The Forge Archives

Hello everyone,

So I've been giving consideration to my game, Silence Keeps Me A Victim, and am in a place I'd like to get some feedback.

The color/setting is of a somewhat magical place where The Abuser takes the voice of the communities babies. There are no adults as the loss of voice slowly turns the children from a vibrant robust color to gray and they fade into nothingness around 13 years of age.

Here is an overview of how I see the game working. The game has players and The Abuser (G.M.). The Abuser plays The Abuser and The Community. (Yes I know that's recursive) The players play characters who are absolutely undifferentiated from each other at the beginning of the game. They each have two characteristics of Mask and Voice. I'm am not trying to nail down mechanics yet, so those values are presently unknown. The player's can not speak except under certain circumstances, that will become clear soon. The Abuser is not limited in speech.

The Abuser sets up scenes and then proto-pre-narrates two possible outcomes. One outcome corresponds with what The Abuser wants and what The Community wants. Ideally the abuser should be trying to make the players/PC's do something they don't want to do, and the community should want to make the players/PC's to do something they want to do less, or is at least safer.

The players decide to either support The Abuser, The Community, or try to win themselves and create a third option. These three winning options are separate from narration. They also need to decide how much they want to narrate, or how much they want to win declarations. The Abuser also makes these choices, however The Abuser narrates as the The Abuser, and declares as The Community. So after what ever mechanic I use we have a winner, either the player/PC, The Abuser, or The Community. We also have a Narrator, and a Declarer. These can all be the same person but I would like that option to be rare so the choices are meaningful and provide tension. Each choice will be identified with a color, likely The Abuser will be Black, The community Yellow, the players win option Blue, narration will be Red, and declaration will be Green. (note: besides Black this matches my Mechaton dice so I'm thinking of using D6's)

The Narrator narrates from where the scene was left off, either following along with The Abuser, or Communities stated goal, or a third unstated path if a player won. The Declarer will declare the traits that will be added to the PC's, based on what happened in the scene. This should follow the narration, but can be twisted a bit based on stance.

Example:

The Abuser narrates a scene where the PC's are in a hunting party and come across two young boys caught up in mutual sexual gratification. He then states that he wants the PC's to stab them with their spears, bash their heads in anger, and spread their brains all across the clearing, and place their hands in each others pants so the other children will know this is not acceptable behavior. The Abuser states The Community wants the PC's to separate the boys and to keep them separate so they can't behave in this manner. So the players choices are between those two options and a third option that should not lie between those two, narration, and declaration.

So Narration shouldn't need a lot of explanation, so let's hit declaration. Let's say the Abuser won, a player (character B) Narrated, and now a third player is declaring. Say the narration was one player (character A) did the Abusers dirty work, while the rest stood there stunned. The declarer could state the player who did the dirty work gained the trait, "I will do whatever it takes to defend the community", or they could state the player gained the trait,"Sometimes The Abuser controls me," or some other option. The Declarer might state the players who were not involved gain the trait, "I'm scared of character A." Also notice how the narrator can use narration to protect themselves from being the agent of The Abusers winning condition.

The second part of the game is where a character discovers their voice, which causes the position to shift such that The Abuser will have rules about when The Abuser is allowed to talk and the declared traits will be able to be used in the game. This part isn't thought out much yet.

So what I would like to discuss is:

• What problems may occur as resolution is outside the realm of normal conflict resolution.
• Problems that occur since a player can win but might not get to narrate
• General feedback or questions on color/setting or procedure
• Questions to clarify what I'm describing... on reading this post I'm fairly sure I'm leaving holes in the description.

What I don't want to discuss:

• Mechanics ideas.

The use of childern and "abuser" seem IMHO to be to much. This seems to feel like child abuse.

Hi Aussigamer,

I can respect that you feel that way. The game is about examining the silence that society inflicts on people who have been molested and raped like myself, and what that silence does to us. My hope is for people to feel uncomfortable. Thanks for being honest about how it makes you feel.

Hi Clyde--I'm glad to see this project unfolding.

First, clarification questions:

There seem to be three basic roles in every scene.  Does this mean that no more than three players are ever participating in one scene?  Or does it mean that no more than two players (Abuser/Community as one player; child as another) are ever part of one scene?  Or is there some other arrangement that I'm not quite seeing?

I'm a little unclear how the children frame their third opportunity.  Again, following from the above question, is it one child per scene that gets to 'take point' on that, with others aiding or not aiding?  Is there some mechanical element involved in determining how chidren frame?

Just to be clear--Can a child player who narrates basically tell another child player that their character did something terrible during a scene as a result of the abuser's win?

My first response to color / setting: I like it.  It's haunting and eerie.  It evokes the claustrophobia of the abusive situation well.  The example you give of play...hmm, I kind of wonder if there might not be a corollary for your game to Ron's recent discussion of the erotic in regard to Bacchanal.  You may want to encourage players to work with their own boundaries, rather than jump into situations like this which are way past their boundaries.  Games that jump right in, well past a player's threshold, seem to encourage players to start treating the game with a certain 'anything goes' over the top black humor, which seems to run counter to the game's underlying goals.

Ian

Clyde I am sorry to read that you have been personal affected like that, but I feel that issues like this need proper therapy.
Though this could be used by those professional persons as a, most likely, great healing tool. I think that this could be also used incorrectly and could lead to more truma (sp!) or be used by those "of a sick mind" for personal gratifaction.

I hope that you are able to step lightly along those very personal lines and come up with that useful tool to aid others.

Rick

Clyde, I'm happy to see this start coming to light.

I don't understand how the dice relate to the players' choices. Can you give a short, concrete example with dice in play? I realize you don't want to discuss mechanics, but it's a game. That's what it's made of. So when you ask,

QuoteWhat problems may occur as resolution is outside the realm of normal conflict resolution.

I need to understand how the resolution really works. In fact, all of your questions are mechanical.

QuoteProblems that occur since a player can win but might not get to narrate

This is dealt with effectively in Prime Time Adventures and Shock: I've never seen it cause problems. What typically happens is that there are really interesting outcomes because the narrator doesn't have in mind what the players had in mind when they called for their stakes. The stakes are resolved, but the details around them are often different.

I'm eager to see this develop.

Rick, Clyde's doing what he has to do. Fretting about hypothetical people hypothetically misusing a yet-hypothetical game isn't really helping Clyde or The Children.

Just pointing out the moral aspects to his idea. In the end he will make it or not, but everyone should be aware of the impact of the things we do on others.

As I said

QuoteI hope that you are able to step lightly along those very personal lines and come up with that useful tool to aid others

Given Clyde's previous posts on the matter, I have confidence in his intentions and will to do good.

Hi Cylde,

Your setting up an examination of what comes next (the bashing in of brains, etc), rather than what came before (what in the heads of the hunting party makes them think of bashing in brains?). Is there something you want the game to look for in what comes next, that you can't find in what came before?

