more adventures in improvised system: techniques

[Emily Care]

Hi Jason,

Not playing AM, it's a homebrew world/time jumping game, but yes we play the familiars as well.  Everything that hangs off a primary character pretty much becomes the responsibility of the owner of the primary character; that includes familiars, family, and often the entire world from which the character comes.

I see. So the players play the dependent and associated characters that "hang" off the primary.

Sound like a tree structure:
character X
--spouse of X
-------AI of spouse
--valet of X
-------crazy inventor aunt of valet
...etc.  

Does this end you up having a lot of intra-player character interaction? I'd imagine most such would be summed up.  I think we take a different tact: we try to have other players take dependents etc. when possible, so we can have inter-player character interaction. For example, I'm playing the apprentice of Meg's primary character, Damwild.  I can see why having small groups of pc's in your game would be useful.    Also, our setting is more stationary--we spend most of our time in the covenant or in other local settings, so our characters are more likely to interact with one another than with new characters at different time/space locals as would yours.  I can see how setting and plot structure would make very different arrangements more or less convenient.

Anyway, good stuff, stuff to think about.  ....there is definitely something here for me to learn about everyone running in the same setting, which we've had consistency issues with in the past.  Maybe a pre-run session where everybody plays major npc's in the region before our characters arrive - to set the stage.  Hmmm....

That sound very promising. Let us know how it works out if you try it.  That sounds like a good way to do group situation establishment.  And one of the most important aspects of being able to do so and yet to still be able to come up with compelling plot is to have a long period of discussion and editing before things are "set in stone".  Wait until everyone's going "yeah!", and you'll know you're really got something.

Be well,
Em

[Jason Lee]

I see. So the players play the dependent and associated characters that "hang" off the primary.

Sound like a tree structure:

...

Does this end you up having a lot of intra-player character interaction? I'd imagine most such would be summed up.

Bingo, and another bingo.  It does get summed up, 'cause talking to yourself is pretty dull.  Of course, the tree gets pretty twisted when a lesser character works its way up to being a primary character.

I think we take a different tact: we try to have other players take dependents etc. when possible, so we can have inter-player character interaction. For example, I'm playing the apprentice of Meg's primary character, Damwild.  I can see why having small groups of pc's in your game would be useful.    Also, our setting is more stationary--we spend most of our time in the covenant or in other local settings, so our characters are more likely to interact with one another than with new characters at different time/space locals as would yours.  I can see how setting and plot structure would make very different arrangements more or less convenient.

I bet that approach makes the primary characters' lives evolve more dynamically.  With another person in control of attached characters the relationships are more "alive".  The attached characters will act with agendas other than that of the primary character's player and the relationships develop as responses to actions and conflicts, instead of being planned out.  Which makes quite a bit of sense to me with a static setting and the length of time that can pass in an AM game.  The changes in the relationships in the covenant is probably the main focus of play (just guessing).

With us, attached characters are like part of the setting that the primary character comes from.  Most of the time, but not always, the character is designed first and then the world he comes from is based on the character.  The relationships between the primary and attached characters serve the purpose of establishing themes about the character.  

My character's father is there to illustrate she's a daddy's girl.
Tara's character's ex-wife and child are there to illustrate what he's losing by being unable to return home.

So, those relationships tend to be more static, because controlling them is part of what creates character-centric themes (when you can get to the attached characters, that is).  Besides, nothing else is static, what with the setting constantly changing.  We've had some glitches when the character is owned by one player, but the world the character comes from is owned by another.

"He's an expert with the bow and staff."
"But... the world is a barren desert - no trees.  How does that work?"
"Uhh...why not?"
"Guaaah!"

That sort of stuff.  That's usually do to lack of communication, or eagerness to introduce a character leading to him coming from an inappropriate setting.

That sound very promising. Let us know how it works out if you try it.  That sounds like a good way to do group situation establishment.  And one of the most important aspects of being able to do so and yet to still be able to come up with compelling plot is to have a long period of discussion and editing before things are "set in stone".  Wait until everyone's going "yeah!", and you'll know you're really got something.

