“problems you find in trying to explain things to someone are problems you don't have to find in playtesting“
😁
Great, great. Vigorous nodding.
I’d like to hear more about what makes the taps—stretch, flex, stunt—equivalent usages when their world impacts seem non-equivalent. (Excellent three terms, btw.)
Glad to hear someone else likes the names! I added them because three bullet points and "choose one of these effects when you tap into an aspect" seemed like it would be less memorable.
The big logic behind them all using the same resource is: cut down on bookkeeping.
To me, the key is that if you need to stretch your way out of a tight spot, flexing won't do it. They're situational.
Now, I do see how flexing has a strong mechanic advantage. Insurance on important roles is huge. Playtesting may reveal that no one wants to trade away a use of that advantage in order to do something they couldn't normally, but with no greater chance of success than any of their normal stuff has.
Should that prove to be the case, I'll borrow a solution from D&D's Battlemaster Fighter, who has a bunch of different cool combat moves with different effects... that mostly all also add another die of damage, since that's what the game logic of D&D encourages you to care about.
In other words, if people don't want to spend a tap without the mechanical bonus of flexing, I'll adjust the concept so that every option provides a mechanical bonus.
But my guess is that stunts in particular and also stretches can be made appealing in their own right, for the added narrative control they give you.
A well-timed flex can save you from a bad roll, but a clever stunt or flex can create a cool situation. So some people will lean on stunts probably to the exclusion of flexes... which is fine, too. Just another choice of depth (flexing your normal capabilities) vs. breadth (inventing new ones).
“problems you find in trying to explain things to someone are problems you don't have to find in playtesting“
😁
Great, great. Vigorous nodding.
I’d like to hear more about what makes the taps—stretch, flex, stunt—equivalent usages when their world impacts seem non-equivalent. (Excellent three terms, btw.)
Glad to hear someone else likes the names! I added them because three bullet points and "choose one of these effects when you tap into an aspect" seemed like it would be less memorable.
The big logic behind them all using the same resource is: cut down on bookkeeping.
To me, the key is that if you need to stretch your way out of a tight spot, flexing won't do it. They're situational.
Now, I do see how flexing has a strong mechanic advantage. Insurance on important roles is huge. Playtesting may reveal that no one wants to trade away a use of that advantage in order to do something they couldn't normally, but with no greater chance of success than any of their normal stuff has.
Should that prove to be the case, I'll borrow a solution from D&D's Battlemaster Fighter, who has a bunch of different cool combat moves with different effects... that mostly all also add another die of damage, since that's what the game logic of D&D encourages you to care about.
In other words, if people don't want to spend a tap without the mechanical bonus of flexing, I'll adjust the concept so that every option provides a mechanical bonus.
But my guess is that stunts in particular and also stretches can be made appealing in their own right, for the added narrative control they give you.
A well-timed flex can save you from a bad roll, but a clever stunt or flex can create a cool situation. So some people will lean on stunts probably to the exclusion of flexes... which is fine, too. Just another choice of depth (flexing your normal capabilities) vs. breadth (inventing new ones).