Master Mines

We’re digging RPGs

Some Misspent Youth rules fixes

So after JiffyCon, and a very good discussion with Eppy Ravachol and Nathan Paoletta, I came up with a few fixes for Misspent Youth that I’m going to put into the rules outline that I’m bringing with me to PhilCon. I’ll update the rules outline document here as well as soon as I add to it. NOTE: some of this might not make much sense if you’re not familiar with the rules of MY, but I’d be happy to elaborate at your request.

  1. YOs may sell out a trait before dice are rolled to instantly win a conflict.
  2. This is the big one: The Authority has no claim on the first roll. This prevents a conflict from ever being decided before the second roll, and undercuts a feeling of “that sucks” that happened a lot of the times when conflicts were over with the first throw. After the first throw, the YOs have a claim, and the Authority claims 7 and one of the two numbers it is permitted to at that level. If the YOs get 7, then THEY OWN 7!
  3. I’m going to add in rules that allow the YOs to back out of a conflict and negotiate some stakes with The Authority between the two stakes set at the outset.

PS: I know I’ve been a not-great participant with other people’s games of late. I promise I will rectify that soon.


April 1, 2008 - Posted by | Misspent Youth | ,


  1. So… I’m a bit reluctant to comment on these without trying them out, but having played MY one whole time and liking it:

    I like #2. Well, I was sort of grooving on how hard it was to win as a YO when I played, but I think that’s idiosyncratically nihilistic.

    I’m having trouble imagining how #1 would pan out in play. I’d like to try it. I’m not sure I’d ever make use of it, as a player, since IIRC I can always sell out later on and still win – there aren’t resources expended in the conflict. So why not take my chances? I guess maybe if I had a real strong vision of where I wanted to go with the sell-out.

    #3 makes me a little nervous. Again, I’d want to see it in play. But it seems to go against the grain of how I, at least, understood the game. In my mind, I’m imagining it to be something like, “YO: We firebomb the police station! The Man: OK, well, if I win, the police beat you within an inch of your lives and you’re all thrown in jail for a long, long time. YO: Oh, uh, OK, well, how about if we just file a complaint with the police Ombudsman?” I guess I especially worry about how this interacts with the “pick up the dice before you have a plan” ethos. It seems to me that the YO should not be carefully considering likely outcomes and making moderate, negotiated agreements with The Authority. But, again, this may represent my personal feelings more than your design goals. And it may be that, having not seen the AP situation that prompted the change, that you need it to avoid serious game-breakery. I could see some situations in which pushing too hard could ruin a player’s fun.

    Comment by dhlevine | April 2, 2008 | Reply

  2. Dan,

    I really appreciate you responding here.

    I think your point about point one is a good point. Why bother having sell-out rules at the start when they get nothing from it?

    I’m glad you like point 2. I think it’s the best, most useful, strongest idea yet and I’m very grateful to Eppy and Nate.

    I’m unsure about #3 as well. I think I need to let it play out in the playtests at PoliCon this weekend and see how it goes. I think I’d argue that if The Authority is going to agree to negotiate a middle ground, it shouldn’t be weak. It should definitely feel like they lost something. Maybe the point is to have the Authority ask for hard stakes at the start of the conflict to give him somewhere to go in a negotiation with the players.

    That is, they still lose, but they don’t lose so hard.

    I might try it like with one conflict where the rule is in play and the next where it’s not.

    Comment by robertbohl | April 2, 2008 | Reply

  3. […] head-butting issues over content and out-of-character decision making, but in terms of the rules hacks I posted about on an earlier entry, it was […]

    Pingback by PoliCon and rule hacks « Master Mines | April 7, 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: