[A Flower for Mara] Jump-starting the game

[GreatWolf]

"She died that night.  She was the light of my days, the glory of my existence, cut down like a flower in the prime of her life.  And now I stand at her grave as they lower her in.

It wasn't supposed to be like this."

My current game project is called A Flower for Mara.  Mara, a relatively young mother, dies suddenly, and now her family has to deal with their grief.  The story follows them for
the first year after Mara's death as they struggle to build a new life in the wake of this tragedy.

Once upon a time, this was going to be a play; now it's a Jeepform-ish LARP.  (I say "ish", because while inspired by the Jeep, I'm not trying to conform with their manifesto.  So if I do, then great.  Otherwise, that's fine, too.)

I playtested this back in December.  At the time, I only reported it on my blog.  Here's what I said.

====
Last night we playtested A Flower for Mara, my new game/play/improv thing. After reading about avant garde theater, I'm seriously considering giving it a subtitle "A Play in Four Acts" to help get people in the right frame of mind for it. Also, I'm hoping to approach some dramatically-minded folk in my church to see if they are willing to give it a whirl. That sort of feedback would be helpful.

Is it a game? Well, you know, I'm not really planning on getting into those sort of semantic arguments. I think that it's a worthwhile activity, regardless of its formal status as a "game". It has a dramatic structure with rules to guide the players. That's good enough for me.

So, onto the actual report.

Raquel, Gabrielle, Crystal and I gathered to play. We set up shop in my front room by moving the coffee table out of the room and then setting up a card table (with tablecloth) to be the dinner table for the various group scenes. Also, the game is intended to be thought of as a play. In other words, there's a "front" of the stage area and an "audience" area where the Director and any off-stage players sit to observe.

We also designated a "grave site" area, which is where all monologues are given. For those of you who know our house, it was in the archway between the front room and the dining room. We put a low piano bench there to be the actual grave, which worked out pretty well.

Earlier I had purchased the necessary flowers, which symbolize the griefs that the characters and players are carrying. As part of setup, each participant writes down one grief that he is carrying. Not the character, mind you; the player. Then he attaches that paper to the flower that he carries. In order for the character to lay down his grief, the player must give a brief monologue about the grief that he wrote down. Then he lays the flower at the grave site. It's very powerful in play.

The actual story came out well, I thought. In particular, it seemed like the players were able to use the experience of playing the characters to interact with some of their own memories and burdens, which was a good thing. There was one scene where Crystal started off just playing her character, but in the end, she was saying things that I know she has wanted to say for a while.

I think that the game procedures work so far, although we definitely need to try it with more people. Currently, for characters, I have Caleb (Mara's husband), Zoe (Mara's daughter), and then Mara's parents. I'd like to have one or two more characters available for play. I was going to have Caleb's parents, but I don't think that's right. Each character needs to be defined by their relationship to Mara, and "daughter-in-law" doesn't usually have the same connection as "daughter". I'm open to hearing otherwise, though.

Crystal is already plotting out book sizes and layout. I think that this one will be on the fast track to publication.

Uh, questions? I think that I'll do better answering queries than trying to describe what actually happened last night.
====

Here is a recording of our post-game thoughts, for those who have an hour to spare.

Since then, I've worked out some additional characters and such, so that's all good.

Here's my concern.  I talked (possibly ad nauseum) in this thread about jump-starting GMless games.  And, while A Flower for Mara isn't GMless, it does not have GM prep.  (Again, a running theme of my design.)  This worked out fine in our game; my group is pretty skilled at locating some point of conflict and running with it.  However, I don't want to rely on "good players" to make the game work.  Rather, I want to make sure that I'm giving the players the necessary tools to get things moving.

Here's my current thought.

Each player writes down three statements about his character:  one about his Work, one about his Family, one about his Faith.  Then, for each of these, the player does Y-Cubed.  In other words, for each statement, ask the question "Why?".  Write down this statement.  Ask "Why?" about that statement.  Do this until you have three additional statements under Work, Family, and Faith.  (This is a brainstorming technique used for screenwriting and such.)  Then someone (either the player or the Director) chooses one of these columns to be the primary area of stress for this character in the story.

Example:

Caleb, Mara's husband

Work:  I'm a photographer

Why:  It's something that I enjoy doing, and it pays the bills.
Why:  I like photography because I have a good eye for pictures.
Why:  I tend to withdraw myself from a situation and see it like a photograph anyways.

Family:  I'm an only child

Why:  My parents were too busy for a family.
Why:  My father was always traveling for business, and my mother was involved with the church.
Why:  Being busy was their definition of success.

Faith:  I'm Episcopalian

Why:  My parents were Episcopalian.
Why:  It fit their social class, and that was important to them.
Why:  They were brought up to "know their place", and they passed that down to me.

Area of stress:  Family

I think that there's something here, but it needs to be refined.  Or maybe the whole thing needs to be scrapped, because there's something better out there.

My concern with it is manifold.  First, I don't want this to turn into "playing before playing".  Second, it can be hard to get that third "Why?" without setting up for it or going far afield from the character.  Finally, I might end up dictating character details about another player's character.  Oddly enough, I'm okay with this happening in play, because I have procedures to work it through there, but I'm a little leery about doing that at the prep stage.

The rest of the game structure works well, as far as I can currently tell, but this needs help.

Thoughts?

