I’ll just add my voice to those disappointed by the story’s conclusion. I haven’t played it through to the end yet, but based on the info in this thread I might never will.
Luck challenges are fine (they are a core mechanic in the game). Long lasting consequences are also often a good thing. But hanging the results of a major storyline on just luck, with such severe consequences is very poor game design.
The biggest problem for me is the potential loss of a Companion I’ve payed real money to acquire. This story’s continuation effectively asks me (the player - not the character) to gamble real-world money for the end result (the Stiff-Backed Young Lady is one of my favourite Feast companions and I had no hesitation to give FBG money for making her acquaintance).
Others have already included some good suggestions for how this could have been done better.
Here are a couple more:
How about utilizing the risk system already used in some Exceptional Stories? Just ask the player if they want the story to have the potential for severe and permanent consequences or to choose that "all shall be well". This way the player can choose the level of risk.[/li][li]This story should not cost Fate-bought companions (unless the player explicitly chooses for things to potentially not "end well"). There are narrative gymnastics that can be done to allow this. e.g. The Stiff-Backed Young Lady is not really called "The Last Constable". So in case you’re risking her life, how about the Last Constable introducing you to a new young woman who is following in her footsteps? That way, even if the Last Constable doesn’t make it, you can roleplay that your "Stiff-Backed Young Lady" is now this new woman. (same for the "A Gentleman of Undisclosed Business" - could be a new Crime Boss that takes over some of the Cheery Man’s affairs).
In conclusion: A very disappointing conclusion (mechanics-wise, and money-wise) to the story of beloved characters. I’m not gambling real-world money on this. I’ll just have to leave the story unfinished.
Apparently, our characters are walking magnets of doom: if we support the Last Constable the odds are in favour of the Cheery Man, if we support the Cheery Man, the odds are in favour of the Last Constable. Really? I would have much preferred a 50/50 chance, to be honest: apparently neither of them is cheating (otherwise the Cheery Man would have always the advantage…or vice versa if the Last Constable somehow managed to cheat), so it doesn’t make sense for the odds to be stacked that way. Or maybe I’m just bitter because I’m an idiot and my character’s mentor just died, ahah…ah.
Very depressing. And yes, I’ll add my voice to those, who are annoyed by luck challenge at the end. Wonder, how much fate I’ll need to spend before getting non-depressing finale?
The best approach might be to just break up the match, tbh, though I haven’t seen the results of that to say for sure.
Family and Law was always a dark and somewhat depressing story. Poignant, but not happy. I can’t be surprised that the ending is a little bleak.
That said, with whinging I saw about some of the recent ES not being grimdark enough… This was never going to have a happy ending. It was a family squabble between very dangerous people with diametrically opposed view and stubborn personalities (and hard-earned reputations) which effectively eliminated the chance of reconciliation and forgiveness of past wrongs.
I’ve just drawn the card. I sided with the Constable many years ago and am wondering whether to pay the fate to start the story again, siding with the Cheery Man.
Before I do so is there any route through the story which doesn’t end in one or the other dying? I don’t want to lose my Stiff Backed Lady and would love the opportunity at the next Feast to get the Cheery Man as a companion.
To be honest, a day later, I really liked this story because it puts events out of your control. It evokes emotions that normally aren’t often evoked in London - sadness, annoyance at that thing called the way things are, mild anger. And to be honest I think that’s fine, in retrospect anyways.
On the subject of the odds, if they wanted to preserve that sort of feeling, they would want to keep it rigged against you. Story-wise, though, it would make sense for it to be 50/50, compared to maybe 70/30 if you rig it. Really it’s just a matter of justifying why the odds are so stacked either way.
And–
…Ten fate.
…Ten fate.
…A Searing Enigma is under NO circumstances worth 10 fate. (Well maybe some but quiet, you.)
…I would have preferred to just ride the journal train, in that case.
Basically, if you want to have a story of bad feels, don’t make it so costly! It’s alright if you want to put us through the wringer, but those 10 fate could have been better used to go towards a Fate-locked story or something. And, knowing what I do now, I’m 300% having my second run stop early because this sort of stuff is precisely what you don’t want to expect going into it, and knowing it’s coming sorta really takes away from the, well, despair of it.
