[Dreamation: Carry] Ah, So This Is Why We Playtest...

[Nathan P.]

Gah, long! This post is the description, the next will be the reflection.

Intro

Technically, I had a playtest game of Carry scheduled for Friday night at midnight, but it didn't go off because everyone who was interested found me while I was playing Mortal Coil and told me they were exhausted. So I'm all like, ok, kinda lame but it happens.

During the room party on Friday, we got to talking (now, I am horrible at remembering names, so don't take it personally if you were there and I don't mention you! I should have gotten everyone to write it on their sheets, but I forgot), and, while most everyone had somewhere to be at 8, we figured we could get a little bit of play in before that, go through a couple scenes and get some feedback. The interested people recruited some other people, and I ended up sitting at the table with 6 people! I remember Brennan, Emily and Nate, in addition to two of the guys that begged off from the original game, and one other who I don't think I met prior to the playtest.

Burden Creation & Grunt Choice

We sat down, I went over the game a little, and then we created Burdens, which is new in the rules. Everyone has a sheet of paper, and writes down something that, in the context of being in Vietnam, could be a problem, issue, or burden for a character. Basically like Issues in PtA, but constrained by the wartime setting. Now, I originally intended for them to get passed all the way around the table, with each person writing down another issue that the ones on the paper already made them think of, or in reaction to something already written, and then when your paper gets back to you you choose which one, of all the things on the paper, would be your characters Burden. What actually happened was way, way cooler.

First, because passing around 7 times (including myself) would have taken forever, I said we would do it three times. After some thought, everyone got something on the paper, then we passed to the left, wrote again, and passed again. After I mentioned it was like a PtA Issue, everyone had a grasp of where I was going with it, I think, so there wasn't much confusion. We got our papers back, and I saw a look of "Whoa" looks on people's faces - and when I said you had to choose one, there was much disagreement!

What had happened was, in all but one case, the two further entries for the Burden helped shape and define it, and give it more weight. The papers:

Afraid he is too weak. Criticizing father rode him hard. Pained by seeing children hurt.

Drug abuse. Addicted to excitement of combat. Passively suicidal.

Overly agressive. Starts fights with his comrades. Doesn't know when to stop.

Absolute terror manifesting itself as overconfidence. Afraid to kill. Extremely prone to panic under fire.

Angry at cheating spouse getting divorce. Does not accept authority. Bleak depression, crippling, over thought of spouse cheating.

I don't know if Emily kept hers, I don't remember what hers ended up being. In any case, I think everyone was grooving on how the extensions of their original statements gestalted into some very gripping sets of problems. I ruled that you can cross off entries down to one, if you find them inappropriate (or, in retrospect, its something that you don't want to deal with in play - something that crosses your line).

Now I handed out the squad sheets and told everyone to pick a character, and if two people wanted the same one they would have to work it out themselves. This went fairly quickly, and seemed to work out fine from my end - if a player thinks there was something else to talk about it, please bring it up. I intended for the Burden creation to narrow down the range of soldiers you would choose, and I think that worked out just fine. There is a logistical lag in that everyone had to read the descriptions of 16 characters, but with two sheets it went pretty quick, and I also used the time to run down the basic mechanics. We then filled the dice pools, with the fellow to my right explicating his decisions (I took a d12 so I have some punch, but also a d8 so I can be in any conflict), which was a great reading of my explanation.

Conflict & Action

Coming up on 8.00, I wanted to run through a conflict or two and an action scene. I framed the initial scene with two Grunts (played characters) out on patrol with one Fodder (a non-played character), while the rest of the squad camped for the night. The Fodder ran across a Marine strung up on a tree, and freaked and he and James "Bull" Toren (played by my left-hand man) got into a pushing match as Bull tried to calm him down. Efram "Chameleon" Osgood, played by Emily, entered the conflict to get them to shut up, and Bull won, pushing the Fodder to the ground. Both because Emily lost, and to segue into an Action scene I narrated that his safety was off and his gun went off, triggering a mass of machine-gun fire from an ambushing party.

