[Binary] First two Playtest sessions and some questions regarding wanking

[Steven Stewart]

Playtest Notes for Binary

Introduction
I have written this post about a half-dozen times. Each time it ends up being too long. Or too long that I think people will have the patience to read it. So I will take the following tack, I will try to be as brief as I can be while still containing some substance, but also having trust that those who wish to help me or are interested will ask some specific points to help guide the discussion in directions that will yield improvements in the game. I will try to follow the points of actual play focusing on the social dynamic, what worked and what didn't work. But I think before I get too far into that, I need to [briefly] describe the game for two purposes - (A) establish the type of game it is so that those who feel like they know that style can help (B) give a context for some of the specific Problems.

My gut feeling based on the actual play of two playtests (which both used different conflict resolution mechanics) is that the conflict resolution mechanics, or at least the execution of them to create a dynamic story (to me that means a story creating by contributions of two or more people through the game system) is somewhat flawed even if the process was entertaining. To this end, I feel that improving that mechanic in some way will benefit the intent of the game. I could very well be wrong, which why I also have the trust that if someone wants to suggest taking the discussion in a different aspect of the game, I will follow along.

Part I - What is it?
I want to try and avoid the tack of making me reinvent my game from scratch, I know the big three, and I think at some level I understand them.  I personally measure the "success" of the game by how well it meets the goal. Again I am willing to have some trust (for a short period of time) to discuss the validity of the goals, but that is not really the purpose for listing them. The purpose is to give the measuring stick of what went "good" and what needs to be "fixed". 

GOAL: Have a game with zero prep time ahead of the game. Enable the whole group to create the setting and protagonists from scratch. Create interesting dynamic stories (meaning not predetermined novels or story threads but story that changes from the interactive group process of playing a game) with butt-loads of cool stuff, and have the system allow characters to do butt-loads of cool stuff as they envision their character. Do this simply.  Be able to have some meaningful progress towards a story in a relatively short amount of time.

To use the Ken H's 5/16" wrench analogy, I want a  Muji All Purpose Screwdriver set. Cool (its from Muji after all), useful in a pinch, handy and simple, a pretty good all purpose tool set to get something done and cheap, but if you are going to some serious assembly, well get a power screwdriver fit for the job.


Part II - The 5000 foot look at the mechanics
Playtest I - Sunset over New Edo - Nuevo Tokyo Cyberpunk meets Darkangel Used active narration (ala Polaris) what you say happens in the game. You are limited to the actions and outcomes of the things in your narrative control. Play is split amongs the protagonist and support characters. There is no GM. Characters are defined by Edges (a number 1 to 4) and aspects. Aspects can help or hurt you. When players disagree they are in conflict. The first player is an initiator, the second is the challenger. The challenger either makes an additive or replacing statement (aspects come into play for this), and then the initiator either accepts or rolls. Initiator can bring one aspect, either their own or challenger's aspect into play for a modifier (yours give a +2, opponent's a +1). Edges are compared for another modifier (damn it Steve get thatsquare peg in a round hole), and finally there is a single roll. If it is a 6,initiator gets their statement into play, if it is less than a 6 then the challenger gets initiators plus theirs if additive, or just theirs if replacing. Conflict can be extended with the result of that phase being the phrase being contested in the next phase. Role as challenger and initiator are switched if needed, and Edges go up and down based on how the conflict resolved itself. An experience check is made to check for refreshing aspects and improving edge (more square peg in a round hole). Story Points can add established fact to the setting, or make another player revise their narration. I was only one who used them.

Character themes had zippo effect, they were there to guide folks in the game story.

Surprisingly this all worked, and produced the type of stories I was after, if I held everyone's hand through it. But it felt rough, like fingernails on chalkboard rough when a conflict erupted. So rough that I abandoned it.   

If it becomes important and the discussion goes that way I can expand 5,000 foot level down to a more detailed level if needed for Playtest one.

