[Perfect] Dave's playtest report

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Tonight I GM'd a playtest session of Joe's Perfect RPG. Two peeps didn't show, but we sstill managed to muster, Darcy, Joe and myself.
  We played via IRC and that did cause some awkward moments

  Darcy made a carriage driver of a rich family, Darcy and Joe worked out a whole backstory for the two families, but it didn't make it into play tonight really.
You can see the char at:
http://wiki.thesmerf.com/pmwiki.php/ActualPlay/DarcysCharacter

  Joe made a Stable hand with a lot of "extra responsibilities" You can find him at:
http://wiki.thesmerf.com/pmwiki.php/ActualPlay/JoesCharacter

  Joe did the first scene solo and due to a little overeagerness on his part and a lack of sensitivity on my part, we ended up doing a lame crime cycle. He took a swig from a flask and then took a whole lot more and then wanted to play out sneaking back home drunk and past curfew. I tried to push for him to commit a bigger crime, but in the end, he got his crime scene and I didn't resist and banked the points.

  Then the game play more or less stopped and we discussed mechanics.

  Then Darcy's char got a scene, he was bringing a foreign diplomat in from the port. After some great banter, Darcy and I agreed to do a little 'crime inside a crime' scene. He would commit a crime in order to defend the carriage from a criminal. And that's just what happened, a Brigand popped out of an alleyway and a wild burst of action ensued. In the end the Brigand was defeated.

  We didn't get to do the Crime Cycle for that because it got late and we got sidetracked on mechanics discussions again.

  My observations:
- GM responsibility, authority and abilities are not well defined.
- The tone of the game is a little unclear, I was looking forward to a little man vs. oppressive govt, but apparently I was the only one
- Narration rights are a little fuzzy, close to what is needed I think but needs a little more tweaking
- From what I could see, the the Crime Cycle mechanics work well. The player is the only one who can call a Crime Cycle, but the GM has a lot of tools to make it match the level of interest they have in it.
- This is an innovative game, it challenges the "traditional" way RPGs are played.
- There is a great game in here, and it has to be like 90% done!

  Joe, Darcy, please add whatever comments you feel are appropriate.

[joepub]

My observations:
- GM responsibility, authority and abilities are not well defined.
- The tone of the game is a little unclear, I was looking forward to a little man vs. oppressive govt, but apparently I was the only one
- Narration rights are a little fuzzy, close to what is needed I think but needs a little more tweaking
- From what I could see, the the Crime Cycle mechanics work well. The player is the only one who can call a Crime Cycle, but the GM has a lot of tools to make it match the level of interest they have in it.
- This is an innovative game, it challenges the "traditional" way RPGs are played.
- There is a great game in here, and it has to be like 90% done!

That is all 100% accurate. except the 90% done part. :P

If anyone takes a look a Page 1 of the playtesting document, they'll notice the following lines:

The rulebook will look something like this in the end:
Background (to be expanded)
Character Overview
Mechanics of Committing Crimes
Creating Characters
Narration and Social Contract (not included in this doc)
Adapting the Game (not included in this doc.)
Resources (not included in this doc)
Credits (not included in this doc)

Specifically: "Narration and Social Contract"... (not included in this doc).

That was probably the biggest reason that the session turned out poorly. (I think we can all agree that it did turn out poorly... not because of any one person or element... just because of several very large disconnects.)

I'd like to take the next post and talk about:
-the major issues I saw with the playtest
-the major issues I see with the game
-some things that really need to be addressed.

[joepub]

I'm going to address my concerns with the game, in the order that they surfaced for me.

Setting a tone: Collaboratively

Dave took the liberty of sending out an email to his two potential players (myself and Sean), saying:

OK, the initial setting is going to be the big, London-like city of Cadence. The characters will know each other and will have a history of performing minor crimes together. There will be a larger conspiracy abroad, but the chars are only vaguely aware of it as an element of the larger oppression of the masses. The rest will be developed in game as a reaction to the characters you make. Joe, Sean, you guys can brainstorm chars in e-mail before wednesday if you want...

Which, I must admit... gave us very clear tone perameters.

Then there were two issues:
-Sean didn't show, but Darcy did join in. Thus... only 1 of the 2 players really knew about Dave's cool tone.
-We developed our own, wildly different, tone while brainstorming.

Brainstorming went something like this:

Joe: I was thinking my guy be Romantic / Vandal
Darcy: Cool
Joe: Have you seen Clockwork Orange? because I was thinking...
Darcy: idea:
Darcy: How about we be servants and maids?
Joe: That's a wicked idea!
Darcy: of feuding houses.
Dave: Doesn't "feuding" sound a little too aggressive for this setting?