Edit: …I don’t suppose anybody has a journal entry of doubling down and both of them dying? Or, rather, a journal entry of the funeral afterwards, I’m not interested in the grisly details of the actual death. edited by ReusedNPC on 10/19/2017
So from EpA/deck optimization standpoint it’s still best to side with Cheery Man and never finish the story?
Why every time good things get locked out? Its nice when sacrifice is intentional (like SMEN), but most of the time its just bad gamedesign. edited by Waterpls on 10/19/2017
[color=#cc0099]Hello, we’ve been taking on board the feedback from players and are expecting to make changes tomorrow, for both future players and those who’ve completed the story already.[/color]
[color=#cc0099]
[/color]
[color=#cc0099]For now, we’ve blocked off sections to halt anyone else from going through pieces of the story we’ll be adjusting. Thank you for your feedback and for your patience.[/color]
Can that really be true? The Constable’s side of the text warns you – at the ‘Meddling’ stage, I think – that the odds are against you (OK, her). Does the Cheery Man’s side really do so as well?
I accept you’re going to get a few ‘huh?’ moments in FL, but the Cheery Man is on his own turf, and he’s arranged for certain tankards to be marked, ostensibly for reasons of economy (this excuse seems flimsy, to say the least, and the text mentions the markings more than once - here and here). The Last Constable appears to be low on supporters, apart from the player, and is making her last throw.
The form the showdown takes is a bit ‘huh?’, but the Constable is so powerless against her dad that you have to allow a bit of narrative wiggle room. So I assumed this was our old friend ‘asymmetric play’ – clearly, backing a lone hero is likely to have a poor outcome compared to backing a kingpin. Whoever they support, the player is given many chances to avoid seeing things through to the bitter end, and many hints that they won’t be able to do any avenging if their side fails.
But if the player’s support acts as a dynamic doom-magnet, even if they back the Cheery Man? That’s just strange. It’s not a realistic narrative asymmetry, but tension created from the bald question ‘The dice are stacked against you, and the stakes are high. Still want to roll?’ Like ReusedNPC, I’m not averse being asked this (and my answer is often ‘Hell Yes’, especially if no other player will be negatively affected by my rashness), but it needs a lot of ingenuity not to feel artificial in the context of a story.
Like yourself, I risked the double-tragedy outcome of ‘Double or Nothing’, but it didn’t happen for me either. I do wonder if it just increases the chance of a poisoned tankard being picked by someone, but doesn’t change the chances of who turns out to have picked it – ie, the contest will simply last for fewer rounds. In spite of my curiosity, I don’t advise people choose ‘Double or Nothing’ unless they’re willing to slightly abbreviate their game in the interests of Science.
>>>Can that really be true? The Constable’s side of the text warns you – at the ‘Meddling’ stage, I think – that the odds are against you (OK, her). Does the Cheery Man’s side really do so as well?
Yes. Odds are always against you no matter your side. edited by Waterpls on 10/19/2017
[quote=Kukapetal]
Are we playing the same game? :P[/quote]
Well, the current endings do evoke anger and sadness — but probably not in a way that was intended. I am genuinely upset and disappointed. For the first time in years my confidence in Failbetter Games has been shaken.
[quote=Vexpont]The form the showdown takes is a bit ‘huh?’, but the Constable is so powerless against her dad that you have to allow a bit of narrative wiggle room. [/quote]Given the personalities involved, I’d have expected an actual battle of wits between them, and not in the Princess Bride style. Seems out of character for both.
Like yourself, I risked the double-tragedy outcome of ‘Double or Nothing’, but it didn’t happen for me either. I do wonder if it just increases the chance of a poisoned tankard being picked by someone, but doesn’t change the chances of who turns out to have picked it – ie, the contest will simply last for fewer rounds.[/quote]The game instructions explicitly state that "double or nothing" makes it possible for both to die. If that is indeed the case mechanically (and not just nerratively) is yet unknown.