I will...we're in the middle of playing in the same region with each GM running a different century all in an effort to fix my demon possessed character (which has required helluva collaborative pre-planning of events), and then three players already have lengthy runs planned.  So, I won't be able to try it until the next theme-rotation (same place or concept for all GM's) comes around, but darn-it I'm doing it next chance I get.


Anyway, seems different needs create different approaches (heh, imagine that).  I can't help but wonder what other techniques emerge from other styles of collaborative games.

[Meguey]

I just have to say two things before I actually reply in depth: Emily Care, this is great stuff. And Jeph, you make me happy just by being 15 and already soaking up the Forge's juicy goodness. Where was the Forge when I was 15? Precisely, where was the Forge when I was 15 and had time to really be active here? There's hope yet.

Okay, on to the point-by-point response from Meg.

Systematic Scene Framing:
Emily's right on about this. Sometimes this drives me right up the wall, since I like to see what's around that's been over-shadowed by the  primary story, find out what's happening, and then see what the fall-out is and what happens next, and they (mostly Vincent :) are saying "ok, who arrives next / ok, where do we go next". Although this cycle has been 100% great, no complaints. I think the last cycle, when we had people coming to the covenant, was harder because we had all the supporting cast right there.

Collaborative Character Development:
 This. Rocks.
I think this has been done regularly through our gaming hx. If not entirely, then at least to flesh out characters that we know only a little bit about, and we open it up for group input.

Using world development to support character concept :
Second nature to me by now. Hmm. Maybe it was first nature all along, that's why I always seem to do it.

Mining Conversation :
Yep.

I'm curious. a) How much (and what kind of) record-keeping do you guys do? b)Some 20-odd mages <snip>. How do you keep it straight? c) Have there ever been times where you've been knee-deep in a resolution only to realize "Wait, based on what we said before (but forgot about) this couldn't possibly happen."?

d)Also, how much time would you say you devote to your "Primary" characters? e)I know that for Ars Magica in particular, this is a kinda nebulous thing, but you're clearly putting a fair amount of time and effort on people who wouldn't be more than name and stats in most other games. f)How much time do you spend away from your core PCs?

I lettered your points for ease of response.

Let's see.
a) A yellow legal pad with running notes of session action on the one side and other useful info as it arises (what the fairies deal is, what dice mechanic we used for the dragon, the horserace, who we know in town, what the mages birthdates are, etc, etc.) on the flip sides; the relationship maps Emily mentioned, various print-outs of who is responsible for what mage, what mages are in which covevnant, etc., drawings of everyone on Griffin's Airie, including horses, and maps of the tribunal, the covenant, and the physical area w/in 50 miles of the GA.

b) Maybe it's just me, but I don't find it too difficult to keep track of all the characters, and there's areas I really wish I knew more about. I mean, I keep worlds at least twice as complex as this in my head already (Tolkein, Pini, McAffrey), not to mention real-world stuff. It's no big thing to me. Ok, I'm human, I may need reminding of the name of the weird doctor who keeps breaking apprentices, or the wine merchant with the magically active cellar, but I know they exist, and I know where to find the answers, and if you give me a little to go on, I'l get it.

c) Hmm. I think we once came close to this and had to refigure a bit, but we caught it early enough. Notes are good things. I think we've avoided renaming anyone. One of the ways we manage this is to resolve one big arc before another starts. Luckily, we're each watching different arcs.

d)Like Emily said. One of the things that's rising is the arc where Behras, Damvild's partner and until now a major supporting cast member, becomes a more lead character.  But that's just me. I guarantee Vincent and Emily have other things that are rising for them. I trust they will all blend well.

e)Yep. See my other post about the importance of not selling your gaming short by glossing over set description and clear deffinition of support cast.

f)Like Emily said. Till now, very little. I predict more variety to come. Especially since some of the ones we've expanded in this arc are *way* too fun to not play often.