Joe/Darcy - (railroad over Dave and keep going)

Someone: They should both be competing for the position of vicar.
Others: Yeah.
Joe: One of the families should be like X.
Darcy: The other family should be like Y.
Dave: What about Z?
Joe/Darcy - (railroad over Dave and keep going)

You get the idea.
Basically... Dave brought this cool preconceived tone/setting to the table.
But me and Darcy developed this cool spur-of-the-moment tone/setting at the table.

It wasn't that one was good and the other wasn't...
it was that they conflicted.

It would be like the GM opening a first session of My Life With Master by saying, "Okay, the master is a brain aspect that requires human eyeballs. You guys establish the rest."

Me and Darcy were using an entirely different method of pre-game development than Dave was.
Both were legitimate types, but both were... to some extent... mutually exclusive.

Things that could help circumvent this problem:

• no one shows up with preconceived notions about how it will play.
• everything is put forward at the table, nothing is assumed
• players and GM work collaboratively... not top-down, but not what me and Darcy were doing either

GM Roles

There was a lot of confusion and argument as to what the GM's actual role was.
This confusion included:
-NPCs and narrating the world around
-Who gets to determine what constitutes a crime
-Challenging players
-scene framing

NPCs and Narrating the World Around

The player who's "turn" it is is responsible for setting the scene.

For example, my first one started out:
Tonight is the night of the October Taxation Gala, a celebration of the beginning of the fall tax cycle.
My character, Muntz Gelding is guarding his master's horse and carriage.
It is cold, there is a biting wind and some hail.

After that, I was like... "So... now what?"

And I talked in the OOC channel to Dave, saying "In this game, it's GM responsibility to narrate an interactive world..." something to that effect. Dave was like, "oh. okay. didn't realize that."

And the scene continued with Dave narrating in an NPC, who offered Muntz a canteen of "hot chocolate".
And Dave specifically said in OOC that "it might be just hot chocolate, or might not be"

So... I decided right there what Muntz crime cycle would be:
He took a LOT of the flask, got drunk, wandered off into a ditch.
He awoke hours later to find that he was out past curfew, his master and carriage were gone, and Inspectors were out looking for him.

Deciding What Constitutes a Crime

Stumbling his ass home without being caught for "alcohol" (1 IP) and "curfew" (1 IP) violations was to be teh crime cycle we were testing, I dictated.

And Dave replied with (something along the lines of) : "That can't be your crime cycle. That's a wimpy/lame cycle. That's barely even a crime."

I was like... *jaw drops*.
I thought we'd narrated a scene that was very fitting for my character...
He was supposed to be a bit dumb, a bit oaf-ish, and a bit of an impulsive character.
I thought that the crime was a good first step into the game world...
Nothing too dramatic, just a step into the world of crime.
I thought that the crime cycle system was well suited for this particular crime
He was attempting to avoid suspicion (did the master report him), and discovery (do the inspectors see him traipsing home)...
He was doing a low-tension crime.

But then Dave told me the whole set-up was sucky.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I got a resounding "try harder" in my mind.
To use his exact words:

due to a little overeagerness on his part and a lack of sensitivity on my part, we ended up doing a lame crime cycle. He took a swig from a flask and then took a whole lot more and then wanted to play out sneaking back home drunk and past curfew. I tried to push for him to commit a bigger crime, but in the end, he got his crime scene and I didn't resist and banked the points.

He hit two points I want to bring up:
First of all... there was no overeagerness... I was under the belief that I'd created a really good scene.
Where had this enthusiasm been misunderstood or lost?

Second ...
Dave said "I tried to push for him to commit a bigger crime"
He did something that is very important for the GM of this game... challenging players...
But he did it in the wrong way (yeah, wrong, I think.)

Challenging Players

If Dave thought my crime cycle was whimpy, I would have liked the following to be asked:

• Why are you willing to risk capture for this?
• Does your character REALLY think this is a good idea?
• How does this fit into the world of Cadence?

the GM challenging the player on their statements should be a HUGE part of the GM job.
Like... it's up there with bidding points during crime cycles as far as importance.

But I didn't feel challenged, I simply felt refuted.

Here are my suggestions for the future:
-The GM is encouraged to ask "why" and "how" questions as often as necessary... creating a mutually understood tone and reasoning is a huge part of the game.

-The GM should not have the right to say "that doesn't count as a crime cycle." Ever. It felt like railroading when it happened to me.

-The GM should use his/her points as a way of applying appropriate pressure. Banking points during a trivial crime cycle... in order to have more firepower when he/she really wants it... should be a tool that is used both mechanically and to challenge thematic implications of a crime.
EXAMPLE: I commit a small thievery, the GM banks 2 of their points. player B distributes hate literature, the GM banks 1 more point... Then when I go to torch a building, the GM pulls out all the stops and says "I'm going to use these saved points to deliver a strong message about the impact of arson on the game world."

