.

Anyway, enough about the Kurgan.

I would have liked to see the “souls onboard” mechanic come through a little clearer. The Necktie Lounge confused me here - it seemed as though the characters were there (wherever, metaphysically speaking, the Lounge was), rather than on board the next person. I think that showing the interaction between the souls riding along with a given individual would have been amusing to watch.

Although I liked the idea where draws became less and less likely as the game went on (due to damage and round numbers increasing at a greater rate than hit points), I thought that it may have gone too far in this regard. Certainly, by New York, the idea of a “draw” had to go (as there was nowhere to retreat to), but until that point, I think that more draws would have improved things (kept more players alive longer, allowed for more interaction, and allowed for better development of character relationships) without making the endgame in NYC more than one or two rounds longer (as log2n does not increase very quickly).

All in all, it was a lot of fun to watch. I didn’t join in this one because, although the world was more than detailed enough to build a good character in, I didn’t care for the mechanics of previous games. If the next one is like this one, I’ll certainly join, provided, again, that I can get enough of a feel for the world to inspire a character.

10 Likes

First of all - thanks to everyone that’s taken the time to provide the excellent observations and feedback. I strive to keep the fun parts fun and improve on the things that didn’t work as well as they should have and roll those lessons into the next game. Game design can be a tricky balancing act, and striving for a level playing field for all players had some unexpected consequences. I’ll try and pull back the curtain a bit on why things were the way they were.


Primary design goal: All players should have a roughly equal shot at winning.

Implications:

  • Hidden mechanics: prevents players that min/max from having an advantage over those that don’t.
  • Indirect ability to choose opponents: prevents factions from forming and prevents those with an early lead from running away with the game. I was concerned that ‘old hands’ would be more likely to form factions with other known quantities, which would put new players lacking that social capital at a disadvantage.
  • Highly obfuscated numbers: levels the playing field between number crunchers with 10 spreadsheets worth of game analysis and players that have no interest in doing that.

I think that the desired outcome was achieved with respect to a level playing field, but as several folks have rightly pointed out - the inability to directly choose an opponent meant surrendering a great deal of agency to the winds of chance. Even worse, once players were allowed to have a limited degree of choice in that process in NYC, a player’s expected outcome and the actual outcome often didn’t match up and that’s frustrating since it negates that sense of agency.

Which leads me to:

Axiom 1: Players should be able to understand the risks and rewards for any specific course of action and make an informed decision based on those risks and rewards. The result should feel like a natural outcome of that decision.

This is no surprise and has been pointed out in previous games.


Design goal: The game should support highly-involved players as well as less-involved players

Implications:

  • No ability to negotiate opponents: If all players are able to actively pair themselves with an opponent, someone that drops in on Monday to submit orders and doesn’t read the forums until the next turn is released puts the game schedule at risk.

Even with two highly-involved players, round 9 was a mess. The process of receiving input from two players was highly asynchronous even before my own scheduling woes. Although I was trying to create a ‘segmented round’ similar to the final round of Scavengers, it really did not work here.

I’d love suggestions for what a solution to this problem might look like. How does one allow 27 players to negotiate opponents among themselves in such a way that supports less-involved players while not demanding hours of GM time?


Design goal: The game should require less GM time the longer the game runs.

Implications:

  • Single-elimination tournament: Once the training wheels are off after the first two turns, the amount of effort to compute the turn, update internal spreadsheets, create forum postings, etc. should be cut in half every week.

Purely selfish design decision on my part, based on my end-of-year time requirements in the real world which worked as designed. As several folks have rightly pointed out, the elimination of players results not only in the loss of delightful and interesting character concepts, but also the game running out of steam the closer it gets to the end as the active player pool gets smaller and smaller. The Necktie lounge did a great job of keeping folks involved in a way that the internal soul threads did not. More on that later.


So although the choices were successful in doing what they intended, I think the game would have been better if players had some mechanism to select opponents. Furthermore, changing the mechanism for opponent selection mid-game in a environment with lots of obfuscated mechanisms was not the best idea.

More specific discussion to come when I have a bit more time.

7 Likes

Meh. I have played enough tabletop RPGs to know that even with the best stats, the dice can fuck you over. I just had to come up with a narrative to fit. I wasn’t frustrated as a player. Odds were I was going to lose sometime. I was more surprised it took that long.

3 Likes

What comes to my mind is this:

In the initial rounds, players were only given the choice of where to travel, which wasn’t a very good proxy for opponent selection. You might separate that into a few options:

  • Travel - You choose a destination, and you stay there for the duration of the round. You leave who you’re fighting to the winds of chance and your opponents’ choices.

  • Seek - You choose an Immortal you wish to fight.

  • Flee - You choose an Immortal you don’t wish to fight. If you are not pursued by that person, or either you or your pursuer is ambushed, you will not face that person; otherwise, a mechanism will determine if your flight is successful.