Okay, in the 'what we're doing now' bit, where Vincent "like totally" disagrees with Emily? We are definatly all getting different things out of it. Thank goodness they're compatible. I wonder what I'm doing? I guess I'm still watching the ripples on the mythical beast front. Wonder what the Girffin's up  to these days? Oh, it' still winter; he's gone south again. Wonder if that weird mechanical fish is still around? What was that anyway?

Emily asked: And what's Meg's take on all this? How does she see what we've done in this arc? I see it as having expanded the scope of play, having learned more about all the rest of the tribunal, and gathering the threads for the next big thing.

Tune in tomorrow for part two, when you'll hear Meg discuss:

(Couresy of Jeph) collaborative play, a bit of backstory as to the players, how we three get together, when we started the collaborative campaign, did it begin using the classic AM system. Also GM-less play.

(Couresy of cruciel) "Also, in my experience, some pc's just end up naturally falling into the background. Maybe they have less depth, don't talk/do much, are always busy, or whatever. There is a sort of screen time balance that evolves out of that. " Also how do you handle multiple characters w/o sitting around talking to yourself or asking "who said that?" all the time. Also tree-charts for multiple characters

(Courtesy of Emily Care & cruciel)Why characters get left behind.

(Courtesy of lumpley) AM game list.

Now it's 3 am. My kids'll be up in 4 hours, and deserve decently rested, sane parents. See why I don't get on here that often?

~Meguey

[Meguey]

Oh look, it's me again. Ok, now for part two, and it better not take as long.

Well, Emily Care pretty much covered the 'how we three players got to know each other" bit. I'd like to see Emily & Vincent's gaming hx; mine was D&D from age 7 on, mostly modules and weird home-brewed stuff, then a AD&D game in the Macross world in early High School and back to D&D fantasy in later HS. Cyberpunk and D&D and (what the hell is that one with the Awakening and suddenly there are elves and trolls and magic and all? Shadowsomething? this is what my brain is on 5ish hours of sleep) and Paranoia and then blessedly Ares Magica. Oh, and we knew each other socially first, I think. We all gamed already, but we didn't meet because of a game. And we got together because we were playing in the Isrillien game (with the 7 other people) and we obviously liked similar things in gaming, and then the rest of them moved across country, so we carried on w/o them. By that time, we were already drifting from book-bound AM to a home-brewed re-concoction.

As for collaborative play, I think it was probably connected to the Isrillien game, and the multiple GMs there that was my first real exposure to joint GMing. I'd run a AM game (Caer Mearabourne) in college that was pretty standard GM-Players division. In the Isrillien game, there were so many people playing that the GM wasn't always privy to the discussions of all the characters. It was common for the GM to be dealing with an interaction on one side of the room while on the other side two players sat, totally in character, having important IC discussions, that then would get summed up for the GM when it was convenient. This was wild and wooly at the time, because shouldn't the GM know all? The idea that characters didn't need to freeze until the GM got back to them was huge, natural, and lead directly to collaborative play/co-GMing.

Releasing control as a sole GM was a relief and a challenge; a relief because suddenly there were whole new sections that came into being that I never would have seen, and a challenge because suddenly there were whole new things I had no control over. I'm totally converted, though.  GMless play is a challenge for players because they have to learn to firewall, to protagonise appropriately, and to share their vision of the world. It's hard sometimes to see a given thing clearly (for me it's usually mapping a place) and have someone else with equal authority say "I'm not seeing it like that" or even more firmly "I see it this very different way". You've got to trust the process of group story-telling, and trust each other at least enough to trust your character won't be blocked without your input.

If you'd like to try GMless gaming and never have, definitely try with a like-minded group of folks, or the ones who want a GM to guide them through the dungeon will feel like they're floundering. I'd suggest starting by having someone set the scene (time of day, place, and season), and then take turns sort of vibing it out and telling whatever details come out of what has been said so far. In my book, probably the best tool for successful GMless gaming is having done guided meditations, where you're in a semi-trance state while someone else is describing a scene and encouraging you to look around the imagined landscape and noticing what you see and experience. This is very like the space I'm in when we're co-GMing as opposed to straight IC play of conversation.

