All this talk about the game made me want to replay it. And I finally remembered: Cordwainers! They’re the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers and their boat is called Hell for Leather.
Oh, and @poison_mara, a way to get someone else to win is to cheer on them before the race starts. 
The poor Cordwainers haven’t won a single race for ages, to the point where even getting second to last is a huge accomplishment for them. It can be argued that leading them to victory would be an extremely charitable act.
(The gains from betting on them also doesn’t hurt, but of course that is a minor detail that does not bear mentioning. Of course.)
I felt for them so much one time that I guided them to win the race. The feels you get and their reactions when they cross the finish line first is…indescribable. An absolute fairytale.
You had to be there.
The Cordwainers are the best and I would follow them into the long and dangerous path 100% of the time.
Also, all this recent discussion about the team finally made me realise that the name’s a pun.
Cordwainers = shoe cords + coxswain
I thought this game wouldn’t surprise me anymore!
Not necessarily a checkpoint system, but how about just a clue in the game text itself, similar to Choice of Robots or Choice of Alexandria, as to what stats an important decision requires?
I love the story, and started playing it again recently, but it really is frustrating when you have complicated stat checks and no real clue as to what triggers them.
In my opinion, if players are motivated to hack the game to look at the code to figure stuff out, something has gone off the rails somewhere.
I respect that point of view very much, but I’m not sure what could be done about it without creating an effect I don’t want.
I don’t think I would want to put in explicit parenthetical tags like “Requires 50 skullduggery” at each skill test, for example, or even “Hard Skullduggery test.” Then there’s the explicit saying of what stats will be affected by a decision (++Bold) or (-Persuade) which I agree Robots and Alexandria make good use of.
What’s hard is that very, very often a choice involves a mix of stats and previously made decisions and *temp stats. So parenthetical tags often wouldn’t work.
To the extent that a choice tests stats that appear to make no sense at all based on the situation, that’s something that you might let me know about in case I can tweak the writing.
At the same time, my game design goal is to help players feel ok about failing skill checks, and to–I hope–let the notion of skill checks fade out into the background a little in favor of the many moving parts of the plot. I agree that if players are moved to look at the code to ensure successful skill checks, something has gone off the rails, but what might have gone off the rails is my communicating that successful skill checks are not what the game is meant to be about.
Not me at my most articulate, I fear. Anyhow, point me towards moments where the language is opaque. I’m always happy to tweak the prose.
If you don’t want players to be concerned with skill checks, and to be okay with picking any particular path through the story, why have 10 different character stats that can be combined with each other in multiple ways (10^2? 10^3?) ways for a skill test that might lock out a potentially interesting narrative branch?
The question is sincere.
I’ve played it at least a dozen times or so, and am trying to explore the various branches of the narrative, and find myself failing checks and the story doesn’t go in the direction I wanted to take it. There are so many potential variables, and at times I’ve failed stat checks that seem as though I should have passed. In the most recent play-through, I failed the Cadbury Club test, even though I’d successfully burned the book on the secret mission. I sat there for a moment scratching my head, thinking, “Gosh, I wonder which variable controlled that one?”
It feels less like I’m building a story and more like I’m trying to out-think the writer.
And just so it’s clear, I think it is a very well-written story. It’s the game mechanics I’m not enjoying…
@Gower could very easily address this in prose by having Midnight Thorn comment on what the Inner Circle found lacking. No need to blatantly bring up stats.
Because of this: By the Numbers: How to Write a Long Interactive Novel That Doesn’t Suck - Choice of Games LLC
I can use delayed branching based on complicated stat movement and complicated stat testing and then make nearly every choice meaningful in a really really long game.
Now, what could help is if I put a single choice in the stats menu that asks you if you would like to have all of your starting stats and secondary stats set to maximum. It wouldn’t help quite as much as you’d think, because many things that trigger off of non-stat decisions you make (if you never talk to Frankincense about a rendez-vous, you’ll never have one). And setting Mopsie’s reputation to maximum is a short-lived solution. I would consider that for future games, perhaps, but I wager that it wouldn’t be a very satisfying approach for most people.
Unsurprisingly, whether you are invited into the Inner Circle depends on the “Invitation” stat which is added to and subtracted to all game long. There are 136 points in the game where you can adjust that number–I just counted. Burning the book is important, but so is how you treat Trina, whether you met Shambles, what you did during the foxhunt, whether you made the train and if you did a good job on the motorbike adventure, whether you helped Regina in jail (if she was arrested), how you dealt with Rory’s crushing debt from wagering (if that happened), etc., etc. So actually, I can’t really have Regina comment on it aside for her crisply noting that you were judged and found wanting. It is unfortunate. But that’s a tradeoff for having a game with a lot of moving parts–you have to let the numbers do the heavy lifting so you can write a game that is very complex but isn’t a kijillion words long.
