[unsung] FINALE -- opinions, please

[xiombarg]

So, yeah, I'm putting Unsung:SWAT on hiatus so I can work on the full version of the Unsung manuscript.

So here's the thread about our latest, and possibly last, playtest session. As usual, you might want to freshen up with the previous thread and earlier episodes.

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung9_nar.txt
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung9_ooc.txt

As usual, the first link is the "narrative" and the second link is a log of our out-of-character chatter. Thanks to Alexander for logs that don't include my modem dropping.

I'm very interested in what people -- both those who played and those who didn't -- think of what went on. I think we tied up the biggest loose ends.

During the game, I made the ad hoc ruling that if a Gift causes more than one person to Lapse, it's a Gift to all those people. Any of them can veto, but if it goes through, the person suggesting the Gift gets Gift Points equal to the players Gifted, not counting himself. Opinions on this are welcome.

Also, we decided that a Gift embedded in a Lapse is like a GM Gift: The Gifted player can veto, but no one gets Gift Points for it. Very useful for "social" Lapses where someone lashes out and reveals something about someone else. Opinions?

(And at the end of the game, Alexander suggested being able to take over a NPC for 1 GP per NPC per scene. I think this is a good idea, what do y'all think? It's very Universalis. Again, opinions would be good.)

As a reminder, here's the ruleset we're using:

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung_playtest.html

Comments? Questions? Rude remarks?

[Lxndr]

First off, although it went later than I was hoping, I'm happy with the resolution.  The Frix/Ricky/Guerrera troika was a very interesting one to explore, and I'm glad that, in that place under the ground where all games go when they stop, they're still frolicking and interacting and stuff.

In terms of overall trends, I've noticed the SWAT game seems to encourage a larger OOC/Nar ratio than, say, the Pretender game you ran for us did, Loki (or more generally, other IRC games I've played in did).  I'm not sure exactly why, though, and maybe this is just my perception.  Part of it is probably the delays between most of our sessions, but I don't think that's all of it.

Rules foo:

1.  It feels sort of like we didn't SPEND our Gift Points enough (I ended the game with NINE, which feels high, though maybe others spent theirs more?).  This last session I was looking for things to blow them on and didn't see anything I wanted to.  I'm not sure if that's because we didn't feel like we needed to spend them, if we didn't know what to spend them on, or if there weren't enough things to spend them on.  Maybe a combination of both.

2.  Anyway, spending a GP to get control of an NPC for a scene sounds good and right and gives us one more thing to spend GP on, but I've got a few questions and comments now that I've had some time to think about it.  If I've taken control of an NPC, and I'm playing him, and I need to, say, make a Meat roll for him.... what score do I use?  NPCs aren't MEANT to be statted up, and I think it would defeat the purpose if they were.

So my (rather non-Simmy) suggestion?  When a player is controlling an NPC, that player rolls using the same stats as they use for their PC (Primary Character).  Doesn't use the same descriptors, though - the NPC is, in a sense, a descriptor of its own, and the GM decides when the NPC's nature applies.  Very counter-intuitive from a Sim sense, but in terms of storytelling it seems to be sensible.  No?

3.  I wasn't aware that you were actually changing the game text as we played, so I didn't notice that you'd incorporated my suggested character advancement ideas (although not the, admittedly more complex, table I set up here, which includes the idea of rewarding someone with a GP for passing a Lapse check: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7952&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16 , which after more actual play of the game, I think needs some definite revisions - if you're interested in talking about it, Kirt, I'll tinker at it and post something).  This was another thing I was wondering about while I was thinking about where to spend my mother lode of GPs, but it's in there, so that was my bad.

Also:  FWIW, I think the term "Story Point" is outdated terminology that should just be discarded.  You're saying "three Gift Points can be turned into one Story Point, which is spent immediately on these things."  So... why call it something else?  Why not just say "Three Gift Points can be spent on these things"?  Before Story Points had some separate purpose, since they were given out separately from GPs, but now?

