[Gnostigmata] Plots and Sub-Plots

[John Kirk]

Sessions 4 & 5
I'm combining play-test sessions 4 & 5 of Gnostigmata into a single posting, because the big news is pretty much the same for both sessions.  Session 5 validated to me that Session 4 wasn't just a fluke.  (There were some changes to the healing rules in session 5, though).  You can download Gnostigmata Beta 5.0 from here.  The state of the characters at the end of Session 5 can be downloaded from here.  The one rule-change that significantly distinguishes Beta 5.0 from the previous versions concerns how the topics of each scene are determined.  The rule-change was a doozy, and it was remarkably successful.  I think it took Gnostigmata from being a good game to being a truly excellent one.  There is still a little tweaking to do, but I think the game will end up looking pretty much like Beta 5.0.

The rule-change was inspired by a comment from Paul Czege in the last play-test posting, which you can read here.  Paul commented that he felt negotiating stakes felt too much like work to him.  In our play-tests, I was beginning to build the same opinion.  The negotiations just didn't seem fun to me.  The new rules throw out negotiating stakes for each scene as a primary mechanism (although it is still allowed).  Instead, the story follows a highly generalized "Chase the MacGuffin" plot-line and each player picks a sub-plot for his character from a list of very general plot-lines.  (If you are unfamiliar with the term "MacGuffin", take a look at this Wikipedia article.) Each scene still acts out a conflict.  But, the primary benefit to a player of winning a scene is that the winner's sub-plot gets advanced in the next scene.  If you win enough scenes you win an Act.  If you win an Act or if you finish your character's sub-plot, you get to push the overarching plot forward one step.  If you push the overarching plot to its conclusion, you win the game.  So, Gnostigmata maintains the same basic Contest Tree structure it had in previous incarnations.  I just overlaid plots and sub-plots on top of it.

Oh, I also added some new improvisation rules that were inspired by techniques I read about in Impro; Improvisation and the Theatre by Keith Johnstone.  I don't think these rules had a big impact on our play in these two sessions, but I'm hoping that over time they will help build the players' improvisation skills.

In any case, play was fast-paced and exciting.  Both sessions were short, each lasting only two hours (discounting the obligatory, "So, what's new?" conversations before play began).  In that time, we got through four scenes in each session and everyone was 100% engaged in play the entire time.  There was virtually no out-of-game chatter.  In fact, at the end of each two-hour session, I was worn out.  So, I added an explicit rule telling the players to take a 5 minute break between scenes to recoup and socialize. 

I was amazed. (I still am, in fact.)  Changing one rule nearly doubled the speed of play over previous versions.  I didn't realize how much time we were spending negotiating stakes.  With the new rules, we spent very little time talking about what the scene was about, because the plot and sub-plots already got us 90% of the way there.  It's too early to tell for sure, because we haven't played a story out to its conclusion yet, but the story sure seems to be developing like that of a movie or book.  At the very least, the character development is awesome.  Characters are growing in directions that none of the players originally anticipated.  Even the NPC's are taking on personas of their own and the relationship map is gelling without any conscious guidance by any of the players.

Session 4 lacked combat of any kind, and yet the session's conflicts were gripping.  In contrast, Session 5's conflicts were composed almost entirely of combat scenes.  None of this was by design or fore planning.  They just seemed to be the right kinds of conflicts for the sub-plots being addressed.  In fact, I didn't even realize that Session 4 was devoid of combat until I started writing this summary.

Now the bad news:  My character is still getting his ass kicked.  This is primarily because sessions 4 & 5 had 2 players on the Catholic side and only one (me) on the Gnostic side.  I want the game rules to automatically adjust for imbalances of this nature with no conscious decisions on the players' parts.  So, in session 5 I added some new rules concerning the healing of Agony to balance things out.  Essentially, I'm allowing each side to heal a number of Agony points equal to the number of players on the opposing side after every scene.  I also added a safety-valve.  If a character's Agony is greater than 5 at the end of a scene, then it miraculously drops down to 5.  Time will tell if these changes suffice.

Session 4
We had a new player in Session 4: David Bailey.  So, the players were me, Adam Reid, and David.  David played Professor Gregory Duke, who is a rival to my character Ruprecht.  Adam played Father John, who never actually appeared in any of the scenes in this Session.  I played Ruprecht Boutet, an overweight, overstuffed art-history professor.

Session 4, Scene I
Since no player had won the right to push his sub-plot forward yet, we determined randomly what characters were appearing (as per the rules).  Gregory and Ruprecht were in the scene.

