MLWM? -- on second thoughts, make that WGP

[Lisa Padol]

Time slipped by since the first MLWM playtest, and I looked at my calendar and realized that we only had one viable weekend day to try again. Beth was out of town that weekend, but Erik, Josh, Avram, and Matt were available.

The first question was: What should we play? Matt was decidedly lukewarm on MLWM, as was I. Erik said that he was lukewarm on it also, and really wanted righteous butt-kicking in the manner of a certain quote I overuse from Babylon 5. This sounded to me like DitV, and to Josh like WGP. What they hey, they're all light games, so I packed all 3, and tossed in Enemy Gods and Nine Worlds for good measure. Matt brought along Ghostbusters.

After the ritual ordering of the Chinese food and some debate, we narrowed our selection down to DitV and WGP. Avram said that, while he really wanted to try DitV, he thought that we'd probably be all day making up characters, what with the more-complex-than-WGP rules and only one copy of the rules that only one of us had read. I said that I could handle playing WGP, but I wasn't up to GMing it. Avram volunteered.

I then took my ritual nap on the very comfy couch. Folks decided that the central conflict would be Man vs. Mask, and that all the PCs would be part of the same family. I mumbled that I'd play the family pet, and Avram described some anime called something like All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl, which also sparked a few thoughts. Erik decided he'd be the father. Matt decided he'd be the daughter, and Josh was going to play the older son. The mother was out of the picture, probably having left the father.

Avram started reading the rules and decided, at some point when I was unconscious, that he wasn't up to GMing it after all. Josh agreed to GM it, and Avram became the older son. Then, we all agreed that it would be neat if the father were actually a supervillain, unbeknownst to his kids. The kids were becoming superheroes in an attempt to get their father's attention. I decided that the cat was actually a construct, built by the father, and that she was in love with the brother. Nice and angsty. She could talk, but generally didn't talk to anyone outside the family, for obvious reasons.

Erik looked over the rules and noted that he could have the father have a change of heart when an aspect got devasted. After all, he reasoned, the father was going into crime to pay expenses for the family. Why, his daughter wanted to go to a prom, and she should have the ultimate prom dress! But, what's the use of being a supervillain to raise money for the family when the family turns away in disgust at one's chosen career?

So, we had an overarching view of where the game should go, and Josh made up a science rival for the father. He was a physicist. She was a chemist. They were both in the Science Department, which explained how they could be competing for tenure. She had her own popular science show. She was also secretly a supervillain called The Plantinum Blond, with alchemical powers.

The Masterson Family:

Erik Hanson: Mycroft Masterson, aka Professor Peril, the Professorial Prince of Automatons
Avram Grumer: Mitchel Masterson, aka L04D570N3 (Lodestone)
Matthew Stevens: Michelle Masterson, aka The Drama Queen
Lisa Padol: Mew Masterson, apparently a cat, but actually constructed with all sorts of interesting extras by Mycroft

Before the actual start of play, Avram and Matt had the rest of us in stitches with their bickering siblings act. Mitchel didn't think Michelle took crime fighting seriously enough, while Michelle was trying to be fashion conscious.

We opened with the Masterson family at a meal. Michelle was waiting for a call from Sarah, a friend at school. The mail arrived, with lots of bills, increasing Mycroft's angst, and Mitchel's report card, which was Not Good. Mitchel was failing all of his subjects, even Science! Mycroft bemoaned his lack of parenting skills.

Josh asked, "Is this an enrichment scene or a conflict scene"

We all blinked and said, "It's a roleplaying scene."

This is most of our problem with WGP, and, for that matter, with our home experience with the indie games. I've loved the demos I've been in at the Forge booth at GenCon. But somehow, our two experiences had the rules getting in the way of the roleplaying.