4.  The "Gift to multiple people = more Gift Points" is something I'm torn on.  For one, it means "yay, more GPs!"  But amongst some groups, it might encourage people to attempt to shoehorn as many different people into a Gift as possible.  It might be best to jusy say "one GP per Gift, but if it's a Gift to multiple individuals, they all have a chance to veto it."  Heck, I don't think it's the extra GPs that had us handing out Gifts to multiple people last night...  so, I'm coming down against it at the moment, though it was a good off-the-cuff ruling.

I also have some notes on 'porting Unsung to other settings (such as a post-apocalyptic one with Psionics) but that'd drift this thread too far, so I'll communicate with Kirt privately or perhaps start up a different thread.

[xiombarg]

People should also check out the other thread that contains Alexander's suggestions, so I don't feel lonely there. ;-D

In terms of overall trends, I've noticed the SWAT game seems to encourage a larger OOC/Nar ratio than, say, the Pretender game you ran for us did, Loki (or more generally, other IRC games I've played in did).  I'm not sure exactly why, though, and maybe this is just my perception.  Part of it is probably the delays between most of our sessions, but I don't think that's all of it.

Unsung's mechanics are more "meta". They require stopping and voting and asking for vetos and approvals. This is much faster face-to-face, in my playtest experience -- often I can tell from the player's facial expression if they veto, or if anyone desired discussion, etc.

1.  It feels sort of like we didn't SPEND our Gift Points enough (I ended the game with NINE, which feels high, though maybe others spent theirs more?).  This last session I was looking for things to blow them on and didn't see anything I wanted to.  I'm not sure if that's because we didn't feel like we needed to spend them, if we didn't know what to spend them on, or if there weren't enough things to spend them on.  Maybe a combination of both.

I think it's all of the above. I think adding the "take over a NPC" idea will give something else to spend them on, and enforces one of my goals, which is to keep players interested, involved, and active (or at least potentially so) in scenes that don't involve the player's character.

2.  Anyway, spending a GP to get control of an NPC for a scene sounds good and right and gives us one more thing to spend GP on, but I've got a few questions and comments now that I've had some time to think about it.  If I've taken control of an NPC, and I'm playing him, and I need to, say, make a Meat roll for him.... what score do I use?  NPCs aren't MEANT to be statted up, and I think it would defeat the purpose if they were.[/url]

I say appeal to GM fiat, which is what happens with NPCs anyway. Quick karma/drama resolution, no arguments, with other PCs getting to roll if they're involved.

Player: "Bob the NPC shoots at Fred the NPC."
GM: "Hmmm, it's more interesting if he hits... With a splatter, Fred goes Down."

Player: "Bob the NPC shoots Billy the PC."
GM: "Okay. Billy, roll your Sense at -2 to see if you know what's coming and put something hard between you and Bob."

So my (rather non-Simmy) suggestion?  When a player is controlling an NPC, that player rolls using the same stats as they use for their PC (Primary Character).  Doesn't use the same descriptors, though - the NPC is, in a sense, a descriptor of its own, and the GM decides when the NPC's nature applies.  Very counter-intuitive from a Sim sense, but in terms of storytelling it seems to be sensible.  No?

I think GM fiat is better in this particular case, especially as so much can be take from the GM via veto as it is.

Also:  FWIW, I think the term "Story Point" is outdated terminology that should just be discarded.  You're saying "three Gift Points can be turned into one Story Point, which is spent immediately on these things."  So... why call it something else?  Why not just say "Three Gift Points can be spent on these things"?  Before Story Points had some separate purpose, since they were given out separately from GPs, but now?

As per the other thread, amen.

4.  The "Gift to multiple people = more Gift Points" is something I'm torn on.  For one, it means "yay, more GPs!"  But amongst some groups, it might encourage people to attempt to shoehorn as many different people into a Gift as possible.  It might be best to jusy say "one GP per Gift, but if it's a Gift to multiple individuals, they all have a chance to veto it."  Heck, I don't think it's the extra GPs that had us handing out Gifts to multiple people last night...  so, I'm coming down against it at the moment, though it was a good off-the-cuff ruling.

I did say they all have a chance to veto. That's the trade-off. You get more GPs if you include lots of people, but any one of them can scuttle it, like Mike did one of my GM Gifts for three of you.