-If a player invokes a tool which seems out of context, the GM should CHALLENGE THAT INVOCATION.
Darcy pointed out to me that invoking a "tough guy" evasion while trying to escape the Inspector eye seemed "Bullshit".
The GM should have the right to say "thematically, invoking that tool doesn't make sense"...
And then the table (entire table, not solely GM) has the right to reach a consensus decision of "we bar invoking that tool under the present narrative circumstances."


Scene Framing

It is the player's job to frame and open a scene.
It is the player's job to indicate the direction of the scene.
If that scene is one that logically involves other people, it is the GM's job to narrate those others, and describe the world that the character is probing into.

When Dave narrated in Nathanial (the NPC with the flask), he did so PERFECTLY.
Nathanial presented local flavour with his "wot, wot" style dialect.
Nathanial represented the crude citizens - dirty, unkempt, low grade.
And when it became obvious that I was fishing for something to go off of...
Nathanial gave me two seperate hooks: the flask... and a pile of parcels he was gathering that he temporarily left unattended.
I bit on the flask angle, and worked that into the story.

This was PERFECT, and exactly how the GM should bring in a reflexive and interactive world to the character, at the player's request.

It just fell apart after that, when we got to the "that's a lame crime, try harder" bit. But let's not fixate on that right now.


The only time when the GM should have scene framing capabilities is when invoking Intolerances... They set the scene.
"You are walking and get lost, and wind up on 5th Ave.... next to the bakery you can't tolerate."

After that, it is the player's job to determine how to react to their Intolerance.
The player MUST commit a crime against it, but what magnitude and what way are entirely player choice.
The player could burn down the 5th Street Bakery, or just throw a rock through the window.










So, in summary:
-Tone and Setting must solely be established at the table, collaboratively and inclusively.
-The player is responsible for framing scenes.
-The GM plays a supporting role in narrating the world.
-The player determines what the crime cycle will be.
-The GM cannot refuse a crime cycle...
-but the GM can, and is encouraged to, ask provocative questions which challenge the player's decisions without attempting to overrule them.
-The player will frame scenes, except for in the case of Intolerance scenes.


Dave - let's me and you back off, give Darcy a chance to chime in... and have others provide some input before we jump back in with more to say, k?

[Darcy Burgess]

Regarding setting tone/background:  I'm reminded of a piece of advice from 1st ed. Unknown Armies.  To paraphrase:  You show up ready to run UA with a cool X-files-esque Inquisition setting.  As the character sheets hit the table, one player pipes up "Hey, let's play mutant hillbillies!", and suddenly they all want to play mutant hillbillies, rompin' around the countryside making trouble.  Well, brother, you'd better damn well play mutant hillbillies, because that's what the players want.

So, a whole-hearted agreement on that one.  Definitely at the table. 100% with you on that one.  Now, one thing I will add is that it's very helpful for the GM to come to the table with a jumping off point.  Something completely undeveloped that s/he's willing to drop if something that the players hit upon pre-empts it.

Regarding a non-narrating participant (aka fellow player or GM) targeting a crime cycle as lame, that's a byproduct of a larger issue.  here are some observations:

• a lot of the work that IPs do could be equally well done by the tension level.  This reflects the importance of the crime to the table, rather how many bullet points you hit on such-and-such a list
• reduces the handling time of the system (less chart gazing)
• I'd also distribute the (currently) GM's tension points among all of the other players, so that everyone can have a mechanical say.
• the "crime" needs to be clearly delineated by the active player and only the active player.  I'd go so far as this: at the beginning of the scene, the player jots the crime he wants down.  And he drives towards it, rolling with what the GM throws at him.  Along the way, he may commit a whole pile of other crimes, but not until he gets his noted crime do you cascade to the cycle.

Eventually, I'd also like to discuss my concerns re: crime fixed before resolution and finish our conversation of last night.  However, I think what we're working on here is much more important.

[joepub]

a lot of the work that IPs do could be equally well done by the tension level.  This reflects the importance of the crime to the table, rather how many bullet points you hit on such-and-such a list
reduces the handling time of the system (less chart gazing)

*Stands around like an idiot for a moment.*

Are you suggesting eliminating Infraction Points altogether, and simply having the punishments of a failed Interrogation or Conditioning based solely upon Tension Level?

Maybe that would work well.

Also...
it eliminates some of the rigidity in narration that we experienced last night, but I agree... let's hold off discussing that for the time being.






