[Sign In Stranger] File clerk, some typing

[Meguey]

This is Emily Care Boss' game in developement. Joshua, Emily, Vincent, Julia, and I all created worlds in private to start. We had a choice of planet size, and we got to choose attractive and repugnant traits for the primary alien species on our planet. I was struck by how similar we had made many of the traits, when it came time to reveal the alien worlds - three of the five were 'beautiful but deadly' in some way.

I liked making my own little world, and being totally free to make whatever alien culture I could imagine. It was cool and fun and funny. There's a part where you make up a job description in the alien language, then translate it for the human applicant/colonists.. Mine was "Slek the gorphbaums into fidels", which translated loosely to "File clerk, some typing".  Again, making up a language was fun and easy, as I didn't have to think a lot about it. Vincent's language only had one vowel sound, and only five consenants.

Then we have a whole new sheet to make our colonist on. We had an Israeli ex-military doctor, a divorced high school shop teacher, a farmer, a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, and a construction worker/security guard. Together in character, we sorted through the job offers and rejected the world with the 'casual disregard for life' aliens, and the glacier world, and the subtreanian world, and the cannibal aliens. So we're headed to a world where they keep merfolk as cattle.

Next we each write a bunch of verbs and nouns and shuffle them for use on the planet. Emily is really working the words-as-tool in her game design. As we approach, we draw a word ('fetish') which informs our first impressions. Wow. We get black latex 'window's on the floating bubble/jellyfish houses (?), what looks like bondage harness on the mercattle, and ritually revered symbols and altars of spikey stuff. This is not Earth.

Over the next few sessions, we'll try to figure out if our impressions are accurate, and try to adapt to our new world. It's gonna be fun.

[Emily Care]

Thanks for posting this, Meg. Your "some typing" for the alien cannibal race was a great belly-laugh moment last night. :) I loved Julia's Dallas cowboy cheerleader from Trinidad.   I think my character, Harris is half in love with her already.

My favorite part was how squicked out some of our characters got by the "repugnant" traits.  My character is not happy about going to a world where people-like creatures are raised as food, and Vincent's character was completely ooged out by the thought of the "invasive communication" practiced by the aliens I made up.  (Heh, they are on the planet we went to.)

Looks like it's going to be an interesting ride.

best,
Em

[Emily Care]

We had our second session last night.  Our intrepid colonists got to start out their new life on Eigenjard, the planet of the aquatic agrarians who raise human-like mer-people as food.   This session we started making entries in our personal logs. We started out with these reflections on the alien planet and our fellow colonists:

Harris the farmer zoologist played by me: There is no way I can accept that they eat those water people.

Shalit the israeli doctor played by Joshua: I want to see someone already.

Holly the construction worker engineer played by Meg: The doctor is hot, but I bet she's gonna go for the shop teacher. There are no trees here; what the hell am I going to do?

Jim the former shop-teacher turned psychologist played by Vincent: I hope they don't mistake us for the mer-people.

Jamila the cheerleader cultural officer played by Julia: I'm so psyched we're going to an aquatic world! I can't wait to go scuba diving! My fellow colonists seem pretty cool. The doctor (thank GOD) is a woman, but she seems a little intense to say the least. The guys are nice. A little old, a little scruffy. No hotties, but then again, time, a good hot bath, a razor, and more time can change things. Or not.

[andrew_kenrick]

The game looks fascinating, and sounds very, very fun. I really like the idea of writing random words on pieces of paper and using them to create the world elements. The personal logs are a good idea too - are these a part of the game itself, or just something your group is doing?

[Emily Care]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you! The logs are part of the game. As the characters interact with the world they write their reflections about their experiences down, and then the players share them. It gives another layer of access to the characters & will be used to create conflicts & connections between them.  It also ends up being a way to get greater access into what the other players think is interesting about what's going on. In these entries both Vincent & I are clearly thinking about the mer-people as a good source of conflict.

And damn, can it be funny.  Julia absolutely kills me. But also getting to give an aside about what your character thinks about the others is an easy way to surprise people, and the dramatic reveal helps make it funny.  So far, Vincent's character thinks all the other male colonists are gay, and mine has some very unrealistic notions about the ladylikeness of Julia's cheerleader.

