In this thread I would like to discuss what went wrong and what went right with V&V.
Speaking from my perspective, I think the overarching problem with V&V was that it was overly ambitious. Many interesting ideas where added, but the core concept of individual finances was radical enough that it should have been tested by itself. A particularly good example of this is the Civil War that opened the game. The idea behind it was that it would make it easier for PvP to occur later in the game, as no one would have to face the stigma of starting the first Civil War. But regardless of whether or not that would have worked, it's clear in this type of scenario, where the game continues after the war is over, people need a reason to fight and take the risks that fighting entails. If a reason is not provided by the game, or the one given isn't strong enough, then the player will need to come up with a reason himself. Later in the game, when factions have formed and RPing has led to friendships and rivalries, find a reason is much easier. But in early scenarios like this, where everything is new and bonds which make or break of game are still weak, it makes sense to worry first and foremost about survival, as that is necessary in order to participate in the aforementioned RP. This is my explanation for why there were no PvP battles during the Civil War, and why many rebels joined the Kaiser, and I would like to hear any thought by the players.
Another problem is that the role of GM required more direct involvement then I would have liked. It seems that when I wrote the rules, I took it for granted how things would be done and didn't codify things as much as a should have. This led to some confusion, and also required the kind of judgements that could have looked questionable were the GM to play a character in the game. In this case the solution is to insert into the rules further clarifications on how things work, and especially on what to do when someone makes a mistake, so that the GM has to make fewer decisions which would be either intentionally or unintentionally affected by biases.
I hope this does not sound like I am being critical of the players. As GM, I believe that the game exists for their enjoyment. And since people who play games will naturally do what's enjoyable to them, it's counter-productive to say that "They didn't play the game in a fun way." Rather, the problem should be phrased as "The players did not seem to have as much fun as was hoped, so there must be some flaw in the structure of the game that's getting in their way.
That good news is that the fundamental mechanic of personal finances seemed to work fine. The comments I received from the players were all of a technical nature, so I'm hoping that means everyone understood it pretty well. For my part, figuring things out each turn was not hard, just time-consuming.
Bookmarks