Ok, next bit:

Handling multiple characters is, for me, kind of like a wardrobe. I have different clothes for each one. Cruciel and Emily Care both talked about voices and accents for distinguishing between multiples; yep that, plus body language. I find that I identify different body postures or habits with different characters. I'm *really* looking forward to the Tribunal, when we'll have to deal with masses of colorful, well-defined characters in one place at one time. It'll put every multicharacter skill we collectively have to the test. Stay tuned for that one, I'll bet.

Also, let me not forget the importance of art, for me at least. I'm getting the tickle to draw all the mages we've just seen in this round, so they become more full-color. In our Caer Mearabourne campaign, we had profile headshots of all major and most minor characters, and we had way too much fun rearranging the pics and making the characters look at each other. Sometimes we got whole new insights into the character's relationships. That's what you can do when you have nothing to do but blow off a class that afternoon. :)

I loved the diagramming of characters Emily and Jason did. Emily already outlined our attention to playing each other's 'branches', so I don't think I have anything substantive to add.  We do occasionally sum up, and there have been times when we've just played out both sides of a brief but important exchange (much switching of voices and body language here).

Hmm, why do some characters get left behind? They may have served their purpose, or just be waiting till their turn. I feel like Emily's handling of Sioban was very adroit in this regard: Sioban was vital to early plot, but it was always understood she was not going to be around long-term. Now she's who knows where doing who knows what.  I feel like some of our other covenfolk are a bit more in limbo. I'm not sure the characters off-screen are less important, they're just off-screen. Also, some support cast just have less purpose at some points than others. In setting up Griffin's Aire, my mage Damwild had as her concept that she was travelling with her stricken and beloved master to a place where he might retire and die in peace. That required a retinue of support cast, who made handy instant coveners. I'd love to see all their various stories, but the importance of the mages setting up the covenant has been overpowering so far. We'll see what happens. Oh, and then there's the unpredictability of characters. I recently had a character I really liked and enjoyed playing off Vincent's mage Acanthus. This character was a visiting mage who just rubbed Acanthus wrong. I was all set to play him at GA for a while, since Damwild is busy with apprentice stuff. But no, Quintus up and leaves. I didn't know he was leaving until he started saying goodbye and giving Acanthus little prezzies. Jerk. But, from a story point of view, it was totally right that he leave. So there you go.

Ok, games that I consider to be in this same world:
Caer Mearabourne 1 & 2, Glasdam Carig, Riorek, Corrinas (w/Kevin & co), Sulfur Spring (w/Ellen & co), St. Erasmus, and Griffin's Aeire.  There are another two covenants, Valerian and Egyptian Bazaar, that go with St. E. That, plus Durenmar and our current tribunal full

There were rules, but they were almost purely social, and nobody articulated them. The failures of the Durenmar [ed. It was actually Riorek] game and the St. Erasmus game ... plus on reflection the second half of the Caer Mearabourne game ... were almost certainly because the unspoken rules didn't work for those groups

I think the rules could have been made explicit, and I think you woefully underplay or under recall the impact of realizing we were actually paying for college and ought to be going to class (CM 2), had all just graduated and had jobs for the first time (Riorek), were actually parents of a young child living in a studio apartment and wanted different things out of gaming than half the group (St. E), or had at most a week to run a game (Corrinas and Sulfur Spring). Other than that, I agree.

And look, it's only noon. Two hours sure beats five. 'Course it would have helped if I hadn't been watching TV too.

[Christopher Weeks]

The three of us met a while back (11 years ago? Something like that.) We lived together as  part of a 10 person communal household, of which collaborative (though with single, rotating gmships) roleplaying was a central feature.

I know it's tangential to the subject at hand, but this fascinates me.  Have any of the participants written about this experience?  I'd love to read about how it started, how it lasted, and how it ended.

Chris

[Jason Lee]

Handling multiple characters is, for me, kind of like a wardrobe. I have different clothes for each one. Cruciel and Emily Care both talked about voices and accents for distinguishing between multiples; yep that, plus body language. I find that I identify different body postures or habits with different characters. I'm *really* looking forward to the Tribunal, when we'll have to deal with masses of colorful, well-defined characters in one place at one time. It'll put every multicharacter skill we collectively have to the test. Stay tuned for that one, I'll bet.

