[Primitive] Dexcon 06- farside of the swamp

[Kevin Allen Jr]

So this past weekend was the first public preview of Primitive. I've been doing private playtests for a few months now, but it was time to play the songs out, see how they sound.

the table filled up with folks all pretty eager to play, maybe a small victory but it sure set me in a good mood. I've been writing and clarifying the rules of the game for the past few weeks so i was comfortable going through them a the table. people understood how the game was to be played, didn't have questions i didn't have answers to, I considered myself prepared.

After that explanation time we started making characters. The players came up with good skills (skill generation in Primitive is very free-formed) that would be useful during the game. This demonstrated to me again that they had a good grasp of the rules of the game, and had specific expectations of what would be to come. I believe my scenario would meet those expectations.

The scenario is split between combat and exploration. At first it was mostly standard wilderness dungeon crawl fair, tracking monsters, meeting tribesman. Then the game shifted gears a little and took on a more weirdo supernatural feel. I think i may have ramped up into this change to quickly. I was crunching time to make sure we didn't go over time. Next time i run the scenario i'll cut a scene or two from the middle, tighten up a combat, make the shift more gradual.

The big design change that the game saw after this play through was an interesting one. The first mechanic i came up with for the game was two sliding atributes that changed depending on the results of every roll. This element didn't really add much to the game, nor inform the roleplaying, and all it did do was add a bunch of acounting to the game that people forgot about half the time and wished they didn't have to do the other half. Well this game was the nail in the coffin on that bitch.

And the change has already freed up the 3rd draft of the game seriously; and all the other work i saw the con really invigorated me. This game is really shaping up, and this nearly finished form has got me quite excited. I think that translated well to my players.

[Judd]

Kevin,

I know next to nothing about Primitive other than language is a major issue, as the PC's are pre-verbal, could you talk about how the players dealt with that?  Did they create a language of their own of grunting and caveman gesticulating?

[Asperity]

I'm not Kevin, but I had a great time with the grunting, so...

We dealt with the lack of language loudly, happily, and for the most part effectively.  Lots of grunting and pointing in different directions, using different tones to indicate query or alarm.  Things that helped us communicate: we were all on more or less one side of the table, and were looking at the maps and props from a similar angle, so when we pointed in one direction or another, the other players were usually able to figure out what we meant.  The props were necessary to get much meaning into the grunting.

I think there was only one occasion when a player resorted to dice to get an idea across, but it was after a lengthy attempt in caveman-ese.

I loved this part of the game, though I could see it working post-verbal (I totally expected that funny tower to be Babel.)  It kept the energy high and required us to pay close attention to the other players.

My neighbors would hate me if I played this regularly at home.

-Elizabeth

[Kevin Allen Jr]

Thanks for the kind words Elizabeth, you were really great (everyone was really great, but why not thank you for being there).

To answer Judd, there are really three methods for you to try to convey an idea in-game. Grunting and gestureing is the most common and generally speaking surest way. The characters are pre-verbal but inteligent, curious and eager to learn. Sort of like very clever children. The grunting can be very evocative (think Tim Allen in home improvement), and really get across complicated meaning with just a few hand gestures. I've witnessed players use this method to describe even abstract concepts like "wind" and "fear." By the end of a session the players have already begun to develope a rudimentary "language" from these common sounds.

Players may also interact with props. I like to use a lot of drawings in my games, i went to art school, i love to draw, and i'm pretty good at depicting what is in my head so i put a lot of that on the table. Mostly maps and scenery, but occasionally a puzzle or something else works its way in. The game also utilizes common props that the characters would have on hand, i put little post-its in front of the PCs with quick drawings of the things they may be holding (spears, hand axes,vines, furs). If in the course of play they want to gesture with something that their character would be near (animal remains, tracks, a distant mountain, a tall tree) they simply request a prop and then i draw one up, lable what it is, and stick it in front of them on the table. Lastly in the prop department (although this wasn't really utilized at the con) there is a pile of stones and a pile of bones or sticks on the table. These are actually there for use in my combat system (yeah it's called sticks and stones, and yeah, they are totally integrated as important as dice) but if the players need to use them for props no one is stopping them. I'm prop heavy, i think they really add to games, and they give me a very interesting avenue as a GM to present my world. They also in a real and viceral way bring the players into that world. if they are physically interacting with it, they are one step closer to it.