We also started doing flashback sequences this session. We had a flashback to the current war between Israel and Lebanon, a pirating scuba expedition in Trinidad (or Tobago), a cub scout trek that ended with the asthmatic kid getting stung and going into anaphylactic shock, a 3 year old being taunted by his older brother who convinced him they were eating girl penises, and a farm boy getting beat senseless for a roll in the hay. 

All this and edible phalluses, too. I can't wait to see what happens next week. : )

best,
Emily

[Emily Care]

Finished up the playtest run last night with our third session. We encountered our alien hosts, the Eigenjians, at last. We pulled the words "fervor" and "blurry" and determined that the aliens were gelatinous, see-through colonies of small creatures that moved around like large gooey amoebas.  It turned out that the "beds" we'd slept in (tanks full of liquids to suspend ourselves in) were full  of Eigenjians!  We'd "slept" with them. In them. Oog.

Well, that squicked most of us out, except for Holly Iverson, our engineer who had been marked by his successful exploration of the building the day before. He still had vinelike tracks running up his right arm from being shocked by the energy grid of the building. Somehow it made sense that he ended up finding sleeping in his bed-person "comfy".  Meg named her alien friend Sal (gender neutral, of course, since how can you tell?), and took a relationship with it.  Holly is such a candidate for increasing his Assimilation to the new world.

You roll for three things when you interact with the world: social outcomes, physical outcomes and mental/emotional.  If you fail the mental/emotional roll, that's when you have one of the flashbacks to past troubles.  Meg rolled our first success, so she got to have a less traumatic flashback.  We played out how the story behind one of the 5 belongings she brought from Earth: a small yellow towel.  It came from a camping trip from when Holly was a child, given to him by his grandfather.  Holly's second flashback about camping as a kid. We established that he was a ballsy kid, and that his family was kind of tough on him, and his Mom may have had some issues in the marriage.

We just did three scenes, Joshua had his character, the Israeli doctor try to talk to the aliens and got poisoned for his trouble She jumped into one and inhaled it, then puked up her dinner. The aliens thought us quite uncouth.  Playing the game there is a lot of brainstorming. Both with the random nouns and verbs that you pull to describe world elements, and also in the outcomes rolled for each of the characters' attempts to interact with the world. Joshua rolled a bad physical outcome but wasn't sure what it meant. So we had him describe how his character tried to communicate, the jumping and inhaling. Then Vincent suggested that some of the aliens bits died inside Shalite and were poisonous.  His flashback involved getting stung by a jellyfish as a kid on holiday and having her dad pee on her to neutralize the sting.  Oog again. 

Then we did a relationship building scene between Julia's character the cheerleader Jamila, and Vincent's gay former shop teacher, Jim. Vincent and Julia had to decide what kind of relationship the thought their characters would have, positive or negative, then they played out a scene heading in that direction and the rest of us introduced situations and events that would put pressure on them to end up the other way. They chose negative and had a scene where they sniped at each other while Jim worked on putting together some shelves for our supplies with Jamila's assistance.  He got down on how shallow and useless cheerleaders where while she sneered at his old washed up self.  Then Jim stuck the screwdriver through one of our walls, and we had his hand get stuck in the wall.  Suddenly he had to rely on Jamila for help.  We ratcheted up the tension by having water start coming in around his hand from outside the bubble house, and the building automatically seal off the area while trying to fix itself, effectively trapping them in a rapidly flooding subchamber.  They radioed the rest of the colonists, and due to Jamila's quick thinking were able to get Jim's hand out.

At a certain point, I had us roll dice--when they were trapped, before we knew how they would get themselves out and what effect that would have on their relationship.  They rolled a failure, meaning that they would end up liking eachother--but this short-circuited the organic playing out of what we'd so nicely set up for  them. Why did they end up getting along? What brought them together? Was that really what come out of their next actions?  So, we set the dice results aside (ah, playtesting) and just played out the scene.  Then had them decide what kind of relationship they'd have based on how they got along.  The description they chose was "snarky affection", a positive relationship.

Man, playtesting is hard, even when it is fun.  These sessions let me see how the rules I've outlined approximate--or not--the kind of story I want the players to be able to tell. There was a lot of in-character play, which is central, but there is not enough connection being made between what happens and what is important in the story.  Part of the problem is that the game has a really long arc. Three sessions is just a start on the establishment of character relationships, which did happen, but the mechanics for it have to be fleshed out and re-written.  Joshua pointed out that the really high failure rate at the start of the game gives it a deprotagonizing ring--he suggested an arc that gave the characters some initial sense of control that degrades, and then they come to attain power in the world over the long term. 