I think the off-the-cuff version is likely to go into the main rules, Alexander. I don't have any problem with people trying to shoehorn as many people as possible in... I like encouraging Gifts which morally challenge the whole group at once, and I wish this had come up sooner.

What does everyone else think?

I also have some notes on 'porting Unsung to other settings (such as a post-apocalyptic one with Psionics) but that'd drift this thread too far, so I'll communicate with Kirt privately or perhaps start up a different thread.

Yeah, PM me or start a thread. I prefer if you start a thread. :)

[Mike Holmes]

1.  It feels sort of like we didn't SPEND our Gift Points enough (I ended the game with NINE, which feels high, though maybe others spent theirs more?).  This last session I was looking for things to blow them on and didn't see anything I wanted to.  I'm not sure if that's because we didn't feel like we needed to spend them, if we didn't know what to spend them on, or if there weren't enough things to spend them on.  Maybe a combination of both.

I think it's all of the above. I think adding the "take over a NPC" idea will give something else to spend them on, and enforces one of my goals, which is to keep players interested, involved, and active (or at least potentially so) in scenes that don't involve the player's character.

System Does Matter. The problem is that there's very little to do, system-wise, in Unsung other than Gift people. You play your character, and, rarely by the way you GMed it, there's a conflict roll. Here's where you can spend your points in theory. First, Gifting happens more often than contests, so no surprise that GP accumulate. Second, quite often a reroll is unlikely to produce any effects. More importantly, the game is quite Narrativist meaning that, since you don't care whether the character wins or loses, you don't feel a need to alter the results. A lot of the game seems predicated on the idea that the player is an advocate for the characters success. But what's the reward for success? Moreover, what does it matter if they do succeed? What's really relevant in the game are the moral choices the players make for their characters, or which the system foists off on you. That's what play seems to be "about." By far the most fun part of the game is screwing a character with a Gift. Since that's the case, and that gets rewarded with GP, no surprise that GP accumulate. There were times when I actually forgot what I could spend them on. There's no need to reward Gifts - they're fun to give on their own. After a while I started thinking that I should have to pay to give Gifts. Maybe if the giftee were rewarded for accepting or something...

I think that, in general, the problems with the game have to do with the idea that play is about giving gifts, and then there's all the "normal" business. That is, it seems like the players are supposed to have gamist ideals for their own characters, but narrativist ideals for everyone else. The latter part works, but the former - there's no reward.

So I think that one of the following is true:
1) Make the Normal Business part of play - playing out the character's actions - Gamist, by giving gamist rewards for doint well. I think you could have a very interesting hybrid by doing this, and that the metagame side would become somewhat gamist in some ways as well. I think that players already do compete somewhat to see who can screw the characters best.

2) Have something narrativist to do with the GP on the normal business side of things. Maybe they can cement relationships or something akin to the NPC talk in terms of followers or something. Basically they can spend the points to have something to hang onto.

This isn't new, I've felt like this the whole time as I'm sure you're aware.


On Alex's point the second, I'm not sure what the point is. I mean it would be something to do with the points but what does it have to do with the game. In any case, I can Gift to get NPCs to do things more or less. At least the feeling that I got was that nothing was off limits in terms of what Gifts could affect.

Glad you agree with point 3, so do I.

4.  The "Gift to multiple people = more Gift Points" is something I'm torn on.  For one, it means "yay, more GPs!"  But amongst some groups, it might encourage people to attempt to shoehorn as many different people into a Gift as possible.  It might be best to jusy say "one GP per Gift, but if it's a Gift to multiple individuals, they all have a chance to veto it."  Heck, I don't think it's the extra GPs that had us handing out Gifts to multiple people last night...  so, I'm coming down against it at the moment, though it was a good off-the-cuff ruling.

I did say they all have a chance to veto. That's the trade-off. You get more GPs if you include lots of people, but any one of them can scuttle it, like Mike did one of my GM Gifts for three of you.

That seems balanced. More risk, but greater reward if it flies.