Now, I know that Ron and others have made a distinction between narrativist play and acting, coming down against too much scenery chewing. And there is some truth there, as the WGP group would gladly attest. However, when you have the dynamic we had, no one is monopolizing the limelight. No one has taken over the game to monologue at the rest of us. We are creating a gestalt, a group dynamic where each line of dialogue reinforces the enjoyment we have, and where the players not speaking at the moment are generally laughing with appreciation at the others. We are roleplaying.

And we seem to be doing so in spite of the rules' best effort. This is a problem.

Another problem was stated thusly, by either Avram or Matt: The problem with these rules-light systems is that they have too many rules.

We decided we were in an enrichment scene and tried to follow the rules for that. We wound up with an interruption, and it was too early for a fight scene. Josh came up with a good interruption, which led to another enrichment scene, which was similarly interrupted, via luck of the draw, and at that point, we all pretty much knew where the story was going. We all were doing our best to bring it there, and we were trying to use the rules to do this. However, that we succeeded was more due to our determination than to the rules, and not in a good way.

So, the first interruption was Sarah calling for Michelle. There was to be a dance contest that very evening, in forty minutes. Sarah would pick Michelle up in an hour. Hey, she had to get dressed.

Michelle tried to get out of the room to dress, but Mycroft found out what was going on and insisted that he would drive the entire family, and Sarah, on an outing to the dance.

Avram picked up the thought balloon he'd inked (we hadn't had a chance to do major photocopying).

Mitchel: Maybe Dad will forget about the report card.

Alas, Michelle thoughtfully drew his attention back to it. Mitchel went to his room to study, with Mew offering to help.

Mitchel: Do you know trigonometry?

Mew: Oh yes, it's very easy.

Mitchel: What's the answer to this one?

Mew was perfectly happy to supply it, and Mitchel used his magnetic powers to stroke Mew so she'd feel good and continue to feed him answers. He wanted to get her to do his homework and get out of the outing. Mew wanted to snuggle up to Mitchel. Michelle wanted to talk Mycroft out of coming to the dance. Mycroft wanted a Family Outing.

I drew a match, meaning an interruption, which Josh decided meant only Mew got interrupted, not everyone else. Matt drew a failure for Michelle, I think -- I know that we all agreed that, regardless of what the cards said, there had to be a family outing to the dance. We discussed ways of streamlining/ignoring the literal rules in such cases as this, where everyone was on the same page out of character.

So, what happened was that Mitchel accidentally rebooted Mew with his magnetic powers, and everyone was swept up by Mycroft into the family car. Mycroft rebooted Mew en route to Sarah's, and thoughtfully turned off the flying powers of the car so that Sarah wouldn't see that. Sarah had been told to expect the Mastersons in half an hour, and, miraculously, was actually ready by then.

She chatted with Michelle about Mitchel.

Sarah: Is he actually in my science class?

Michelle: I think so.

Sarah: You know, he should show up once in a while.

Everyone arrived at the dance. Josh handled the competition as an enrichment scene. Michelle lost badly. It turned out that it was a jazz competition, and she didn't have the moves, and she tripped on stage. Worse, her father was applauding her vigorously, the only one in the audience actually clapping. Sarah won the competition.

Mitchel overheard something about a bank robbery by none other than the infamous Platinum Blond. He tried to get Michelle's attention. There was a very funny bit that I can't reproduce where Matt, as Michelle, explained with gestures to Mitchel that no, she didn't have her costume, and couldn't possibly have fit it on under her dancing clothes. Meanwhile, thanks to her weather powers and her mood, a storm gathered.

Sarah (rushing inside): Hey, that lightning bolt almost hit me!

Mitchel and Michelle managed to convince Mycroft that they were, um, going out with other students for, um, pizza or something. Mycroft told Mew to keep an eye on the kids and went to his laboratory to get his automatons ready. For, tonight, Professor Peril was going to rob a bank. Yep, that very same bank that the Platinum Blond was currently robbing.