Quote from: Joshua A.C. Newman on September 15, 2006, 02:36:41 AM
Given Clyde's previous posts on the matter, I have confidence in his intentions and will to do good.

I am sure that is intentions are 100% pure and I do hope him the best of luck.

Hey Ian,

The way I am envisioning it, in the first part of the game every player's character will be in each scene, but they will have to struggle to get to either; not have anyone do bad things, describe their and everyone elses actions, or describe how they are effected. It's basically railroading to instill a distaste to their non-verbal unempowered state. Also you can think of the first stage of the game as a extended character creation if that helps you wrap your mind around it.

I'm unclear about your question about framing. That may be my lack of understanding of everything the term framing entails. The Abuser frames the scene and establishes a conflict between The Abuser and The Community. The players then either assist one of those sides, or an unstated side (they can't talk). They also will likely be wanting to win Narration rights and perhaps Declaration rights.

If the Abuser wins and a player wins narration the player who wins narration can indeed say another child did the bad act, or that all the children did the bad act, or some combination thereof.

I'll read the thread you cite. I might have read it already. Anyway my example was purposely extra brutal to judge the reaction it receives. I don't see the game starting at a place quite like that, but I might go to places like that as the players get close to gaining their voice. I also think that not talking is likely to strongly combat the black humor tendency, but that's all words at this point.

Let me know if I've left anything unclear.

Hi Rick,

My personal experience is that professional help was not very helpful for me. I also want to make clear that you should not feel uneasy about challenging what I'm doing, or saying. I don't want my prior abuse to be seen as a verbal club used to silence dissension. The whole point of the game for me is a creative way to try to induce conversation about these issues as it is my belief that secrecy and silence greatly exacerbates the problem. If when the game is done you still feel uneasy about the game I would heartily encourage you to state that to anyone you might talk to about it. That would still be accomplishing my goal of increasing open discussion of these issues.

Clyde--

Okay, now I'm starting to get it.  I hadn't quite processed how far the 'no child talks' injunction went.  Calling it an extended character creation helped me out, fwiw.  Let me see if we are on the same page before I ask anything else:

The only way for a *player* (who is not GM) to talk during this time is for them to win narration or declaration rights.  And they cannot speak while the GM describes the two options, only rearrange their dice to indicate what they are supporting.  The third alternative is literally unknown until whoever wins narration rights actually narrates it.

Ian

Hi Joshua,

The reason I didn't want to discuss mechanics is I can't, or we don't mean the same things by mechanics. I am writing this like a computer programmer and this is pseudocode stage. To translate; I'm setting up how I see the procedure and later I will write the code or mechanics. I'm not doing this deliberately that's just how my brain has been working. I may be able to explain better though.

What I want to do is to set up a struggle between not doing bad things, and protecting oneself, or others. Not doing bad things is achieved by beating The Abuser, and to a lesser extent The Community. Protecting oneself or others can be done through Narration or Declaration. The players should have limited but flexible resources that allow them to get one or if lucky two of those options. The reason I mentioned dice colors is because the players will use the colors to signal what they are doing, so they don't need to talk. I should have mentioned the colors only and not the dice to avoid confusion. At this point it could be poker chips or colored sheets of paper. Is this helpful to you understanding?

There is one difference I imagine between Shock, Prime Time Adventures (haven't got to read either yet), and Silence Keeps Me A Victim, in that the player hasn't stated any stakes or intention. The only thing that's really indicated by their trying to "win" is that they want a third option. This is what I was wondering about causing problems.

The other thing I was worried about is Declaration is outside of normal conflict resolution. The idea seems to work fine in my head but there may be something I'm missing. I hope those two paragraphs better state my worries.

Quote from: Isbo on September 15, 2006, 09:42:31 AM
The only way for a *player* (who is not GM) to talk during this time is for them to win narration or declaration rights.  And they cannot speak while the GM describes the two options, only rearrange their dice to indicate what they are supporting.  The third alternative is literally unknown until whoever wins narration rights actually narrates it.

Yes, exactly right Ian.

That sounds powerful.  So, to get to your questions about how this might look in play, if it might run into problems.  I'm going to start talking, saying what assumptions seem to be at work as I go.  Tell me when I go astray.

Since talking is already strongly limited in play, it seems like you don't want players to be calling BS on a player's declaration (although if you did, I imagine there might be some nonverbal signal that could be worked in), nor do you want to have the Abuser with that veto power since they already have so much power right now.  Let me imagine this in as pointed a fashion as I can: 

Player 1 has just one narration rights for an unspoken third option.  They describe how their Child and Player 2's Child help the two boys escape from the other Children trying to follow the abuser's orders and finds a safe place for them.  Player 2 uses declaration rights to give Player 1's child the trait "You hate children who eat apples." 

It could even be that player 1 and player 2 are the same player and that would not necessarily alter the example.

Now, player 1 can't say anything--narration and declaration are over.  The other players, who think this is just silly, also can't say anything.  The abuser can't say anything about that because this is the one place where the player actually has authority in this part of the game.  Now, assuming that player 2 really thinks this is a cool declaration and is not just screwing around, it seems there might be a disconnect.  And, in theory, there are less silly declarations that might still have the 'not right' feel. 

Do you want some instructions/rules that keep players from declaring anything at all?  Something that keeps them tied to what was narrated?  The more you disconnect narration from declaration, the more vulnerable the narrator is.  That not getting declaration rights still leaves you very vulnerable, probably even encouraging you to (try to) narrate in a way that might please the one with declaration rights...whoah, that sounds about right, actually, in terms of getting to the power of silence.

That frustration at not being able to call BS, not being able to say 'but this isn't a good declaration,' could be just as much a part of the process in which the children feel truly voiceless.  Still, I think there might be some risk in that department.

(although, for the record, the more I talk about it here, the more amazing that distinction between narration and declaration, declaration and conflict, seems...that disconnect may just be perfect for your aims.  Even as I typed out a 'silly' example, I could see it being 'right' in its own way.)

Quote from: ClydeThere is one difference I imagine between Shock, Prime Time Adventures (haven't got to read either yet), and Silence Keeps Me A Victim, in that the player hasn't stated any stakes or intention. The only thing that's really indicated by their trying to "win" is that they want a third option. This is what I was wondering about causing problems.

Ah, I see.

Yeah, I do see a problem there. Because of your very tight narration restrictions, there's no room for the bullshit rule. That means that there has to be some other, mechanically enforced, limit to what can be said by non-Abusers.

Here's what I think should happen.

Quote from: Hypothetical SetupThe Abuser is played by one person.

The Community is played by another.

Everyone else plays Kids.

The Abuser wants one thing and retains resources by achieving it (we can worry about specifics later.) I say "retains" because there's a pacing thing here where the Kids eventually find their voices and take power.