Mike

[suffusionofyellow]

As far as the whole multiple gift points for a multiple gift, I'm not a fan of it. I do think it just encourages people to gift as widely as possible, when the whole reason it's called a gift is because it supposedly spotlights one character. I agree, there is the balance of multiple veto, but I feel that this does not make up for the splitting of attention.

Possible ideas:
Only one gift point earned per gift, no matter how many it is extended to.
The reciever of a gift earns the gift point. This still doesn't seem to work with multiple gifts though.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the game design, because as soon as I throw terminology around, I'll be wrong. I'll let you experts do that.


So Lxndr did something I found interesting. My character(Frix), did a lot of indiscriminate killing, due to all his Lapses and the morbid nature of the crew I played with. Lxndr's character(Guerrera), killed a little boy in cold blood. Frix in the course of the game lost responsibility, Guerrera's ended up right where it started. While some of that is purely metagame mechanics, I find it interesting that as long as you are conviction are strong enough, you can do anything an not be phased. Likewise, if you lack morals completely, you can do anything and not be phased. Concievebly, one could play a character with a high Responsibility and have no problem killing indiscriminatly. It scares me, but it's not unrealistic. There are fanatics in war, as well as the crazed killers. Well done Kirt.
-Josh

[Lxndr]

I like encouraging Gifts which morally challenge the whole group at once, and I wish this had come up sooner.

Maybe we're an unusual group, but we were handing out Gifts to multiple people WITHOUT HEED to the extra Gift points involved (or at least, I was, and I think other people were too).  I think handing out multiple Gift points for Gifts to multiple people could encourage ABUSE of this feature amongst certain segments of the gaming population - shoehorning additional people into a Gift not for the moral challenge, but for the extra points.  

On the other hand, explicitly making the option of Gifts for multiple people available WITHOUT the extra GP just informs the group that it's allowed, and people will do it for that reason alone.  Quite frankly, encouraging Gifts that affect the whole group seems more properly done through game longevity, and player investiture in the group, not through boosting the Gift Point reward.

Mechanically speaking, it's balanced, yeah.  But... it feels like it'd be subject to abuse in the same way an hourly-paid employee might abuse his supervisor saying "go ahead and work any overtime you need to, I'll approve it all."  Not the best analogy in the world, but I hope you get my drift.

As for Josh's comment about Guerrera... yeah, I love how a high Responsibility can allow the righteous to do heinous things and be convinced in their righteousness.

(Finally, Mike's comments have helped me attempt to articulate why I think 2 points for a re-roll is too expensive, although it's still largely a gut thing:  the more-or-less Nar focus of Unsung does lead to less caring about altering the results of rolls than other focuses... which makes a 2 Gift Point charge for re-rolling things that aren't Responsibility seem inflated in price for something that isn't called for much.  2 GP for dictating the results of a roll, sure.  But for re-rolling a roll?  It makes me even less likely to go "ooh, that's something I want to do.")

[xiombarg]

I'm  just going to hit different points here and there...

So I think that one of the following is true:
1) Make the Normal Business part of play - playing out the character's actions - Gamist, by giving gamist rewards for doint well. I think you could have a very interesting hybrid by doing this, and that the metagame side would become somewhat gamist in some ways as well. I think that players already do compete somewhat to see who can screw the characters best.

2) Have something narrativist to do with the GP on the normal business side of things. Maybe they can cement relationships or something akin to the NPC talk in terms of followers or something. Basically they can spend the points to have something to hang onto.

This isn't new, I've felt like this the whole time as I'm sure you're aware.

Yeah, but this is the first time I think I actually grok what you're saying.

I guess my question is: What rewards would you think would work for "Normal Business"?

It's interesting that you think that the game could become a functional Gamist/Narrativist hybrid, since the original intent was a functional Simulationist/Narrativist hybrid, which seemed to drift in a more Narrativist direction over time.

I mean, you can spend GP on attributes, which increases your effectiveness for "Normal Business". It's just that none of you chose to do so, perhaps because when we stopped in a given session, people were usually in a rush to go.

I'm not sure what I could do with regard to further Narrativist rewards, either. I'd be tempted to let you blow 10 GP to override a veto, but the vetos are there to help enforce player comfort.