Playing out the flash back sequences was fun, but how to keep them connected with what is being developed in the present of the game? Julia suggested having the players cast in roles that are similar to the interactions between the characters in the present. For example, when Julia's character had her flashback, Julia cast Joshua in the role of rescuer since his character the doctor had just rescued her character in the present of the game.  It's clear that the characters in the flashbacks have to have power over the main character in order for the other players to be able to put pressure on that character.

Lots to think about.  It is a real puzzle to work with coordinating this much world creation among so many people, who gets the final say and who has the responsibility to bring on adversity has got to be really clear.  Time to work out the next segments of the game, and iron out what worked so far and what hasn't. 

best,
Emily

[andrew_kenrick]

Hi Emily! Sounds like another fun game!

Finished up the playtest run last night with our third session.

Quick question - did you finish because you'd come to the end of the playtest, or because you'd come to the end of the game? Or rather, does the game have an end game, or could you have carried on playing?

At a certain point, I had us roll dice--when they were trapped, before we knew how they would get themselves out and what effect that would have on their relationship.  They rolled a failure, meaning that they would end up liking eachother--but this short-circuited the organic playing out of what we'd so nicely set up for  them. Why did they end up getting along? What brought them together? Was that really what come out of their next actions?  So, we set the dice results aside (ah, playtesting) and just played out the scene.  Then had them decide what kind of relationship they'd have based on how they got along.  The description they chose was "snarky affection", a positive relationship.

So did you feel cheated by the mechanics, stealing away a satisfying outcome for the scene? Do you think you'll change the mechanics to reflect this? Why roll to see how the relationship turns out anyway - it seems to work better as a result of how it plays out!

Playing out the flash back sequences was fun, but how to keep them connected with what is being developed in the present of the game? Julia suggested having the players cast in roles that are similar to the interactions between the characters in the present. For example, when Julia's character had her flashback, Julia cast Joshua in the role of rescuer since his character the doctor had just rescued her character in the present of the game.  It's clear that the characters in the flashbacks have to have power over the main character in order for the other players to be able to put pressure on that character.

This sounds like a good idea. It reminds me a little of how roles are assigned in 1001 Nights, where they reflect real life relationships, or a twist on them as the storyteller sees fit. Do you think you'd try to deliberately do this again?

Lots to think about.  It is a real puzzle to work with coordinating this much world creation among so many people, who gets the final say and who has the responsibility to bring on adversity has got to be really clear.  Time to work out the next segments of the game, and iron out what worked so far and what hasn't.

Oof, this is the same problem I'm having with Six Bullets - who gets to dictate what and when? I have no clear answer yet - how about you?

So what do you think worked and what didn't? It sounds like a fun series of games so far, but is this because of the rules or despite them?

[Emily Care]

Hi Andrew,

Quick question - did you finish because you'd come to the end of the playtest, or because you'd come to the end of the game? Or rather, does the game have an end game, or could you have carried on playing?

We planned to just play 3 sessions.  I wanted to play enough to get a sense of what worked and what didn't about the initial mechanics for the game.  It was no where close to being complete as a story.  Sign in Stranger intentionally written as a long form game.  The first several sessions are about creating the colony and positive and negative relationships between the characters. After you complete this stage, you move into exploration of the planet and have to deal with crises that arise. It goes from a very small scale, where you are dealing with just the people and things around your new colony dwelling, on up to dealing with regional and planetary politics, so it's meant to give you material for long term play. When it's done I can imagine people playing for 6 mos or more.

At a certain point, I had us roll dice--when they were trapped, before we knew how they would get themselves out and what effect that would have on their relationship.  They rolled a failure, meaning that they would end up liking eachother--but this short-circuited the organic playing out of what we'd so nicely set up for  them. Why did they end up getting along? What brought them together? Was that really what come out of their next actions?  So, we set the dice results aside (ah, playtesting) and just played out the scene.  Then had them decide what kind of relationship they'd have based on how they got along.  The description they chose was "snarky affection", a positive relationship.

So did you feel cheated by the mechanics, stealing away a satisfying outcome for the scene? Do you think you'll change the mechanics to reflect this? Why roll to see how the relationship turns out anyway - it seems to work better as a result of how it plays out!

