Reflections on a game from this weekend

[Marco]

Cold Light was the codename for a soviet telepathic assassination project during the cold war. A rather spectacular psychological warfare success: the US spent millions of dollars trying to match it. People claiming involvement in projects of that sort are usually harmless ... unless they're working with catatonics or ventriloquists ... in which case you should avoid them at all costs.
--Dr. Brownstone (NPC)

This weekend I and several others played a short-term one-shot adventure (the GM was down for Thanksgiving). It was a mystery, bizarre, horror game and it was interesting. I decided, going in, that I'd write up any reflections I had that I thought might be of interest to The Forge. Maybe none of these are ... but here goes.

Notes:

1. the system was one o' those generalist ones so we didn't know what the genre was going in.

2. I was a player.

The Set Up:
We were told to make medium-power characters ("55 points") with a modicum of unusual but not paranormal abilities. Our parents had been taking an intelligent enchancing drug in the 80's which had been proven (After they'd been taking it) to cause sudden, terminal cancer. Our characters had met when we were all like 12 - 15 and our parents had 1-3 years to live. We had all lost both of our parents. The game would begin when we were young--but pick up when we were adults. We were all very rich (millionaries) due to trust funds.

NOTES:
The characters were:
A wiccan (unusual ability: weird dreams that might or might not be relevant).

A world-class pool hustler and card-shark who had failed attempts at school/making anything of himself due to gambling addictions(special ability: luck)

A world-class mathematician/chemist/physicist who had tried to save her parents by inventing soemthing to help them (a futile, tragically doomed attempt). Special ability: 'mad scientist.'

Observation: These characters, despite lowish numbers of points,weren't 'mundane.'  As the pool player I was *potentially* world-class. These guys were all fine for the game but it's clear that point-total is a very abstract way of measuring characters.

Here it dictated *how many* things a character could be good at rather than how good.

OPENING SCENES
The first adventure took place in the Crystal City Hilton in Washington DC in 2003 or so. Our characters' parents were meeting with lawyers to discuss the disbursement of the fund. Our characters were more or less watching (and feeling traumatized since it was clear our parents were all going to die in a year or three).

We were all in an elevator--an NPC (older kid) gave another NPC (younger girl who was crying hopelessly) a joint on the ride up--and said, laconically, that he had more in his room if we wanted. Since it seemed to our characters that everything was falling apart, we went. All but two of us.

One of them was a PC (the mad scientist who believed her parents weren't going to die because she could save them--and she wasn't about to do drugs!)

NOTES:
1. The campaign was obviously going on up in the room. The character who bailed was (I thought) going to miss something important. The GM was fine with it though. He asked the player what the character would do ("read the technical documents, cry, go to sleep"). In the absence of a good idea for action on either the GM's or the player's part, what do you do? I think the player didn't want to have the character go to the druggie party due to personal distaste for it--and may have harbored some frustration with the GM for 'forcing' this (I'm mind-reading here).

2. At the party we learned two things:
a) a group of lawyers was trying to get the money from us--they were trying to scare us into hiring them to break the trust (and had convinced the kid holding the party that we were going to lose everying).
b) We made a promise to meet after our parents were dead to take care of each other. This was an 'important' promise.

I had my character call the PC who left and lie and say it was just a party to get her up there. It worked. She joined us.

I think there's something interesting there with the GM letting anything go, and the one player trying to get another into where he things 'the story is.'

The scene ended when I met with the older (druggie) kid (who everyone thought was sooo cool). I determined that he was trying to convince us to talk to the scaming lawyers--he was infused with fear by them and thought we'd get NOTHING if we left it up to the corporate settelment. He was being paid a bounty by they lawyers for each minor he got to sign up--for an attempt to break the trust. Instead of 40 million, we'd get 3 right away. He was trying to screw us all over and wanted my help.

I refused to betray the others and, after a tense scene, left. I told them not to even meet with the guys--I felt that 'even talking to them' could be dangerous (there were hints to that effect in the game).

CUT TO PRESENT DAY (2020 or so)
We were being contacted by the other kids for the annaversery (my character had missed a couple, another character had attended and been awkward, the mad scientists' character's paretns had died just last year).

Someone (turned out to be the group of kids younger than us--we were the "dependants" when our characters died--the really young kids got lots more money) were trying to prevent us from going. The Wiccan was warned "you should understand this--don't go, you don't know what you're doing." She had strange dreams.

