Some basic questions:
- Do participants (or fortune) contribute to the trick with at most one card or is it possible to add extra cards to the trick?
- Wouldn’t the initiating player be the one who declares that there’s a conflict and decides on a goal (or discusses goal with other players)?
- Trick is assembled face down, then cards are revealed. If major arcana are in play and major arcana have pretty fluid mechanic behind them, how do you resolve the conflict for/against players when two major arcanas are played? The example from “The Arcana” section (Once a player has played an arcana card…) reads as if players had mutual understanding of what cards they play. Is it assumed that major and minor arcana have different backs? But even then you don’t know what is on the major arcana face.
- Can players openly discuss what cards they are going to play?
- If great works are what characters create, should “I want a +1 damage doohickey” be on the list of character’s personal goals? Or do you see them more as something that characters pursue once they figure out what they need to increase the chance of success on the path to their major goal?
To expand on 2 above, I’ve got this broader problem understanding the flow of the game. People sit by the table and then what? Does the GM set up a scene that enables players to work towards their goals or is it up to the players to initiate something? Let’s say the latter, John is more proactive so he declares to pursue one of his minor goals, say, find an obscure info about a demon in a library. But this is likely in the forbidden section and head of the order rarely permits people to go there so this leads to social conflict between him and he higher up. Other characters can join him, e.g. group can concoct a fake story they will use in an argument. But the initiating player is likely going to be the one towards the goal of whom the scene is contributing, no?
Some other general comments:
a. I like how resources (arts and bond ranks, IP, cards) are handled in game. I’m not sure if it’s perfectly balanced but it seems like a solid base for the game.
b. I’d much rather see major arcana domains to be limited to a single noun. I can’t tell if this was the process but whenever I’m designing things I fall into a symmetry trap. There’s a lot of threes in this game so if I were you I’d be tempted to have 3 domains per arcana. But, as you point out in the text, this leads to conflicts of influence these domains have. This doesn’t strike me as particularly fun thing to resolve during the game.
c. GM holds a hand of fate so why not call him accordingly? (fate master, ref of the fate or something like that)
d. “What you need” has subsection “Players” which includes info on players and GM. I’d probably call it “Participants” so the term player is unambiguous.
e. I’d love to see a single place where everything about IP is assembled (how you can get it, how you spend it and so on).