[Perfect] Vengeance is a dish best served with a rock.

[joepub]

So, tonight I ran a playtest of Perfect, with two close friends: Mat, and Spooner.
(a link to the game is in my sig)

A bit on set-up:
We talked around the table first of all. What do you guys want to see?
What status do you want to play?
Is there major social movement in this session?

We decided that:
-The game took place in Cadence's largest city.
-The game was to be played by low-status characters. Ones that could drink (ie, crude citizens).
-Mathius would be a factory employee, whereas Jacob would be a librarian's assistant.

With those guidelines set out, we went into developing the two characters.
We had a fair bit of interaction and discussion.

Character creation went really well, I think.
It took about 30-40 minutes... but that time also included explaining the rules, discussing the setting, etc.
I think that Tools (images, evasions) took a really long time to construct at first...
It wasn't a complicated process, it just took some time picking the best Gain/Fallout pair.

We decided that there were some Fallouts that were probably too lenient (you can't invoke this tool again this cycle), and some that were too harsh (lose one build point. :S)


Mat:
Mat always just happens to play characters who enforce their own brand of vigilante justice, and do so in a harsh and unforgiving manner. Think The Punisher, and you get a template of one of Mat's characters. His character for the game was:

Mathius George   (Crude Citizen)
Judge/Sadist
"There is no room for the evil of others"

0 freedoms because he is a crude citizen

Drinking Hall Membership
Factory Workers Ticket

Image: Having sex with young love
re-roll die if lower than GM's
GM gets +1 to all remaining rolls

Image: Watching child get shot
roll two die and pick highest
lose one build point

Image: Grandpa showing me his illegal gun collection
+3
infraction total increased by 1 for the cycle

Evasion: Mental Block
re-roll if die is 2 or lower
no fallout

Evasion: Redirect Blame
remove all fear points invested so far
no extra bonuses on next roll

Evasion: Adrenaline Rush
remove all invested inspector points so far
no extra bonuses on next roll

Spooner:
Spooner often creates silly, fun characters. He's usually a light-hearted roleplayer.
Put into the right frame of mind, however, he can create some pretty cool scenarios.
His character:

Jacob Christ   (Crude Citizen)
leader/idealist/inquisitor
"control is a crime"
"the uninformed are easily led astray"
"humour is a virtue"

0 freedoms as he is a crude citizen.

drinking hall membership
Abigail Historical Society (membership)

Image: father boxing an inspector for eying his mother
remove half fear points bid so far
infraction point value increased by 1 if a 1 is rolled on the die

Image: Mother's subtle little jokes
re-roll die if it is 2 or less
no fallout

Image: Spending time in the pub as a boy
remove a condition
on a roll of a 1 you lose one build point

Image: Getting into fights at school with bullies
remove fear points
permanently add a level 2 fallout to a tool

Evasion: Involves others
roll two die and pick the highest
GM banks 3 points for future scenes

Evasion: Fast Talker
GM cant bank points for this scene
you cannot invoke this tool again this cycle

Evasion: Informed
re-roll GM's die
5 or 6  on die roll and add a level 2 fallout to a tool

One more post about the gameplay on its way.

[joepub]

Before anything, I mentioned that the game was still in progress... and if we came up with instances where laws SHOULD exist, or special rules SHOULD exist, we should just write them in.

I explained that scenes would alternate between Mathius and Jacob, and that we would basically try and give both characters equal screen time.

I explained that sharing scenes was a great way to bridge the group, and they decided that the first scene would be a shared one. Their first scene, they decided, would be in a bar.

There is then a lag, where they aren't sure how to start narration...
So I start them off. I narrate them approaching the Drinking Hall, with their memberships in hand.
I narrate Inspectors posted every block or half-block, monitoring the lamp-lighters who are doing their runs.
I narrate them entering the bar, and then ask "and, what comes next?"

For some reason they are really timid to start narration tonight (I dunno if its because of a new system, or just one of those nights...) Mathius and Jacob sit down in their favourite corner table, remarking on how there are "a lot of Inspectors in the place, even for a Monday night".