The Community wants another thing and either gains or retains resources by achieving it. I suspect Community will always be a power in the Kids' lives, so maybe it doesn't run out of marbles.

The Kids want a third thing, but that's already under discussion.

What happens here is that the Abuser is not put in the position of coming up with Something Bad and then Something Not As Bad. The Abuser can go in, barrels blazing. Community is likewise enforcing silence with all their might. Their power should be limited by mechanics, not by aesthetics.

So: let's say the Abuser gets to Narrate or Declare. Each time one of those happens, the Abuser loses a goodie and you move closer to the next phase, where the Kids have a voice.

Let's say Community gets goodies from backing the Kids or the Abuser and can change their mind from conflict to conflict about which to back.

So, let's say four people are playing. One is the Abuser, one is the Community, and two are the Kids. The Abuser sets up a situation:

Quote from: AbuserYou're hunting a rabbit and you come across these boys jerking each other off. I'll give a goodie to the player who kills them and leaves them as a message to the other boys.

Quote from: CommunityAnd my die will come down on the side of the player who hushes this up, who convinces the boys to never so much as look at each other again.

Dice fly. (I'm thinking that the Abuser doesn't get to roll Narration or Declaration dice, or if he does, rolls fewer, making it less likely that they'll get Narr or Dec. The Community doesn't roll dice at all as long as their Narr and Dec dice go to the Kid(s) who took their bribe.)

Let's say one of the Kids wins Nar. If it was the Kid who took the bribe, they have to narrate how they hushed this up, probably playing it out with the Community playing other people in the community. The other Kid(s) don't have a part to play.

Let's say one of the Kids wins Dec. That player then gets to assign Community goodies to themselves and to the other Kids at their whim. Community goodies are the amount that the Community can help you.

Now, let's say a Kid wins the conflict by getting to make stuff up. I think there should be a list of effects. Mechanically, I think they can give the Abuser and/or Community have greater bribing power in the future (which gets narrated), or perhaps they can give the Kids an ability to support each other. They can also give Kids regular Narr and Dec dice. (I think I'm seeing there being Narration and Declaration dice, and that's all.)

I think that by giving mechanical outcomes, you'll be able to sufficiently restrict the fictional content to what's relevant. I could be wrong. Maybe the chart will have to have a list of things you can say; "We escape without doing anything. We join in the situation. We take aggressive action to change the situation." That kind of thing. Frankly, I think that's harder and probably less satisfying.

Now!

Something just hit me. At a certain point, if players have been Declaring each others (and their own) bribability, they eventually become a potential resource for the Abuser and the Community. They may also have enough of their own dice that this is not an issue. I think that, once a Kid has more Abuser dice than the Abuser, the Kid gets to start bribing the Abuser and the Community back. If the Abuser has a goal (and I think they should), they won't take the bribe unless it's interesting to them. So the Kid becomes abusive to get those dice. Likewise, if the Kid has more dice than the Community, they can start bribing the Community. Only by walking the tightrope and following the difficult path of using your own dice can you break out of this, and there has to always be hope that these Kid-Abuser/Community bribes can lead to more Kid dice.

I'm not entirely certain how this post holds together; I was obviously thinking this up as I went. Please let me know what didn't make sense if you care about it.

Quote from: Callan S. on September 15, 2006, 02:46:53 AM
Hi Cylde,

Your setting up an examination of what comes next (the bashing in of brains, etc), rather than what came before (what in the heads of the hunting party makes them think of bashing in brains?). Is there something you want the game to look for in what comes next, that you can't find in what came before?

Hi Callan,

I put off your replying to your post so I could give it more thought. Unfortunately I'm still not understanding exactly what you are asking. Could you expand on your question, or restate what you are asking? Hopefully that will drive my blockage out.

Hi Joshua and Ian,

You are both right. BS was a blind spot. Thanks for pointing it out. Narration guidelines is something I intend to add, but haven't gotten it worked out yet. At this point I'm not too worried about them, but B.S. definitely needs some thought.

Joshua, I had considered splitting The Abuser and The Community originally but I'd have to go GM-less to do so for playtesting as I have two playtesters I trust enough to playtest this game. I considered GM-less at first but was dissatisfied as there would be too many people who could talk. Also I read Michael Millers article in Daedulus (http://tinyurl.com/epdtm) about running My Life With Master and that sold me on making The Abuser a dedicated part.

The Mask and Voice attributes work similar to your idea Joshua. My present thinking is Mask adds to what the players "roll" if they decide to help the community, as their masks reinforce community. I also realize that I forgot to mention in my color explanation that the children all wear bright masks after their voice is stolen. The masks contrast with their general loss of color as they stay colorful and unfaded. Voice adds to Narration or Declaration I'm thinking, but each time it's used Mask is weakened by one. My thought is that characters gaining their voice are also weakening their community. If they win Narration or Declaration when using Voice, they add to their voice. At some point their voice total will indicate they have regained their voice, and the game will shift to phase two which I haven't given a lot of thought to yet except that it will be harder for The Abuser to talk until The Abuser can't talk any longer.

Also Joshua thanks for writing out how you see things. Your ideas about "rolling" with the abuser made me realize that I was mistaken to include siding with the abuser as an option. I think your ideas would lead to coolness but it's not what I'm going for. The way I see the game playing out in my mind is something like this:

• Characters struggle to protect themselves from The Abuser. (The Abuser may be most strong here I'm not sure yet.) The Community is able to protect itself from direct assault from The Abusers minions.
• Characters begin to learn of their inner strength and their voice begins to build. The Community starts to suffer a bit from direct attack from The Abuser's minions.
• Characters are close to regaining their voice. The Abuser is most abusive here with the most severe stakes perhaps like my example. The community suffers from the minions, and the PC's if the PC's lose to The Abuser.
• Someone regains their voice. The game turns over to the players hands and they set the pace. I am thinking I will try to make it so mechanically they will need to rebuild The Community before a final showdown with The Abuser. The players may lose the advantage of using Voice for Narration and Declaration at this point, but they can start working in the traits they got from previous declarations.

So what I'm seeing is more towards group mentality for players, with maybe some chances there could be some interesting but not lethal conflict that stems from when they are the least powerful and are trying to protect themselves.

Hi!
  Well, I think a factor you are missing is what keeps the Children from using their voice. The reality is that many people that were aused as children never do find their voice. One phenomenon I have heard of is protecting the sibs. Sort of a gruesome version of jumping on the grenade. There is also a fear that they won't be believed (often times a well founded fear). As well as the possibility that using the voice will make matters worse (and often times it does). I think you need to almost set it up so that the abuser s most likely to win. To sort of instill hat desperation, you know?
  I dunno if I said that with enough sensitivity, but I wanted to be sure you understood what I meant. PM me if I wasn't clear enough or if you have any questions.
  Also, from a purely mechanical stand point, I feel like the Narration rights are diminished by the existance of seperate declaration rights. If the declaror gets to decide what events actually take place, what does the narrator get to do?
  Sounds like you know what you want from this game. I know its gotta be gut wrenching, but it might do some good...