And speaking thereof...

Maybe we're an unusual group, but we were handing out Gifts to multiple people WITHOUT HEED to the extra Gift points involved (or at least, I was, and I think other people were too). I think handing out multiple Gift points for Gifts to multiple people could encourage ABUSE of this feature amongst certain segments of the gaming population - shoehorning additional people into a Gift not for the moral challenge, but for the extra points.

First of all, this strikes me as a social contract issue that should be handled outside the rules. I mean, why would you want to play with someone who would do this?

Plus, vetos. Seriously, if any one player, or the GM, thinks that someone is doing this, they veto, and the player gets no GPs at all. Now, they might re-phrase the Gift by excluding whoever vetoed, but that means the shoehorning is naturally winnowed out -- only people who don't mind being included get included in the Gift.

Maybe we're an unusual group, but we were handing out Gifts to multiple people WITHOUT HEED to the extra Gift points involved (or at least, I was, and I think other people were too). I think handing out multiple Gift points for Gifts to multiple people could encourage ABUSE of this feature amongst certain segments of the gaming population - shoehorning additional people into a Gift not for the moral challenge, but for the extra points.

Eh. My problem is I want to explicitly encourage group self-hosing. This is a social contract thing, and as you can see from my argument above, it can be argued either way.

Mechanically speaking, it's balanced, yeah. But... it feels like it'd be subject to abuse in the same way an hourly-paid employee might abuse his supervisor saying "go ahead and work any overtime you need to, I'll approve it all." Not the best analogy in the world, but I hope you get my drift.

And anyone who engaged in such abuse is asking to get fired, or to bankrupt the company...

Finally, Mike's comments have helped me attempt to articulate why I think 2 points for a re-roll is too expensive, although it's still largely a gut thing: the more-or-less Nar focus of Unsung does lead to less caring about altering the results of rolls than other focuses... which makes a 2 Gift Point charge for re-rolling things that aren't Responsibility seem inflated in price for something that isn't called for much. 2 GP for dictating the results of a roll, sure. But for re-rolling a roll? It makes me even less likely to go "ooh, that's something I want to do."

Problem is, I'm not sure why that makes your scheme any better. If anything, since I'm trying to get people to take a strong interest in other people's characters, it should be the reverse of your suggestion -- 2 GP ro reroll your own stuff, and 1 GP to reroll other people's rolls.

The point of the low cost for a Responsibility roll is to highlight the importance of Responsibility. I suppose to be consistent with people interested in the downward spiral I should allow Instinct re-rolls cheaply as well.

As far as the whole multiple gift points for a multiple gift, I'm not a fan of it. I do think it just encourages people to gift as widely as possible, when the whole reason it's called a gift is because it supposedly spotlights one character. I agree, there is the balance of multiple veto, but I feel that this does not make up for the splitting of attention.

See, I find that odd. It's a Gift because it spotlights everyone involved. It doesn't have to be focused on one character. If the rules sound that way, it's only because I didn't consider it while I was writing them.

In other news, I'm as pleased as Josh and Alexander about the whole High Responsibility vs. Low Responsibility issue. That's exactly the sort of thing the game is designed to do.

[Mike Holmes]

So Lxndr did something I found interesting. My character(Frix), did a lot of indiscriminate killing, due to all his Lapses and the morbid nature of the crew I played with. Lxndr's character(Guerrera), killed a little boy in cold blood. Frix in the course of the game lost responsibility, Guerrera's ended up right where it started. While some of that is purely metagame mechanics, I find it interesting that as long as you are conviction are strong enough, you can do anything an not be phased. Likewise, if you lack morals completely, you can do anything and not be phased. Concievebly, one could play a character with a high Responsibility and have no problem killing indiscriminatly. It scares me, but it's not unrealistic. There are fanatics in war, as well as the crazed killers. Well done Kirt.

Actually I was going to pass commenting on this, but now I really want to do so. I think this is all messed up. I mean, I don't want this to seem too Sim, but I'm starting to think that responsibility rolls should be reversed. That is, to avoid losing responsibility, you should have to roll over your current responsibility. Meaning that maintaining a high level is difficult if you do things that require you to roll, and dropping really low isn't a "death spiral".