I was told the meeting was cancled (it didn't work--I knew it wasn't). the Mad scientists was stuck working on a doomsday project which she couldn't possibly complete and make the meeting.

1. The mad scientist player doesn't like social-problems in roleplaying. The player got frustrated since the GM had the character working for a true a**hole of a head scientist (at the university). The character cancled on the meeting since she "had to get her doctoral work finsihed."

The GM was annoyed. The player was annoyed "I don't know what you want me to do." The GM said "you can do anything you want to--that's cool"--and had an NPC pressure the character to show up: 'you made a promise.'

I suspect there was a certain amount of brinksmanship going down here--again, I'm a mind reader.  

In the end, with things getting down to the line, it was clear that we all better show up (somethign important and dark was going down) and the mad scientist's mentor, Dr. Brownstone--the guy who had invented the chemical that killed our parents--visited the mad scientist in her lab ... and after asking her some creepy questions left--and STOLE a vital component.

After a night of sleep (in reality), a good breakfast, and a better perspective the player acknowledged that without the 'flux modulator' Dr. B had stolen, the experiment was doomed anyway. The character went to the meeting.

Notes: railroading? GM-push? I dunno--everyone was happy in the end.

END PART ONE(man this is long)

[Marco]

PART 2

THE ANNIVERSARY CLUB
We all met at the Crystal City Hilton. There had already been some conversation (amongst those who kept in touch) that some 'cloak-and-dagger stuff' was going on. Our characters were pretty wierded out (being that they were mostly normal folks) and had *no* idea why someone might be trying to stop us from meeting.

My character (the pool hustler) arrived at night and went down to the pool room. There I saw the NPC who had tried to cheat us 10 years ago (or so) playing pool.

Note: this was a repeat of the scene 10 years ago--he was in the same position, doing what I'd seen him doing when I first confronted him. He even, for a moment, looked sixteen again. We had heard that he'd taken the deal with the trust-breakers and wound up broke during hyper-inflation in the mid teens (of the 21st century).

I was shocked to see him--he hadn't been invited and no one thought he was coming. He was pleased to see me though. He had another proposition.

NOTE: this was done very stylishly. The past mirrored the present. There was someone he wanted us to talk to--just talk (same as last time).

This person was Loss Specialist. A person who deals with "loss from a numerical basis." It seemed to be something like an insurance adjuster and psychologist. There were comments about life being a zero-sum game and death being the ultimate catastrophy.

After talking to me about the Loss Specialist, the NPOC told me a weird story about trouble he'd run into down in Mexico. He'd been seeing a married woman, found that her past three lovers had wound up dead (killed by her husband). He ran for it--she ran too and caught up with him. He ended the story with the two of them hiding out in a Mexican hotel, appearently having gotten away.

I correctly summised that it was her doing the killing. He gave me a wicked smile.

The group met and decided that since he *had* made the promise with us (and we agreed to help each other out) we'd meet with this loss specialist guy (none of us had ever heard of this--but it seemed like an insurance adjuster) and see what was going on. We all felt like the NPC was trying to scam us again.

There were some clues: the wiccan was dreaming that she was lured to a radio station in the middle of the desert by a voice of someone she used to know--who she thought was in trouble. when she got there, it was just a loop-tape and not a broadcaster at all.

The person was the NPC in question. He was working with the Loss Specialist guy to open a radio station in Nevada.

NOTES: Again, there were motivational questions.
I felt it was a con (and I knew something about hustling).
The mad scientist felt there was no reason to help the guy--maybe give him some money--but that was it.
The wiccan wanted to rescue him from whatever trouble he was in.

I think that motivations for disparate groups might be one of the hardest things to get right. I told the GM (later) that I felt that walking into a setup wasn't something my character would easily do. I decided I was going along with it to 'keep the others out of trouble.'

NEVADA
A sub-set of the group of PC's and NPC's journeyed out to Nevada to meet with the Loss Specialist (at least for the interview). There was some fairly weird stuff about being given psycological tests while hooked up to machines. About the guy determining our 'relationship with death' and about our 'loss profiles' being unique. It was explained in detail (but I won't go into it here).

We did a bunch of investigative work. We met with a Russian partner of the Loss Specialist. We were contacted by the younger group of beneficaries and strongly warned to go home--that what we were doing was a *bad* idea.  

There was lots of PC/NPC debate, research, etc. in this part. We learned that the russian was part of a soviet-era program for mind control (believed to have been a propaganda operation against the US). We found out that the younger surviors had joined a new-agey cult with a VERY annoying radio self-help guru. My character brought a trunk-full of guns with streetwise connections. We got the wierd quote about catatonics and ventriloquists ...