Heh, yeah... body language... I try to restrict my jumping around the room like a goon for the rare session.

I would like to hear how the Tribunal works out; how it's managed, if there is any confusion as to who's talking (based on what you and Emily have said, doesn't sound like there will be), if you notice any other tricks you folks employ, etc.  

Oh, and then there's the unpredictability of characters. I recently had a character I really liked and enjoyed playing off Vincent's mage Acanthus. This character was a visiting mage who just rubbed Acanthus wrong. I was all set to play him at GA for a while, since Damwild is busy with apprentice stuff. But no, Quintus up and leaves. I didn't know he was leaving until he started saying goodbye and giving Acanthus little prezzies. Jerk. But, from a story point of view, it was totally right that he leave. So there you go.

Hate that, little bastards should do what I tell them to...

That does make me think you folks have a high level of commitment to consistency/verisimilitude, and if that's a shared goal among the whole group than that might be part of reason it works so well.  Aside from the obvious priority coherence, everyone committed to consistency means it can take priority over individual wants for the story, so rather than fight about what happens next you can yield to the higher power of maintaining suspension of disbelief.  In addition to the biggies that have already been mentioned, like overt negotiation.  I might be over-analyzing, and I might even be repeating what's been said.

[Meguey]

By body language, I meant much more subtle things, although "jumping around the room like a goon", as Jason put it, has its place on rare occasions. It's tiny things that tell me which character is speaking:

Acanthus (Vincent) fidgets and makes noise with his hands
Manuela (Vincent) has a hint of desperation in her posture, like she's been holding it together for a long time
Libramentum (Vincent) is disdainful, and literally looks down his nose a little at most others
Zarya (Vincent) takes up the whole chair and uses big arm movements to accent her points
Una (Vincent) is extremely emphatic about everything, pounds on the table a lot and is usually completely unfathomable
Murinis Mus (Vincent) is a junkie and she's starting to DT with hot/cold flashes, so she sort of scratches a little while trying not to let anyone see and rubs her hands together when they get cold and fans herself  or shakes her clothes when she's hot
Soraya (Emily) leans forward and has a good deal of tension/efficiency in her movements
Sioban (Emily) looked as though she was always listening for something else
Ludmilla (Emily) moves languidly and speaks in stream-of-consciousness
Jaslyn (Emily) has a truly playful gleam in her eye
Trey (Emily) is relaxed and in control but with deeper tension, like a politician who's in between elections
Acerbus Anquiro (Emily) is really interested in what you have to say
Persepheus (Emily) is extremely likeable, puts you right at ease
Primus Unamo (Emily) is very smooth and totally confident
Damwild (Meg) always sits up straight and has her hands folded
Quintus (Meg) looks bug-eyed at everything
Shade (Meg) has hands that move like spiders
Repugnatia (Meg, but others too) is usually smiling a bit, and is obviously waiting for her next opening to jib someone, usually Zarya
Nuli Secundis (Meg) is very cool, cold even, to pretty much everyone
Oldoini (Meg) usually sounds a little dazed and surprised
Anjolie (Meg) is hesitant and the ends of her sentences fade out
Andreideo (Meg) touches people all the time
Lachesis Mustus (Meg) is deeply hunched over and squints

And that's what I can recall right now. I know if I looked it over, there'd be more I could list. I know there are a few I don't have good 'tells' for, (Lucere and the Doctor especially) and that bugs me a bit.  Point is, these are all small, easily done things to alert others as to the character speaking. Then there's Emily's tried and true method of leaning one way for one character and the other for the other.

[Emily Care]

Hi Meg! Thanks!  Great stuff all 'round.

Releasing control as a sole GM was a relief and a challenge; a relief because suddenly there were whole new sections that came into being that I never would have seen, and a challenge because suddenly there were whole new things I had no control over.