Hi Dave,

You make good points about some of the reasons children stay silent, and about how many/most/some never find their voice. However, I don't want the game to be about how reality is but maybe to show how it could be. I really want the children to win, but for that to meaningful I realize the best chance I can give them is even odds.

I'm not too worried about sensitivity, so don't worry, and understand you fine I think.

I also may not have explained Declaration well enough. Declaration is deciding the effect the narration has on the NPC's, not what takes place. It's basically assigning traits for later use in the game. To give a kind of example. The children are in a hunting party and come across a strange animal they haven't seen before. Let's say the Narration ends up that the children kill the strange animal and cut it open to examine it and find that the animal was pregnant and there are a bunch of dead babies inside. The Declarer would decide the meaning of that. So they could declare the children are good protectors of their community who ferret out even small threats, or they could state the children feel bad about dead children as they aren't that different from us.

So what I'm calling Narration in this game is a statement of what happens. Declaration is how the Children feel about it after the fact. Is that a better explanation?

This seems like an awesome idea.

Clyde, I'm think of Voice and Mask as pools of dice the players allocate their bids from. Is this correct? If so then are you restricting them to choosing between the two pools, or can they mix and match?

I feel that they should be the former. The Children should either be trying to find their Voice or hiding further behind the Mask whenever they bid. I also see the Voice starting a lot less than the Mask, with some mechanical effect happening when Voice equals or exceeds Mask. (Like the player being able to talk.)

It might be poignant if the Community was trying to reinforce the Mask and stifle the Voice. That way there is a negative aspect of suppporting the Community option as compared to the Abuser option. I also wonder if there should be some positive mechanic for taking the Abuser option, as otherwise I can't see any reason why a Child would ever invest dice in the Abuser option, and it would just become a roll off between Children's dice in Community and third way options, and the Abuser's dice in Abuser Option.

I also wonder how this will work if the players can see each others bids. After all, if I see that another Child has put a lot of points in the third way option, I can breathe a mental sigh of relief that we're not going with the Abuser or the Community, and put my stakes into declaration or narration. Either this should be made a feature, for example, the Abuser gets to choose the order in which people bid, or the Children should be bidding in secret.

How are you planning on involving the traits the Declarer gets to add? Why would the Declarer ever want to assign one of their fellow children a negative trait?

I feel kind of rude talking about mechanics when you haven't mentioned them, but let me write down how I am seeing this game playing in my head, then you can correct me on where I'm wrong.

I see the Children with two pools of dice, different colours for Mask and Voice. I see them with a picture of a brightly coloured mask in front of them. The picture is separated into five areas, colour coded to represent Abuser option, Community option, Third Option, Narration and Declaration.

The Abuser sets a scene and outlines the outcome they favour. The Community outlines the outcome they favour. The Abuser chooses a player to bid, and then another and another until all the players have bid.

When it is their turn to bid the Players choose whether to bid with Mask or Voice. They allocate the dice of the respective scores between the five areas on the picture of the mask. When everyone has allocated dice the Community gets to give out some extra dice. Then everyone rolls, and whoever rolls highest in each area wins in that area.

I'll stop now until you have a chance to comment, but I have some ideas on how the stats should go up and down and the like.

I hate to say it, Clyde, but your reasoning for bunching up the Community and Abuser isn't a good one, from a design standpoint. I don't know that separate roles are necessary, but your rules so far really imply that they are, and not having three other people to playtest with is a concern of practicality, not game quality.

Quote from: Tim M RalphsI feel that they should be the former. The Children should either be trying to find their Voice or hiding further behind the Mask whenever they bid. I also see the Voice starting a lot less than the Mask, with some mechanical effect happening when Voice equals or exceeds Mask. (Like the player being able to talk.)

Twice now, possible mechanics here have reminded me of Keep Cool (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/14698). There's an interesting mechanic here that I'll try to explain briefly:

Keep Cool is about balancing economic, political, and ecological goals. You represent and economy, like the US or OPEC. The world ecology is represented by a stack of counters, which, as the stack gets lower, the environmental impact of events gets greater. Typically, an economy starts with a couple of Black factories, which generate their economic income at the expense of the environment. Typically, you want to have Green factories, which generate income without effecting the world ecology. So what happens is that the world starts on this self-perpetuating collaps as players try to get enough money to even make the sacrifice to get Green factories. Eventually, though, they're getting enough income that they can start building Green and first reducing, then eliminating, their Black factories.

The reason this doesn't happen from turn one is that everyone has contrary goals. No one's only goal is to not crash the ecology. Some players want to sell protection (a mechanic in the game) so they might want the world to get bad enough that everyone has to buy it. Others might have a goal of a certain number of Black factories in the world, or a certain number of Greens. These goals are hidden from other players, so while the other players know certain goals (the economic goals are public), they don't know others (the political).

What happens is that there's often a scrambling crash at the beginning of the game as the ecology collapses; storms, draughts, and pestillence become more and more severe as players build their economies to the points that a) can satisfy their political goals and b) invest in Green factories. Then, as Green factories becomes cheaper, they become the most viable option and the game starts to turn around.

Note that, as a boardgame, there's no GM; this opposition is provided mechanically through the use of random card draws of disasters on each player's turn, and the severity of these disasters is determined by the players' choices.

There's a great logistical benefit to not requiring a GM (or two, as I proposed): the game requires fewer people to play. So if it's just you and a friend, you can still play. With a game that has such intimate subject matter, you may want to consider if that is a significant design concern.

Hi Tim,

Yes, Mask and Voice will be something that gets allocated. I think it's likely that it will be dice but that depends on what I do for mechanics. Your idea matches mine that they will only be able to use either Voice or Mask and not both, and Mask will start at a higher value and decrease and Voice will start lower and get more powerful. I'm not sure yet how I want to mark when a characters voice returns.

You are right about The Community, I mean for it to totally be a different figure of oppression. Just less so, but to have it be a tempting option to use to stave off The Abuser's goals. So supporting The Community is the easy win. If someone supports community it is likely to be the winner. Your idea about The Community stifling the characters voice is really cool. I've been thinking of it that way but until you stated it I hadn't thought of using a mechanic, it was all color. My intial thought is that a community win will raise your Mask and lower your Voice, but I really need to give it more thought.

Also I'm removing the option to support The Abuser. I think the game is dark enough, and I want the characters to be victims and not finding power in embracing the Dark-side. I have a companion game planned for that. I want the game to be about overcoming victimhood in a positive way.