L04D570N3, the Drama Queen, and the cat showed up first, and foiled the Plantinum Blond and her minions, although the Platinum Blond escaped by turning to water. Then, Professor Peril and his automatons showed up. The cops made a third (or possibly fourth) side to the conflict, especially when Mew started sparking and acting like anything but a very normal cat.

It was getting time to wrap the session. Also, the way WGP works is that the more the heroes get beaten up and lose, the better they start to do. So, we decided that everyone would yield the fight by fleeing from the police. Mitchel and Michelle did so directly, while Mycroft paused only to have one of his automatons scoop up a bag of loot that the Platinum Blond had abandoned, while he scooped up Mew, wondering how she'd gotten there. Josh put a card down in the It Has Begun slot, and we ended the game.

We liked the characters, but we weren't sure about the system. Both Avram and Matt did Live Journal entries about the session.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/366692.html>Avrams's Comments
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kent_allard_jr/141523.html?mode=reply">Matt's Comments

We still want to try DitV. I'm still wondering why we can't get the indy games to click the way they did at GenCon, and the way they seem to for other groups.

-Lisa Padol

[Eero Tuovinen]

Yea, me Freud, you repressed bourgeoisie.

It seems to me a very simple matter: you don't like rules. From this and earlier descriptions I've found that you as a group have a strong "freeform" wibe in your gaming.

An abstract, genre-exploration system (what I call formalistic) assumes that the psychological priorities are reversed: we're here to first play the game and only second to roleplay. Any of these focused, small indie games assume that as a first point of order the players will learn and apply the rules. The kind of stuff you pull, like "we already knew where the story was going" is actually disruptive in a rules system that tries to control that very same plot-determination power. These games are full of checks and balances against GM power and such to allow players complete freedom within the limits, but what can you expect if the players want to rebel against the very same limitations? You seem to consistently negotiate outcomes outside the rules, so it's no wonder if the rules, which are largely set up as formal tools of such negotiation, feel redundant.

There's also the question of "rules-light". Any of these games is far from rules-light, simply because their rules are much more important than the rules of your average bloated mainstream design. The usual mainstream game includes massive leeway on how the rules are applied, and moves that decision-power to the GM.

My Freudian analysis on your play description states that you as a play group are used to giving credence to players, not rules. That's why these games work in conventions: when you have somebody on the table who is committed to playing by the rules, you give credibility to that person, who then applies the rules in a fair and regular manner for you, so you can focus on roleplaying.

But when there's no rules commitment at the table, like it seems is the case in your home games, you get play that simply has wrong priorities: WGP, for example, is not planned for freeform plotting where the players decide freely what happens and when. For example, the limitation of playing either enrichment scenes or conflict scenes is a classic case of play balancing: the system simultaneously simplifies player decisions ("I don't have to know where we're going with this, I'll just have to know what this scene is about.") and limits players from dominating the game ("I can't control where the story is going, because all scenes are controlled by the cards!"). When players have a concensus on where the play should be going, the game is already over from the viewpoint of a game like WGP: it's whole point is to limit and regulate players, while the players are all trying to control the plot. That's conflict-based rules design, and apparently all wrong for your group. Imagive playing Universalis in a group that always handles any disagreements informally mano-a-mano, without resolting to rules; what the f*ck is the point there, you might as well play freeform!

To put it simply, I suggest that it'd be rank idiocy to continue playing games you don't dig. These games structure game by controlling a venue of play that your group is used to controlling themselves. Those two can hardly be combined.

As a solution I suggest getting a more freeform game. We don't yet have any really good formalistic designs for that, but almost any traditional mainstream game will work better than these games you've been playing. Consider: a typical mainstream game consists of a number of resolution systems for different in-play situations. It's also constructed in a way that allows the players to use or disregard these resolution systems at will. There's no overarching plot mechanics at all, so the players are completely free to run the game where-ever they will, as long as they only apply the resolution mechanics when the situation warrants. This is very different from the MLwM, WGP, DiV approach (although DiV isn't as tight as the two former examples), where great amounts of control is formalized.

