Gregor,

While I wouldn't say there's anything that desperately needs changing or adding, I think that there's a couple of things I've come across that it'd be nice to have in the book.

(It's really hard doing this, because it's a game I'm now pretty comfortable with! What I'm looking for is stuff I didn't "get" first time around I guess.)

1) As GM, you cannot win a conflict with the players. They can push, you can't. So if the players are all on the same side vs the GM, there's no particular conflict to speak of.

This means that the only really meaningful conflicts are between players. So the GM needs to understand that, or the game can fall flat. I think I felt that this wasn't explicit enough in the text.

A conflict between the GM and a PC *can* be meaningful if it causes the PC to have an advantage over another player in the fiction though, so it's not as simple as "there's no point having a conflict between a PC and an NPC".

Also, the GM can set conflicts in such a way on to drain someone of Friend Chips if the economy is looking a bit stagnant.

So, yeah, a bit of explicit text on that would be neat.

2) If the PCs don't have conflicting objectives (Nonsense), there's no game. Again, I thought this needed to be more explicit. Most gamers are conditioned not to have goals for their characters which conflict with the other player's goals, so they need to drop that baggage when the decide their Nonsense.

3) I think there should be a more explicit expectation that the players should resolve their Nonsense and create new ones. IIRC, this is mentioned, but really I feel this is the core of the game, and perhaps a bit more fleshed out.

4) Leading on from that, at least same of each character's Nonsense needs to be Active, rather than Reactive. In play, I think the character's Nonsense is the most important thing on their sheet, it's not like the objectives which more Player-Reactive, GM-Lead games have for their characters. Active Nonsense makes the player get off their arse and DO STUFF, whereas Reactive Nonsense makes the player riff off stuff someone else is doing.

"Defend my kingdom" is a classic Reactive PC goal from trad games. The player just goes on the quests the GM gives him, knowing full well that one day, the quest will involve defending her kingdom one way or another. No, no, NO! That shit is utter death to Best Friends. If you're playing Magical Princess Girl, you need to came up with an Active Nonsense, like "I want to be Queen". That way, you have something to drive at to get the ball rolling. If everyone is doing this, and they have contradicting Nonsense that means they don't want you being Queen, you'll be riffing off each other constantly and the scenes and conflicts will come thick and fast. In no time you're telling a fantastic story, with tons going on.

This is my original thread on the subject:

http://www.collective-endeavour.com/node/1113

Hope that helps!

Oh, and maybe some optional suggestions like creating Nonsense together and then randomly dealing it out to players?

Is there anything wrong with just reprinting it as is? Or do you think a reprint should be used to address issues? I'm just asking as a point of interest (rather than to be contrary or flippant) - I've reprinted Dead of Night a few times now but haven't changed anything yet.

Thanks Rich. Those are great points!

Andy, I guess it's that the last (fourth) print run is almost ended and I wonder about what I should do now. Do I commit to another print run, and of what size? Or do I take the opportunity to make larger changes.

After 1 year I added the Appendix, which you can get for free from the website. I am pretty happy about this version, but it basically doesn't disturb the first 48 pages of the book (so that earlier versions can share the index). The disadvantage to this is that it doesn't really flag up how key Stuff and Nonsense are, and that you need to care about your chracters.

I've been thinking long and hard over whether I should make the book have a much longer example of play and advice on Stuff and Nonsense. When people "get it" they don't need my lame examples or hand holding, but some people just don't "get it" off the bat and the book could probably help with showing them what there is to get.

I've also mused on adding one-shot advice, a sample scenario and characters, some situation stuff and so on.

But, if you "get" the game then you don't need any of that stuff (though, I guess, it would be nice to have). And the game is what it is, so I have zero interest in "baking" it further.

I don't want to commit to a short run and then work on releasing an updated book, because I'm stiffing everyone buying a book from that run.

I'm thinking that I shouldn't delete the book, though. Which was an option, to be honest.

First off, if people get the game, thats great - but if you can do more to make the people that don't get the game, get the game, do it. We all learn from our experiences and there's no reason not to pass them on.

Second off, IMO, we are in a really good position to do this sort of shit than other publishers. As long as the core of the book is constant, little changes and additions can be made easily - either to a POD file or in a subsequent print run. For example, there is a pretty glaring printing error that appeared in D&H (a picture frame box appeared from nowhere...). There are 50 copies of the game and 3 pdfs that will have that error. I can obliterate it. Now, if there was a similar error for WotC and 4e - they would be 10,000s of books into a run before they could fix it. The same applies to examples and extra bits of fluff.

As for deletion ... thats a debate for another forum, I believe *wink*

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/