I hadn't thought of problems that could occur when everyone can see each others bids. That was a blind spot, thanks for pointing it out. I also really like the idea of The Abuser making some decisions about the "dice." I will have to figure out a way to use that idea. Whoa, just had one off the top of my head. Maybe The Abuser allocates some "dice" first and then chooses the children, and then perhaps can steal just a couple "dice" from the childrens bids.

Quote from: Tim M Ralphs on September 18, 2006, 05:40:05 AM
How are you planning on involving the traits the Declarer gets to add? Why would the Declarer ever want to assign one of their fellow children a negative trait?

That totally blindsided me. You are right, and I have no answer for why the children would add negative traits. I know why The Abuser would, but not the children. I definately have to turn that around in my head some.

As to the rest of your post. It sounds like those things could work, but I'm not really looking at mechanics/randomization yet. After I get how I want the procedure to go, then I'm going to try to do some math to find a randomization or non random method to use to do everything.

Hi Joshua,

Quote from: Joshua A.C. Newman on September 18, 2006, 08:54:21 AM
I hate to say it, Clyde, but your reasoning for bunching up the Community and Abuser isn't a good one, from a design standpoint. I don't know that separate roles are necessary, but your rules so far really imply that they are, and not having three other people to playtest with is a concern of practicality, not game quality.

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected, and will give thought to The Community as a separate GM/player.

However, Keep Cool sounds like good fodder and I'm going to have to talk to my spielfreak buddy and see if he can find me a cheap copy. I don't see this as being a game that's good for a large group and I don't think it will have a lot of replay value, so gearing it for as few people as possible is a good tactic I think. Cutting out The Abuser might help to make the game harsher and let me "be there" as a player to help deal with the issues, rather than being a personal abuser. At the very least it's worthy of thought.

Hi Tim,

I forgot in my reply to you to mention I'm planning on buying Masks and thinking about having the players paint them as "character creation."

Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on September 18, 2006, 09:27:11 AM
You are absolutely right. I stand corrected, and will give thought to The Community as a separate GM/player.

Yeah, but be that as it may:

Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on September 18, 2006, 09:27:11 AM
However, Keep Cool sounds like good fodder and I'm going to have to talk to my spielfreak buddy and see if he can find me a cheap copy. I don't see this as being a game that's good for a large group and I don't think it will have a lot of replay value, so gearing it for as few people as possible is a good tactic I think. Cutting out The Abuser might help to make the game harsher and let me "be there" as a player to help deal with the issues, rather than being a personal abuser. At the very least it's worthy of thought.

... I think this is the stronger direction to go.

I would be curious (sincerely) to hear how removing the Abuser could allow you to be more harsh.  From my perspective, a less explicitly brutal option when offered by a (real) person is much more powerful than a brutal option generated by some other means.  I would also be curious as to what sort of mechanic would provide the harshness.

If you do keep both Abuser and Community as a role, I have some hesitation about seeing them split up.  First, together, you have the two firmly fixed as things that stifle--the complicity vividly embodied in their being played by one player.  Second, it means that you start having two people talking, which means it gets a little less silent. 

On the flip side, it does get us a little closer to the difficult two-parent dynamic found in many abusive situations.  I guess a lot of this really depends on what happens in the other phases--what roles will the community and abuser have in the following scenes?  Enough to justify the division of labor? 

If you either split the roles or remove the abuser as a player role, will the abuser / abuser mechanic be able to hurt or injure the community?  That small choice feels like it could have a profound impact on how the game plays.

Let me suggest one answer to this question: "Why declare a negative description as the rules stand?"  Well, imagine this position: Abuser wins, child player has to narrate.  That player narrates in a way that most of the badness is in the hands of other players.  Later on, the player who 'had' to do the bad thing will remember that, will at least *think* of declaring to punish that.  I think playtesting will be pretty important in this game since it really depends upon evoking certain emotional responses among its players.

Again, this seems to raise a question about what happens after this phase--what sort of impact does declaration or narration in this phase have on later play?  Those things will guide how the players use them in the early phase. 

One interesting thing about not trying to limit the BS: it creates the sort of frustration which could feed the progress of the game, encourage little cruelties. 

Do the Children have names?  It just seems like there could be something really powerful about being called out by name, by the abuser or community, if it is your task to narrate or declare for their victory.

*If* you have *absolutely no* interest in replay value--have you thought about making ignorance of the game's rules a pre-req for Child players?  Only mediated for them through the Community / Abuser? 

Quote from: Isbo on September 18, 2006, 10:58:03 AMI would be curious (sincerely) to hear how removing the Abuser could allow you to be more harsh.

It removes the conflation of Abuser with the player with that role.

Quote from: LsboFrom my perspective, a less explicitly brutal option when offered by a (real) person is much more powerful than a brutal option generated by some other means.

That's because the harshness is personal, between the players, and not within the fiction.

Quote from: LsboIf you do keep both Abuser and Community as a role, I have some hesitation about seeing them split up.  First, together, you have the two firmly fixed as things that stifle--the complicity vividly embodied in their being played by one player.  Second, it means that you start having two people talking, which means it gets a little less silent. 

... but they're able to work for their own means. If they're in one person, that person has to think of the worst thing that can happen, and then they have to think of something else, too. By boxing these up into separate interested parties, they can concentrate on their unique brands of horrible.

QuoteOn the flip side, it does get us a little closer to the difficult two-parent dynamic found in many abusive situations.  I guess a lot of this really depends on what happens in the other phases--what roles will the community and abuser have in the following scenes?  Enough to justify the division of labor?  If you either split the roles or remove the abuser as a player role, will the abuser / abuser mechanic be able to hurt or injure the community?  That small choice feels like it could have a profound impact on how the game plays.

That's a good question. Having distinct jobs for them to do in terms of setting up situations, for instance, would distinguish them well, and defining their interests in each other would solidify their natures well.

Quote from: LsboLet me suggest one answer to this question: "Why declare a negative description as the rules stand?"  Well, imagine this position: Abuser wins, child player has to narrate.  That player narrates in a way that most of the badness is in the hands of other players.  Later on, the player who 'had' to do the bad thing will remember that, will at least *think* of declaring to punish that.  I think playtesting will be pretty important in this game since it really depends upon evoking certain emotional responses among its players.

This is dealt with in Under the Bed via color, rather than mechanics. You're required, as Opposition, to give the hardest mechanical challenge possible. The meaning, however, of that challenge is completely up to the Opposition player. You have three dice; what they mean is up to you, and the dice used by the Toy are determined by player creativity and the Bullshit Rule.

So I think the thing to do is, make it so you have to make it hard, mechanically. Maybe you can hand out one goodie to someone including yourself and one yucky to someone else.

Quote*If* you have *absolutely no* interest in replay value--have you thought about making ignorance of the game's rules a pre-req for Child players?  Only mediated for them through the Community / Abuser? 