You put your finger on it. Bet the control aspect (along with consistency issues, such as Jason brought up) are why this isn't more common. Or perhaps its due to the fact of priority conflicts:  since it's hard to get everybody rowing in the exact same direction, it's easier to have one hand at the stern, directing the flow, and just harnessing everyone else's energy towards that end.  Hm.

More later, gotta run!

--Em

[Emily Care]

The three of us met a while back (11 years ago? Something like that.) We lived together as  part of a 10 person communal household, of which collaborative (though with single, rotating gmships) roleplaying was a central feature.

I know it's tangential to the subject at hand, but this fascinates me.  Have any of the participants written about this experience?  I'd love to read about how it started, how it lasted, and how it ended.

Hmm... I know at least the three of us (M, V & me) have written here and there about it. It was pretty influential in my life in many ways.  Feels a little off-topic to write more about it here, but if we can come up with a topical rpg-oriented spin on it, maybe we can start another thread to discuss it, and maybe other folks' intense role-playing community experiences.

That does make me think you folks have a high level of commitment to consistency/verisimilitude, and if that's a shared goal among the whole group than that might be part of reason it works so well. Aside from the obvious priority coherence, everyone committed to consistency means it can take priority over individual wants for the story, so rather than fight about what happens next you can yield to the higher power of maintaining suspension of disbelief. In addition to the biggies that have already been mentioned, like overt negotiation.

That sounds dead on.  However, though we do have a strong commitment to consistency/verisimilitude, it's a flexible one. It is defined by what we find to be pleasing rather than by some (projected) external standard of what "should" be true/consistent/realistic etc. For example, we are simultaneously commited to world consistency, active authoring  and openess to retroactive change. [Sounds like a nar-oriented type of consistency.]

Also though we have priority coherence in many areas (commitment to consistency and continuity of setting and character, ability and desire to discuss and collaboratively author plot and narrative, openness to exploring use of different system elements and back-track to "fix" misfires and dissatisfactions, etc.), as Vincent pointed out, we have differences in specific agendas. Maybe what we really have is coherence of technique choice, with some variety of preferred creative agenda (???).  For characters and plot--Vincent sees our primary trio as the protagonist group.  I'm interested in exploring many characters, not necessarily with the goal of bringing it all home to Griffon's Aerie--unless that is simply what seem right/logical/interesting.  Guess that's a traditional nar/sim difference.  But I don't see it as a problem.  

We each have our own viewpoint, agendas, areas of specific interest (this varies for each of us pretty widely)--but the differences (most often!) act as diversity which actually strengthens our efforts.  In fact, it may be that the problems we've had have arisen at the levels of ephemera and social sphere...have to think about that one.

Have a lovely holiday, and be well all.

--EC

[Minx]

Warning, the following post will be very OT, but I just wanted to say it.

*ahm*

Fuck me sideways!!! I just had a moment of enlightment, realising that 1. I had to get "Ars Magica" and 2. that the campaign Emily and her group have been playing the last years is (in a way) exactly the kind of play I always wanted to design a game for.

If you would now excuse me, I have to browse the "Actual Game" part for some other threads about your campaign. After that, I will think about my game (Which was put back on-line [brain-wise] 5 minutes ago.) until I die of exhaustion or finally fall asleep. (Its 0.30 in the morning where I am.)

Thank you Emily. :)

M

[Emily Care]

I just had a moment of enlightment, realising that 1. I had to get "Ars Magica" and 2. that the campaign Emily and her group have been playing the last years is (in a way) exactly the kind of play I always wanted to design a game for.

**BEAM**

Glad to have helped shine some light on your heart's desire!

Here are some other threads that may be of interest:
Adventures in Shared Character Vision
Adventures in Improvised System
This one is much shorter than it deserved to be:Personal Relevance and Multi-PC play
Backstory vs. Strong Character Creation
Same game, different players, different rules?
A Third Metagame Goal
Narrative Sharing
common sense guidelines to group-concensus exploration

Good luck with your quest!

Regards,
Emily Care

[Meguey]

Cool, Minx! All the talk here of late has gotten me energized to get the Griffin's Aire web-site up ASAP, so look for it some time within the next 5 days, probably over the weekend.

~Meguey