[Covenant]Easy situation and less prep

[Matt Machell]

This is a followup to my earlier topic where I wrote about how the game had been in an endless tweak stage and how I was getting out the rut with some solid playtesting, largely revolving around the playtest scenario I had been readying for Conpulsion.

One of the topics Ron brought up there was that there was lots of good stuff bubbling below the surface but that a more solid process needed to be in place to get the most out of it.

I took a long look at how I created the scenario I considered my ideal 1 hours play of the game and how what existed in the text could feed into allowing others to create something similar. My first draft was way too front-loaded, and required lots of GM work, something I didn't want. So I junked that and started thinking about the core dramatic tensions and how they related to the NPCs that the players define as part of cell and character creation.

What I noticed was that I tended to build around a threeway split between what the character cared about, what the society wants and a faction agenda. So, what I needed was to push that more both in character creation and the rules.

The new version of the text can be found here and I'd really like two things:

[Matt Machell]

What the? Weird bit of posting pre thread being ready. Anyway:

What I did was edit down some of the waffly text and try and get to the heart of the matter quicker. The character creation is now streamlined and ties more solidly into my threeway split by gving the player somewhere to map where the various NPCs stand in relation to those needs, along with somewhere to put a faction agenda and current orders.

The Director's section now includes advice on how to take people from those sections and frame appropriate scenes based around them. Thus providing an in-game way of doing what I'd been doing in pre-game prep. Hopefully making the game easier to get into and quicker to run.

New version of the PDF is here and the test charactersheet is here

What I'd like feedback on is two things:

Is there anywhere in the character creation or directing section that feels like it's too wishy-washy, obscures the primary task or is in need of clarification?

I'd also like some folks to give it an unseen playtest.

-Matt

Note: There's also been some rule-tweakery, but I'm less interested in feedback on that.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Matt,

Lettin' you know what I have in mind before I click on the links and check them out: that three-way you mentioned. I'm hoping to see a checklist, or better, a diagram to fill in, that lets the GM set up what he has in mind for all three. Sort of a "Bang chart," if you will.

Now I'll go look.

Best, Ron

[Josh Roby]

I've got a fat load of questions and comments for you.

a) Do all faction agendas relate to the other player characters?  With the exception of one of the San Ching, all of the examples do.  That would be an excellent way to foster lots of interplay and build situation.

b) In characters, rather than list four example concepts, why not make a little table of two lists, styles and foci, and having floundering players pick one from column A and one from column B?  The mix-and-match can create a ton of examples instead of just four.

c) You give sample edges in the Orders, but you could also suggest some in the Factions, too.

d) How do players come up with orders that they've been given to put into their Crucible?

e) Scenes must have an emotional connection to the character -- does every scene need a connection to every character, or at least one?  I have trouble thinking of scenes that will rope in everybody every time, but I've got no problem thinking of scenes that grab one or two, and some climaxes that grab everybody.  It looks like this is made a little clearer later, but perhaps you could mention that scenes do not necessarily involve all the players.

f) What kind of Consequence do player characters start with?  Temporary, Chapter, or Story?

g) Who frames scenes?  In the Scenes section it sounds like the players do; in the Director section it sounds like the Director does.

h) On the character sheet, I'd advise flip-flopping the Edges+Consequences line with the Crucible.  Put that sucker right smack-dab in the middle of the character sheet, because that's the most important part of the game, right?  And now that I think about it, I'd flip-flop the order of character creation to reflect that.  Concept first (including Order and Faction and whatnot), then Truisms and  Crucible, then Edges and Consequences.  Players should define what's important to them first, then worry about how they go about dealing with what's important.

i) Are Truisms the Self's corollary to the Society's orders and the Faction's agenda?  It looks that way on the character sheet, and that may be an interesting equation to explore.

j) I think the advice you give the Director is good stuff for creating and pushing and escalating the situation.  I think it's so good that you shouldn't make it Director advice, I think you should make it Player advice.  That stuff should go in the Scenes section.  In fact, I'd suggest you consider the Scenes section the central part of your manuscript, and rewrite it from the ground up with that understanding.  It should say: here's what a scene is, here's what it does, here's why it's important, and here's how you make them work.  You've loaded a whole ton of weight onto the operation of the scene (which isn't a bad thing) and you need to reflect that in the text.

[Matt Machell]

Ron, I'm looking forward to you're comments. I think the new approach is much cleaner in terms of less prep and kicking right into situations, but other eyes always help. Joshua has already pointed out a few, rather key, structural issues.

Joshua, thanks for that list. It's exactly what I was looking for in terms of feedback on what is clear and where things are hazy. Rather than a point-by-point, I think I'll respond to the general themes from the list:

Scenes are confusing in the current text. Part of this is due to some re-ordering and re-assessment I did, and the new direction not always meshing with the old approach. Originally opening scenes (which is what the players define) and more general scenes (which the Director has control of) were described seperately, I combined to keep everything in one place, but looking over the text it's not as clear as it was. As you pointed out, the additional directing advice is of use to everybody, and it could do with the whole thing re-building from the ground up so it's more cleanly integrated. Similarly a few qualifiactions on how many characters a scene needs to be emotionally connected with (minimum one) also needs doing.

I'm toying with moving the story/chapter/scenes section off into its own chapter. What do you think of this structurally? Would it help have helped with your comprehension?

The Crucible is key You're correct, it's now the key structural element of the game as it should make it much easier to pull strands of drama together. However, the text is still in traditional define character in full, then put them in a situation approach.

The threeway split is the core of what the game is about though, and you're right, the truisms are the equivilents of the Faction agenda and the society orders. The point of play is to put characters through situations that make these tensions bounce of each-other, and see how they resolve. Putting the crucible section closer to the start of chargen would alter the dynamic a great deal, but it would naturally feed in to relationship edges and give a more solid foundation, especially if I made the process: define an NPC for each section of the zone, define one who crosses boundaries, use at least one from another PCs crucible and the cell playsheet.

You mention the sample agendas all involving other characters, and that's a key example of something I do by habit, but that needs to be more explicit in the text. Same for the society orders, the process needs to be explicit. These also tie back to the directing advice, as good orders are effectively framing a scene...

-Matt