This is a mechanic to encourage rules abuse, which, while thematically consistent, means that none of the other rules matter.

Can I first say how impressed I am with this idea? I don't know if I could bring myself to play it (or more pertinently, if I could bring my friends to play it), but I applaud it. It makes my own tired political rantings look positively uninspired.

Quote from: Joshua A.C. Newman on September 18, 2006, 11:17:18 AM

Quote from: LsboFrom my perspective, a less explicitly brutal option when offered by a (real) person is much more powerful than a brutal option generated by some other means.

That's because the harshness is personal, between the players, and not within the fiction.

I can see that.

This sounds like a powerful - and potentially hugely therapeutic concept. It needs a hell of a lot of trust to work, though, doesn't it? I mean, if, like Clyde, the players of the game have suffered at the hands of abusers in the past, they will need to be safe in the context of the game.

Clyde, this is probably a really stupid, obvious, "duh" question, but have you thought about introducing a "safeword" convention as standard?

Quote

Quote from: LsboIf you do keep both Abuser and Community as a role, I have some hesitation about seeing them split up.  First, together, you have the two firmly fixed as things that stifle--the complicity vividly embodied in their being played by one player.  Second, it means that you start having two people talking, which means it gets a little less silent. 

... but they're able to work for their own means. If they're in one person, that person has to think of the worst thing that can happen, and then they have to think of something else, too. By boxing these up into separate interested parties, they can concentrate on their unique brands of horrible.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not clear on one point, though: Clyde, the original intention is to have a GM and a Community/Abuser (one or two), right?

If there are two players in these roles, why not simply have the Community and the Abuser instead of the GM? As someone said, they're going to be setting up situations. Why not have them collude, good cop/bad cop style (which, as someone suggested, is like a difficult two-parent dynamic) on the story? Or have them take  turns? Or have a mechanic allowing one to take the reins as "GM" from the other with their agenda as central?

Quote*If* you have *absolutely no* interest in replay value--have you thought about making ignorance of the game's rules a pre-req for Child players?  Only mediated for them through the Community / Abuser? 

This is a mechanic to encourage rules abuse, which, while thematically consistent, means that none of the other rules matter.

Quote

Hmm. Yeah. And doesn't the psychological action of recovering from abuse/being damaged by it depend upon "learning rules"?

You know, f'rexample, like the kid being hit around who always seems to cling to or demand the attention of the abusive parent? Or, f'rexample, like the bullied kid (and I speak from experience here) who knows that he cannot talk about some things in the same way that others among his contemporaries can because he doesn't have the social permission to do so?

Either way, the abused individual learns the rules of society. In the same way, the "Child" player of the game gets to learn the ins and outs of the game as it goes on.

Hi!
  I think that the Abuser, Community and Children need clearly-defined and different goals. So that siding with any of them has "consequences" Throwing in your lot with another child should have a risk, as should supporting the community, etc.
  Also, Maybe you should treat Voice like a slot machine. the Player decides that their character is using their Voice, he pays out his token, dice, what have you. Then, when all is rsolved, there is a payout of more Voice. so that using the voice a gamble. Maybe most times there is no payout, but sometimes there is a BIG payout. To make it work for you, you just have to massage the odds to match your view of the game's setting.
  So, to tie those two ideas together, maybe the Abuser wants to keep the Children's Voice down and the Community wants to keep the Mask up. Give them a way to accomplish this during a conflict. Like maybe the Abuser has a rating and that effects the odds of Voice paying out. And community has a mechanic that allows the character to use Mask without losing it?
  Just a few thoughts, hope you find them helpful!

Clyde--

This conversation still going where you want it to?  Looking back over it, I have some fear we may be drifting away from the sort of feedback you need and/or want at this stage.  I just want to touch base with you before saying anything more.

--Ian

Hey Ian,

I plan to respond to what's left, and see what happens, but I won't have the time until tomorrow.

Hi Ian,

You are right a person delivering something can make something more harsh than say a card. What I meant by harsh is that it would be easier to create harder things to deal with in the fiction. I think taking on the role of The Abuser would be hard. So there's a benefit and disadvantage in The Abuser as envisioned now and it's the same as GM Fiat. The quality of the game will depend on one person. This means you could have someone run superb games, and someone else could just bite it. Some other system could create a more consistant experience, but perhaps not as good as a good abuser. So it seems to be a series of ranges to look at. Another system could also alleviate a worry that has recently occurred to me is that someone could use The Abuser role to actually abuse people.

I can't answer most of your questions about spitting or not splitting The Abuser or The Community. I think I need to examine both options and decide on a path. Presently I'm leaning towards keeping it like it is but Keep Cool is intriguing.

Do the children have names? I've been of two minds, either they have a secret hidden name in their heart, or they create their name as their first order of business on gaining their voice. System-wise it works out the same.

Now for my comment about replayability. It's not that I don't care about replayability, it's that I don't see the game as being something folks will replay a lot. I think the strength of the idea is the experience, and the personal nature of the game. I don't think folks will need to repeat it a lot to get my heavyhanded message. Also replayability is not a factor I'm going to concern myself with as there are many other elements that trump replayability in my mind.

Hi Wood,

I have indeed considered a "Safe Word." I'm trying to model the game more after games that don't give you the ability to check someone else's fiction due to discomfort, because discomfort is what I'm looking to create. However due to the nature of what the game is addressing I am including the option. So the way I see it working is at anytime someone can say "Stop." Then the game is over.

The original intention is to have an abuser/community who is the G.M.

Also to clear up what it seems like folks are getting from my posts so far. I'm not modeling the game on being a cathartic experience for people who have suffered abuse. My goal is to put people who haven't been abused into a position of silence to bring across the point that societies inability to talk about molestation and rape without going nut-so, creates a significant harm for the victims. One that is not as dramatic as the abuse, but a harm never-tha-less. The game might also be cathartic but that isn't my main goal.

Hi Everyone,

I'd like to drop the discussion between my original design versus the Keep Cool idea. I'll make a decision after giving it some thought. What I would like to do is to give folks a chance to make any closing statements, or point out any holes, or ask other general questions, before I close the thread in a day or two, so I can get back to work. This thread has been incredibly productive for me and I'd like to thank everyone for their input.

Clyde, I look forward to the next iteration of this project.

Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on September 20, 2006, 09:53:26 AM
Also to clear up what it seems like folks are getting from my posts so far. I'm not modeling the game on being a cathartic experience for people who have suffered abuse. My goal is to put people who haven't been abused into a position of silence to bring across the point that societies inability to talk about molestation and rape without going nut-so, creates a significant harm for the victims. One that is not as dramatic as the abuse, but a harm never-tha-less. The game might also be cathartic but that isn't my main goal.