I totally hear you, and to the extent that that is so, that’s a failure on my part. I want my games to hold your hand when you play them and take a stroll with you, not arm wrestle you. If there’s a part that you are trying to reach, you can always ask here.
Thank you so much. I’m glad you like it, and I take your feedback very much to heart.
Does the MC always end up no longer working for Rory at the end if Rory and Frankincense get engaged? Poor Reeves was all about the feudal spirit, and yet ended up tossed aside like so many unfashionable suits 
The MC can end up working for both Rory and Frankincense as a servant in their new home, if they both like you well enough, but yes, if Rory gets married, life can no longer go on as it did before.
Just picked this up recently, and it was delightful. I’ll probably have more to comment on later, but for now I wanted to ask about some passages I found confusing.
“You grind me underneath your shoe / I’m feeling like a raw cashew” doesn’t sound quite right.
You use a penknife to scratch away “You grind me underneath your shoe” and then ponder. Ah, you have it.
“You grind me underneath your shoe / You make me feel I never grew.”
Much better. It has a certain plaintive quality lacking in the original. The original simile sounded frankly incoherent; your edit gives a slightly more persuasive effect.
So we wrote “You grind me underneath your shoe” back in?
“…I bet the whole thing with Chef Beauregard on Aunt Primrose to win at 2:1 odds. It is genius itself. You see, if our boat wins, she’ll be overjoyed. But how much more will she be over the moon when I hand her back her money with interest?”
[…]
"That was highly economically imprudent, sir, if I might offer an opinion. What if Colonel Firesnuff loses?"
“No, no, it’s 2:1 odds, Passpartout, you see? So you really can’t lose, not really,” Rory says.
If Firesnuff loses, can’t Rory still win or lose the bet? Rory’s bet is a terrible idea of course, but that didn’t feel like the most pertinent what-if question to me. Shouldn’t we be more worried about Firesnuff winning or Primrose losing?
And this is a bit of a silly question, but what does the asterisk mean?
Can you untangle your employer’s knottiest problems with elegance and unruffled grace?*
Thanks for the two bug catches–I’ve catched the wording. Of course it should be “what if Col. Firesnuff wins”
As for the asterisk, the truth is that it is a typo made by whoever wrote that publicity text.
But I have always joked to myself that it is a pointer to a footnote.
I’m so glad you are enjoying it, and would love to hear any further thoughts! Thanks for the fixes. I’ve already sent them in.
The other day I got a joke that apparently Always flew through my head.
In the Valentine romance, there’s a point where the MC can try and convince them to stay in England instead of trying their luck in Hollywood. “We’re in the land of Shakespeare and Milton, after all” is more or less what the MC says.
And then Valentine answers “It’s also the land of Henry James and T.S. Eliot!”. That one had me giggling. I think that, if the MC has enough Culture, they can say “Those last two don’t count”.
Right, because those two are phony Brits. I’m glad the game still has jokes left for you!
I’ve finally unlocked all the achievements of ‘Tally Ho’! I really enjoyed the challenge of getting them all. I think my favorites were Shambles, A Charming Living Arrangement, and Fifi Buttercup. The first two because they were challenging for me to get, but totally worth it for the story. The last one I actually just stumbled into without planning, which is always fun, but I also just really liked the ending it gave me.
In honor of your achievement, I hereby present to you this handsome WINNER medallion.
How did you get the fifi buttercup achievement?
Yay! * takes WINNER medallion and looks around for suspicious picnic baskets *
I admit, I am not a hundred percent sure how I got that achievement lynossa. Like I said, I just stumbled into that one without really planning for it, which was what made it such a pleasant surprise. But I’ll see what I can remember. I know I was being very nice to Colonel Firesnuff. I think you just have to go out of your way to have interactions with him and get him to like you. So talking to him in first class, and at the hunt, trying to impress him, etc. I took the Inner Circle path, but choose not to burn the manuscript and returned it to Firesnuff, telling him it was masterpiece that mustn’t be changed. I think having good culture helped.
I’m sorry I can’t be more specific. It was one of those runs where I was trying out some paths and choices I don’t usually go for - like being nice to Firesnuff. No offense to Firesnuff, it’s just really fun and easy to rile him up.
To those who managed to trigger the angry Haze while talking at dinner where he calls you perverse and all, how did you do it? I can’t figure it out. All I get is the lovey Haze option and when I don’t set him as my love interest via daydream, I get Mopsie.
Rep_haze 40 or less should do it, if you are not in costume. The “I wanted to be with you” dialogue choice leads to Haze calling you perverse. Then the “Because I like to spend time with you” follow-up continues that train of conversation.