I’d imagine the prioritization as follows, subject to tweaking:

  1. A Seeks B, B Seeks A - A mutual duel happens between A and B in the city of truce, after which the survivor(s) hide(s) out until the next truce.
  2. A Seeks B, B Travels - B travels to the location of their choice, pursued by A, and they fight there. If multiple people seek B, [insert mechanism for deciding].
  3. A Seeks B, B Flees C - B is paying too much attention to the wrong pursuer, and is caught by A in a random location.
  4. A Seeks B, B Seeks C, C Flees B - B is too focused on being a predator to realize that they are now the prey, and is caught by A in a random location.
  5. A Seeks B, B Flees (unsuccessfully) - B tries to escape from A, trusting in luck, their own skill, or that someone else is out to get A. That gamble fails. and B is caught by A in a random location.
  6. A and B Travel to the same location - Two Immortals have similar tastes, and find themselves in the same area. They have no particular desire to fight each other, but the inevitable happens.
  7. A and D Travel to the same location, B and C seek D - only one of B or C can catch D; the other stumbles across A enjoying his vacation and the inevitable happens.
  8. A Travels and B, who is either an unsuccessful Seeker or successful Fleer, shows up - Anyone who is unpaired after scenarios 1-7 are accounted for will first be paired off by someone who has elected to choose a destination
  9. A and B, who are both unsuccessful Seekers or successful Fleers, encounter each other randomly - Anyone who is unpaired after scenarios 1-8 will be paired off with each other and fight in a random location.
  10. A does not submit an action and fights Kurgan.

This gives a player the chance to try to choose an opponent (and makes it trivially easy to mutually decide to fight), makes it possible (but not guaranteed) that the player will be able to avoid a particular opponent, pairs most people off to fight (unless a majority of players choose Travel), the outputs are fairly logical given the inputs (and make for an interesting story for the GM to tell), and it should all be (reasonably) easy to automate as an algorithm.

Obviously, it needs tweaks and mechanisms for resolving edge cases (What happens if A Seeks B, B Seeks C, and C Seeks A? What happens if, in Scenario 9, the two remaining opponents are A in one corner, and B, who has successfully fled from A, in the other?), but I think that it’s good enough as an initial illustration of a mechanism that should work as you describe.

7 Likes

Oddly enough, I did have something like this baked in - with a high enough PER score, players unlocked the ability to submit a secret order to AVOID (at PER 5) or PURSUE (at PER 7, which no one unlocked). In retrospect, I could have probably done away with PER entirely and made these options available to all at the start but was just too enamored with modeling that aspect of the movie. Hindsight is a bear.

4 Likes

Yeah, that’s kinda the trouble with hidden mechanics. I’d have spent more on leveling up Perception if I’d had any inkling it would eventually do more than what it initially said on the tin: provide something akin to home field advantage when it came to pairing off opponents.

5 Likes

[Continuing the discussion]

Design Experiment: Is a zero-plot game possible? Can the players provide everything needed?

Without much lead time to let the larger story bake in my head, I wondered: Is it possible to have an enjoyable game that requires no world building on my part, no NPCs to flesh out, no plot and potential plot arcs to sketch? Given just a framework of play, can the players themselves create everything else by them selves?

Answer: Emphatic yes.

This felt like an enormous risk to take, but after seeing how Scavengers evolved, it felt an acceptable risk. And WOW did the players deliver in spades. A natural villain emerged from the interplay of the stories being tossed back and forth, players wove their adventures into shared experiences, and a coherent larger narrative emerged from the blank page. That was breathtaking to watch.

On the other hand, I regret not having something resembling a larger plot sketched out. When the game went meta in turn 6 and the fourth wall was broken and @teknocholer (backed by @MalevolentPixy and @David_Falkayn) tried to pull the Tyrant Messana into the game as an in-game entity, I was completely unprepared. I didn’t have a place to bring that story in for a landing in the next 3 turns and did not have the mental cycles to come up with one.

I had to invoke GM fiat and say “I can’t let you play the game that way” and it broke my heart. I despise doing that, but desperately wanted to wrap things up before December and risk derailing the schedule. Which wound up happening anyway. Ugh. For a brief moment, the game could have blossomed into something weird and fascinating and I regret not being able to riff off of that in a meaningful way.

In particular, I realize that claiming “Narrative mutability: moderate!” at the start of the game was probably misleading.

So yes, players are so good at collaborative storytelling that an underlying plot is not technically needed. But it’s much better to have a plot and some plot arcs sketched out to be prepared for these sorts of things. That having been said, I’m pretty sure that months of planning would not have made me any more prepared to have the fourth wall broken.


Which brings me to this concept of “disruptive players” - which is a misnomer and should be recast as “creative players”. To a certain extent, I enjoy when players push against the boundaries of the game world. Interesting things happen when the right places get pushed and suddenly I can riff on that and expand the story in ways that were unexpected. But some of the bones of the game world must be rigid and pushing against those will be to no avail. Often I’m not sure where the magic parts are and where the bones are until the players push at them, so consider this a modest exhortation to continue that. You are absolutely welcome and encouraged to be a part of the next one @MalevolentPixy!