At this point Brennan had to leave, but we went into the Action scene, with the camp under attack. The man to my right was the commanding officer (the highest rank of Grunt at the table), so he had to give orders, ordering the Grunts still in the camp out to recover the patrol, and ordering the patrol to make it back to camp. Everyone then chose whether they agreed or disagreed with the order, giving me, as the opposition, a dice from their pool if they disagreed, and giving him the dice if they agreed. Once I explained this process and we went through it, people had to get going, so I called the scene and we rolled - I had a bigger dice pool (more people disagreed than agreed with his orders), and I won by 6, giving me 6 points to spend killing and wounding Grunts and Fodder. I gave a quick narration how the Fodder who had been on patrol with them was found in the daylight with the back of his head blown out, and the sergeant of the squad took a bullet in the shoulder.

We then talked a bit about the game while everyone packed up. 

[Nathan P.]

Suggestions

The post-game talk was very cool. Everyone seemed to think there was potential, and said they had a good (or at least an interesting) time. I'm going to run down the major points we talked about, and please feel free to throw in more stuff, or reactions to these points!

During Burden creation, the rules will call for asking everyone what they're bringing to the table, in terms of war experience, relatives, and all that jazz. I felt, and I think we all felt, that our Burdens went directly for the heavy shit, and I talking about everyones line needs to happen. Along those lines, there's going to be a list of questions for the GM to ask, and everyone to answer, during Burden creation, along the lines of:

*What kind of combat or military experience are you bringing to the table?
*What material do you want to put off-limits? Rape, child killing, torture and cruelty are all the first line of possibilities for issues that will come up in play.

I think those pretty much cover it, but there may be some more specific things in there that should be teased out. Also, going around and everyone reading their initial Burden list, and then saying if they are crossing anything off and why will be key.

I got some great suggestions for further resources to look at for Vietnam-y stuff, especially from the girl who showed up at the end - again, I forgot her name!

Multiple people wanted to see some more mention of equipment in the character descriptions, to give some more differentiation and color to the characters. I also got some great advice about incorporating a little more about acronyms and military slang, as thats a huge part of military culture.

The mechanics themselves still need to see play over the course of an entire game, to see if the roll-and-give economy actually works. But the Action scene mechanics, and the point-expenditure to kill/wound Fodder, met with a positive reaction, which was cool. People really seemed to groove on how it's not extension or intensity of conflict, but rather one-sided-ness that determines how many people get hurt, whether its your side or the other sde thats winning. A couple people lit up when I explained that one of the options for when you get wounded is that your Burden die goes up, which I again need to see in play to see if it works.

At some point during all this I also jettisoned my current, crappy Burden Die/Endgame relationship, and just decided that, in the final roll, everyone has to give their target their Burden die, which they get to roll against you. I need to think through the permutations, but that seems simple, elegant and appropriate.

Post Post-Game

Having all of this in my head really clarified a big sticking point for me - the first scene. The problem is not one of investment. Once people have a Burden and picked their character, they are ready to go. But it's a problem of context. You have all of these characters, but absolutely no background or information on their relationships and how they interact. I think once the hump of the first scene has been surmounted, everything will flow from there, but its an awkward hump. Also, if all of the characters aren't involved until a later scene, they have their own hump to get over when that rolls around.

As such, I had an idea for the next playtest: the first scene is always Campfire Stories. All of the Grunts, and a smattering of Fodder, are sitting around a campfire sharing stories. If anyone has an idea for one they start, or the GM can start with a Fodders story. You go around the table, and everyone has to tell a story to their fellow soldiers - it could be a war story, a shaggy-dog tale, about sexual conquest, whatever. Anyway, everyone tells a story, and the GM needs to listen and look for potential conflicts, either between storytellers (bragging contest, "no it was like this", etc), or from others in the squad coming over (the Sergeant hears the yarn about how the soldier played practical jokes on the Lieutenant, etc).

It seems to me that this both gives you a chance to settle into character a bit, introduce him to the table, get some initial impressions of the other characters, and also set up a simple conflict or a series of simple conflicts to introduce the mechanics.

After this scene, of course, anything is fair game.

Does that seem like a good idea? Players, would this have been valuable or cool to you? Any reactions from other folks?

[Brennan Taylor]

I'm really glad I had a chance to try this, Nathan. I am looking forward to the finished game, and it is already on my "gotta play" list.

My main suggestion, based on the initial burden creation we did, is to really formalize what happened in our session. My initial idea for the burden was expanded and deepened by the other players, and when I got it back it felt really rich and complex. As I mentioned at the table, the fact that my character's father rode him hard was the cause, and the other two statements were the symptoms. I would have had no trouble bringing all of these into play, and I'd like to see that in the final version of the game.