A good game in this regard would be Sorcerer, which includes nice tools for handling premise, but eschews any formal play controls. The game's fully about negotiation led by a GM, not about being puppeteered by rules. The same holds for HeroQuest as well. I could mention TRoS and BW as well, but those two have heavy rules only suitable for a narrow field of players.

[Lisa Padol]

Yea, me Freud, you repressed bourgeoisie.

Fer sure.

It seems to me a very simple matter: you don't like rules. From this and earlier descriptions I've found that you as a group have a strong "freeform" wibe in your gaming.

Hm. That's certainly true of me. I'm not sure it's as true of my players. They enjoy rules hacking. But yes, we don't want the rules getting in the way of, well, Our Thing.

we're here to first play the game and only second to roleplay. Any of these focused, small indie games assume that as a first point of order the players will learn and apply the rules. The kind of stuff you pull, like "we already knew where the story was going" is actually disruptive in a rules system that tries to control that very same plot-determination power.

Ah. In other words, the rules are there to do a very specific job.
This is a job my group doesn't necessarily want done.
Ergo, of couse we don't like the rules.

That about right?

That's why these games work in conventions: when you have somebody on the table who is committed to playing by the rules, you give credibility to that person, who then applies the rules in a fair and regular manner for you, so you can focus on roleplaying.

Again, ah. And it doesn't hurt that, most of the time, the person to whom I am giving credence is the author of the game.

Imagive playing Universalis in a group that always handles any disagreements informally mano-a-mano, without resolting to rules; what the f*ck is the point there, you might as well play freeform!

Yes, I think you have it -- that is exactly my problem with Universalis. It does what it is supposed to do, quite well. That's just not what -I- want to do.

To put it simply, I suggest that it'd be rank idiocy to continue playing games you don't dig. These games structure game by controlling a venue of play that your group is used to controlling themselves. Those two can hardly be combined.

Actually, I'm not sure about that. There are mechanics that we really liked in WGP, and I'm not convinced that we can't take those and play, well, something that probably isn't really WGP, but that owes its existence to it, and that pleases us all.

As a solution I suggest getting a more freeform game.

Oh yes. We use OTE mechanics a lot because they can fade into the background, and I don't have to think about them. We use Everway mechanics, which do something similar, but with a different flavor.

As I said, it's not that we object to rules qua rules, I think.  But I think you're right that what we want is something of angle to what MLWM and WGP are trying to supply.

-Lisa

[mneme]

Eero: As Lisa said, it's not that we don't like rules so much as that we do like roleplaying and, often have deciosons show up by consensus, and don't like rules that halt roleplaying in order to go through a rule-based thing where roleplaying would suffice.  Rules are fine...in their place.  IOW, your analysis is pretty solid, if off in a few places that don't matter much.

FWIW, the vast bulk of our roleplaying is freeform using OTE's WaRP engine for conflict determination, in a variety of genres.  We've also had some success with Everway, on occason) (which is an extreme of the "give the GM all the power" concept), with the newest Marvel system (resource-management based diceless roleplaying).

What's frustrating with With Great Power is that it combines a (frustrating and pointless, from my POV) "do everything" set of conflict resolution mechanics with a very promising story-arc system and a combat/conflict system that provides some very interesting story -influencing- (as opposed to story controlling) possiblities.  There's nothing even wrong with dividing scenes into conflict ones (where the players are in conflict with the GM and other players) and enrichment scenes (where the characters and their motivations are displayed in a manner that makes the readers (ie, the players) understand and care about them, but that's no call to forcibly stop the roleplaying in order to do it.

I'm also not convinced that MIchael exactly -indended- all the PCs to start out with no Importance to any of their aspects, though that's clearly how the game is written.

[LordSmerf]

I just wanted to add my own sub-analysis to this, and perhaps highlight an interesting point or two.