The final method players have to communicate is a dice mechanic. if you're really frustrated and you can't seam to get your message across using the above methods you can make a die roll (its not a very difficult roll) and just say what you want to say outright. It is assumed in game that the other characters just understood your grunting and such. In all my playtesting this has only happened a rare few times, and when it did it was only in important life or death situations; most of the time I find PCs are alright with the other players not knowing what they are trying to say and letting them figure it out on their own.

The players can of course talk to the GM freely, in regular english.

[thwaak]

I'm basically posting this because as strange as it sounds, I'd never thought I would see a competing RPG for that concept.

Savage Worlds has had a game in the pipeline for a couple of years now, titled Sticks & Stones. A comedy RPG about cavemen, dinosaurs, and Fred Flintstone/Gilligan's Island kind of technology. It also uses the whole grunting/gesture thing between players, although as Edges, a player can choose to know up 3 words for their character. It was demo'd a couple times at GenCon about 3 years ago.

PEGinc has had a completed manuscript for well over 2 years (I know, because I helped proof it), but I have no idea why they haven't released it.

If I may ask, what were your inspirations? What drew you to make this setting?

And specifically about the actual play...did the whole grunting and gesturing thing lead to humor or serious game play?

Thanks,
-Brent

[Kevin Allen Jr]

Shit brent, you just gave me the willies.

I was inspired to do it because there wasn't another game like it. I felt like there were hints of neolithic play in other games but focusing on it, not so much. I was interested in the conversations around the table that could occur without language. I was interested in fighting dinosaurs, i was interested in telling stories of discovery and mystery in a way that makes them new. Savage worlds huh? Bummer.

in play the grunting thing always starts out funny. People need to get their feet wet, try it on for size. Its a little silly at first and everyone sounds like idiots. But eventually it gets to a point where they actually want to SAY something, and they take it seriously. There is this huge sence of group victory when someone communicates something complicated or meaningful, everyone looks at each other and there is this notion of "wow, we just discovered language" and for a moment the players realize what it really is to be at the dawn of human thinking (that sounds really hippie-dippy but it happens every game, and its a pretty golden moment around the table). By the end of the session players generally forget they can't talk, and are as serious as any other in-the-zone players would be by the end of a session.

brent, you work for/with PEGinc? do you know any more about this project they are working on. I don't want to get myself in trouble or look like a bite-er.

[Judd]

Kevin,

How about that awesome story about 2nd edition D&D and the rules for having a 1 intelligence?

[thwaak]

Hello Kevin,

I've worked with PEGinc in the past ( http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=10489 ) and still help out, here and there. I'm not as 'inside' as I used to be, so I can't answer anything with certainly on current situations...only what was the case.

First, here are some pictures of the demo at GenCon 2003.

http://www.flatlands.org/asp/view.asp?folder=gallery/ori03/sticks&lastjpg=14&return=/gallery/gallery.htm

And here is the company that is making official miniatures for it.

http://www.jeffvalentstudios.com/pnuke/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14

Now, as to what it was....S&S grew out of a wargame run by Rob Lusk and Dave Ross at Flatcon. Eventually, they converted is over to Savage Worlds, and sold Shane Hensley on the idea, especially after seeing it demo'd at GenCon. It was promptly written up as a 144 page book. Total comedy. As I mentioned...Fred Flintstone* type of stuff, primitive cavemen, cavemen with Gilligan's Island kind of tech, dinosaurs, cave trolls, dinosapiens, and so on. Neanderthals, and Dinosapiens must communicate through grunts, noises, and gestures. Others know 3 words to start with, but otherwise must also grunt and gesture. As characters evolve, they can add additional words.

That was late 2003, early 2004. At first it was delayed from release because the timing wasn't right (unknown if a comedy stone age game would sell), then I heard it was going to be split between an RPG, and a separate wargame (it's original roots) so it had to be re-written. Then I heard that maybe Jeff Valent studios was going to release the wargame version. Now....I don't know. Each time someone asks about it, the official response is, "More news is just around the corner", with a promised release "just after the summer con season".

Obviously there is much I don't know about the current situation, so I can't tell you what's holding it up. If you are worried about looking like "Johnny-come-lately", I'd say, based on it's history, it's still more than a year away from being published. If you can complete Primitive before then, you'd have the edge.