Rolling at that moment felt like it would be cheating us out of seeing how things fell into place naturally.  This is something I'm thinking a lot about: how to create a structure that allows the players to develop meaty connections between the characters during play.  How do you act things out that you don't know exist yet? Can you? Is it enough to have input from other players, or is it necessary to create those connections prior to play and then act them out in order to see what the ramifications of them are?  Looks like I may have to tend toward that second way for it to work. 

Playing out the flash back sequences was fun, but how to keep them connected with what is being developed in the present of the game? Julia suggested having the players cast in roles that are similar to the interactions between the characters in the present. For example, when Julia's character had her flashback, Julia cast Joshua in the role of rescuer since his character the doctor had just rescued her character in the present of the game.  It's clear that the characters in the flashbacks have to have power over the main character in order for the other players to be able to put pressure on that character.

This sounds like a good idea. It reminds me a little of how roles are assigned in 1001 Nights, where they reflect real life relationships, or a twist on them as the storyteller sees fit. Do you think you'd try to deliberately do this again?

Yes. It's clear that the flashbacks have to be thematically connected to the current events in play.  I just watched the episode Act of Contrition from season one of Battlestar Galactica, which has several layers of nested narratives all connected by Kara Thraces' guilt over indirectly causing a lover's death.  The pacing for SiS might be longer--so you'd get that kind of insight over several sessions rather than all in the same one--but that's the kind of thing that the flashbacks could--and should--do.

Oof, this is the same problem I'm having with Six Bullets - who gets to dictate what and when? I have no clear answer yet - how about you?

Fun, isn't it? : ) Joshua and the others suggested having a structure like Shock or Polaris, where each person has another player who takes responsibility for providing adversity for another player. I am resisting that because my vision for the game is to really decentralize how that works, and also to keep the actual play of a session looser--not in the turn structure that makes so much sense in short form games.  We'll have to see what actually works when the pedal hits the metal.

So what do you think worked and what didn't? It sounds like a fun series of games so far, but is this because of the rules or despite them?

I love this question. It's half and half. The set-up and the mad-libs world development really worked, but the situation/conflict mechanics don't seem to contribute much. During set up, we laughed so much, and came up with amazingly crazy and alien elements based on them.  "Invasive communication", edible phallic fingers, sleeping in the gel "beds" that turned out to be filled with our hosts.  The flashbacks were fun to do, but don't connect up with the interconnections between the characters and didn't contribute to creating a narrative flow for the story.  The characters began assimilating to the alien world, but were not mechanically supported in doing it.

So, back to the drawing board. But at least I've got more data.

Thanks, Andrew. Great questions!

best,
Emily

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Emily, I think the authority distribution issue has to be resolved by giving individuals authority. Who has authority over what can move but someone's got to be able to say something definitively at any point.

1001 Nights does that by rotating the GM. In Polaris, everyone's responsible for one type of authority related to another player. In Shock: one person's responsible for all of your opposition.

You know how flashbacks give everyone control over a character in that flashback? Why not distribute the rest of authority that way? As long as there's no conflict of interest, where my character has a stake in the scene and authority over circumstance, that's great.

I propose that some scenes have everyone in them. Those scenes are about the group dynamics.

Some scenes have more than one but fewer than all characters. In those cases, every other player is responsible for challenging the relationship between those people.

Some scenes will hilight one character. In that case, each other player is playing an aspect of the opposition.

Does that make sense?

[Emily Care]

You know how flashbacks give everyone control over a character in that flashback? Why not distribute the rest of authority that way? As long as there's no conflict of interest, where my character has a stake in the scene and authority over circumstance, that's great.

I propose that some scenes have everyone in them. Those scenes are about the group dynamics.

Some scenes have more than one but fewer than all characters. In those cases, every other player is responsible for challenging the relationship between those people.

Some scenes will hilight one character. In that case, each other player is playing an aspect of the opposition.

Good suggestion, Joshua. I've been resisting a set pattern like in Polaris or Shock where there is one person per scene or character that takes that responsibility. But I really like the idea of breaking down the distribution based on which characters are dealing with issues. The group dynamic scenes will still be tricky. I do want there to be times when people split into small groups. Maybe I should do some test runs of that type of thing next.

best,
Emily