[Robert Bohl]

Setup

I am guy to your left.  I felt very guilty about ditching you on Carry at midnight, and after you suggested a little spurt of play before 8, I gathered everyone I knew.  Emily overheared and asked if she could join in, and then I felt bad for not asking her .

Game play experience and reflection

First off, I had a lot of fun.  I wish I had more time to play this.

I was playing Bull and was in the non-fight scene.  Bull was terrified, but in the Fodder freaking out, he was able to act out his "fear masquerading as overconfidence" thing and started to shout the guy down for being a pussy.  That was fun to play.  And I always love playing dummies and mispronouncing words.

I really like that if too many people trust the commander, and if too many people distrust him, more people will die.  That's very subversive.

Suggestimications

Burden choice did guide me on who to pick.  That was very useful actually.

I think that you should do the 3-burden-pass thing, but the passees should make their entries work with the prior ones (no "let's try an opposite" stuff), and you should play all of them (provided you get a "that's lame" veto (in case of veto, I'd say go to the next person who would've written the burden for you)).

In terms of con mechanics/preparedness, I would recommend every player get a sheet listing all the characters, as well as the "max die for X kind of action" table on a handout.

I would very strongly recommend an opportunity for developing some background between the grunts.  Maybe each person tells a story with one other person in it.

Finally as I suggested at the table, choice of which die to put into your pool should go in reverse "time in" order, with something to break the tie (Maybe insecure vs. secure demeanor-type? A different number of months in for each PC? Dunno).  Give first choice to the one with the lowest months in, but then going clockwise thereafter, hurts the second-to-least and third-to-least quite a bit.

[Nathan P.]

Brennan: Yes, I'm all up in formalizing that process.

Rob! Got it. I will remember now. Thank you so much for pushing for it to happen - I'm a little nervous around people I don't really know, so your catalyzing was totally needed and welcome.

Yes, all great suggestions that I forgot/didn't think of. Thank you!

For another demo I would print up more one-sheets, and I would pretty up the Approach table (with the die sizes on it) and put it on the same paper as the Profile Wheel.

I think the option to cross off a Burden entry that crosses your line (not nudges, but is actually beyond it) needs to be in there. But I like the thought of continuing to pass to fill that in if it comes up.

Stories with another character is cool, except that then you can't tell stories from before the war (without it being artifical, I think). Playtest will tell if there needs to be more than just stories. Given our first scene, do you think my proposal about the campfire stories always being the first scene would have been useful/helpful for establishing some of that missing context?

And the reverse time in order is definitly in. It's one of those things that was in my head but not on the page, as it were.

[Josh Roby]

Without having played, I'm giving campfire stories a hairy eyebrow.  Is that what the game is about?  Cause it seems to me, given the setting, that you should be defining character with bullets flying, blood spurting, flies buzzing, et cetera -- in the action.  I think a round of campfire stories would start the game off on the wrong foot.

[Robert Bohl]

Maybe not full-on campfire stories.  Maybe more each person declairs one sentence about the past that includes each of their characters.  For example, I might have said:  "Bull's first panic in a firefight happened while Chameleon was on point, and he didn't rat him out."

Other ideas:

Bull is spooked by Chameleon's silence.

Chameleon and Bull go to bars together.

etc.

Each character needs to be mentioned in someone's line, so that there are N number of players, N number of statements made, each member of N being mentioned once.

--

Or maybe not.  It's just an idea for how to break the lack of context you were mentioning.

Instead you could ask for that at a dramatically interesting point in a scene with someone.  Maybe like CoS's destiny points.  One fact can be established about each PC, and you may establish one fact about a PC which hasn't been established yet?  That could happen anytime in play instead of suddenly?

I would be down with doing this sort of thing at the outset, but some people like to get into play a little before they do something like that.

Does this answer your question?  I'm not sure.

[Doug Ruff]

I really like that if too many people trust the commander, and if too many people distrust him, more people will die.  That's very subversive.

Observation from the peanut gallery - this explanation is the first thing that has made the conflict mechanic truly 'click' for me (if you recall, I wrote an early GameChef review of the game.) If this explanation isn't in the written rules, I would recommend putting it in.

Also, regarding the 'campfire stories' - this screams 'flashback' (or at least 'retrospective storytelling') at me. I'm getting a picture where each player takes a turn in framing a scene that has already happened, and then the players flesh out that scene in play. So that the whole story is told from a veteran's perspective. To me, this meshes perfectly with the player's foreknowledge that some of the characters are going to die - because, from the perspective of the characters swapping tales around the campfire (or in the hospital, or at the vet's association) they're already dead.