Playtest II - Shattering of Sha - Crucible Meets Superheroes in a Fantasy Setting with  Nordic (read magic using scheming, not John Rys Davies) Dwarves and Giants - Simpler Game System. Now narration is not active. During a scene a player takes on the role of Everything else that is not the protagonist (i.e. Story Guide - cringe - just lost one of my goals I think). In theory this was how it was supposed to work - the player describes what his character is doing, and generally the Story guide tells them what happens based on the Aspects the characters have. Aspects now are just positive things for the characters (both DL and PS complained about aspect being both for and against the character). Unless the Protagonist wants to narrate. If they want to narrate then there is conflict, or the Story Guide can call for a conflict. Conflict is based on averaging 2 dice (round up) (these are your Edges they are rated from D4 to D12). We had two: Edge and Magic (this might have been the mistake - I should have just used single edge to start the game). Story tokens with appropriate aspect can either bump up the die type (it goes D4, D6,D8,D10,D12) or add an extra die for averaging highest two. Opponent rolls 2 dice for difficulty, can spend a SG story token to add a die. Winner gets to narrate what happens. Majority of players can veto (again this was asked for by DL and PS) or you can spend a story point to make a player revise with something lesser or different, or you can spend a story point to add a "butÖ" statement to the narration. Story points can also be spent to add to the setting. And finally you character is immune to bad things you don't want, unless you go for the throat, which is how you recover edge (if you lose conflict you lose edge) it bumps it up one die type if you go for the throat, but you risk bad shit being able to happen to your character if you lose. There are some things called complications, and you get more story points for playing to your themes. Similar (but obviously different or I wouldn't be here) to the Pool.

On paper, the whole group agreed that Playtest II seemed a lot simplier and a lot stronger.

Part III - What went well
- We had color out the butt. I loved it.
- Setting Creation - No rules for it, but it worked.
-Themes - Right or wrong, I think they work great.
-Binder - Sort of worked. Worked better in the first session than the second. The binder is the common event you put in the game after making the setting.
-Low Prep Time and Meaningful Story - Low prep time check (how about zero). Meaningful story - maybe. Jury is still out. What I will say is that even with the creation process, we got more shit done in our game (about 3 or 4 times) than we used to in D20. There were more actual "scenes" and more meaningful stuff happened in our "scenes" than the same length of D20 - so it is a definite step in the right direction.

Part IV - What didn't go well

Well Playtest I the conflict rules were really dragin down the game. I think I was the only one who understood them. I did notice that in Playtest II, the others gave more immediate feedback right away about the conflict rules.

this uses the first playtest rules above
Lets take an example from each. DL hated the fact in playtest one that everybody could keep going after him. We had a set up with the Yaks facing off against the Korean Partisans (DL cybertronic monk was a buddy of the Koreans and since he knew the secret about the chips everybody wanted a piece of him). In this scene, I was taking the part of the Korean Partisans and PS was taking the part of the Yaks. Remember it is DL's scene. We had a long and extended series of conflicts, I can't remember all the details but it was like we try to shoot them, but it ended up that they just sprayed bullets everywhere, but then we shot the limo, there was some swords at some point I think,  and then DL's guy when down from some sort of shock rod thing, and eventually the Koreans win the conflict, and steal DL away. He didn't get to do anything. Game time was about 20 minutes to resolve this one conflict (however it was the most complicated we did we exteneded it about 4 times, 10 minutes to do it, and 10 minutes to unravel it). Then in the active narration, PS has the limo pull up. At this point I save DL by spending a story point to make the limo not the Yak limo but something else. A lawyer who wants to help. And that lawyer (a woman) is added as a potential love interest on my character sheet (who was not in the scene). DL liked it, but I was the only one spending points at this time. DL was worried that it would have gone into limo scene chasing him, followed up by helicopter chasing him etc. and the start of wanking. 

I stressed that the story points are there throughout all of Playtest I, they just didn't spend them for some reason. I did.  So it worked, but it is really, really cludgy. The rules for conflict are 1000 words which is why I didn't add them here. If it is felt that I should reference them or post them to enable folks to help, suggest that and I will.

this uses the second playtest rules above

Two major problems here. While the conflict system was wayyyy smoother. It didn't yield very good results. One problem I know was having split edges. PS had a "wizardy type" who had a D6 Edge and D10 Magic. He soon realized that if he used magic for all his conflicts he was better off. There was enough generalness in the aspects (entropy magic, mind-raping magic) that he could almost always accomplish something that way.

I think the transparency of the conflict rules that gave him if he won the ability to narrate an outcome became to him what I have dubbed "wanking." Lots of color and not a lot substance. I think the whole game broke after that. He realized (and as did everyone around the table) that the outcome of narration doesn't really matter on many levels since someone else can just come back along and reverse  the outcome if they win the right to narrate. Plus stacking edges to always use D10 edge means you will more often than not win the conflicts.

