[Source Code]Structured story quandry

[Kaare Berg]

I need some feedback on a little issue with the game I am designing, now called Source Code (hoping that no one used this yet, finding a name is getting as hard as finding a cool nick in Battlefield 2).
I've previously posted about this game under the titles Envoy and Carbon Soul.
Unlike some areas of my life, I have here taken the advice given to me to heart, and this has really boosted the speed at which elements have clicked in place.

But as I was typing yesterday I got a bit nervous that I was building an impossible breakfast.

So I bring the idea here in hopes of becoming enlightened yet again.

First I'll answer the three first questions of Troy's Power 19 to recap what my game is about:

1. What is your game about?
It is about characters driven by a Desire dealing with violence and subsequent damage that comes from trying to fill this hole in their hearts.

2. What do the characters do?
The characters pursue their Desires in an unforgiving future world, allways teetering on the edge of violence as the setting opposes their pursuit of this Desire.

3. What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?
The players call for scenes, choose whether the character commits acts of violence or not, balance the need for Desire contra the need to prevent the story from escalating, calling in nested NPCs and other resources to take narrative control or to give it up to spare their characters. The Narrator (GM) plays the setting to the hilt, banging the characters to make the players choose and pushes them to always consider using the easy, violent way. He also monitors the stories progression to manage the different phases of the game.

Phew. Ambitious, no?

The bit I am looking at, and that is causing me problems is the Escalation of the Story bit. What RPG Design Patterns call the Contest Tree. Initially I got this idea from My Life with Master's End game, Trollbabe's GM escalation of the Stakes and Timfire's Rewarded for winning – backwards thread and the notes he's shared on In a land called . . .

Here is how I plan to mechanically enforce the Escalation of the Story:

The game as played (aka The Story) has three Phases; Presentation, Escalation and Resolution. Progress from one phase to another is decided by a gauge that fills as the characters "win" scenes.
Play proceeds by the Players (as in not the Narrator) call for scenes. There are two type scenes, Plot or Character development scenes. Plot scenes are where the narrator Bangs the character desire, Character scenes are where the player tries to reduce the damage inflicted on his character by the choices made in Plot scenes.
A Character scene feeds the Story Gauge on a one for one basis. But it does not give the character Desire, which is an important currency in the Resolution phase of the game. What it does is that it can restore resources spent by the character in the Plot scenes so far, thus improving the chances of the Player winning narration rights in those Plot scenes where he really wants to "win".
A Plot scene is where the Characters Desire collides with the setting, and the outcome determines where the story goes from now. If the players "win" the scene they get Desire for their characters, but the Story Gauge rises. If they loose, which they may choose to do, the character gets XP (improving the chances in future conflicts) and the Story Gauge doesn't grow.

In the different phases of the game there are certain subtle rules changes that increases the adversity faced by the characters. These will in part be set by dials during setting creation and such. Most of these rules are still very theoretical (In other words still undefined a whirring about in my head), but one core idea is that in the Resolution phase the character can not gain any more desire, nor have any character development scenes since the game has now moved beyond that stage.

When I say "win" or "loose" a scene I refer to the start of each scene where the narrator sets what is at stake in the scene. E.g. will Jack prevent the guys in R&D from learning that his lover is in fact an AI downloaded in a C-Body? If the player gets his will, Yes, if not No.

My concerns are twofold.
One. Does this type of structure detract from the purpose of the game: To tell the story of characters driven by Desire dealing with violence and subsequent damage that comes from trying to fill this hole in their hearts.
I have rules supporting this.
Do these rules create a game within the game?
And two. Does the focus on winning and loosing scenes move the game closer to gamist than towards narrativism, which is my Creative Agenda? Can one really apply winning or loosing to a narrative game? Will this move the narrator more into an antagonistic/adversarial role to the Players? This here is my major concern when you look at question three above.

Is this idea an impossible thing before breakfast, or am I unduly worried?

As always I greatly appreciate any input.

Peace

Kaare

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hi Kaare,

I suggest that putting names to your agenda is needlessly confusing, alarming, and does not actually provide you and kind of functional design guidance. Rather, ask yourself as you play your game, "does this focus on winning and losing scenes create the kind of play I want?"

It's my impression/opinion that, if the system or social contract rewards the GM strongly for making the players lose, or if the players have a strong mechanical reason for wanting one event over the other, you will be more likely to see adversarial play, but if win and loss are mechanically neutral events for the players involved, this is less likely.

[Kaare Berg]

Hi Shreyas,

I think you have put the finger dead on my quandry. And you may have provided the answer to my fears there.

There is no mechanical benefit for the Narrator either way the scene goes.

There, I think this should remove the adverserial element I feared.

The reason (or design philosophy) behind these Phases of play is that I whish to mechanically create a sense of urgency and a non-narrator imposed sense of pressure escalation. It is also an attempt to include the three act structure so commen in modern dramturgy into the game instead of leaving it in the fuzzy land of Narrator tasks.

At the same time I want to reward them for failing. I

I see now that what I proposed doesn't answer this.

What if I turn my solution on its head: Loosing a scene raises the story gauge and gives XP, winning the scene gives breath space (i.e no raise to the story gauge) yet gives the player a Desire Point. (DPs are important meta-game currency). A scene for character development raises the story gauge yet lets the character recover spent resources.

Violence makes vinning conflicts and thus scenes easier.