Regardless of the Inspectors, Mathius decides that tonight is a good night to try a little gambling:
"Joe, is gambling illegal in this place?"
"Yes. It most definitely is."
"Okay, I'm going to do it anyways. Can we say that a few of these guys gamble with us?"
"Um... sure. Let's say two are buddies you've broken the gambling law with before."
"Great, we call them over, and I slide two dice out from inside my sleeve."

Mat (playing Mathius) goes on to describe how they casually roll the dice while covering them up with their sleeves... so as to not let Inspectors see.

We decide that there is the following law: Gambling will not be tolerated - 1 IP.
The Infraction points for hte first crime is a measily 1.
Because it was a collaborative crime, we needed to stop and explain the way the two criminals interact.
We set tension levels at: Mathius 3, Jacob 3, GM 4.
This means that the players each had a Payout of 7, and the GM had 10 "blank points" (which turned into 5 Inspector, 5 Fear)


So, we started in on the test cycle.
Mat tested for Calm test and passed. He narrated the people in the bar watching him, but not noticing any signs of tension as he cooly (and secretively) rolled the concealed dice. One of the Images he used increased the IP to 2.

Spooner rolled for a Calm test, and failed. I narrated the bartender watching him, as he got all shifty-eyed and seemed to be concealing SOMETHING. The bartender retained this information for the moment.

Spooner rolled his Discovery test, and passed. one of the evasions he invoked, "Involve Others" got narrated in really well when Spooner narrated passing off the dice to others.... one of his friends, Thomas.

Mat rolled his Discovery test, and failed. I chose to further this "Involve Others" angle in, narrating how Thomas then shoved the dice into Mathius's hands, were they were seen. An Inspector stood over Mathius, and simply signalled him to stand up. He was led out of the drinking hall with three Inspectors.

The above looks like it took a long time... but once they got the hang of it it moved rather quickly.
Each test only took a minute or so.
now, because of failed tests above, Spooner had an Interrogation and Mat had a Conditioning.

We started the Interrogation first.
GM (as inspector): "Sir, we'd like to speak to you in the back room."
Spooner (as Jacob): "Sir, I'd prefer to remain seated, thank you."
GM: "Well, then..." 3 other Inspectors sit around hte table, basically blocking your exits. "I'll just ask you the questions here. I'll be needing your papers."

We narrated our invoking, bidding here.
I won, by a couple points. This meant that I had narration rights, that I had won the test...
And that because I had won the Interrogation and the IP was 2... I got to attach a Level 2 Fallout to one of his images.
I attached "can't invoke this image again this cycle" to the image of the father boxing the inspector.

narration continued.
Spooner: "With pleasure, sir" I happen to open the book to the page on family record.
GM: Nice... "It says here that your father had a history of assaulting Inspectors. You aren't the first to commit a crime."
Spooner: I am indifferent to what he's saying.
GM: Oh, you are at first. Then he continues on, "your father was evil. Abigial would hate to see you following in the evil footsteps of an evil father."... Eventually it gets to you.
Spooner: what, do I break down in tears or something?
GM: ... yeah. You break down in tears. You sob in the middle of the drinking hall, and still the Inspector pushes harder. He's not letting you get away intact. Okay, add your new Fallout to that Image.


Next, we narrated Mathius being led several blocks to an Inspector station, where he was sat in a chair in a bland, 10x10 room. He won the test, and narrated agreeing with everything the Inspectors said until he was eventually let go.


That ended that crime cycle.
Mathius and Jacob met back up outside the bar.
They were eyed suspiciously by the Inspectors, and finally got uneasy and headed off in opposite directions, presumably towards home.

(more in a next post)

[joepub]

Mathius narrated walking toward his house, then turning about and heading in the opposite direction, toward the slums.
He crept in the back alleys, and eventually found the Inspector that had arrested him earlier.

This was vengeance time, apparently.

He lured the Inspector in, killed him with a rock he found on the road, and then dragged his body into the shadows.
Stealing his bowler and cane, Mathius started walking briskly away from the scene.