THE STATION
We went out to the radio station. We believed this was where things were going to happen--they did. We surprised and confronted the Loss Specialist, the Russian psychologist, and the NPC. We learned that the operation was an attempt to "contact death." There had been experiments with catatonics in russia, strange lights had appeared in the sky. The security force was "compromised almost immediately" and the russians destroyed the facility.

The mathematics of the Loss Specialists had an explanation (too complex to go into here). The guy running the show (the specialist) had found our friend after he had been reportedly killed by a woman in Mexico. He had been found as an amneisaic, doing mineal labor in Mexico and brought back (both to the states and his old personality).

The radio guru was competing with the Loss Specialists and playing the same game ... anyway ... it all came out and we agreed to help. The data from our interviews was key (for a variety of reasons--our 'unusual relationship with death').

THE CLIMAX
The climax came when we used the station to broadcast the signal (mathematically composed by taking readings from us and using the NPC in a drugged, catatonic state--and using a ventriliquist to "channel" voices of the lights. The success came and there was a chilling (for us players) series of events which resulted in PC's and NPC's being devoured by the lights, holding out in locked room, and finally succombing to the forces we had unleashed.

The PC's did survive, becoming conscious the next day (again, for reasons hard to go into--but with missing time and questions about our apparent 'live-ness:' during the climax our friend decayed into a long-dead corpse with twin shotgun blasts in his chest). It was still the end of the game.

NOTES:
The game could have continued (there were questions left unanswered and the GM had more, but time ran out). He specifically cut several scenes to make it fit the time-tables (especially because we spent time doing things like talking with the radio guru and getting leverage with the Loss SPecialist and the Russian psychologist).

Observations
1. There were certain elements I don't think were at all scripted (our characters armed with information and firepower that was 'hard to get' and allowed us to control the situation until the very end--there were several scenes that never happened both due to time constraints and our character's initiative).

2. Certain elements were probably beyond our control (when the lights were summonsed we were fairly screwed no matter what we did).

3. I can say that from a dramatic standpoint the ending really worked well--the sense of tension, despair, and fear was well wrought. Everyone contributed well to it.

I thought about illusionism, railroading, and vanilla narrativism a lot during this. My conclusion was that despite some VN play on my part (doing things 'out of character' to forward the story) it was fairly straight sim-play. There were strong presences of themes (including who we helped out at the end--the self-help guru was annoying but was in a way much more of a 'good-guy' than the creepy, slick, Loss Specialist). We stuck with our friend rather than doing the 'obvious thing.'

4. Playing with a limited period of time added intensity to the game. There was a sense of purpose to 'get things done' towards the end. We didn't *rush* things--but there was an attention (all around) to action that would forward the story. The time limits were externally imposed (the GM had to fly out the next day) but counterintuitively I think the time limit actually *improved* the game in some ways (there was a point where we got a bunch of phone calls and just didn't take them).

Well, that's it. I really don't know if it's been all that interesting--but I think I'd be interested in seeing similar examples from other people of short games with commentary included.

-Marco





[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-11-27 15:42 ]

[Epoch]

Marco,

Yes, it is interesting.

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

This topic interests me a lot, and I've taken some time to go over the posts in detail. It brings up some profound issues about scenario design, prepping for play, and player-GM obligations.

As you were very clear about, we aren't talking about dysfunctional play - maybe it wasn't free of discomfort here and there, but overall as role-playing experiences go, fun was had by all. So nothing I'm writing here is about "what someone should have done" or any such thing.

A SMALL ISSUE
I thought it fascinating that you felt it necessary to step in as co-GM, in calling the mad-scientist PC in her hotel room to get her to join the party (and hence the scene of interest). Why? It could have been an opportunity to see if the GM was able to roll with it. Maybe he could have astounded you by running a parallel scene in the character's room. Perhaps the need you felt to "must keep the party together" was not ... well, as necessary as it seemed?

This statement is meant to be food for thought, not a criticism or a demand for reply. My use of "why" is rhetorical.

ANOTHER SMALL ISSUE
You referred to Narrativism in an interesting way, that it required forcing one's character "out of character" in order to insure that certain things happen. I understand what you mean, but just as a small point, it doesn't have to be that way. I strongly suggest that many people play in a Narrativist fashion specifically by making "high punch" characters and then staying largely in Actor stance, with only key (and tacit, by staying IC) moments in Author stance. One only has that "disconnect" feel if some degree of railroading (or perceived railroading) is going on.