I know that we all agreed that, regardless of what the cards said, there had to be a family outing to the dance.

This was the single most telling statement to me.  You have a group consensus on the direction of the story, and while the conflict resolution rules may decide that things turn out differently you'll fudge things such that that will not occur.  This is fine, but highlights something interesting.  Sometimes resolution systems are designed to provide unexpected and/or unplanned outcomes.  With some groups this is an asset, having some outside force influence the story can be fun.  It seems with your group that this is no fun, you don't need any stinking rules telling you what you want to happen.

Universalis touches on this though I rarely see it highlighted.  Universalis makes a clear distinction between players and characters in Conflicts such that a player whose side wins a Conflict can choose to have his/her character lose.  This seems to be an almost superfluous step in Universalis, especially if all players are on the same page in terms of what they want to see happen.  This is one of the things that I consider to be a great asset of Shreyas Sampat's (in progress) game Torchbearer.  The rules explicitly state that the group can decide on who wins regardless of resolution, but that the resolution will still add something to the game.

So, here's my analysis: You (as a group) often already know what you want to happen.  Most games' resolution systems are used almost exclusively to adjudicate that.  So, often you find said systems superfluous.  (To be fair, Universalis' resolution also has some mechanical effects with Coins and stuff so it's not purely about what happens).  If the above is accurate I have a question: Has your group ever run accross a system in which the resolution mechanic did more than decide what happens next?  Was that extra function compelling enough for you to use it when you did not need that system to tell you what happened next?

I'm very, very interested in this stuff so any response here is appreciated.  Oh, and thanks for sharing your experiences with WGP.

Thomas

[mneme]

I know that we all agreed that, regardless of what the cards said, there had to be a family outing to the dance.

This was the single most telling statement to me.  You have a group consensus on the direction of the story, and while the conflict resolution rules may decide that things turn out differently you'll fudge things such that that will not occur.

I don't think it's all that significant (far more significant, actually, was the way we found that the system, time and time again, encouraged/forced us to cut short in character discussions that could have gone any which way).  Actually, in the situation described, WGP is relatively player-friendly, since, as this was an enrichment scene, all players could decide whether their characters would win or lose (or could play the odds, but since people effecitvely were in consensu, this mostly didn't happen).

  This is fine, but highlights something interesting.  Sometimes resolution systems are designed to provide unexpected and/or unplanned outcomes.  

Yes.  This is a good thing, and to a large extent, the primary use of a system.

We use Everway (which gives you cards that are interpreted, and said interpreation frequently doesn't just give win/loss), and OTE with upward open-ended rolls (which can often give an upset and some info on exactly how things went even though it's basically just giving magnitude).

It seems with your group that this is no fun, you don't need any stinking rules telling you what you want to happen.

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

Which is true about all groups, actually, even if some slide more toward "do" and some toward "don't".  The key is for the system to stay delicately out of range until actually needed or wanted.

Has your group ever run accross a system in which the resolution mechanic did more than decide what happens next?  Was that extra function compelling enough for you to use it when you did not need that system to tell you what happened next?

As I said -- LIsa's claim that "we already knew what was happening next" is something of a bogon.  The important thing is "we were having fun, how dare the system get in the way and Stop Our Fun".  That the system was already superfluous at some isntances was largely irrelevant, since WGP (unlike LWM) supports consensus...just in a really clunky way.

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Lisa & Josh, thanks for giving With Great Power... a try. I greatly appreciate your playing it and posting about it.

My wife Kat had similar complaints about the Enrichment process. I strained, struggled, and finally figured out what to do. I've just today released the With Great Power... Interim Edition which contains a whole new Enrichment system that is Kat-endorsed. I think you might like it.