So you're trying to get across some feeling of what it is like to be abused? Wow.

Hi Wood,

I think it would be more accurate to say I'm trying to get across what it feels like to have something you need to say but can't.

Right. Gotcha.

I suppose my concern is how you're going to balance the simulation* of that awful, awful feeling with the needs of a game that people are going to want to play?

______________________
*I don't mean in a theory sense. Please don't hurt me.

If people are willing to watch Fanny and Alexander (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083922/), they'll be willing to play this, and for similar reasons.

Sad movies and stories are good, you know.

This is precisely the reason I've always said that "fun" is a red herring in RPGs. The defining feature is if play satisfies the players. Sometimes that's because it's fun. Sometimes it's because of something gnarlier.

Hi Wood,

*laughs* I won't take that as theory speak.

The not being able to talk about abuse is nowhere near as bad as the repercussions of the abuse. However it can make healing much more difficult and prevents a feeling of normalization. At least this has been my experience. The goal is not to cause an authentic experience of the same magnitude. I'm seeing the game as a giant finger pointing towards the problem. It's dark, and may not be happy fun, but like Josha says it could be satisfying.

Oh, I get you. But then, I didn't mention fun, Joshua did. In fact, I just watched Battle Royale this afternoon, which is not what you'd call light entertainment, and yet which I'd watch again.

Not that your game is at all like Battle Royale, although one could see the scenario from that particular film inserted into your game with ease, what with an abusive authority figure inciting children to murder each other and stuff. But yeah, I suppose I'm saying that you can make people want to experience something harrowing (intelligent, sensitive people, anyway), but that there's a thin line between an educational, powerful experience and a straight sermon, or, worse, "a cavalcade of anger and fear"* with little else thrown in.

Not that I'm saying for a second that your game would necessarily even get close to these two failings. Just saying I'm interested what kind of approach you'll be taking to avoid them.

___________________
*That's a quote from a song about familial abuse, funnily enough.

Well, I'm looking forward to see what comes next.  Only one thing jumps out at me in regards to the safeword.  I don't expect you to have an answer at this stage, but I thought I would put the seed in your head:

What about having something shy of a full stop?  In the early stage, it could be as simple as a gesture that indicates 'this is making me squirm' and another that says 'flirting with me saying stop.'  The first one might benice just so the person narrating knows when they are hitting the right buttons and when they aren't doing a thing.

That sort of goes with the harsh talk--this game seems to have a very potent theatrical element (the not speaking is one big part of it), and a real live abuser seems to better suit that theatrical dimension.  Like all things, that does come with some challenges--I'll be curious to see which path you take and how you hammer that out.

And the rules / replay thing: in my head, I envisioned something a little different than what I managed to express.  It isn't the power of the abuser that I was thinking of but the learning of the children players--imagine those players then going off and running the game for others.  Sort of a 'now you have a spark of understanding, go share it.'  It probably isn't very practical in terms of game design or even game distribution.

Hey, Clyde, have you read Sex and Sorcery (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/product.php/sexsorc.html)? In it, Ron addresses Lsbo's concerns in his typical incisive way.

Hi guys,

Wood: I'm not sure how I'll be getting around making it a sermon. I don't think I'm quite at the level yet, and if it does hit that I'm hoping designing openly will get me feedback if i hit sermon levels.

Ian:I'm leary of giving anything other than the full stop. I can't express why it just doesn't feel right. I also don't understand your last paragraph. I may just be too sleepy.

Joshua:I have not read Sex and Sorcerer. I bought 22 games and Gen Con, and Sorcerer was one of them, but I haven't got through it yet. I'll put Sex and Sorcery into the order I'm making when Dust Devils: Revenged hits IPR.

Clyde, Sex and Sorcery is generally useful for confronting adult issues in games irrespective of its usability in Sorcerer. I can't recommend it highly enough.

I realise that I'm breaking some Forge conventions by dropping into this thread so late but after reading your posts on this and talking about it with some friends who have not been abused I felt I needed to comment.

Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on September 20, 2006, 09:53:26 AM
Also to clear up what it seems like folks are getting from my posts so far. I'm not modeling the game on being a cathartic experience for people who have suffered abuse. My goal is to put people who haven't been abused into a position of silence to bring across the point that societies inability to talk about molestation and rape without going nut-so, creates a significant harm for the victims. One that is not as dramatic as the abuse, but a harm never-tha-less. The game might also be cathartic but that isn't my main goal.

I don't think it will work.  I'm not trying to be deconstructive here, I grasped what you were going for quite a bit earlier in the thread but none of my friends who have not suffered abuse got it.  Their comments were that the rules seem petty, arbitrary, deprotagonizing, and not fun.  I recognize that these are all vital components to trying to put these people who haven't been abused into a similar position of silence and helplessness, but the fact is that it wasn't fun for us in real life and it won't be fun for them to simulate.  I don't see them having fun playing this game, but moreover I don't see them gaining an understanding of what someone who has been abused went though - I see them being pissy because the rules are stupid and I pressured them into playing this game they had reservations about.

If the ultimate purpose of writing this is one of personal healing and empowerment then you have my whole-hearted support in this endevour.  However if what you really want is a way to let other people understand what going through that experience was like, I think that this isn't the solution you are looking for.

I hope that this comes across as supportive rather than bashing as that is my intent.

Sincerely,
-Dan

Dan, it's only supportive if you offer solutions or help in some way. That's pretty much in the definition of "supportive".

Here's why the rules aren't deprotagonizing: while your ability to act at the beginning of the game is hampered, what you're gaining in the course of the story is protagonisthood. The characters start off victims but gain moral agency over the course of the game.

Hi Dan,

No offense is taken. Thanks for your honesty. I definitely don't expect the game to be popular with a large segment of the gaming community. Which is fine. The fact that at such a nascent state you felt compelled to talk to your friends about it is awesome. I'm much more happy about that than if you never play the finished product. Using the game to create conversation I think is one of my most important goals. Whether that's through playing the game or discussing that crazy broken game. It's all good.

I would like to understand further. You say they didn't understand. What does that mean exactly? Can you outline what it was you discussed? Did you explain the game without explaining what it was a metaphor for?

Also to touch on this again. I'm not sure that the game is about fun, at least happy fun, but more about exploration, which I personally consider fun. Exploration is why I play RPG's. If you play for fun i.e. happy fun, I can totally see why you wouldn't want to play this.

Hey Clyde,
Glad to hear you weren't offended.  The idea behind this game really struck a chord with me for a couple of reasons (1) its an incredibly brave idea to put out there given, as you noted in your thoughts about this, how wacky society gets when discussing these issues (2) it takes a dramatically different perspective on what a player can or can not do.  I'm also glad that you recognize that regardless of how stunningly designed the game is that a large portion of roleplayers will never be comfortable playing this.  Of course the fact you are making an indie game in the first place suggests you recognize that a quality product enjoyed by a few is better than one played by everyone but enjoyed by few.