Good Luck,
-Brent

* In the GenCon game, there was a 'smart' character who had a car (basically a sled on stone wheels) that was pushed around by an enslaved cave troll.

[tartex]

Actually it does not matter who goes first, because this exists already anyways:
http://www.wingnutgames.com/landofog.htm

[Kevin Allen Jr]

Yeah, i heard about Og recently, i'm not too concerned. My game isn't a comedy (its not super serious either, but more then the flintstones). And besides, if gamers were worried about repeating themes and settings then we would all be speaking german right now (that is to say the only sword and sorcery game would be D&D, and while i like d20 as much as the next guy...)

Thanks for the pics Brent, i dont think i'm at the wig and tabard stage of development yet, but by gen con, who is to say.

The story Judd is talking about is how i started thinking about this game. In AD&D 2nd ed there was a rule that if you had a 1 inteligence you were incapable of language and had to roleplay with grunts. I thought this was just about the coolest thing ever. It felt like the only rule that directly described roleplaying and it was tucked away in a section no one read anyway. Conversation is the root of all table top roleplaying, and i had always thought since this rule that if you were to take away the ability to have a normal conversation you could make some really interesting games. So even though i admonish it a little bit in the first paragraph of this post, in the end, i have only D&D to thank for my flagship indie game.

[Blaheee]

Yeah, i heard about Og recently, i'm not too concerned. My game isn't a comedy (its not super serious either, but more then the flintstones). And besides, if gamers were worried about repeating themes and settings then we would all be speaking german right now (that is to say the only sword and sorcery game would be D&D, and while i like d20 as much as the next guy...)

Hi, Kevin.  I'm Rob Lusk, the primary author of the upcoming Sticks & Stones game.  There are actually two S&S games being published by Jeff Valent Studios, under license from Great White Games: a miniatures game and a roleplaying game.

I agree completely about the freedom to create a prehistoric roleplaying game.  There have been caveman games since the 80s that have featured little or no verbal language.  Sticks & Stones will use the Savage Worlds rules, and it sounds like you are creating your own, so you should be fine.  I would love to see more prehistoric RPGs out there!

The game has become a bit more serious since Brent saw it played, but it is still very light-hearted.  Sticks & Stones is scheduled to be published within a few months (but production schedules in this business are never firm . . .)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Kevin, this sounds like a wonderful game and I'd like to know more about actual play ... what happened, that is, in the story/events themselves? Did the tribe survive the Awful Fire or the Winter of Mammoth Scarcity? What was the supernatural content you mentioned, and how did the hairy grunting dudes deal with it?

Brent, "tartex," and Rob - this post is about Kevin's play-experience. You guys are, by accident or not, thread-crapping with all this talk about which game gets or was published first. That is an issue of no interest. Rob, it's no big deal in your case; you are being more gentlemanly and if you want to point out some interesting comparative features between the two games in play, that's great. "Tartex," on the other hand, your post is worthless and undesirable. Brent, do not pursue the topic you seem to be intent on posting about.

Everyone - as indicated by my first paragraph, the topic is Kevin and Elizabeth's excellent play-experience and its relationship to the game's ongoing design. Let's stay with it.

Best, Ron

[thwaak]

Kevin,

Ron is quite right. There was no intent other than friendly conversation, but I let the conversation drift off topic (I should have used PM's or email) and it got away from the intent of the thread.

So, back on topic, I do have some questions for you regarding Primitive in general and this playtest in specific.

Regarding Rules....

1) With limiting the players to grunts and gestures, does this hamper inter-player relationship development? You mentioned the players can speak to the GM normally, which I am sure facilitates personal dynamics and goals, but what about the social interactions that arise naturally between players, outside of the GM?

2) Is there difficulty in player-GM conversations affecting the other players? For example, say I was scouting and saw predatory dinosaur coming our way, and I raced back to the group to tell them. Since you just narrated to me what I saw...presumably all the other players heard too. All I would have to do is turn to the other players and a gesture something vaguely monstrous, and they would get it, because they just heard it from you.

3) Does Primitive have some kind of advancement/experience/evolutionary for characters getting better at what they do, personally and as a group culture? Could the players become better hunters, cognitive, or faster runners. As a group, could they invent language, tools, or even the wheel?

Regarding Setting...

4) Is Primitive based on an ancient earth that never was, or an entirely fictional prehistoric world? Does it have an 'established setting'?