Apologies if I'm off-topic here (I'm speaking from my knowedge of the original draft, and not any later developments, so you may have already made this decision), but if you want to add context to the scenes, I would thoroughly recommend considering doing the whole thing as a retrospective narrative.

[Robert Bohl]

I like Doug's idea, and if you have them establish the way Fodder is going to die, then the GM gets to/has to narrate it thusly when he spends "kill fodder" points.

[thelostgm]

Hey Folks, the guy to the right here..

I really like the idea of the "campfire stories", and really love it with Doug's suggestion.  Some times very close relationships are formed between soldiers that have gone through battle together.  It might be neat if players were asked to incorporate a Fodder character that they became friends with during these stories.  It might make loosing them mean something.

One small thing I want to suggest about the sheet listing the characters.  Have them listed by their types, Brawler, Warrior, etc.  It might make picking characters a little easier for people.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the game and I am looking forward to seeing the finished product.  Yeah, gotta get my grubby little hands on that one.

One last thing, sorry about bailing on the first game, and thanks for running it later on.

[Nathan P.]

Longish again, lots of replies.

I think a round of campfire stories would start the game off on the wrong foot.

I kind of view it as the moment of silence before the explosion - ok everyone, take your breathe now, because you won't get a chance again. And while the game is in Vietnam, it's not really about Vietnam - it's about the soldiers in this situation, and how they deal with each other and with themselves. So, having some kind of relationship baseline, I feel, would be helpful.

That said, "Campfire Stories" sounds more boyscouts and less Vietnam, and has that kum-bay-ah connotation.

The problem is that, at least from my perspective as GM, your choices in the first scene of the game are essentially random - like, ok, I'm out on patrol with some people. Uh, sure, I'll bitch this guy out, why not? Maybe this isn't the experience the players had. Rob and Emily, did you feel like you needed a little bit more, for that first scene, or am I blowing smoke out my ass here?

Each character needs to be mentioned in someone's line, so that there are N number of players, N number of statements made, each member of N being mentioned once.

I actually think that's a great suggestion, and could get incorporated into the Burden creation and character choice.

Instead you could ask for that at a dramatically interesting point in a scene with someone. Maybe like CoS's destiny points. One fact can be established about each PC, and you may establish one fact about a PC which hasn't been established yet? That could happen anytime in play instead of suddenly?

Mmm, also nice. I'm going to think about incorporating this into the Burden economy.

Observation from the peanut gallery - this explanation is the first thing that has made the conflict mechanic truly 'click' for me (if you recall, I wrote an early GameChef review of the game.) If this explanation isn't in the written rules, I would recommend putting it in.

Hey Doug! Recommendation taken. The whole "most obvious to you is most obscure to other people" thing.

Comments about flashbacks below.

Hey Folks, the guy to the right here..

Awesome. I still forget your name, though...Believe me, you more than made up for bailing on Friday. No worries.

One small thing I want to suggest about the sheet listing the characters. Have them listed by their types, Brawler, Warrior, etc. It might make picking characters a little easier for people.

Mmm, yeh. I might do a couple sheets, one arranged by Months In (which was how the ones you had were), one by Profile, and one by Rank. Some people might really want to play the Sergeant, etc.

To Flashback?

Right now, the structure of the game goes: full squad, fodder die, fodder die, fodder die, all fodder are dead, grunts enter endgame, some grunts die and some make it out.

With flashback, its more: grunts all made it out, lets look at how the fodder died.

I really want to end the game with statements both about how the grunts dealt with their situation, AND what legacies they leave behind. With flashbacks, I don't see any way to talk about legacies. (Not that there aren't. Ideas are always welcomed).

I also feel like, when you're doing flashbacks, you're safe, both as player and character. You both know where the story will eventually go (and now, here we are, talking about what happened in the past). When its a linear narrative, you (the character) don't have that security, and you (the player) don't have the safety net of your character making it out ok. I think a sense of security will kill this game.

Or, to put it another way, that would be a cool game. It's not this game.

The one thing I see is having the first part of the game be flashbacks, with the current moment being when the squad is just down to grunts. Then the narrative turns linear, and we go into endgame to determine what happens to those grunts. That has some more appeal to me, and on it I shall think.

Does that make sense?