Then, enter the test. The Infraction Points totalled... 9. Luckily, the max level is 4.
We set Tension points at 8 and 9, meaning that I got 17 points... and Mat got a payout of the highest level.
He decided that he would be picking the "choose [2] tools of level 2 or lower."

We narrated that a second Inspector showed up, looking for the first.
Mat passed his Calm test, and we narrated that the second Inspector thought nothing of seeing the man walking (he also didn't notice the stolen bowler or cane).
Mat passed his Discovery test, and we narrated the second Inspector not seeing the body which had been slumped into the shadows.

He got away with the cane and the bowler... He set two new images:

Images: Crushing inspector's skull
+2
can't invoke this tool again this cycle

Images: Wearing inspectors bowler and cane
+2
can't invoke this tool again this cycle

I was like... wow, he really did mean sadist when he put it on his character sheet.
I'm having second thoughts about having that as an archetype, simply because it changes the mindset of the player, IMO.

Next, it was Spooner's turn to narrate for Jacob.
Jacob was far too awake to sleep, so he circled back to the library (where he had earlier left the door unlocked and unbarred.)
He snuck in, and headed towards the blacklisted archives.
He planned to indulge himself in some fine literature, which had long since been outlawed.

We did the tests. At first Spooner set the Tension really low for this...
"Why so low?"
"It's only books."
"Seriously?"
"Well, for my character they are much more than simply books."
"Yeah, I thought so."
"In truth, this probably matters to him a LOT, even if it's trivial to others."

He got the idea that the importance placed on a crime was VERY character dependant.
Someone else might rate reading these books at importance 1... but it was a 9 (in the end) for him.

We rolled, and he failed his Discovery test.
I narrated the Inspector following him into the library, and watching him open a blacklisted book.
He was arrested there. He was so ashamed to be caught reading, that he turned bashful and agreed to everything the Inspector said.

He was led over to the nearest Inspector Station (2 blocks away), and Conditioned.
He failed this test too, and since the IP level of this crime was 3... was given a conditioning of Scope 3.
The conditioning was decided upon:
I will not open books.

As a librarian, we found this verdict pretty ironic.


There was one final scene, but we got interrupted halfway through it.
Because Thomas had passed the dice to Mathius, Mathius blamed Thomas for getting caught.
The next day at work, Mathius snuck into Thomas's house, and waited in his closet.

Thomas poured himself a bath, and Mathius entered his bathroom and drown him.

At this point I was like, "WAIT! No. This is NOT a game about killing people on a random whim of wanting justice."
"This is supposed to be a game about the social reflections of crime... about what surviving in such a cruel world makes you do...."

But at the same time, I looked at his character sheet: Judge/Sadist.
How could I argue, when I had given him the template to create such a character?

It was my fault, for not setting up more clear expectations as far as gameplay, etc, etc.
I had stressed that physical violence was RARE, but I guess not stressed enough?

It was at that point that my ride came, and I had to end the game on the note of "Oh, gotta go now. We'll talk more about the game soon." Which... for the record... is the crappiest way to leave a game, especially right at what I considered the first "trouble moment".

So... let's end this summary with some questions:
1.) How do I do a better job of stating expectations upfront, as far as what is appropriate/expected/etc?
2.) What do I do if scenes get too centered around murder, or physical violence or... something the game doesn't try to focus on?


Any and all other feedback is also sought!

[dindenver]

Hi!
  1) I think because the game is supposed to be wide open, that maybe you really should add a "Comic Code" step in the game prep section. Meaning that the players should agree on stuff like: PvP, I will not leave you vs No one gets hurt, etc.
  2) I don't think you should shy away from physical violence. Instead, bring about the in-world consequences of these actions. Seems to me that sooner or later a char that is murderous becomes Public enemy number 1 and is basically stalked by the Inspectors til they catch him.

Spooner rolled for a Calm test, and failed. I narrated the bartender watching him, as he got all shifty-eyed and seemed to be concealing SOMETHING. The bartender retained this information for the moment.