I'll try to give a very brief overview of what I told them about the game and their response.

Mr X.  X is big into sim and likes dissecting systems.  I told him that the concept about a group of children without voices in a fictional setting trying to find navigate between the desires of a powerful abuser and an oppressive community.  I explained the roles of the game and how narrational and declarational power was assigned.  His first comment was that it sounded like it wouldn't be much fun.  After a few minutes of probing I found his major issue was that he felt there would be little to do as a player.  His view was that there would be a time chunk of setting a particular scene, a time chunk of each the abuser and community giving their goal, a brief silent assignment of dice giving him as a player the first chance to do anything other than sit there being unconfortable, some form of presumably silent and quick resolution, a period of narration which he has some chance of getting to do, and a assignment of traits which he has some chance to do.  His opinion was that with a 1 in 4 chance of getting either narration or declaration rights that half the time he would sit through most of a scene and either narrate an outcome he didn't want or have someone else narrate the outcome he did want.   The other half of the time he saw himself going through an entire scene sitting there silently unable to do anything.  His opinion was it was 3 hours of boring and 20 minutes of fun taken to a new level since you didn't even get to pretend you were having fun the rest of the time.  While we discussed it for a bit he maintained his opinion that the game was (too) arbitrarily strict and he disliked how little control he would have  over his character.  He understood that it was a metaphor for how abuse victims feel unable to talk about their experiences but felt that anyone who couldn't understand that in the first place wouldn't figure it out from a game.

Mrs Y.  After hearing me talking about this with Mr. X she asked what we had been discussing.  I gave a brief overview for her.  She didn't like the idea of having virtually no more control over her characters actions than over others or others over hers.  She felt the restrictions on her talking and her ability to control her character were petty and would make the game very little fun.  She didn't see any reason given the structure of the game to actually control any particular character..  She didn't see the metaphor of the game being effective because she had no reason to emotionally invest.

Hope that helps.

-Dan

DAudy, that's critique, and critique is supportive. Rock on.

Clyde, correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of the initial phase of the game is to gain a voice, right? The only way to do that is by acting, correct?

How's this sound for a basic algorithm:

Players start off with very narrow authority: they can choose between options posed by other players.

Each time they make a system-supported good choice, they gain a little bit more authority. Let's say the Abuser gets to give options, but if the players succeed, the Abuser loses authority over that aspect to the player who "won".

The players, when they use their authority, they stand to gain more dice against the will of the Community, but they can also lose their authority to the Community.

The authority that is being risked can be generated by the Abuser, but it will necessarily get more and more narrow as the players gain narrative rights over more and more of the game. Eventually, the Abuser will have this little narrow band of authority, but the players will have enough power that they can make the Abuser irrelevant or otherwise attack them.

... I think there gets to be a certain point where the Community sort of switches sides. I propose that the authority of the Community be tied to "getting with the winning team" in some way. Perhaps the Community awards (or bribes) with dice to effect the outcome and the only way to get those is to side with the winner of a conflict.

Hey Dan,

Thanks for the additional feedback. Churning it around in my head has helped me fill in some unrelated holes. I wonder what your friends reactions would have been if you had sold it as playable character creation where the other players and GM have some say in who your character is and you have some say in who the other characters are. That changes nothing I'm contemplating as far as procedure, it's simply another way to look at the same thing. It's really the way I've been looking at it but I didn't want to muddle things by calling it character creation as I believe that people who don't normally play RPG's might find their way to this game, and I want it to be able to draw them in without too much of the problem that new folks have creating characters. More about the why of that here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21003.15).

I don't think the game will be completely well suited for new folks, but easing folks into character creation fits really well with my other ideas for phase 1 anyway.

So the unrelated hole that I think may be fixed is I know why a child would assign negative traits if they gain declaration authority. My plan for the second phase of the game was for the traits assigned in the first phase to be used to gain "dice", by working them into the fiction as seen in a ton of Indy games, particularly Dogs in the Vineyard, during the second phase. So-- I'm going to split how negative and positive traits can be bid. I'm thinking positive ones will be more defensive in nature, and negative ones will be offensive. What that means specifically I don't know, but procedurally it seems sound, as that should mean that players actually want some negative traits.

Hey Joshua,

You are correct, the idea in the initial phase is to gain a voice. The idea in the second phase is to defeat the abuser and heal the community. The second phase the railroading will stop and players will have more control of the story, it will be like Mountain Witch, but I think more with the players creating obstacles that blunt The Abuser.

I've reread your post a few times and I'm not understanding what you are suggesting. I think I'm hanging on the words authority and aspects. By authority you mean the sense the word is used in RPG theory, as someones control over the SIS that should be spelled out by coherent rules? What you mean by aspects I'm totally missing.

Please bear with me if my responses get a bit slower than they were in the beginning. I'm cutting down on my internet time as I've just gotten some of the fiction people suggested to me, and some reference books.

Quote from: Clyde L. Rhoer on September 28, 2006, 09:09:27 AM
So the unrelated hole that I think may be fixed is I know why a child would assign negative traits if they gain declaration authority. My plan for the second phase of the game was for the traits assigned in the first phase to be used to gain "dice", by working them into the fiction as seen in a ton of Indy games, particularly Dogs in the Vineyard, during the second phase. So-- I'm going to split how negative and positive traits can be bid. I'm thinking positive ones will be more defensive in nature, and negative ones will be offensive. What that means specifically I don't know, but procedurally it seems sound, as that should mean that players actually want some negative traits.

It's not a problem to want negative traits. The idea isn't to make the kids turn out to be shiny good guys, is it?

QuoteI've reread your post a few times and I'm not understanding what you are suggesting. I think I'm hanging on the words authority and aspects. By authority you mean the sense the word is used in RPG theory, as someones control over the SIS that should be spelled out by coherent rules? What you mean by aspects I'm totally missing.

By "aspect" I mean a piece of the fictional situation. So the kid might win authority over Louisa, the baker. Or maybe over the forest. Or over a weekly ritual.

[qoute]Please bear with me if my responses get a bit slower than they were in the beginning. I'm cutting down on my internet time as I've just gotten some of the fiction people suggested to me, and some reference books.

Quote

Conversations can take place at real world time instead of internet time. I applaud your ability to leave the keyboard!

Hey Joshua,

I understand what you mean better now. I think that's an interesting idea as it would slowly constrain The Abuser. I'm not sure how I'd hook that to the pieces I have now. However, I'm already having some other ideas spinning in my head from just glancing over my reference books. I think that means I need to stop and see what those books stir up. So... I want to thank everyone who has helped me by contributing to this thread. It is greatly appreciated.

I'm closing this thread now.

Confirmed: closed.

Best, Ron