THE BIGGER ISSUE
I have decided that this whole topic represents the distinction between Framing vs. Resolving situations (scenes) in play.
- Framing = bringing a (or "the") moments of decision for player-characters into game-world existence
- Resolving = making those decisions and dealing with the consequences

A very easy example of Framing would be, "You wake up with your head in a bag, your arms are bound, and your body is jounced around on a metal, moving surface. You hear a car or small-truck engine and smell the exhaust."

A very easy example of entering Resolution would be, "Dr. Chaos cries out with rage as your team bursts through the doors of his inner sanctum. 'Kill them, my pets!' he cries. Behind him you see the Chaos Weapon's ceiling-tall apparatus glowing, with the glow starting at the bottom and spreading upwards. The Chaos Warriors scattered through the sanctum are powering up their armor."

The GM in the scenario apparently was a master of initial Framing. I really, really liked the sense of interest and general handling of the scenes opening both time-frames of the story. Evidently you guys did too, based on your comments. I have always found a solid Framing technique to pay off well during play.

Resolving seemed also to work very well, especially since the GM was apparently willing to let you guys set up for it in your own way, and to let you make a number of decisions about who was the "real foe" and so on.

But the MIDDLE was the issue, wasn't it. That point in which A had happened, C (or a variety of possible C's) loomed up to happen, but B required that YOU GUYS behave in a particular fashion. I can't say whether that was really the case. As I mentioned above, for all I know, the GM was willing to let y'll "split up" and it wouldn't have caused any trouble. But it's clear to me that both you and the other player were under the impression that a "B" situation was going on - functionally Framing (putting you in situation C), but allegedly "under your control" (although ultimately not).

We'll never know whether this "problem" (discomfort) arose because the GM really was putting you in a B situation, or because players simply thought he was. That would depend on whether the scenario was a "fan in" or "fan out."

A fan in scenario is basically Roads to Rome - sooner or later the players end up in the inner sanctum fighting Villain X, for instance, no matter what they do. This often depends on a B situation somewhere between A and C.

A fan out scenario is more of the Relationship Map type of situation, in which various Framed scenes become less and less pre-planned, and yet the conflict itself becomes closer and closer to being resolved. Properly done, this method moves from A to C with no need for B's at all; or rather, the B stage is not dependent on any decision being made by the players in any one way.

If it's "fan in," then B might be crucial and the GM may be willing to fight about it, up to and including "shut up and do it for the story" (which by the way, I would NOT consider to be Narrativism). If it's "fan out," then B might be much wider than many players are used to considering, and they cannot believe that the GM really is letting them have their head (I have seen this myself). Either way leads to conflict.

My lesson is to distinguish very carefully between framing scenes and permitting resolution of scenes (and conflicts that transcend mere scenes), such that the ambiguity of B (what who wants whom to do) is never a part of play. The Art-Deco Melodrama threads in the Sorcerer forum spent a lot of time discussing that issue in terms of scenario prep, although not so much about in play itself.

Oh well, that's about it. Hope people found it interesting. Marco, thanks again for the initial posts. This is what Actual Play is all about.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Feel free to reveal what game was being used. I hope no one is under the impression that they would be criticized or looked down upon for using any particular system.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh look, a double post. Delete!!
RE

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-12-06 16:46 ]

[Marco]

Great to get feedback!

The system was our very own JAGS (Just Another Gaming System http://jagsgame.dyndns.org).

1. The opening scenario (where the promise was made) was probably *somewhat* fan-in: if the character hadn't made the promise, the character might still have shown up for the meeting--but the motivations would have been much weaker. Instead of Keeping A Childhood Promise, the back-end of the game would have been, at best, Along For The Ride.

We didn't have a lot of time--about two and a half days of play--and our playstyle is pretty involved (conversations aren't glossed over, description is heavy, etc.) If the player didn't want to go along, there wouldn't be much time/space to explore other stories (that and, in the world, there weren't a lot of other stories to explore--I don't think the player had one in mind).

That said, the GM was cool as ice about it, so I don't know for sure.

2. 90% of my play was Actor Stance (One thing the game (esp the end-scene) didn't lack was *any* SOD). I'd be interested in knowing how Author Stance would have been applied there.

Cheers,
-Marco

The GM will be back in town at the end of the year so we'll do another one. I'll post on it too if there's anything of note :smile: