[Circle of Hands] Organizing a playtest

[Jonas Ferry]

One of my two groups will playtest Circle of Hands. One player had already pledged, which was a nice surprise. We play every other week, and will spend half a session (1.5 hours) on April 3 to create characters. Two weeks later, April 17, we'll spend a full 3-hour session playing. It's still some time away, but I'm looking forward to it.

I've been thinking about character generation and selection. I think it's a very neat idea for players to create more than one PC, and for the GM to do the same, for longer play. But when you do a one-shot, at least the GM's characters can't be selected, and the players will only use one of their PCs.

My current thinking is that if I would create PCs and play during the same session, it's sufficient for the players to create one PC each, to get started more quickly. If it's a one-and-a-half-shot, as in my case, I'm contemplating creating two PCs per player and GM, and letting the players choose freely from all PCs.

Writing the above, I realize that we should probably play the game as written, otherwise we wouldn't be playtesting the actual rules. :) I think that even if the GM's characters can't be selected, the GM can communicate what he or she wants the game to be about by creating PCs at the same time. I guess I'm afraid that we will "waste" time on creating characters that won't see play. On the other hand, nothing says if the player will prefer to play the first or second character they create, so who knows if the time is wasted or not.

If I'm not mistaken, there's the following steps involved during the first game:

1. Players and GM create two PCs each
2. The GM preps the scenario without knowing exactly which PCs will be played, but with a general idea of the interests of the players from character creation
3. The players select one of their two PCs based on a short pitch of the scenario from the GM

If the players only have one PC each, step 2 is compromised since it's easier for the GM to tailor the scenario specifically for the PCs by mistake. Also step 3 is disturbed, since the players are stuck with playing a specific PC after the scenario pitch, even though they may prefer playing from another angle.

I guess this was just me thinking out loud. I didn't have the heart to close the tab without posting. I look forward to the first reports on how this was handled by other groups.

[Ron Edwards]

I suppose you already know my preference ...

I would greatly prefer that you play it as written, with two complete characters per person, and commit to two full adventures as part of the process. Like Sorcerer, a brief session of truncated play is possibly positive, but cannot actually showcase the game.

A very minor detail as well is not to think of the GM's description of the adventure as a "pitch," but simply as a step of playing.

A good way to avoid standard scenario design subtly or unsubtly targeting player-characters is to get the adventure ready beforehand. The process has literally nothing to do with the player-characters' details and if I'm reading your post right, your mind swings hard in that direction unless forcibly restrained. So go ahead and show up with your adventure folder ready, don't change anything in it during the process, and open it for use when the time comes.

[Moreno R.]

My own playtest (by google hangout) has the first session scheduled for Thursday, the characters (mostly in Italian) are here (we are still missing one player's characters). Three players, GM included. The intention is to do at least a couple of ventures (probably 4 sessions, counting the slowness of playing by hangout, but it's difficult to judge how much time they will require now), more if there will be interest.

We too will not play exactly as written (I can picture Ron screaming reading that): we will be rotating the GM's role, I will GM the first venture but I wanted to try the game as a player, too.

Playing by hangout add some logistic issues: for example, it's not simple to sketch a quick map during play, so they should be prepared beforehand.  The draft has a detailed map of a ruined fortress as an example, but it'd not clear about this aspect: Ron, you suggest preparing detailed maps (more detailed than with Trollbabe, for example) or this is something that will be seen using the playtests too?

[John W]

My first playtest session is scheduled for April 1st, for the record.  I'm planning on running a session of char-gen plus a skirmish to get familiar with the dice mechanics; then 2-3 full sessions.

A question on maps: Ron, how do you use the map of a confusing/dangerous location?
- dungeon-crawl style: "You're in a 10' by 20' room with exits to the North and East..."
- open on the table: "Here's the chief's hall, here's Wolfgang's room, yu are here in the kitchen."
- as a prop: "you're lost in this forest/labyrinth."

Thanks,
John

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John, I don't use maps in the crawl-ish tradition, or not much. Maybe I should expand the question a little for the adventure as a whole.

1. There will be a map of the Crescent land, and in fact, Tony is working on it as we speak. Right now I use my cruddy sketch, and I point to some region within one of the named regions, such as the Rolke coastline, and say, "the adventure is about here." It's not like there's anything right there on the map of interest, it's more like I'm picking a spot which, because of this adventure, is now of interest.

2. I don't draw a map of the local area. I recommend that people do it if it helps, but I prefer to build a rather strong picture of it in my mind, and describe it extremely closely to what the characters are seeing and otherwise sensing. I've done a hell of a lot of rough camping and have good skills for keeping the overview in my mind, but staying with the characters' immediate view in the descriptions.* Others may do better with sketchy local map like the ones used in Trollbabe.

3. The cool little maps - and there will be TEN in the book - are the "dangerous locations." I recommend having a real map for these, although I sometimes do and sometimes don't. If you don't, then play it with as much integrity as if you did. As for how to play it, the "prop" method is probably best. If you have a physical map, you might show it briefly, just to convey its basic character.

I'm thinking of the terrifying maze-map in The Tombs of Atuan. Can the internet help us ... yes! Here's the image that was in my copy of the book, from 1977 or so.** If I were to show the players that map for a few seconds and say, "Yeah, that's what you're groping around in, blindly," it helps a lot. However, escaping or getting somewhere specific in there would depend more on rolls than on left-right-right-left statements and map-checking.

Best, Ron

* In the latest Lamentations of the Flame Princess episode, which I am way behind on posting about, I used the island Harstena from the Baltic Sea as the setting, and stayed very strictly "in place" throughout the session, even though there was no map on the table.

** Maybe not the most auspicious example considering the beating the book's taken in lit criticism since, but right now, I'm merely talking about the map.