The West Wind: Structuring Play and "Feel"

[Jasper]

Okay, so the new (and very largely complete -- as in no holes) version of my current game is up here:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jasperm/WW_3.htm">The West Wind v.0.3

Magic is written up: it's fast and lose in a sense, and not handled all that differently from normal conflict resolution.  I've broken it down into "simple" and "advanced" (need new names) magic.  This is somewhat arbitrary, but the distinction is between doing things magically that could be done otherwise, and things that no normal person could ever do (like changing the weather).  I'm not sure whether this will be a useful cut-off in the game, or is merely an attempt to prevent too much use of really powerful, story-altering magic (it's not an arbitrary cap though -- it just makes that kind of magic dangerous).

This is just one aspect of what I want some feedback on in this thread though.  In the new version, I've instituted a few major changes, all of which move it farther away from a really rule-light system, to something with a bit more definition and structure.  Since there is not exactly a pre-defined setting -- even though the flavor is clearly defined -- I felt that I needed some way to suggest the kind of play that was "intended."  Probably it would have been a good idea regardless.

So, in the new version, I've made up default attributes and magic disciplines (the latter of which may be too broad at present).  I've also written a lot more about setting up scenes and organizing conflict, including the addition of a mid-level "challenge" which is in-between the campaing-level "obstacles" and immediate conflicts of a scene.  Right now, I'm planning on removing the challenges because they seem to add too much structure (and thus be limiting), but at the same time, I do feel that players may not have enough guidance on the setting of scenes and such.  Being the designer, I'm not sure I can really evaluate this, and my playtest group is not really experienced enough to make a judgement on way or the other.

So my question is: Is it clear from the text what play is actually like/about?  I mena this both in terms of the "feel" of the game, and how it will play out in terms of story and also the actual playing of the game with others -- is it clear what to do and when, and how to arbitrate stuff?  I don't want a game burdened by details and rules that are unnecessary, but it also needs to be coherent to the readers.

[Jasper]

I forgot to note that I've also introduced a "Themes" descriptor for characters, which are similar to values.  When you act in accordance with your values to your ultimate (material) loss, you gain Hope.  With Themes, anytime you introduce something that plays off someone's theme -- not necessarily your own character's -- you get get more narrative points; and thus more power and an ability to advance the story.

[Mike Holmes]

Lot's to work through. Here's the first half:

First, the whole set-up phase seems pretty nebulous. Somebody decides what The Goal is, and The Problem. Who? How? Does anyone have final say? What about disputes?

The idea that the characters are all already together puts you at Rivendell. What about the interesting portions of the story that happen prior to that? I'd place the union box closer to the middle of the diagram, and have that be an important juncture to reach.

I should go back and discuss something, though. I think there is a small danger of losing some of the tension of conflict if the players know what's coming. This might be ameliorated a bit by the fact that the players don't know what danger they'll be framed to next. But just having decided on the nature of their oposition, that may take away some of the drama.

During play, why cross off defeated foes? The participants aren't going to forget what they've encountered, nor the condition that they left it in. The diagram will be less cluttered if they lust leave the obstacles on the diagram unaltered. This way, the diagram also becomes an acount of play. If you really wanted to take notes, I'd make a remark on the line leaving the obstacle (fled, defeated, etc).

List the attributes in alphabetical order. As it stands, with no other order, it looks like Fighting/Combat is pioritized. Or is that intentional?

Is the magical Discipline list going to expand? Seems a bit incomplete.

Narrative Points - who decides what is appropriate, and when something is violating other player's play? How is this enforced, and by whom? Who decides how much something costs? Some things have ranges for costs, who is the final arbiter?

Mike

[Jasper]

Hello,

Yeah, I should have noted that the attribute and disiplines lists were still in flux; sorry about that.  

You have a lot of questions concerning ultimate power and authority which I'm a little confused by.  You're aware that there's still a gamemaster in TWW, right?  Maybe you knew this but were prodding me to make epxlicit what his pwoers were in this regard?  I suppose that is in order, but this is what GMs usually do, no?  Ideally, the GM only needs to occasionally interject during set-up in order to push the players along or clear up some wrinkle, but if it comes down to it, he can take charge and define what needs to be.  As for costs associated with Narrative Points: this is all the GM.

I should go back and discuss something, though. I think there is a small danger of losing some of the tension of conflict if the players know what's coming. This might be ameliorated a bit by the fact that the players don't know what danger they'll be framed to next. But just having decided on the nature of their oposition, that may take away some of the drama.