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Seth,

How about answering only two "Y" before play, then give opportunities to add the final "Y" as scenes develop and characters reflect on Mara, their relation to her and to others? I've had very little grieving to do for lost relatives and friends, but each time I've found it very enlightening about myself: perhaps that third "Y"? Since you mention difficulties for that third "Y", that would be a workaround, while giving rise to a situation which is not yet complete for the "audience" and will spur the "artists" to completion. What I find interesting in the "Faith" example is that it becomes about the character only at the last "Y", the two first ones are about the parents. For work and family, I also think the third "Y" is the crunchiest: most personal (work) or most judgemental (family). As if the first two might be content (setting and character details) and I can easily imagine the third one arise from situations as thematic statements on that content.
You might indeed actually add the third "Y" to the character of other players, but that should hardly daunt you after Dirty Secrets.
I also see lots of parallels with my mystery game of course: a phase of contents creation (that would be the first two "Y"), then the generation of tension as those elements are related (situations in play), and then finally the motivation of the killer unveiled (the judgement).

Hmm. To me, my suggestion seems so straightforward and already contained in your post that I'm wondering if I'm actually talking about the same thing as you are.

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi Seth,

Adding nine recursive elements before play does seem like a lot to me.  I like the idea of adding them incrementally and I also like the idea of other players having some authorship, although that may work at cross purposes to your goal here.

[GreatWolf]

Well, here's my new idea, which I intend on trying out at the monster playtest scheduled for Wednesday.  (Seven players plus the Director, and five of the players are total n00bs.  Should be a night to remember....)

Anyways, it works like this.  Before you are cast as a character, you have to fill in the blank in this sentence:

"I had a ______ relationship with Mara when she was alive."

Choose from this list:

Loving
Hateful
Respectful
Bitter
Ambivalent
Codependent

Then the Director casts you as a character.

Then you answer a question.

"Why did you have this sort of relationship with Mara?"

Then, go into play with this question in mind:  "In light of all this, how might Mara's death have affected you?"

Obviously all these need to be worded better.  (In particular, I'd like better words for "Ambivalent" and "Codependent".)  But this might be enough to give players a push out of the gate.  Once they get into the game, they should have enough material to work with.

I hope.

[Jason Morningstar]

That's solid.  You probably need to refine your word list to drive the sort of play you want, but it's a definite improvement I think.  I'd make them all active, actionable.

Loving - sort of necessary, although it would color the game in interesting ways if omitted.
Respectful - maybe passionate?  Broad interpretation of that is possible.

Ambivalent - throw this out.  Or maybe subtle, quiet, gentle?  Passive but still interesting.
Codependent - complicated, entangled?

Bitter - competitive?  Aggressive? 
Hateful - seems to encompass bitter.  Destructive?  Troubled?

[Callan S.]

I wonder if it's stopping at the third why that is a 'play before play' thing. For example

Family:  I'm an only child

Why:  My parents were too busy for a family.
Why:  My father was always traveling for business, and my mother was involved with the church.
Why:  Being busy was their definition of success.

A fourth why, or acceptance might be developed in play. Then verbalised at the end of the session. Like "And that makes it for the best". Or "And that makes them a pair of criminals". Or however play sways or doesn't sway the character.

The three why's are kind of...to strong by themselves. They seem to be self supporting and thus 'complete'. By having rules which initiate a fourth 'why', it breaks that sense of completeness.

[GreatWolf]

That's solid.  You probably need to refine your word list to drive the sort of play you want, but it's a definite improvement I think.  I'd make them all active, actionable.

Loving - sort of necessary, although it would color the game in interesting ways if omitted.
Respectful - maybe passionate?  Broad interpretation of that is possible.

Ambivalent - throw this out.  Or maybe subtle, quiet, gentle?  Passive but still interesting.
Codependent - complicated, entangled?

Bitter - competitive?  Aggressive? 
Hateful - seems to encompass bitter.  Destructive?  Troubled?

Thanks, Jason.  And yes, the word list does need to be refined to be better tuned and more active.

An insight into my thought process.  There are actually three pairs of opposing ideas on the word list.

Love--Hate
Respect--Bitter
Ambivalent--Codependent

The first pair is perhaps the simplest to understand, though also the broadest.  The second is about competition.  The third is about emotional need.

So, yeah, changing Bitter to Competitive makes sense.  Respectful should mean that the character honors Mara's achievements.

The Ambivalent--Codependent pair is really giving me fits.  The idea is that, on the one side, I want someone who actively didn't need Mara.  On the other side, I want someone who relied too much on Mara.  Any thoughts on how to express that?

And Love--Hate....  Yes, Love needs to be in the mix somehow, but it also seems like the most boring option.  Hmm.  It's boring, because it's safe.  It's easy to say "I loved Mara, and now I'm sad that she is gone".  It also doesn't seem to drive action.  On the other hand, I don't want to force a dysfunctional family by making positive relationships impossible.  Devoted--Bitter might be an interesting way to take this pair, because it allows for a good relationship while still requiring some concreteness.  ("Devoted" feels more explicit than "Loving".)

Any thoughts on any of this?

Sorry about the ramble, but this helped put some things together in my mind.

[Jason Morningstar]

Respectful - subordinate as a counter to competitive?

What's love/hate about?  Not competition, not emotional need?

I like devoted, because that can carry a wide range of ... devotion.  Ambivalent seems like the antonym, but it's so weak.  What do you do with that?  Detached?  Casual? 

(shrugs)

[GreatWolf]

I like devoted, because that can carry a wide range of ... devotion.  Ambivalent seems like the antonym, but it's so weak.  What do you do with that?  Detached?  Casual? 

One factor in this is that all the characters are family members of Mara.  So there's a husband, daughter, brother, sister, mother, and father.  So there's a basic relationship map built in.  In that particular context, I could possibly see "detached" working.  Why were you detached from your sister?  And now that she is dead, how are you reacting?  And, as a corollary, how are you reacting to everyone reacting around you?

Hmm.  Maybe I'll put that on the list and ask one of my experienced players to test it out tonight.