  I thought the point of a calm test was to test if somebody was going to DO something? This seems to start entering the realm of GM fiat... Not that GM Fiat is necesarily bad, but it sort of hobbles the mechanics of this game to introduce it...

[joepub]

1) I think because the game is supposed to be wide open, that maybe you really should add a "Comic Code" step in the game prep section. Meaning that the players should agree on stuff like: PvP, I will not leave you vs No one gets hurt, etc.

Great idea, Dave.
I already talk about character influence on gameworld, rank and status, tone of game, setting details...
Talking about interaction between characters would be a great idea at that stage.

I thought the point of a calm test was to test if somebody was going to DO something? This seems to start entering the realm of GM fiat... Not that GM Fiat is necesarily bad, but it sort of hobbles the mechanics of this game to introduce it...

Sorry, I forgot to mention something there. :S
The bartender observed "suspicious behaviour", withheld that information for a SMALL WHILE, then I forgot to add that after Mathius had been arrested, the bartender told the Inspectors of Jacob's suspicious behaviour.

So... sorry for not mentioning that.
The Interrogation test still happened, as part of the crime cycle.

I don't think you should shy away from physical violence. Instead, bring about the in-world consequences of these actions. Seems to me that sooner or later a char that is murderous becomes Public enemy number 1 and is basically stalked by the Inspectors til they catch him.

Cool.
Yeah, there were just two concerns when Mat started having his character get physically violent:
a.) The game world is one which avoids physical contact of any kind. Physical assault should carry grave implications, and the fact that two murders were committed in one session gives me the impression he didn't understand the gravity that his actions lent to the game.
b.) The narration was sorta "he made me mad, now I am killing him." I was worried that if the session had carried on, it was turning into a random crime spree. Crime in this game MUST be purposeful.

[Darcy Burgess]

Here's a thought: gameplay-at-the-table is only about crimes.  Nothing else.  EVER.  In fact, from my first reading of the rules, I was disappointed when your AP writeup mentioned "normal" rpg stuff.  In my mind, that stuff only occurs during the narration of setting up a crime.  For ex:

A: Let's knock over a bank.  Cool?
B: Sure.  Why?
A: Um, I don't know... Because we caught the head teller cheating at cards the other night, and he needs to be taken down a peg.
B: Neat.
C: At cards?  Well we need to back up a minute and resolve that first!
A + B: SWEEEET.


Also, between sessions, work in some sort of experience/fallout/trust mechanic that allows the players to change their characters relationships.

Even a simple 50-word paragraph (character's internal monologe?) read out at the beginning of a session would do.  That way the players are in on what the characters are thinking, but it doesn't have to always impact the game world directly.  The threat of something bubbling below the surface is infinitely more fun too!

Those two changes might serve to foster some kind of brewing fearfulness.

Cool stuff, btw.  Looking forward to seeing where this puppy goes.

[joepub]

A: Let's knock over a bank.  Cool?
B: Sure.  Why?
A: Um, I don't know... Because we caught the head teller cheating at cards the other night, and he needs to be taken down a peg.
B: Neat.
C: At cards?  Well we need to back up a minute and resolve that first!
A + B: SWEEEET.

Cool.
The thoughts I had are sort of along those lines...
In that every scene ends in crime.

I want the crimes to be a bit more methodical in their reasoning though.
But yeah, I like that direction.

Taking your idea into account, my ideal narration:

A: That banker cheated at cards, and I want revenge against him.
B: Sure, but it's not like we can report him. Cards are illegal.
A: I want to break into the bank, steal the money from his till, and frame it to look like he did it.
B: But, won't it be obvious that an outside person did it, because it was done very unproffessionally and displaying a lack of bank-related knowledge?
C: Maybe if we spied on him and watched him, we'd be able to get a better sense of how to commit this crime.
A + B: SWEEEET.

So... the process is much the same, but its a more thoughtful process...

Do you like?

Also, between sessions, work in some sort of experience/fallout/trust mechanic that allows the players to change their characters relationships.

