Turning of age/wonder mechanics:
I have a quemment about the fortune/trial mechanical effects. Both lists give interesting fiction seeds that include positive and negative mechanics (gain a new move, etc). But the mechanical effects are very similar on either list. This undercuts the importance of making a roll, other than to provide story seeds.
Was this an intentional choice to prevent individual players from falling behind? Would it break the economy to bump both sides up a bit? For example the second option in both turning of age lists give “take a move from their playbook, but they get 2-treaty on you.” Could we make the Trial 3-treaty and the Fortune 1-treaty?
.
The idea was to keep families on an even mechanical playing field while altering their fiction position. If you’re getting trials it’s probably because you’re in a pretty poor position resource-wise, and I didn’t want to encode a death spiral in this chunk of rules. That’s why you get the ancillary benefit of tech when you roll well on turning of ages, while wonders are often a bit less balanced between the two lists so limiting the owner’s choices to the fortune list can be its own reward.
Basically, we wanted the time between ages to be focused on the story of your family, with their mechanical changes a side benefit.
Was this an intentional choice to prevent individual players from falling behind?
Definitely! Also, to avoid the risks of pumping a Family up too much – we all know that imagination thrives in scarcity and adversity!
Would it break the economy to bump both sides up a bit?
Nah, not really. The system is quite robust. But know that we playtested each list time and again, both Turn of Ages and all Wonders, which led to many revisions and changes.
Then again, if you want to nudge it this way or that, go ahead and share the results! 🙂
Ok great, I thought so. It all reminds me of the following talk
youtube.com – What game theory teaches us about war | Simon Sinek
Thanks guys