Here is the example towards the end of the game, all three of us are in the Wyrd Plane. My character is the Princesss of it and quite happy now. DL has given up his rope but refused to become my knight. PS thinks I am some kind of hippy commie princess in a land of joy and lala.

Several problems occur, some of which I know how to fix, so not worth mentioning, some I don't. PS leaves and tries to seal the gate. He won the narration (he went for the throat - spent a story token and ended up rolling 3d12. Take the average of the highest two. I rolled 3d8 take the average of the highest two, I lost). So he narrates. He narrates that the army of spirits is an illusion, and then sneaks in, that he destroys the gate. DL and I say no way, I spend a story point, he has to revise. He says he seals it forever and can't be opened. I say that is no different than destroying it. So he says that he seals it and if anything goes through it they die. We both say again, that is no different. All of them have the same effect of effectively preventing anyone from leaving. He says fine,  it now leads to hell instead of our normal world.

We say ok. But everyone around the table was a bit unhappy with it. We end it there. It was a logical stopping point anyway. This was when we start talking about "wanking". And the end most folks thought that any of the conflicts were just colorful speed bumps. They didn't really do anything to the story. If I wanted my princess to get to the city of Sha and ignore the dwarf, well, I could. Next scene I just narrate my magic necklace transporting me there if I won a conflict. Sure folks could ask for a revision, but eventually I would get there. The only time when it wasn't wanking, was if we as players let a conflict stand - which I mean to take the system failed, since it is dependent on us as players to go a level up to the social contract level and agree to no wanking. Which is hard, since we all have stories we want, so it is really tempting to go back to it. I need something in the system level to prevent that. 


Second big problem - One I think that DL and PS didn't recognize, or it didn't bother them, or they are being nice and not talking about it. The stories seemed to be dull and flat in the second one. My princess became the queen of the Wyrds, and didn't continue the hate and death and persecution among the non-wyrds like the opposite happened in the normal plane of existence. DL eventually gave up his hangin' ways, but instead tried to think that perhaps he should round up all the Wyrds and bring them to my magic city. PS I don't think really played either of his themes (become immortal was external and "can I redeem myself?" was the internal - although I think clearly mind-raping two giants answered that to be no) and instead fell back into character mode about what would my character think of a bunch of these wyrds holing up in a city, that could potentially spill out into my world as a massive army. Egad! Seal the Gate. In the end I think that PS idea of his character as the game developed was different than either of his themes.

I think the two problems are related, that is wanking = flat stories because there is no dynamic intervention from the other players. And intervention by other players simply serves to paint the speed the speed bump pretty colors. And I hesitate to say this since I don't want to abuse theory terms, but perhaps in other words, wanking prevents satisfactory exploration of the premise ,since the outcome of the premise is single person driven and predetermined before getting into the game itself at the theme generation stage.

Now Then -  what I am hoping is to salvage the second playtest system in such a way that it promotes the first playtest results without the cludgyness and squash "wanking" by addressing it somehow in system to make the stories more dynamic?

Finally, I got a small vibe from both PS and DL regarding one aspect of the game, the ability to make a character do something through "social conflict" - something I think is anathema in D20. In other words the old foundation stone that many retreat back to (and the cause of many PC v. PC deaths in games I am in) You can't tell me how my character feels or thinks, only I can do that.

In my system right now you can, provided you win the conflict. Is this going to lead to badwrongfun? It certainly led to some tension, but then I don't think I really want to play in a game where the character's feelings, thoughts and ideas are a sacred cow and can't be impacted by conflict resolution mechanics (think of a moving sermon that changes your whole outlook on life for example). In my game that would be the result of a conflict.

Example - In one scene, where I am playing the SG for PS, I make his character swear an oath not to summon demons anymore. I win the conflict, I narrate that he swears it and means it. I keep reminding PS, that it since I narrated it wasn't an empty promise, that the he must stick by that established fact through narration. He really can't summon demons anymore by his oath. He says, but I wouldn't do that, I would swear it and then do it anyway. I said you can't you lost the conflict. This time whatever it was that happened made you change your views at least for a while.  I think he did not like that.

There are a lot of other things in the rules like complications, getting more aspects, getting story tokens, obtaining and buying off complications, etc. but I am not sure they are relevant to my problems, but if they are, well then I will elaborate as needed.

Many thanks for reading and I would greatly appreciate any help to help salvage this system.