Even a simple 50-word paragraph (character's internal monologe?) read out at the beginning of a session would do.  That way the players are in on what the characters are thinking, but it doesn't have to always impact the game world directly.  The threat of something bubbling below the surface is infinitely more fun too!

Maybe at the start of a session, players make a monologue... a 50-word paragraph...
stating something that the character SIMPLY CANNOT live with.

Maybe it's Tom who's been fancying your wife.
Maybe it's the Inspector with the curly moustache who stands outside District street.
Maybe it's the bakery on 5th Ave.

You must commit a crime during that session with no MECHANICAL payout...
The only payout for that crime is a narrative one, which alters the state of that thing you SIMPLY CANNOT live with.

Maybe it's getting Tom arrested.
Maybe it's getting the Inspector killed.
Maybe it's burning down the bakery.

A session isn't considered complete until all players have accomplished their narrative payout for that session.

So, a session outline might be like:

A states that "I cannot keep going on, while Thomas Cleary lives"
B states that "I cannot keep going on, while the government hoards artwork."
C states that "I cannot keep going on, while my sweetheart doesn't know I exist."

A commits a crime by breaking into Thomas Cleary's house and stealing from him (gains a mechanical payout)
B commits a crime by stealing red roses from an Imperial garden (gains a mechanical payout)
B and C commit a crime by burning down an Inspector station together (gains a mechanical payout)

A commits the crime of killing Thomas Cleary (gains NO mechanical payout)

B commits a crime of stealing a key into the government warehouses (gains a mechanical payout)
C attends Thomas Cleary's funeral, where he sees his sweetheart.
C follows sweetheart, cuts her off in a backalley, tells her his feelings. They commit a crime by kissing. (gains NO mechanical payout)

B commits a crime of breaking into the government warehouse, and liberating art (gains NO mechanical payout).

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, one thing I would point out about your once per session narration gadget, is that it really won't work, why:
1) It doesn't really matter when a session begins or ends, its not like you don't get XPs til the end of he session
2) Players don't have control over whether they win Narration rights in a conflict. They can spend effort, but in the end, its up to the dice, no?

  My suggestion would be to have a requirement to give each player a spotlight narration before any player can start a second conflict. The spotlight narration consists of the player narrating what they can outside of a crime (which is everything) until they have said their piece. I also recommend no word limit, but that's just me. So, the effect would be any player can start a conflict any time, but no player can engage in a second conflict until each and every player has had a spotlight narration, that way it enforces table time/GM attention without having to adhere to any rigid turn order.

  Also, I noticed that you have this desire to focus the players on overcoming the oppression. You do not seem to appreciate "senseless" violence. BUT, you want the players to be able to make any character they can conceive of. This seems to be a conflict of interest. If you want the players to make heroic or anti-heroic characters, only allow those archetypes/alignments, and if you want it to be unfettered, then you have to allow the playes to justify their character's actions in their own way, no?
  I know what you are trying to say about physical violence, EXCEPT, these characters do not accept societal norms...
  Anyway, playtest starts on Wednesday, we'll see how it shapes up, maybe I'll have a differwnt experience than you!

[Darcy Burgess]

In terms of comparing/contrasting the two narrative examples, I don't see any major functional differences.  That being said, yours is way cooler than mine.  So here's the quesiton for you: what in the mechanics engender that kind of behaviour/result from the players?  I don't see anything right now, so it sounds to me like you need to work on a situation development mechanic.   I don't think that it needs to be big or convoluted -- just some good trigger ideas to get the ball rolling (at the "slim" end of the spectrum) ranging up to something akin to Dog's town creation rules.


Regarding the "I can not bear" idea.  That's awesome cool.  But I'm uneasy about the whole "no mechanical gain" aspect being married directly with having to accomplish it before the session can end.  Especially in a game where you're obviously counting on the character growth mechanics to drive a lot of gameplay.

