Skip to content

Appliance Adventures Updates

I came away from the playtest session with a handful of suggestions on how to make the game play better. I want to walk down the list and describe what I am doing to improve each one.

Limiting Soul Points to One Per Round
This one is pretty straight-forward. In the roll resolution section, I replaced

Any player appliance that does not succeed this round can choose to spend a Soul Point to automatically succeed.


One player appliance that does not succeed this round can choose to spend a Soul Point to automatically succeed. If more than 1 needs to spend the point, they must decide who can; all other appliances fail.

Stronger Penalties for Failure
This one will need some playtesting to find the right balance. In the playtest, failing the roll simply caused the appliance to miss a turn. This lengthens the challenge, but doesn’t hurt the group in any real way. To fix this, I’m looking back to the inspiration for the encounter resolution, Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition’s skill challenge system. The group racks up failures just like successes; if they accrue a number of failures equal to the number of players in the group before gaining the number of successes they need, then they fail the encounter. I may have all appliances lose a Soul Point if they fail, if that doesn’t seem too harsh. Additionally, the failure will require the group to find some other way to accomplish what they were attempting.

Single Appliance Encounters
I’m adding Tests of Self Reliance to the rules. If an appliance is involved in an encounter by himself, he may pull half his token pool for feature additions, or his whole token pool for knowledge.

Fewer Soul Points
This is another straight-forward one. I’m reducing the number of Soul Points from eight minus the highest feature to six minus the highest feature. This will need some more playtesting to see how it interacts with the new penalties for failure.

More Skill Variety
This one has me a bit stumped. I’m tempted to introduce the ‘Quality’ feature I discussed previously. That might allow for more variety in the feature descriptions. I might hold off on implementing this until I get another playtest session under my belt.