Cheers,

Tokyo Steve

[Danny_K]

I think both of the "big problems" you mention are inter-related, the "wanking" and the flatness, and they stem from the same source: a lack of meaningful adversity for the PC's.  From my reading of how the rules work, the players can use their strongest ability or combination of abilities to dominate conflicts; once they've won the conflict, they can narrate damn near anything, and the only way to contain their narration is by majority vote or by spending your own resources. 

In addition, I think your second playtest was just asking for trouble by using characters with loosely-defined magic powers and items that could be reasonably used for anything and everything.  Heck, even Amber and Nobilis PC's have more constraints on them than that!  I wonder if you ran another test game with more tightly defined Edges, if you'd run into the same issues. 

Here's a question: how do you want conflict resolution to work?  Your comments at the end make me think you're about to add a bunch of fiddly rules to your game, when maybe what is needed is a re-think and re-design.  I think I might be able to give more useful suggestions if I understood how you want your game to work. 

Finally, I wonder if you've seen a couple of games which let players narrate almost anything, but handle it in very different ways: Polaris, which is discussed in the TAO Games forum on the Forge, and Wushu, which is available free at http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html

[Steven Stewart]

First off Danny, thanks for replying. I appreciate it. I think you helped distill the issues down into something more meaningful for discussion. I will rephrase -

Lack of meaningful adversity that caused players to change the way their preconcieved actions and desired outcomes in conflicts. That is what resulted I think in flatness.

I think you are right after reading your post a few times, that a redesign is called for rather than a bunch of add-ons.

Here is how I want it to work:
(1) Players explore their character's themes as the primary activity of any scene.
(2) Conflict resolution allows for a lot of variety in outcomes, but not something like task resolution, something more like the Game you referenced Polaris (of which I am a big fan).
(3) A game engine that allows for a bunch of color, and not have the conflict resolution restrict a players freedom to add color and cool stuff to narration.
(4) Something that is simple and easy. While I still am waiting for my DiTV, I perceive based on Paul T. indepth review that it is too complicated for my tastes at this time. I want something with more variability and tweaks than the Pool. I want dice to factor in somehow, not just phrasing. I like the phrasing in Polaris, but I think it works for that game very well, this is more generic, and so I don't want to shoe-horn it in. That was Playtest #1, and didn't work very well either.
(5) Most important - that players can drive the outcome of what happens not just the "GM" but that the overall dynamic of exploring their themes is not a fixed outcome from the beginning. I think this may be part of the problem, but not something that I am willing to give up on yet. I understand that when a single player has control over the situtation and outcome, it can lead to the flat playing.

I want to try to work out something around that. I am convinced there must be a solution that gives all 5.

This is going to sound silly, but here is one thing that I would love for my game to be able to do.

Lets say we are in a typical fantasy JRRT type of setting. If you want your elf to do cool stuff and use daggers and bows and such, and I want to have a stout hearted hobbit who whacks things with a frying pan, and over here you have wizard that uses ice magic, and over here you have one that uses mind magic, and over there a dwarf with a big bad axe. I don't want the system to limit their effectivness based on what I perceive to be pure color. The thrust of this game I want to be the characters exploring their themes. I want the system to really do two things I guess then,

(1) Promote that exploration in a dynamic (i.e. more than one person involved) way
(2) Not inhibit my color choices and aestics.

While not trying to sidetrack, If someone were to ask me what CA I want to pursue in a game, I would tell them right now Color. I want lots and lots of it. I want to envision cool things in the game, and freeze the images and ideas of what those things are. I like the moments frozen in time. I dig it to the extreme. I want my game to allow players at the end to create their version of that for whatever setting they can envision, and to have the game support that, not hamper it.

So far to date,(recalling that my sphere is very limited) Polaris has done that the best for me. But unfortuantely, it is a specific setting. I can't have my Oyabun with his perfectly pressed suit, eating yakatori while slurping down a whole Ashai beer in one slug, his large frame hanging delicately on the small stool in a tiny place in Shinjuku, with the rain pelting down over a television sky in Polaris. But I could in my game, and I did, and I dug that. I just need to make it work better so it is enhanced by group play (i.e. put the batteries in my toy and it will do all kind of cool things).

Again many thanks for the help. Just the process of dialouge helps formulate thoughts. I have some ideas on how to redesign, but clearly I am interested in any others. Either through this medium, email, or PM. I can also of course make the drafts available should that help as well.

Cheers,

Tokyo Steve