What about this:

• some sort of "acceptable behaviour" ladder -- escalating from joshing to murder.  # of steps TBA. This represents the sort of non-chummy activity the characters can engage in with each other.
• the creator (aka owning player) of a given character can never invoke their own "unbearable" fact during a conflict, nor can the GM.
• a fellow player can
• the invocation of an unbearable fact ramps up the conflict in some way -- perhaps it's the mechanical idea you mentioned.  perhaps its bonus points for the baddies.  perhaps it's extra bad character growth.  something crappy.
• invoking an unbearable notches the behaviour ladder up a step
• if you invoke an unbearable fact, you need to write a new one for the next game for your own character (so, now you have 2!)

So, now you've got a nice mexican standoff set up.  The trick becomes giving the players incentive to open fire and start messing with each other.

Additionally, I'd seriously consider making it so that the "unbearables" were not things that anything but endgame play can resolve.  If Thomas Cleary's sweaty, leacherous presence is really that unbearable, then the laws of good drama demand that he's in play until the bitter end.

Then he can die.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Maybe the I cannot bear XXX should replace the whimpy flags? Just an idea, but I think giving players a solid direction to go with chargen is always a smart move...

[joepub]

Maybe the I cannot bear XXX should replace the whimpy flags? Just an idea, but I think giving players a solid direction to go with chargen is always a smart move...

Yes.
This serves the same role as Flags, but is more impacting, and more mechanically tied. :D

Regarding the "I can not bear" idea.  That's awesome cool.  But I'm uneasy about the whole "no mechanical gain" aspect being married directly with having to accomplish it before the session can end.  Especially in a game where you're obviously counting on the character growth mechanics to drive a lot of gameplay.

What about this:

some sort of "acceptable behaviour" ladder -- escalating from joshing to murder.  # of steps TBA. This represents the sort of non-chummy activity the characters can engage in with each other.
the creator (aka owning player) of a given character can never invoke their own "unbearable" fact during a conflict, nor can the GM.
a fellow player can
the invocation of an unbearable fact ramps up the conflict in some way -- perhaps it's the mechanical idea you mentioned.  perhaps its bonus points for the baddies.  perhaps it's extra bad character growth.  something crappy.
invoking an unbearable notches the behaviour ladder up a step
if you invoke an unbearable fact, you need to write a new one for the next game for your own character (so, now you have 2!)

I like that this includes more character interaction.
Having mechanics for both positive and negative interaction is a cool idea.

I dislike the "escalation chart" idea. not sure why.
No justification.

I think that:
At the start of each session, players each create an Intolerance.
This is a statement that reads "I cannot live in a world where _________________"
The player and GM cannot narrate that character into a scene where _________ exists.

Other players can narrate the character into conflict with their Intolerance.
This can either be involving that other player's character, or not.

Example: Player invoking another's Intolerance, without his/her own character: "You are walking home that night, when you happen to stumble across Thomas Cleary."

Example: Player invoking another's Intolerance, through his/her own character: "And as we go to burn the church down, we realize that we have no matches. I happen to have a friend who lives closeby, and lead you to his house. It is the house of Thomas Cleary."

If a player narrates in one of YOUR Intolerances, you must act against it.
You don't get a die roll in this conflict.
If the conflict REMOVES the Intolerance from the world, it is also removed from your character sheet.
Once the crime cycle is completed, you add a Fallout to the character sheet of the Player who narrated in the Intolerance.

Example:

A: As you run away from that scene, you happen to find yourself on 5th Ave, and you see the Bakery. (Bakery is an Intolerance of B)
B: (is obligated to commit a crime against his Intolerance, the bakery) The Inspectors are still hot on my trail. If I set this bakery aflame, I kill two birds with one stone: provide a destraction for my pursuants, and raze this evil construct to the ground.
GM: (runs through the crime cycle with player B.)
B: The Bakery now removed, so the Intolerance is removed too.
A: Nicely done, good sir.
B: Since that was an IP 4 crime, A, I add a Level Four fallout to one of your tools. I attach it to the evasion "hide behind others".


Since invoking an Intolerance is the only way to remove it...
And a new Intolerance is added every session...