As for the whole "we don't want the system to intrude until we want the system to intrude" issue, I think the new guidelines in the Interim Edition will be helpful. Taking a page from Vincent's excellent Dogs in the Vinyard, I've added a step where you expressly must decide what is at Stake for the enrichment scene. This may seem like it makes the Enrichment mechanics more intrusive, but think about it this way: If you choose, you can make the Stakes be about something very minor to the scene, with the rest of it resolving as you see fit. Check out the example involving Noir on page 16 of the Interim Edition, as well as the last example involving Debris on page 21 for examples.

[mneme]

Very cool. I've read through it, and it looks like you've substantially reduced the annoyance of Enrichment scenes.  

A few comments, however:

First, and most simply, the system doesn't describe whether you can move an Aspect from Unprimed to Pri med as your "worsten suffering" action at the beginning of combat.

Second, the mechanics don't really address what happens if PCs are in conflict in a conflict scene (in an enrichment scene, it's a bit more obvious -- which one wins is the crux of one of them, and PC vs PC cardplay in enrichment scenes is at least implied as a possibility).

Third, and in some ways, related to the second issue, the system doesn't really allow players to assist one another in conflict scenes -- which seems a classic thing to allow. (the obvious answer to the two above is to allow players to play cards into other player's Pages of conflict).

Fourth, while I applaud the drastic-simplification involved in removing Importance from the game, I do regret its loss, since the appeal of being able to paint big "kick me" signs on your Aspects is great.  

Fifth, while I understand that pretty much any scene worth doing will have conflict, if the conflict is resolved entirely through roleplaying, I could see it feeling forced to have to define Stakes in order to end the scene.  Why not allow players to let an enrichment scene end without setting Stakes if they chose? (but then they don't get the cardplay, and cannot prime two Aspects)

I really like pretty much all the changes -- the better guidelines for changing suit help significantly, as do the far simpler and less intrusive Enrichment rules.  But that doesn't stop me from putting my oar in.  And BTW, I'm glad Kat is on our side. :)

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Josh. Thanks for checking out the Interim Edition. To respond to your issues.

1st issue: No, you can't move from No Suffering to Primed during Assessment. IMO, it ruins the pacing when someone just thinks of something in the middle of conflict that was never even hinted at previously and adds it at the moment.

2nd issue: PC v. PC conflict will be handled further in the Full Edition in the Advanced Section. It will work almost exactly like PC v. NPC conflict does now.

3rd issue: Playing cards to one another's pages of conflict can take place after the 4th space on the Story Arc is filled. More detail will be forthcoming in the Full Edition. That is, the team cannot work together to maximum benefit until the story has turned a corner

4th issue: the "Kick Me" sign is still there. It's just hanging on Suffering now. See my designer's notes for a bit more on that.

5th issue: The option to ignore the game requirements is always there. I don't see the need to reinforce it by adding text that says "ignore this text if you like." I mean, Monopoly expressly states that NOTHING happens when you land on Free Parking, but everybody ignores it. Would that be a better game text if it said "nothing happens on Free Parking, but ignore that if you feel like it"? I personally don't think so. As your group has shown, people will ignore what they want.

Thanks again for your comments and for playing the game. I'll be certain to add that PC vs. PC issue to the working table of contents. I must have a mental block against it, since I've always *hated* superhero v. superhero issues of the comics.

[mneme]

Hi, Josh. Thanks for checking out the Interim Edition.

A pleasure.

1st issue: No, you can't move from No Suffering to Primed during Assessment. IMO, it ruins the pacing when someone just thinks of something in the middle of conflict that was never even hinted at previously and adds it at the moment.

I must have miscommunicated.  

When the interim rules (should be "interim suplement" or something, since it's not the full rules, but a coredgium or update to same), mention priming an aspect, they talk about moving it from "unprimed" to "primed".

When the combat rules are explained, they talk about at the beginning of combat, worstening the suffering of any one aspect.  It seems to me that -if- one can introduce an aspect at some point other than during enrichment scenes, this is actually the ideal time -- the villain (or hero) reveals that contrary to popular understanding...[somehting]...and attacks!