The scene was framed to play out on a beach next to some cliffs with a cave.  There were ruins sticking up out of the sand and a recently revealed treasure chest lay open in their midst.  It was night, but the treasure was glinting by the light of a lantern burning a few feet away.  Nearby on the beach was a fold-up table on which was a bottle of Champaign and wine glasses and over which hung a tarp held up by poles.  Daisy, my character's secretary, was busy pouring the bubbly into the glasses.

Ruprecht and Gregory are standing next to the open treasure chest arguing.  The scene starts with Ruprecht talking: "What do you mean, you want to keep half of this for yourself?  This belongs in the University museum!"

Now, keep in mind, all we had agreed to was that Ruprecht and Gregory were arguing.  It wasn't until I made this statement that we actually knew what we were arguing about.  As it turns out, this single statement made a huge impact on the way David played the character.  Things just sort of built on top of one another to eventually portray Gregory as a money-hungry treasure hunter using his influence and connections with the University to find and acquire valuable artifacts from which he would skim sizable percentages.  All of this seemed justifiable in his mind, because he would use some of his own finances to fund research grants to find more treasure.  Of course, those finances were, themselves, the ill-gotten gains of previous scams.

The yelling between the two characters became so loud that a swarm of bats flew out of the cave.  In the confusion, the lantern was kicked over, setting Ruprecht on fire.  Gregory then pushed Ruprecht into the lapping waves in order to put out the flames.  Mistaking this for some kind of physical attack, Ruprecht feebly tried to punch Gregory and failed. (Okay, there was this little bit of pseudo-combat in the session.  But, the one failed punch was it.  I swear.)  Ruprecht ended up falling unconscious as the scene ended with David winning.  So, David got to push his sub-plot forward in the next scene.

Session 4, Scenes 2, 3, and 4
The next few scenes took place in Gregory's office.  The reason for this is that David was on a roll and kept winning scenes and pushing his sub-plot forward.  And, it just seemed natural that the first few scenes of his sub-plot be played out in his office.  David chose the "Exacting Revenge" sub-plot.

I won't go into all the details of these scenes, since that would fill several pages.  But, the first few steps of the "Exacting Revenge" sub-plot requires:

1)   Narrate some activity in which the character expresses love and/or loyalty to the victim.
2)   Narrate the heinous crime the antagonist performs on the victim.
3)   Narrate the character seeking justice through normal channels (police, mercenaries, etc.)

This will, of course, build up to the character failing to attain the justice he seeks through normal channels, pushing him to plot his own form of justice.

As stated before, the scene is Gregory's spacious office at the University.  He has a large impressive mahogany desk and a leather couch.  His office is littered with shelves of priceless ancient sculptures, scrolls, artwork, and other artifacts.  Behind his desk is an arched window filled with a beautiful stained-glass window.

The requirements of the sub-plot were fulfilled by Gregory expressing appreciation and affection for his graduate student, Carol.  Gregory had apparently just received word that Carol had received a sizable research grant and he took the opportunity to tell her himself.  David asked me if I would play Ruprecht as the sub-plot's antagonist.  I jumped at the chance.  Ruprecht burst into Gregory's office complaining that he had just heard that his own student, Terry, had been beaten out of the grant by Carol, and that he knew for a fact that Terry was more deserving.  In fact, he had evidence that Gregory had given Carol an unfair advantage by buying access to previously unknown artifacts that had, until just recently, been held secretly by the Catholic Church.  Ruprecht threw a number of documents on the desk, stating that they proved beyond doubt that sizable transfers were made from Carol to the Church and that, very shortly thereafter, the Catholic Church unexpectedly gave Carol unfair access to relics that would be the envy of the most accomplished archeologist.  These weren't relics that she had discovered herself.  These were bought.  Carol was going down.  She would never be taken seriously in the academic world.  Her career was over before it started.  And, if Gregory protested, Ruprecht would expose the sordid affair the two had been having for the past few years.  Carol burst into tears.  Shocked, Gregory argued, "This can't be right.  It didn't happen that way.  These must be forgeries!"  Ruprecht slyly smiled as he exited the office, "You'll never convince the Board of that." 

Now, it might appear from the dialogue that I won that scene (actually 2 scenes).  I didn't.  David did.  The contents of the scene were dictated by the sub-plot.  I merely played the role of the antagonist committing the heinous crime to the victim.

Because David won, he had the right to push his sub-plot in the next scene as well, which also transpired in his office.  According to the sub-plot, this scene was about Gregory seeking justice through normal channels.  So, the "Board" was present in the scene (what the Board actually represented and who the members were wasn't specified, other than that it has some connection to the University).   Ruprecht was absent, but Cardinal Martin appeared (who is an NPC closely associated with Father John, if you've read previous sessions).  Cardinal Martin was controlled by me.  Again, I'm going to skip most of it.  But, the highlights were that Gregory showed evidence that the documents provided by Ruprecht were forgeries.  Cardinal Martin stood before the board as a witness, all the while showering praise on Gregory, damning him with every compliment.  He told the board that he had no idea where the documents came from, but that Gregory had on many occasions contributed large sums to the Church in the past and that, although Cardinal Martin personally was unaware of the relics being loaned to Gregory, would have been more than happy to make the relics available to him or his student.  Unfortunately, the Church had lost track of the funds that were in question.  The money was apparently withdrawn by one of their priests immediately after it was deposited.  The transaction would probably have gone unnoticed had the Board not asked the Cardinal to answer questions about it.  (I added this bit about the missing funds with the hope that some future scene would explain the mysterious withdrawal – possibly by tying it to Father John's gambling addiction.)

In the end, of course, the Board decided that there was enough evidence to doubt Carol's worthiness and withdrew her grant.  Everything is now set up for Gregory to plot his revenge against Ruprecht!  Adam ended up winning that scene, although he didn't play any major characters in it.  Adam played Gregory's parrot and a monk.  The parrot crapped on Cardinal Martin during his testimony, to everyone's amusement.  The monk came running into the scene to tell Cardinal Martin that his Chapel was on fire – to which Cardinal Martin replied, "What has Father John gone and done now?"  Everyone laughed, because Cardinal Martin's main purpose seems to be in making Father John look bad.  Adam's victory gave the Catholics enough scenes to win the Act.  So, they earned the right to push the overarching plot forward in their favor in the next scene.

At the end of Session 4, my character ended up with an Agony of 5 and my opponents had none.  The score so far was 3 Acts to 0, favoring the Catholics.  Things weren't looking good for the home team.  Considering that the Gnostics had not yet won a single scene, it became apparent that something had to change to beef up the underdog.  The current failure rewards, though potent, weren't going to do it alone.  This is when I instituted the new Healing rules mentioned above.

[John Kirk]

Session 5
Session 5 was a vigorous play-test of the new Healing rules.  I set myself the primary task of driving my Agony down.  Everything would take second priority to this goal.  In the end, I succeeded in driving my Agony down to 1, but again didn't win any scenes (although there was one close one). I'm well positioned now to start winning some scenes, I think.   But, I've got a long way to go if I'm going to come up from behind.  Winning the whole game is a real long shot at this point.

Anyway, the players for Session 5 were Adam Reid, Ralph Buttner, and myself.  Adam played Father John, a Catholic priest with drinking and gambling problems.  Ralph played Geoffrey St. Cir, a money-grubbing arms dealer.  I again played Ruprecht, a cowardly art history professor with a love of fine foods.

Apparently, it was Geoffrey's turn to kick butt, because he ended up winning 3 of the 4 scenes, with Adam picking up the scraps.

Since Adam won the previous scene, and since that won them Act 3 as well, the first scene simultaneously pushed Adam's sub-plot forward as well as the overarching plot-line to step 3.  However, they had not yet narrated Step 2 of the "Chase the MacGuffin" plot, which states, "Narrate the characters learning of the current location of the MacGuffin and setting out to obtain it."  (In case you haven't been following along, the MacGuffin in this story is The Gospel of Michael, a Gnostic gospel supposedly written by the Archangel Michael.)  The Stigmatics had, in previous scenes, learned that the gospel was located in the Vatican, but had not yet set out to get it.  Before they could move on to Step 3, they had to complete Step 2.  This was the first scene of Father John's sub-plot, which Adam chose to be "Sin and Redemption".  In Step 1 of that sub-plot, the main character must show weakness for some temptation.  Adam chose gambling as his temptation.

The first scene of Session 5 was framed on an airliner headed from London to Italy.  All three of the player characters were present in the scene, as well as Ruprecht's secretary Daisy.  There were other passengers and a stewardess as well.  Father John opened the scene arguing with his bookie on a cell phone about some bet he had made earlier.  So, in the first few seconds of the scene, all of the plot and sub-plot requirements were satisfied.  The remainder of the scene involved Geoffrey St. Cir trying to get Daisy into the airplane lavatory to question her in private about her husband.  (In a previous session, it was established that Daisy was the wife of an arms merchant Geoffrey had dealings with.  I originally thought Daisy was Geoffrey's wife, but this was a misunderstanding.)  In any case, Father John was assigned the task of running interference against Ruprecht.  In the end, Ruprecht put up a poor showing (having started with 5 Agony) and Geoffrey got what he wanted.  Ralph won the scene.