Invoking another Character's Intolerance is actually a good thing, in ways.
It puts a difficult test in front of the player, but there's the additional Payout of removing the Intolerance at the end of it.
Kinda a mixed blessing, or mixed curse... depending how you look at it.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, since the players normally frame their own scenes, I think maybe Intolerances should be a tool of the GM. Give them a tool they can use to actively effect the story.
  Right now the GM's only job is to react to the scenes the playr frames and to play the Inspectors. So, maybe another tool in their toolbox might get them more involved in the formation of the Narration?

[joepub]

Me and Dave discussed this a bit more thoroughly through IM, and came up with a cool idea for how Intolerances could work:


Stated as "I cannot bear the _______________"

The player CANNOT narrate a scene involving the Intolerance.
The GM can.

If the GM does, the player should commit a crime against it. (Not sure if this is a MUST or a CAN... ?)
The Player gets no die roll during this crime cycle.
At the end of the cycle, if the Intolerance was removed in-game, the Intolerance mechanic is also removed.
At the end of the cycle, the GM awards the player a new tool. (designed by the GM, of any level.)

What this Does

-Gives the GM the opportunity for more aggressive scene framing
-Gives the GM a foot up in a crime cycle (if the player was getting ahead, this allows a balancing of the playing field.)

-Intolerances may or may not replace bangs...
What this means is that Intolerances hint at the character's intent, motives, what they fear, etc.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Hey,

I find mechanics like Intolerance work really well if you provide a mechanical reward for using it. Its like a great big shiny button: hey, its a button, it has to be pushed...only its better if things light up and explode and dispenses free beer or something when you do. So I'd recommend giving rewards for pushing it, having your button pushed, as well as making cool things happen when it does get pushed. That way players set themselves up and pretty much demand that other players invoke their Intolerance. It could have massive story repercussions, but is encouraged and rewarded mechanically.

Also: Regarding the apparent propensity for violence, I think a change in perspective may be needed. Not in terms of concept, but rather mechanics. You need something that makes the little things more significant than the big things. I'm not sure how to do this, or whether you already do this. I'm thinking of those movies where the plot and acting is so subtle, a glance, a single word can send everything off kilter. Jane Austen would be a great reference here, I imagine. Check out how slight rudeness or misbehaviour in her characters has massive social repercussions (unless you are rediculously rich and handsome: hello Mr. Darcy). So perhaps the way to go is to ramp up the severity of punishment, or make minor punishments more mechanically dangerous, or make more significant crimes virtually impossible.

But we might also be facing a significant cultural gap here: for modern day readers, Jane Austen's depictions of "controversy" are insignificant unless aware of the cultural and social context. This is a very difficult gap to bridge, and approaching a game like this with modern day social assumptions, particularly non-European ones, will result in attempts to inject actions which have emotional resonance for our modern day sensibilities. Simply put, we don't relate to the sensibilities presented before us, so we try to inject our own. The result is the violence you witnessed. So maybe attempting to immerse players more thoroughly in the fiction of the game and giving them a greater understanding of the context would be beneficial.

That aside, I like the idea of such a pent-up social system resulting in such random and violent bursts. So much repression can't be healthy, and watching a proper, well brought up, stiff upper lip English gentleman slowly metamorphose into Jack the Ripper in a setting where picking a rose is a crime is both incredibly amusing and horrifically macabre. So perhaps ramping up the crimes very, very slowly would also be a good idea: each new crime "unlocks" a new level of crimes, marginally greater than before. Of course, something as significant as murder would be a) incredibly difficult, and b) impossible to avoid capture.

So yeah, just some thoughts. But now its back to work for me.

- Kirk

[joepub]

So perhaps ramping up the crimes very, very slowly would also be a good idea: each new crime "unlocks" a new level of crimes, marginally greater than before. Of course, something as significant as murder would be a) incredibly difficult, and b) impossible to avoid capture.

Thanks for the responses Kirk.
I especially am pondering this...

Ramping up crimes.
I'm gunna ponder that while I sleep