One of my friends who has played it was pretty blah on the experience. He said it was basically a game where everyone sat around the table and took turns saying "wouldn't it be cool if this happened?"

...Do you think he's missing something? If so, what?

I have played the Roach, and like it. Aside from the obvious points of the setting and the Tilt mechanic, what are the main points of difference between the two games? Do you still play the Roach, or are you mostly over it?

I have a few questions and requests for those of you who have played or are playing the game.

This seems like a game for one-shots, but the core book is listed on RPGG as being 130 pages long. What's all in there that's so necessary for a one-shot?

Another question based on the page count: How complicated are these mechanics?

Can one person explain the game in a relatively short period of time to a group and then get playing? Or is it critical that everyone at the table has read the rules and understands them before coming to the table?

How do the basic mechanics work? What I'm really getting at is: What does a Fiasco session play out like?

I've read a lot about Fiasco and I love the mechanics, the fact that you can play it without preparation, the fact that you set up the rise and fall of your characters. But I don't like to play games that are high on conflict and being confrontational, which seems to be what Fiasco is all about.

Can the game still be something for me?

Will we ever see the Playset-of-the-Months published (in print) as annual collections?

I think it can! For a game absolutely predicated on failure, it is surprisingly conflict-light. In fact, the word "conflict" does not appear in the game. This was a very specific choice I made - scenes have outcomes that are positive or negative, but what that binary means is entirely left to individual groups to decide for themselves. I've played gentle, melancholy Fiasco games. That is, in fact, my very favorite mode of play.

Can one person explain the game in a relatively short period of time to a group and then get playing? Or is it critical that everyone at the table has read the rules and understands them before coming to the table?

I've played gentle, melancholy Fiasco games. That is, in fact, my very favorite mode of play.

That sounds very cool! Can you recommend some playsets for that type of game?

I honestly think any of them can work in this mode, but some are easier than others. Touring Rock Band would be hard. The more grounded ones work better - try it with New York 1913, Main Street or Suburbia from the book, or Jersey Side. Red Front could be heartbreaking.

...you left out one of the best parts: The game has awesome, minimalist, evocative art and the layout is both attractive and helpful.

...Games like Fiasco aren't going to replace our long-term D&D/Pathfinder campaigns but I think they are welcome breaks on off-weeks ...
-Dave

...We want something that facilitates easy play at the table and cheap enough to print that we can keep the price reasonable. I'd be interested to hear what format you think would work best!

A lot of people keep Fiasco in the bag in case a session doesn't make. This happens in my group a lot, so that situation was definitely in the back of my mind as I worked on the game. I'm glad you guys had fun!

Hey Chris, hopefully Brian has addressed your other questions, but I wanted to chime in with some anecdotal evidence - it isn't uncommon for me to facilitate two simultaneous games of Fiasco at conventions. I teach all 8-10 first-time players the rules at once, in about ten minutes, and then turn them loose at two tables, hovering around at first to smooth over rules questions and hiccups, and then leaving them to their own devices until the Tilt, when I swoop in to help out again.

I know the game very well, which makes this easier, but as long as one person has read the rules you should be good to go.

Unless I've missed a thread that would help me out, the one thing I see missing from every description of Fiasco is some detail on the mechanics -- how the game works, how those dice are used, what are the Tilt and Aftermath (and how do they come into play), etc. To me, the mechanics of the game are at least as important as what the game is about (and in a game where the setting/motives could change with each play, how the game works would likely be the most important thing regarding a potential purchase).

The only GM-less game I've played is Capes, which doesn't seem to even flash on the radar at RPGG, and it is a zero-prep kind of game. I love the idea of zero-prep games (whether they're GM-less or have an identified GM), and so I feel Fiasco might be of interest to me.

Chris

Well, rather than treading new ground, I'll point you to Michael Harnish's excellent review of Fiasco:

Delivers on its promises

It includes a detailed explanation of the mechanics.

It seems almost freeform except for scene resolution. Is that an accurate way to describe it?

EDIT: Forget it. It's ordered.

I think it's also a perfect game for conventions. I've played twice face-to-face - first time with friends and the second time with strangers. We were definitely friends by the end of the game. It's a fantastic ice-breaker.

You're awesome! My advice for a reluctant group - tell them about it, let them look it over and gauge their interest. You might be surprised. Then keep it handy for a game session that would otherwise be canceled due to circumstances and offer to run it. Or run it at another time for anyone who *is* interested. The key selling point may be that if it isn't fun it's not a huge commitment.

I think I have a couple of guys that would try it willingly. The others, well ... they take my cue because I'm the GM. I'll get it to the table at least once.

Looking forward to seeing it.

Chris