[ubergeek2012]

One thing I was wondering about was the resolution mechanic.  I didn't quite get what sort of thing it was supposed to encourage.  If it was meant to foster a mix of trust and distrust of the sarge as some have said, I would recommend trying some way of "secret voting".  I think it might be too easy to manipulate if the players can see how the size of the die pools are already growing as it gets to their turn to choose.  Well, there's my first 2 cents.  I think just about everything else I can think of has been covered.

[Robert Bohl]

The problem is that, at least from my perspective as GM, your choices in the first scene of the game are essentially random - like, ok, I'm out on patrol with some people. Uh, sure, I'll bitch this guy out, why not? Maybe this isn't the experience the players had. Rob and Emily, did you feel like you needed a little bit more, for that first scene, or am I blowing smoke out my ass here?

I felt confident enough in the character descriptions I had for me and for Emily's character (Chameleon)--and in the excellent, evocative way Emily was playing him--to have my bearings.  That said, I could see why you're concerned, and I could imagine its being a problem for some people.

That's why the destiny pool type thing of establishing one fact per player and per character is a little better than my other suggestion.  If you want it to be out front, so you can feel comfortable going in, you can do that.  Or you can do it to shank the game in the side with a hot plot injection.

(PS: I like intentionally mixing and breaking my metaphors.)

[Asperity]

I got some great suggestions for further resources to look at for Vietnam-y stuff, especially from the girl who showed up at the end - again, I forgot her name!

Elizabeth here, and I'm flattered to be remembered!  Let's see, I suggested Gale's Vietnam War Reference Library because it was one I'm familiar with, and some libraries have it conveniently available online.  You mentioned having access to a university library, though, so you're more likely to have good online resources available there than pretty much anywhere else you go.  For best results, ask one of their librarians, as they should be familiar with everything you've got access to.

I wish I'd had a chance to try Carry!  It sounds super fun, and I love the title.

[Nathan P.]

One thing I was wondering about was the resolution mechanic.  I didn't quite get what sort of thing it was supposed to encourage.  If it was meant to foster a mix of trust and distrust of the sarge as some have said, I would recommend trying some way of "secret voting".  I think it might be too easy to manipulate if the players can see how the size of the die pools are already growing as it gets to their turn to choose.  Well, there's my first 2 cents.  I think just about everything else I can think of has been covered.

Well, there's two parallel mechanics. In Squad scenes, (the first one we played) you roll a dice and immediately give it to someone else at the table. The intention is along the lines of Fan Mail (i.e. give the die to people in order to reward them) combined with something to make interesting patterns of conflict and character effectiveness. If two Grunts are dominating the story and always going at it, they aren't going to give their dice to each other, giving the less-involved characters more potential effectiveness down the line. The reason that the GM is an option to give dice too is to experiment with players giving him resources in order to provide adversity. With all that said, this is the most potentially problematic and least-tested part of the game.

In Action Scenes (the second) is when you get to agree/disagree and give dice to your choice of GM or commanding officer. I think having them out in the open is important, because it forces everyone to make a decision along these lines as the dice mount up:

GM w/large pool, CO w/small pool (and the opposite): If I give the GM a dice, he gets to do bad things to the squad. If I give the CO a dice, less bad things will happen. (If I give the CO the dice, he gets to do bad things to his own squad).

Equalish pools: If I keep them as equal as possible, nothing will happen to us. Or I could push for one side or the other to do bad things to us.

Whats key is that all of those choices are totally valid, and say interesting things about what you want to see happen to the squad. Do you want the CO to have to make tough choices about what fodder to kill? Do you want to foist that off on the GM? Do you want to keep the squad preserved as long as possible?

So the short response is: please manipulate the dice pools.

That's why the destiny pool type thing of establishing one fact per player and per character is a little better than my other suggestion.  If you want it to be out front, so you can feel comfortable going in, you can do that.  Or you can do it to shank the game in the side with a hot plot injection.

Yeh, I definitly see your point. Especially about the shanking. But yes, being able to throw in sentences about relationships is such a less hamhanded way to go, I think.

I wish I'd had a chance to try Carry!  It sounds super fun, and I love the title.

Hi Elizabeth! Thanks for wieghing in. I'll be throwing up a post once the next draft is done, any and all feedback will be appreciated!

Everyone: I think I'm good on this thread. Once the rewrite is done there will be a post in Design about it, and invite everyones feedback. Thank you all!