>2nd issue: PC v. PC conflict will be handled further in the Full Edition in the Advanced >Section. It will work almost exactly like PC v. NPC conflict does now.

Cool.  It seems mostly obvious...but not quite.
It came up with us, of course, because we decided to go with one player playing a "villain" who would be redeemed by the other PCs during the plotline.

>3rd issue: Playing cards to one another's pages of conflict can take place after the 4th >space on the Story Arc is filled. More detail will be forthcoming in the Full Edition. That is, >the team cannot work together to maximum benefit until the story has turned a corner

Ah -- makes sense.  Should be something in the advanced rules about playing later books of the same series (which should have fewer restrictions, for the most part, though characters will have to work Suffering and the Arc back from ground 0 every so often).

>4th issue: the "Kick Me" sign is still there. It's just hanging on Suffering now. See my >designer's notes for a bit >more on that.

Ah -- I'lll check that out, but it does make sense even with no further explaination.

>5th issue: The option to ignore the game requirements is always there. I don't see >the need to reinforce it by adding text that says "ignore this text if you like." I mean, >Monopoly expressly states that NOTHING happens when you land on Free Parking, >but everybody ignores it. Would that be a better game text if it said "nothing happens on >Free Parking, but ignore that if you feel like it"? I personally don't think so. As your group >has shown, people will ignore what they want.

Of course.  But having something as a game option does make it easier to control expectations -- if the player says "I can't think of a Stakes that furthers this scene," it helps if the GM has some idea of what to do.

Thanks again for your comments and for playing the game. I'll be certain to add that PC vs. PC issue to the working table of contents. I must have a mental block against it, since I've always *hated* superhero v. superhero issues of the comics.

Well, they're often silly.  But then, it really depends.  The obligitory "two teams meet, so they fight" stuff can get old fast, but paired lovers/opponents, like Batman/Catwoman and Daredevil/Electra can be interesting.

[Callan S.]

As I said -- LIsa's claim that "we already knew what was happening next" is something of a bogon. The important thing is "we were having fun, how dare the system get in the way and Stop Our Fun".

I find this a really important point. Now, I think the idea of rules system is to go from where the group isn't having fun (ie, the start of the game, with people in expectation of fun) and build up that fun in a particular direction.

You know, some might be the fun of exploring the terror of the unknown a 7 yo might experience.

Anyway, the basic progression is from no fun to fun with this, the rules are hand holding the group along the way, shaping play toward this.

Now, would you say your group might pick up a game like this, start some sort of group huddle discussion and...the ideas start bouncing between you faster and faster, while the books cover is still closed. In fact, the ideas might spark roleplay and you'll find you go from discussion to roleplaying pretty fluidly.

I'm just wondering, could something like being afraid of bullies get discussed, the ideas build up and you start roleplaying it. In fact perhaps you get to some point where your resolving the situation between you, perhaps waterbombing the bullies to get them back, when you look to see what rules the book have. And say the rules there are about the child curling up in a corner and going through inner loathing. Does this example sound similar to the play account here, to you?

[mneme]

I find this a really important point. Now, I think the idea of rules system is to go from where the group isn't having fun (ie, the start of the game, with people in expectation of fun) and build up that fun in a particular direction.

Oh, very much so.  And in that, though we had problems with how they worked in play, the original WGP rules worked very well in this -- the inspirational -- part.

And say the rules there are about the child curling up in a corner and going through inner loathing. Does this example sound similar to the play account here, to you?

LWM, certainly.
WGP, not so much -- the rules wanted to go in more or less the same direction we did, but wanted to do so slower and with occasional random "and then something wierd happens" interruptions.

[Lisa Padol]

This is weird -- I was sure I had links to Matt's and Avram's lj entries on the MLWM sessions. Let's try this again.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/kent_allard_jr/141523.html">Matt's Comments
http://www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/366692.html">Avram's Comments

Let me know if these links are broken.

-Lisa Padol