Did you mean to raise this as a possibility that would follow from my allowing adventuring prior to the meet-up, or as a general pitfall of the Goal/Obstacle structure?  I realize that cutting off pre-party play does remove some potential interest, but I was concerned that doignthe meetings in-game would often bring on contrivances, and that it would distract from the Goal.

I guess this might work if there were some agreement regarding the meet-up during setup, so that the players would just be "playing out the intro," and aware of that, ratehr than doing "boring filler stuff."  I ratehr wanted to avoid the often drawn-out and clumsy meeting sequences familiar to gamers from other fantasy games.

If you meant the above quotation as a general caution regarding the structure of the game, would you then be suggesting the removal of the initial Goal?  I don't know how you could really play that out unless it were itself defined very early in play or you do a ubiquitous "I'm running away from something evil" type story.  And the Goal is really as much a beginning place as it is a destination, since the whole story has to be pinned on somthing.

[Mike Holmes]

You have a lot of questions concerning ultimate power and authority which I'm a little confused by.  You're aware that there's still a gamemaster in TWW, right?  Maybe you knew this but were prodding me to make epxlicit what his pwoers were in this regard?  I suppose that is in order, but this is what GMs usually do, no?  Ideally, the GM only needs to occasionally interject during set-up in order to push the players along or clear up some wrinkle, but if it comes down to it, he can take charge and define what needs to be.  As for costs associated with Narrative Points: this is all the GM.

if you have the "traditional power split" then you can assume people will understand where the power lies. Even then, I'm an advocate for more clarity in these matters. But as soon as you broach that dam and let the players have any non-traditional power at all, you then need to be very clear who has the power to do what. I could have assumed that the GM was "final arbiter in all cases where the rules do not say otherwise". But you know what they say about assuming things...

There are several points when reading your rules that it is not at all clear who does certain things. Use consistent terms; it makes reading and comprehension easier.

Did you mean to raise this as a possibility that would follow from my allowing adventuring prior to the meet-up, or as a general pitfall of the Goal/Obstacle structure?  I realize that cutting off pre-party play does remove some potential interest, but I was concerned that doignthe meetings in-game would often bring on contrivances, and that it would distract from the Goal.

Contrivances? What sort? Why would this phase be more susceptible than others?

I guess this might work if there were some agreement regarding the meet-up during setup, so that the players would just be "playing out the intro," and aware of that, ratehr than doing "boring filler stuff."  I ratehr wanted to avoid the often drawn-out and clumsy meeting sequences familiar to gamers from other fantasy games.

No, I mean that play should resemble the first half of Fellowship with all the trials and tribulations involved in getting all the characters together in one place (Rivendell). That includes all sorts of standard stuff from these sorts of stories that establish our empathy for the characters. The simple decision to even get brought into the quest. Finding allies. Hell, whole parts of Eddings' series were all about just sort of meandering about finding the characters that will eventually form what translates in RPGs to "the party".

Here's another way of looking at it. Start with the single central protagonist. Then have the story radiate outward from him. As he goes along, introdce the other characters one by one.

If you don't use such a model, you're stuck with the greeatest contrivance of all. That being everyone suddenly having the same urge to go on an adventure at the same time. "You all meet in a tavern when suddenly a hooded stranger comes in and says he's looking for stout-hearted adventurers  to take care of an important task." Yikes.

The question I raise as to the sustainability of dramatic tension when the players know what's going to happen is another thing altogether. In Universalis, you never know what's going to happen because it's being created as you go along. Even the stuff you come up with yourself is surprising as it's in response to things that other players put in for which you had not planned.

The playtests of the game Chalk Outlines were a test of this principle. In that game players were empowered to create conflicts for their characters, and also to subsequently resolve them. The plaers found that tension was lacking. There needs to be more than one participant involve in the process, it would seem to get that feeling.

Now, your game is not precisely the same because the players only establish things in a long-term sense, and the GM presents in whatever order and manner makes most sense. But the question remains whether or not the players will feel as if the story is unfolding, or if they are just running through a script. Dramatic tension might not even be the focus of this game, but a lack of it could be telling anyhow. I suggest a short playtest as soon as possible.

That reminds me to ask you about pacing. The text does not suggest a pace. Are the players supposed to make it through to the end in the first session? The fourth? The fiftieth? Is this something they decide (or the GM)?

Mike