5) How adaptable is Primitive to related ideas? I've never been particularly interested in pre-historic role-play, but have always been interested in post-historic role-play: The de-evolution of man after apocalyptic events. Could I play such a game with Primitive?

6) As mentioned, Primitive has some supernatural elements to it. What are these supernatural elements? Are they subtle world powers, or we talking about magic shamanism?

Regarding this Specific Playtest...

7) How many sitting down to your table at the con had some notion of what Primitive was all about versus people who were just looking for a game 'about cavemen'? For those that didn't know what they were getting into, did they respond well to the setting? Did they have trouble adjusting to the grunts and gestures? For those that had some preconcieved notions, did it match what they were expecting?

I see on another thread that Primitve is going to be sold at GenCon. Will it be simultaneously released on IPR or some other site? After the convention? I'm thinking I'd like to pick this game up (especially if the answer to #5 is a yes!).

Thanks for your time,
-Brent

[Kevin Allen Jr]

great questions brent. Here's some answers

1. The social interactions are differant from other games. There isn't so much story development between characters, but rather personal development. You find there are people around the table that you are better at understanding or are better at underdstanding you and thus you gravitate towards them. Meaningful emotional interaction is a little limited, but that isn't at all what the game is about. It is about the very begining of societies, where things like food and shelter are WAY more important then empathy or philosophy. So No relationships aren't hampered, but they are unique (i've found) to this game.

2. I like to think that all of my games have a "don't be a dick" rule. If one player discovers something and none of the other players do, then you shouldn't act like you know it. If there is something important to the game that needs to get out, please, by all means lead us into that territory, either by knowing or not knowing. I think the meta play is really the same as in any other RPG, the way you communicate in-game doesn't change that, or rather, it shouldn't change that. Maybe understanding is a little easier, but you have to keep in mind, players dont look at each other and think "what is he trying to get across" they think "what words isn't he able to say right now." The grunting and gesturing is all about translation, in our heads it's english; in a caveman's head it would be abstract concepts. The conceit of language is one this game only toys with, to completly throw it out would require table-wide trans-orbital lobotomys, and i don't think many players are that dedicated to the game (maybe those guys who still play AD&D 2nd ed are, but who is to say

3. there is an advancement system in the game, the more you roll, the faster you will be able to get new abilities in the game. You could invent anything you want, as long as it fits the idiom. Some GM's might alow a stone wheel, some might not, thats up to what the group decideds they want the game to be like. One of the main social contracts this game focuses on is that the players will stay inside a perscribed idiomatic world. Eventually learning language wouldn't be fun in my mind, that kind of cuts the balls of the game.

4. Primitive doesn't have a setting. Or, at least, not a formal one. There aren't any maps, or travel glossaries or any of that. The game is about fictional prehistoric world (dinosaurs exist at the same time as humans, there are big scary monsters). I may offer some guidelines to what makes for interesting setting material in the book, but i probably won't. Rather It's up to individual GMs to decide how the game goes. You can play it as a very historical game, or you can go a bit more Sci-fi with it (thats how i like it).

5. Primitive is totally adaptable to related ideas. I play the game as a world that you don't know anything about. I've had strange rusty iron towers, stone cut tunnels, magic rocks, Hindu-esque god monsters, even some shit from Thundercats. I don't ever say the world isn't a post-history (i imply it overtly a few times), but that is again up the GM. You want Brooklyn buried under a glacier, Primitive is the game for you, but i'm not going to come right out and say that in the rules. Bottom line: you wouldn't have to change anything mechanically to facilitate that style of play.

6. I like to keep my players totally mundane cavemen. I've tried the game where they could fly or spit fire or talk to rocks and animals and the game didn't work well. I like to keep the fantastic stuff on my side of the screen, where it comes as a surprise to my players. I mentioned a bunch of this stuff in the above answer. You can make this game what you want of it, its yours to play.

7. only one person at the table knew what they were getting into, and they were already sold on the game. The other 4 players didn't really know much more then "cavemen seem cool." Everyone got into the communication rules pretty well on immediatly. Everyone is a little embarassed at first but once they realize that eveyrone looks like an idiot, they have a good time. It's pretty well embraced.

[thwaak]

Kevin,

All very excellent! Consider me sold. Where/when can I pick a copy up?