Which brings me to The Kurgan. The initial intent was to riff on the idea of the Kurgan character but instead use the spooky, cryptic Kurgan tribe as the culling mechanism. When things got meta in turn 6, I chose to have him suddenly appear as an NPC in a hamfisted attempt to steer things back in the direction I hoped they would take (to no avail).

I’d kept the idea of a Kurgan participant as a card to play in the event that the final round involved 3 people, as the Quickening resulting from a two-person match up would almost certainly flatten the remaining player. Having the Kurgan as an NPC participant would have been interesting, but I tried to stick to my ‘no plot, no NPC’ guns to try and carry out that experiment. In spite of that, the story evolved its own villain in Zero Demos which I feel is a remarkable evolution.

I’ve only seen the movie and know nothing about the TV series except for the fact that the audience that watched it really loved it. I had no idea that a Dark Quickening was a thing! That’s what I get for not being familiar with the entirety of the lore.


I probably have one more wall of text in me that I’ll save for tomorrow. I love talking about this stuff, but if pulling back the curtain takes a little shine off the experience I’ll be glad to put a cork in it.

4 Likes

A quick mention to say that there was in fact a mechanism to ensure that odd-players-out didn’t wind up disadvantaged, namely: they received stance bonuses for orders they had submitted as it was assumed they were practicing stance katas in lieu of fighting an opponent. This helped ensure they weren’t left behind on bonus improvements and in fact wound up being a much safer way to get through the round.

3 Likes

ooh. I like this.

very rich. as for the edge cases: the GM is god. stuff happens.

2 Likes

I feel I should offer some explanation.

In turn 4, @david_falkayn first expressed his regrets at having committed murder, and theorized that “Some new horror has been let loose in our world that compels us to hurt one another. We must expose this menace, or succumb one by one to this other darkness.”

@Donald_Petersen replied that the universe we found ourselves in made no sense to him, and that he was “not entirely my own master” when he killed Maud d’Oilly.

This raised some profound philosophical questions. As I said to Mr. Collins, “Are we the masters of our fate, or is our destiny determined by forces beyond our control? As we journey through our long lives, are we observed by intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic, who play with us as their puppets? Consider Lord @messana , who appears to know the future, and who grants boons will ye nill ye to those of us in favour.”

It slowly became clear to me who was responsible for our wretched condition, and I started to wonder, “What if the puppets rebel against the puppet master?”

[raises hand nervously] Yes, that was me. After some discussion via PM, @david_falkayn, @MalevolentPixy and I decided to post our manifesto calling for a general strike. The idea was that we would band together to face the Kurgan, and prevail or go down fighting.

To provide a explanation for how this could work, I brought in Myfanwy (with permission). She was never intended to be a real participant, but rather a Greek chorus and a way of supplying great gobs of exposition.

@messana was extremely patient with all this nonsense, but ruled that what I was trying to do was unacceptably disruptive, and that we could continue with the game or be destroyed individually by the Kurgan. He further ruled that Myf, as an Immortal, must take a combatant role.

Since it wouldn’t be fair for Myf to butt in like that and accidentally eliminate one of the original players, the narrative required that she must die at my hand, with maximum pathos.

I can see now that I probably broke numerous unwritten rules of gaming by being focussed on the narrative to the exclusion of the PvP competition, and I understand that this must have been frustrating to the players with a different focus. @messana did stress the importance of improv at the start of the game, and I took it way too literally. I plead inexperience, and throw myself upon the mercy of the court.

I regret nothing.

Well, it worked great for Mr. Collins. We were supposed to draw, if you recall. Don’t take fighting advice from Quakers, is the lesson here.

And you played it splendidly. You have a knack for getting under the skin with a minimum of words. I’m relieved to hear that that isn’t your true nature.:grinning:

11 Likes

But oh! What a narrative! I must stand and applaud. The Ballad of Myfanwy’s Other brought me to literal tears. That was simply the greatest RPG-based love story I have ever been privileged to witness.

9 Likes

Cool, so like, you’re still a happy mutant then. :wink:

6 Likes

Good job! I don’t have anything like your writing ability.

4 Likes

so that’s the etymology of “willy-nilly”! I had always wondered. That’s awesome!

Oh – we’re supposed to be talking about game.

@MalevolentPixy – I say, always push the narrative over the game. Dice rolling can provide a thrill in the moment, but it’s narrative that engages.

When people ask about this odd online hobby of mine that occasionally completely takes over my life, I explain “It’s collaborative narrative.” Sometimes I don’t even mention there’s a “game” under it all. They always want to hear about the characters and the hijinx they get up to.

@daneel Thank you again for being such an awesome villain. A couple of times you truly creeped me out. I was ready to bow out in a blaze of non-violence, but several other Characters insisted I stay and fight, as, at that point Mr Collins was the only one strong enough to fight you. I was really, really hoping Jane would take you out, so I could bow out.

@teknocholer About that duel where I killed Other? By my calculations, it should have been draw, with Other more likely to kill Collins than vice versa So it goes with the dice rolling – of which I had a lot of lucky rolls throughout this game. Not just the opening against Zero int the final round.

5 Likes