Hey Sebastian,

Yep, there always comes that stages when playtesting amongst friends or a regular group just isn't going to yield any more useful results. So, looking beyond your immediate circle is always good. Have you had any blind playtesting at all, or has it all been within the one group.

And, in order to make things easier for people looking at the PDF, are there particular things that you feel need looking at? It's always good to have some specific question in mind, identify areas that require work. It's also good for people coming to the game cold, in that they have a better sense of where you are at with the design. This is especially the case with a fairly lengthy document such as this.

But, downloaded and I should be able to take a proper look at it next week.

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

Hi Malcolm,

I'm particularly insecure about how the text reads, in as much I don't know if I've conveyed it simply.

If you do read the document, even if you only get through a few pages, I'd be really interested to find out why you stopped reading. Or even why you kept reading.

I've never done any blind playtesting, in as much as no one has had a copy of the rules to read and then play (without me present to explain the text). However, I have played with three groups, and since the game is GM-free and uses this 'fluency' style of rules presentation, for two of the groups I was able to advise the rules as the text recommends - which simulated the structure of the learning process, if nothing else.

At this stage, I am comfortable with the design of the game in as much as it provides a good opportunity for a memorable night's gaming. However, I'm anxious that there is little empathic attachment between the players and their characters, and I'm still looking for a small but significant change that could help mechanise that sort of empathy. Joe Murphy, who I met the other day in Dublin, helped me onto that road, but there are still a few kinks, I think.

In short, if there's something you hate about the rules, tell me about it, but I'm really looking for someone who can read the game in an hour and tell me what they didn't understand.

Or someone who will playtest the game for me. Which is probably asking too much (Incidentally, you can run a game of Hell for Leather in an hour and a half).

Thanks for your help, and for downloading the game.

Sebastian.

P.S. As I revise text, new versions will be available from the website. Version 0.91 is available and includes play sheets.

www.cobwebgames.com

Hey, Sebastian. You're asking great questions.

When you've run the game, do people root for certain characters? Do you get an underdog? Is there any kind of moral justice, or an interesting lack of?

It turns out that when people play extravagant, in your face, ball-grabbing assholes, people root for them more than for characters who have any obvious moral tension.

I've had to seriously rethink the strategy of the game in light of last night's playtest. I was trying to go too far down the cerebral route, when in reality this game is pretty much a one tone bloodfest that celebrates machismo sadism above anything else. That's not what I intended when I started, but it's what I've got, although it's still good fun to play.

So now I've come to that crossroads where I choose to hack up the game to fit the vision, or let the game be what it is and embrace it. I've chosen the latter.

I've learned a lot about how to structure rules to create empathy, it seems, just by failing to do that at every turn. Instead of a game that encourages moral tension, I've made a game that does the opposite. So all I have to do to make my next game 'meaningful' is to do exactly the opposite of what I did this time! Ah well. You live and learn.

In any case, I'm rewriting everything today and tomorrow, for a final review on Saturday morning. I've incorporated all your suggestions as per the PDF you sent me. Really good stuff in there. Thanks.

So, in answer to your other questions, yes, there can be an underdog, but it is more about the player having difficulty with the physicial resolution system than their character. All the same, you find you root for them, even if they're on the other team. Furthermore, in every Finale (the endgame bloodbath), there is always a disadvantaged team, which kind of makes them the underdog.

Lastly, lack of moral justice? Certainly. Way more than I'd anticipated. Interesting? My playtesters enjoy it, even though I feel like I've somehow bent myself over and given myself one from behind. I suppose it's like the moment when a scriptwriter watches his tender adolescent love scene turned into a violent, mega lesbian fuck fest. It's not what you planned on, but by god it's entertaining.

All the best,

Sebastian.

www.cobwebgames.com

'Mega lesbian fuckfest'. That's beautiful, man.

You absolutely *don't* need to insist on clear moral accountability in a game. Something like Poison'd or The Shab Al Hiri Roach or Paranoia puts that firmly to one side, and that's a-ok. So I don't think you're going anywhere pointless. =)

I was thinking about an interesting tendency in Zombie Cinema: you're more likely to win a conflict (and live until the next scene) if other players are on your side, or if other characters are on your side. Normally, you roll a d6 versus the GM's d6. Players can add another d6 to either side. So playing to the crowd is a great tactic, whether your character's sympathetic or a bastard who needs to be strung along until he's finally strung up.

So I wondered if there were any mechanics or drive towards that sort of fun. And you're right, I think the Finale rules (and victory points) set up that sort of play.

'You absolutely *don't* need to insist on clear moral accountability in a game. '

Thank fuck!

Cheers for your comments Joe. I've put the latest version, the competition version, that is, on the site for download. I doubt you'll have time to scan it before Sunday evening, but if you do spot any blunders, please let me know.

That goes for any of you other Collective designers.

Ciao,

Sebastian.

www.cobwebgames.com

I'm planning on taking a printout of the game away with me next week when I'm off camping, so I should have some comments in ten days or so. Is the version linked to in your first post the one that I should be looking at?

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

0.94 seems to be the current version: http://cobwebgames.com/index.php/downloads/

So here's the differences I've spotted:

Video Interviews. That's cool. It can be difficult to sell a character you haven't played yet, and I usually take a couple of scenes to work out a voice or a stance. But showing the character before the chase kicks off is a good idea.

p19 - it wasn't actually Vincent who said it was 'the fuck you don't' that led to conflicts in In A Wicked Age, but I can't remember who it was summarised them as such. Make sure that *is* when you feel conflict could be called, of course.

Were there other changes I missed?

Hey Malcolm, that would be really great. Thanks very much for your support. I'm going to upload version 0.95 later this afternoon. I'm doing one last pass before I send it in to the competition.

Joe, yeah, the Video Interview thing is fun. It helps present the banality of the character before their impending murder spree. It's a necessary, and probably comical juxtaposition.

There are lots of teeny rules changes with large ramifications (does that sound pervy to you?), but you probably wouldn't notice them unless you knew the text very well. Things like Felonies and where they are positioned in the turn order, the axing of Instincts, the swelling of Victory Point numbers and uses, the rehash of Dilemmas, etc.

I think it's a much better version. Hopefully I've been able to translate the Hell for Leather I enjoyed at the tabletop into the Hell for Leather PDF. I'm certain the copy needs tinkering, but with only half a day until submission, I've got to say goodbye to it soon. Wish me luck,

Sebastian.

www.cobwebgames.com