Ralph chose the "Hunted" sub-plot for Geoffrey, and decided that his hunter would be a demon.  Step 1 of the "Hunted" sub-plot states: "Introduce the hunter and why he is hunting your character."  Ralph decided Scene 2 would be a flashback.  The scene was framed in a dark chamber with stone walls, a stone altar, and a pentagram inscribed on the floor.  In the pentagram lay a bound pregnant woman (Geoffrey's wife).  Standing around the pentagram was one tall demon holding a ritual dagger and six or seven small bat-like demons.  Also, Cardinal Martin was standing there holding a hot poker, apparently torturing the woman.  (Geez, Cardinal Martin keeps getting darker and darker, doesn't he?)  Geoffrey burst into the room with guns blazing.  He ran to his wife, fighting off demons along the way with his sword.  A nasty combat scene ensued culminating with the demon slicing open the bound woman's belly and pulling out the unborn child.  Geoffrey managed to wrest the child away from the demon and escape.  He had to leave his dead wife on the floor as the demon screamed after him, "The girl is mine!  You won't escape for long!"  Again, Ralph won the scene.

So, the next scene pushed Geoffrey's sub-plot along to step 2, which states:"Introduce your character's 'focus'."  Well, Ralph decided his 'focus' was going to be the child, who was already technically introduced when she was cut from her mother's womb.  Ralph decided that we would do another flashback, this one 10 years forward in time from the previous scene so that we could see the child at an older age.  The scene was framed on a beach where Geoffrey and the young girl were playing on their vacation.  There were plenty of tourists, a hotdog vendor, and a mounted policeman.  The demon-hunter and another bull headed demon rose up out of the sea and approached Geoffrey's girl menacingly.  Cardinal Martin also made an appearance, in collusion with the demons.  The scene was a pretty standard combat scene with the demons trying to get the girl.  I personally think that the scene would have been much more powerful if the conflict had focused on some issue between the girl and Geoffrey, so that we could have gotten to know her better.  The sub-plot did not really call for a hunter attack at the time, but that's what ended up happening anyway.  In any case, it was fun to play out.  In the end, Geoffrey and the girl escaped (of course) and Ralph once again won the scene.

The final scene of Session 5 pushed Geoffrey's sub-plot to step 3, which states: "Establish what the apparent consequences will be if the hunter catches your character.  Will he imprison you?  Will he kill you?  Will he rape you?"  The scene was framed in Geoffrey's apartment and was a flashback some undetermined time after the previous scene.  Geoffrey, the girl, Father John, and Daisy (played by me) were sitting around the dining room table eating dinner when the hunter-demon burst in accompanied by Cardinal Martin, who was armed with his Cardinal staff and a knife.  Fighting immediately ensued, but consisted of dialogue as much as actual combat.  Geoffrey, always armed, drew a pistol in one hand and a sword in another.  He started shooting.  Father John brandished his cross and prayed to drive away the demons while Daisy ran over to Geoffrey pleading with him to give her a gun so she could shoot the demon.  Ralph was a little surprised at this, since he and I were on opposite sides of the conflict.  But, he gave her a gun because he figured shooting the demon could do nothing but help his cause.  In a panic, Daisy lifted the gun, pointed it at the hunter-demon, closed her eyes in fear, and shot.  Naturally, I narrated the bullet hitting Father John in the back.  During the fight, the hunter-demon revealed that he wanted to transform the girl into some kind of demon-child spawn.  Geoffrey ended up badly injuring the demon, and the characters escaped.

Interestingly enough, Adam won this scene.  Of the three of us, Adam's character was mechanically the weakest by far.  My main goal, as stated earlier, was to reduce my Agony.  In this last scene, my Agony was a 3 and it took everything I had to keep Ralph from inflicting more.  Ironically, Adam's character won because he was so weak.  He couldn't possibly inflict Agony on Ruprecht.  So, I essentially ignored him and focused all my dice on Geoffrey.  As a consequence, all of Adam's rolls succeeded and he racked up 5 wins before anyone else.

Observations
Wow.  Just, wow.  These two sessions were intense.  Sure, at places the story could have gone in directions that I would have liked better.  But, overall I doubt that on my own I could have come up with a story half as good.  We haven't played out an entire plot-line, so my main concern right now is whether the story will gel into a cohesive whole.  Things look hopeful to me, although I've been thinking that the overarching plot needs 7 or 8 steps rather than 5, to give the story more time to come together.  After all, the sub-plots will eventually accelerate things when they conclude and push the plot forward.  I don't want the story to climax prematurely.

I think the new healing rules help even things out considerably when there is an imbalance in the number of players on each side.  With them, I was finally able to overcome the death-spiral from which Ruprecht was suffering.  This still needs more play-testing, though.

I'm excited.  So, what do you all think?  How does this fit with your experiences in other Narrative-style games?  Obviously, the game needs more sub-plots to allow players more variety.  But, are there any other suggestions that would make this scheme even better?