Think about the ramifications.

As for what to reward the "normal business" how about "retirement points." Succeed at a mission, and get some retirement points equal to the danger faced. If you get to 100, the character gets to retire, the player wins the game, and he gets to write the character's epilogue based on his abilities when he retires (mostly his responsibility). That way, the player is aiming for survival, but also authors the nature of that survival in terms of responsibility.

Whadda ya think? Something like Franchise Dice in InSpectres is what I'm envisioning.

Mike

[suffusionofyellow]

As far as the whole multiple gift points for a multiple gift, I'm not a fan of it. I do think it just encourages people to gift as widely as possible, when the whole reason it's called a gift is because it supposedly spotlights one character. I agree, there is the balance of multiple veto, but I feel that this does not make up for the splitting of attention.

See, I find that odd. It's a Gift because it spotlights everyone involved. It doesn't have to be focused on one character. If the rules sound that way, it's only because I didn't consider it while I was writing them.

I suppose this goes back to my original discomfort with Lapses; they take control of a character away from the player. Kirt replied that since the character was 'spotlighted', I really didn't lose anything. Multiple gifts seem to invalidate that justification. This type of thing has been discussed before, so there's no need to go over it again. I think it's a mechanic I dislike, and not an underlying problem.

[xiombarg]

Actually I was going to pass commenting on this, but now I really want to do so. I think this is all messed up. I mean, I don't want this to seem too Sim, but I'm starting to think that responsibility rolls should be reversed. That is, to avoid losing responsibility, you should have to roll over your current responsibility. Meaning that maintaining a high level is difficult if you do things that require you to roll, and dropping really low isn't a "death spiral".

You're not the first person to think so, Mike. As far back as the original incarnation as Rise Again people were concerned about this. I originally had an optional rule where you could reverse it like this.

I think I will keep it the way it is, but mention the optional rule. Tho I do think it would play very differently.

As for what to reward the "normal business" how about "retirement points." Succeed at a mission, and get some retirement points equal to the danger faced. If you get to 100, the character gets to retire, the player wins the game, and he gets to write the character's epilogue based on his abilities when he retires (mostly his responsibility). That way, the player is aiming for survival, but also authors the nature of that survival in terms of responsibility.

Ooooh, I kinda like that. Given this fact, would you want to keep the current mission system or not? I was originally considering excising the mission system, but giving more importance to missions gives me a better reason to spotlight it, and put it in play.

[Mike Holmes]

Ooooh, I kinda like that. Given this fact, would you want to keep the current mission system or not? I was originally considering excising the mission system, but giving more importance to missions gives me a better reason to spotlight it, and put it in play.

I'd definitely keep the mission system, and maybe base the rewards on some adjustment of the modifiers representing difficulty.

Mike

[xiombarg]

I'd definitely keep the mission system, and maybe base the rewards on some adjustment of the modifiers representing difficulty.

That is exactly the same thing I was thinking. I'm glad to see us in the groove for a change, Mike. ;-D

Another thing I like regarding this suggestion is it adds tension to the Gift-giving process. Do I accept the Gift, making things more interesting for my character's personal story, but possibly reducing my effectiveness on the mission? Or do I decline the Gift, which might mean other people will decline my Gifts, depriving me of GPs?

In fact, I'm thinking one could satisfy myself, you, and Alexander by finally giving a reward for self-Gifting and/or Lapsing, but not one that interferes with my intent for the game, by giving a character a Retirement Point for every Lapse. (This rewards self-Gifting in that you can Give yourself a chance to Lapse and auto-fail the Responsibility check, for an instant Lapse.) That way, you can bring yourself closer to that epilogue, while risking negative consequences from the Lapse... And this rewards the downward spiral as well as the upward one.

Another thing I like about this is the idea of character retirement, rather than perpetual play with the same character, as an goal for the game. It turns a lot of standard RPG asumptions on its head, but it prevents the high drama from getting too ridiculous over time and turning the game into Soap. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se, just that that wasn't my original intent...

[Mike Holmes]

Cool.

Mike