I've got an in-person playtest tonight... And I'm going to play it again with the current Infraction Points/Tension Level system...

And depending on the results of htat might move closer to something like what you are saying.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, well, there was a method to my madness:
  I did want to set the tone before we got to the table to avoid the problem of everyone coming to play a different game. Obviously, Joe forgot what I wrote in the e-mail and Darcy didn't get a chance to read it before the game started because I didn't get their e-mail address until right before the game.
  But what I did wasn't a bonehead move, all I did was set three parameters, the characters would reside in a large london-esque city, the government would be really bad and the chars wouldn't like the government. Basically, just an extension of the game setting, nothing radiically different, really.
  See, I've played a few NAR games now, and the hardest part of these is getting the group kicked off in the same direction, so I thought I would help with that potential problem. You guys synched up pretty good and the only disconnect was I was rolling your ideas up into my own and you were rolling my idea out the window.

  I wasn't trying to dog you Joe when I said overeager. all I was referring to was that the first line I typed as narration was interpretted to have some higher meaning or plot hook. When in fact it was just me setting the tone of the world and trying to gauge what your character is like in narration.

  I didn't have any pre-conceived NPCs or even any pre-conceived stories, Just a general notion that there is a good conspiracy story in there somewhere. That was it, not even who was conspiring against who or how the PCs would be involved. I generally lean back and watch the chars interact before I start to coalesce any kind of plot, opposition or conflict.

  So, why did I do the unforgiveable act of calling Joe's crime lame? Simple, as a bit of color, I had someone who was allowed to have alchohol offer a flask of unknown beverage to Joe's char. Before he narrated I said, its up to you what's in it (the char said it was hot cocoa, cuz it was a cold October night). So, he decides that it is alchohol, he drinks almost the whole flask and then passes out. He said that the end of that scene, then he wakes up some indeterminate time later, and I introduce an NPC standing there mysteriously. He then decided that his crime will be to get home safe after curfew and inebrated. At that point I said, lets set the bar a little higher, have you commit a real crime against the govt or one that is, at least, intentional by your char. When he said that's what I want to do, I went along. Now, I have called myself insensitive and I have been accused of railroading. But, what I was trying to do was play the game. I am a player, just like Darcy and Joe and if I don't voice what I want, how will anyone know? Furthermore, most of my requests were vetoed and I had no tools in game and no trust at the virtual table to get anyting I wanted out of the game. And Joe was not voicing what he wanted, he just said, this is my crime, lets roll, with no real explanation. If he said, this is a big milestone for my char, or any kind of feedback at all, I could get into it, but just stonewalling is not very interactive. So, I feel like I am not entirely to blame for this snafu.

  After that I tried to dial down the "Ask for what I want" whining, and I think it went pretty well, til Darcy got snagged on a mechanical question about narraation rights, narrative content and rolling the dice. An that's when we ran out of time.

  I do question whether a GM is necesary at all. Joe, it doesn't feel like from the text of the rules and our occasional convoes that you have a real solid idea of what the GM is supposd to be doing. I mean I know playing NPCs and bidding fear and inspector points, but there's nothing much more to it and that could easily be managed by players. As a GM, I had no fun. I didn;t have control over anything and I didn;t get to tell a good story.

  If I have been too defensive, I apologize. If I have been a bad GM, I am even sorrier. I know I can do better than that, I have been GMing for a looong time...

[Darcy Burgess]

Dave --

There isn't a whole lot to talk about -- since your post was mostly you explaining your actions and your reasoning.  One thing I'd like to say is that I see no reason to apologize -- playtests are rocky things, and messy poop is what happens sometimes.  No harm, no foul!

However, two points, which are actually strongly related.

1) I strongly disagree with your view on not needing a GM.  I think that Joe's recent playtest results from his face-to-face game show that a GM is a very useful tool in the game.  What I will grant you is that the current (now horribly out-of-date) draft has an incomplete & incorrect description of the GM role.  What Joe needs to do is write down what he does so that we can all do the same thing.

2) It sounds like you have a lot of old habits to break -- because if you think that you still get to "tell your story", then you are going to be constantly frustrated by games like Sorcerer, Dogs and Perfect.  If the designer has done their job right, the story is firmly in the hands of the player(s).  The GM's job is to keep the players honest -- not in a "don't fiddle with your dice" sense, but rather to make sure that they keep telling their story.  Typically, this is done by presenting the players with interesting situations (and then standing waaaaaay back and seeing what they do with it) and by escalating like crazy.

Believe me, I used to think that GMing sucked in these games too.  Now, I love running them -- because I get to finally put a good chunk of the work where it belongs -- on the players' laps.  The rewards are awesome, too.