Listen now | DICE EXPLODER IS KICKSTARTING NOW! Here’s the link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sdunnewold/dice-exploder-a-tabletop-rpg-design-podcast Thomas Manuel of the Indie RPG Newsletter and the Yes Indie’d podcast joins me to talk about Secondary Missions, a mechanic from
Again, a great episode. Thomas is such a wonderful guest and his newsletter is an invaluable resource for TTRPG.
I had quite a different experience with the game. Certainly, my group had little experience with PbtA or Fitd systems at the time, but still, even in hindsight, I found the game’s crunch to overshadow the story elements. The secondary mission mechanic specifically emphasizes this rift. It puts legion mechanics and story at odds, with no apparent reward to players. No cathartic moments is rewarded. For you to sacrifice your character, nothing is gained but the IDEA of survival of a greater character, the legion. But this character is not well defined by play, by story. At the same time, the price the game expects from the players to make is also sidelined.
Therefore, the very idea of gain for the legion, vs the idea of personal sacrifice is muted. I agree it harbors dark and menacing themes. One might say this even simulates the very essence of war, but I wonder who wants to feel the story they’ve been telling around the table has little meaning, that the character they are playing has no story.
Hearing Thomas talking about his campaign, I suspect the game assumes quite a lot about the group playing it, about its group dynamics or fluency in narrative systems. This game has much going for it in terms of design, theme and flavor. Ultimately, I felt it wasn’t sure what it was asking of us, the players, to play.
Super interesting counterpoint to Thomas' experience! I will say that in the bit of campaign I did play I often felt similar to you, that all the crunch sometimes got in the way of having feelings. But Secondary Missions didn't feel that way for all the reasons I mention on the show. The characters there may be relegated to supporting characters, but it felt like they provided emotional turmoil for everyone else in the Legion - and for me, everyone else IS the Legion, and their development is its character development.
It feels to me like which mission you're choosing to spotlight is a choice about who your protagonists are. Others become secondary characters on their secondary mission.
Still, I really do feel this:
"I wonder who wants to feel the story they’ve been telling around the table has little meaning, that the character they are playing has no story."
And I really feel the idea that this game, and many others like it, assume a lot about the playgroup that's picking it up. I don't know when I'll be able to fully articulate and/or publish them, but I've been having a lot of conversations and thoughts lately about how so many games have this bad habit and how hard it is to correct.
Again, a great episode. Thomas is such a wonderful guest and his newsletter is an invaluable resource for TTRPG.
I had quite a different experience with the game. Certainly, my group had little experience with PbtA or Fitd systems at the time, but still, even in hindsight, I found the game’s crunch to overshadow the story elements. The secondary mission mechanic specifically emphasizes this rift. It puts legion mechanics and story at odds, with no apparent reward to players. No cathartic moments is rewarded. For you to sacrifice your character, nothing is gained but the IDEA of survival of a greater character, the legion. But this character is not well defined by play, by story. At the same time, the price the game expects from the players to make is also sidelined.
Therefore, the very idea of gain for the legion, vs the idea of personal sacrifice is muted. I agree it harbors dark and menacing themes. One might say this even simulates the very essence of war, but I wonder who wants to feel the story they’ve been telling around the table has little meaning, that the character they are playing has no story.
Hearing Thomas talking about his campaign, I suspect the game assumes quite a lot about the group playing it, about its group dynamics or fluency in narrative systems. This game has much going for it in terms of design, theme and flavor. Ultimately, I felt it wasn’t sure what it was asking of us, the players, to play.
Super interesting counterpoint to Thomas' experience! I will say that in the bit of campaign I did play I often felt similar to you, that all the crunch sometimes got in the way of having feelings. But Secondary Missions didn't feel that way for all the reasons I mention on the show. The characters there may be relegated to supporting characters, but it felt like they provided emotional turmoil for everyone else in the Legion - and for me, everyone else IS the Legion, and their development is its character development.
It feels to me like which mission you're choosing to spotlight is a choice about who your protagonists are. Others become secondary characters on their secondary mission.
Still, I really do feel this:
"I wonder who wants to feel the story they’ve been telling around the table has little meaning, that the character they are playing has no story."
And I really feel the idea that this game, and many others like it, assume a lot about the playgroup that's picking it up. I don't know when I'll be able to fully articulate and/or publish them, but I've been having a lot of conversations and thoughts lately about how so many games have this bad habit and how hard it is to correct.
Thanks for your thoughts!