Thus to avoid running out of time (reaching the resolution phase) the players will have another reason to use violence.

I don't get what you mean here though:

I suggest that putting names to your agenda is needlessly confusing, alarming, and does not actually provide you and kind of functional design guidance.

but seeing as the rest helped tremendously I will assume it is important, could you explain a bit closer please?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya Negligent,

Here's what I like:  I like the whole "tortured soul" aspect of your game.  I like how both wins and losses are rewarded in your game.  I love how the players choose what sort of scene comes next.

Here's my answers to your questions:
1.) I don't think the structure of your game detracts at all from what you want to accomplish.  Actually, I think it enhanses it.

2.) There is definately a game within a game here (and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I'll explain in a sec)

3.) Winning and losing in this case do not necessarily bring your game closer to Gamism.

Here's why.  Dogs in the Vineyard (if you don't own it, get it) has a resolution where "losing" is the path to advancement.  Too much losing has negative consiquences, but still losing isn't always a bad thing.  Winning, in Dogs, grants you the stakes of whatever you were fighting for- i.e. you get what you want.  I see this as very similar to your game.  You lose, you get XP.  You win, you get something you want BUT with consiquences.  Personally, I think your game is great!  Well, as much as I can think it's great without a draft and some playtesting :)  Winning with consiquences and losing to advance seems logical and fun to me!

The one thing I caution about is making sure that the players don't both create the conflicts they face and decide how those conflicts are resolved, won, and lost.  It's been fairly well established that if a person narrates a challenge for his character, narrates how to negotiate that challenge, and then narrates the outcomes of the challenge, it is very boring to play.  Make sure the Narrator has some discretion in setting the scene, NPCs, and exactly how the PC's Desire is addressed.

I hope someone with more narrativist play experience than I have comments on this thread.  I think you have the beginings of a very good game here.  (BTW, I did like the name Carbon Soul)

Peace,

-Troy

[Roger]

E.g. will Jack prevent the guys in R&D from learning that his lover is in fact an AI downloaded in a C-Body? If the player gets his will, Yes, if not No.

Violence makes winning conflicts and thus scenes easier.

I don't see any rational reason why Jack would think Violence would help him out of this one.  In general, I suspect the Narrator will need to take some care in constructing scenes in which Violence has some real temptation to it.  Your Setting may help him out here.  There may be some clever ways to build the mechanics such that the Violence option always has some appeal.



Cheers,
Roger

[Kaare Berg]

I struck me as I was driving home from work, Don't post with less than minimum sleep (first baby in the house!).

The previous post, the one in response to Sheyrats comments doesn't answer what I want. My original idea does. So I'll stick to it.

However, there will still be NO mechanical benefit for the narrator either way the scene goes. Thanks again for making that clear in my head.

And thanks for the kind words Troy, DITV is a major influence. There are actually few games that I have discovered here at the forge that has not gone into the boiling pot that is my sleep deprived skull. However to mollify your concern in regards to your caution:
A player (in the classical sense) decides what kind of scene he wants, he also decides when to call in nested NPCs, aka Relationship NPCs, and how they enter the stroy. However when these NPCs are in play they are Fair Game, but this dynamic is the subject of a different post. The narrator sets the scene and the stakes are set by giving the player a problem, asking him how he wants to deal with it. The answer decides the stakes for the scene. This is a negotiated issue. He plays the setting, which includes NPCs both allied and opposed.

The combination of your and Sheyras feedback (even though I have changed my mind back and forth) has cemented this in my head. Hopefully I'll have some actual play over the weekend. Hopefully.

Roger,
I'll get more into the dynamics of the scenes much later. To respond, yes it is a combination of setting and mechanics. Not to go into detail, but violence will give the Player access to more dice.
And remember in this game I define violence as intentionally hurting someone else physically, mentally or socially.
These things should give Player controlling Jack enough tools to make an informed decision on whether to use violence or not. And it is up to him to do so. He may even let them find out that Jack's lover is an AI.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I don't get what you mean here though:

I suggest that putting names to your agenda is needlessly confusing, alarming, and does not actually provide you and kind of functional design guidance.

but seeing as the rest helped tremendously I will assume it is important, could you explain a bit closer please?

Happily!

I am trying to suggest that CA theory happens to have convenient labels for specific places in the continuum of different CAs, as a kind of shorthand, but I do not believe that these labels are more useful for design than simply having clear design goals.

Simply put, when you look at your system and your heart quails, crying, "Oh, Gamism!," you are being distracted away from your design goals by CA theory, and that isn't want you want! Just figure out exactly what you want to occur in play, and design your game so that that occurs. Entangling with jargon is a big hazard that trips up a lot of otherwise good designs.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

A player (in the classical sense) decides what kind of scene he wants, he also decides when to call in nested NPCs, aka Relationship NPCs, and how they enter the stroy. However when these NPCs are in play they are Fair Game, but this dynamic is the subject of a different post. The narrator sets the scene and the stakes are set by giving the player a problem, asking him how he wants to deal with it. The answer decides the stakes for the scene. This is a negotiated issue. He plays the setting, which includes NPCs both allied and opposed.

-Great!  I think you have the makings of a killer game here.  Can't wait to see further development and some posts in Actual Play.  I really think you've got your hands on a winner, IMHO.  :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Kaare Berg]

Sheyras,

Thanks, lightbulb moment. Less think more design, got it.

Kaare