[The Gay Recruitment Squad Wants YOU!] At Conception

[Graham W]

We playtested The Gay Recruitment Squad Wants YOU! at Conception. Including myself, there were five players, all experienced gamers and very enthusiastic. (I was very nervous, by the way: it's the first time I've properly tested one of my games).

Quick background: the players play the Gay Recruitment Squad, who break into straight locations, disable the security devices and seduce the straights. It's much more good-natured than it sounds. It uses a board, needs no preparation, takes two hours and is very high-energy (for example, the players do various ritual chants).

The playtest was enthusiastic and loud: we got curious glances from other tables and lots of people stopped by to see what was going on.

One worry I have is that the game is, really, just a series of conflicts. These conflicts are hugely fun: they're mostly seductions, with a Squad member seducing a straight. But there's little character development.

And that's how the playtest ran. The conflicts were fun and got a great reaction from the players. But, although the players enjoyed playing their characters, there wasn't a sense of the characters developing.

I find this very difficult: the game got such a positive reaction that it's tempting not to mess with it too much. But I do feel there needs to be some deeper level: most comedies have some development of the central characters. In this game, the development should probably be romantic: as the characters seduce straights, they work out their own relationship issues. But all that needs mechanical support and...aaaargh.

A couple of other points: the game's Fan Mail system didn't get used at all. I didn't push this: I took this as a natural sign that the game didn't need it.

I'm also slightly worried that there was little interaction between the characters. My initial idea had been that the Squad members would interact: pushing each other's buttons, assisting each other in conflicts. There wasn't much of that.

So, to summarise: a very positive playtest, and it's good to have that behind me, but the lack of character development is a worry. I'd appreciate any advice on that particular problem.

[Jason Morningstar]

Graham, congratulations!  I agree that an early positive playtest can be a little worrying!  Things are supposed to break.

Do you think the lack of interaction was an artifact of convention play?  Maybe you need to test with a comfortable, familiar group. 

If you think that interaction isn't supported by the rules, you can always go back and introduce some dependencies that promote it.

[Malcolm Craig]

Could character development, even in a short game, not come out of the conflicts? So, Big Gay Dave manages to seduce some lad, but what is the outcome of this? Perhaps he finds out he needs to drink loads in order to have the confidence? Perhaps he only likes a certain type? Maybe some circumstantial effects come into play? Perhaps they gain a new neurosis, nervous habit or it could bring up old baggage: "Oh, his eyes remind me so much of Steve! I remember when we...." and so on and so forth.

Cheers
Malcolm

[GB Steve]

How about something along the lines of the secret agendas in Cold Play. Perhaps Malcolm wants to recruit people to get back at his Dad, perhaps Graham wants to show how butch he is. A PC keeps his agenda, and any bonuses it confers, as long as the other players don't guess the agenda. If this happens all bonuses are lost until the next session in which a new agenda is taken (or perhaps 20 minutes if the game is that fast moving).

Or perhaps you could take something from 1001 Nights and have development agendas out in the open. "Ooh, I bet Big Gay Dave secretly wants to be a sub", "Well vada you bona eek, I bet Malcolm is botoxing because he's afraid of wrinkles" etc.

[Scott Dorward]

I was one of the playtesters mentioned -- Hi again, Graham, and thanks for a great game and one of the highlights of the con!  James and I spent a big chunk of the car journey back to Milton Keynes talking about how much fun it was.  You hid your nerves well.

I find this very difficult: the game got such a positive reaction that it's tempting not to mess with it too much. But I do feel there needs to be some deeper level: most comedies have some development of the central characters. In this game, the development should probably be romantic: as the characters seduce straights, they work out their own relationship issues. But all that needs mechanical support and...aaaargh.

This is a tough one.  One of the many things I liked about the game was that, while there were strong role-playing elements, the board game approach made it feel like something unique.  You can sit down with a group of friends who haven't seen it before, explain the basics and be playing within five minutes.  If you bring in many more RPG elements, it may risk losing some of the simplicity that makes it so immediate and accessible.

In fact, just to really confuse you, what would probably make it even more fun for me would be adding a bit of competition to it.  Unless I've missed something (entirely possible -- it was a noisy hall and I was tired) the end game is just everyone trying to get out of the club cooperatively.  Maybe some victory conditions there, with it being more of a race to get out, might make the end game a bit more tense.  In fact, I'd like to see how it felt if there were some kind of scoring for individual players based on the number of seductions performed and security guards/devices evaded.

A couple of other points: the game's Fan Mail system didn't get used at all. I didn't push this: I took this as a natural sign that the game didn't need it.

Definitely.  While I remembered that the mechanic was there, it never really felt necessary to use it.  On the other hand, the rallying cry mechanic was so much fun (especially with an audience!) that I was actively looking for opportunities to use that.

[Rich Stokes]

Graham/everyone,

We're back home now and recovering nicely today.  I haven't really got athat much energy, but I'll go through the points you list and chip in with what I can.  I'm not sure what I can add beyond what we already said at the time, but I know it helps me to see this stuff in writing.  Sorry if I've cross posted some of this with others...

We playtested The Gay Recruitment Squad Wants YOU! at Conception. Including myself, there were five players, all experienced gamers and very enthusiastic. (I was very nervous, by the way: it's the first time I've properly tested one of my games).

I had been really looking forward to testing this game and I'm very glad we had the chance to play it!  I love the idea.

Quick background: the players play the Gay Recruitment Squad, who break into straight locations, disable the security devices and seduce the straights. It's much more good-natured than it sounds. It uses a board, needs no preparation, takes two hours and is very high-energy (for example, the players do various ritual chants).

First thing is the board:  There's an awful lot of it that we didn't use.  Since the players split up into two groups, one group went for the mark and the other group kinda just bumbled around in the back of the nightclub and never got anywhere near the target.  I dunno, I quite like the idea of these 5 gay agents helping each other out, but at the same time if the players don't split up then lots of the board doesn't get used.  Maybe some sort of Mission Impossible style communication net with hidden microphones so that the characters can hear each other and chip in with advice and help.  The players were doing that anyway, but making it a bit more explicit might encourage it a bit more.

I actually think that the board is the thing that's going to need the most playtesting.  I love the idea of having a board, but if the board is completely static (as it is now) then there's the danger that it'll be difficult to make it interesting enough for more that one or two play throughs.  If, for example, there's one obvious route to the target (as I suspect there is, via the main entrance, the balcony and then to the VIP area) then games will tend to all be the same.  Some kind of modular board would help here, with a semi-random board being laid out before the game starts and the players then starting at different Insertion Points so that the majority of the board gets used.

The playtest was enthusiastic and loud: we got curious glances from other tables and lots of people stopped by to see what was going on.

The callouts were a lot of fun, but I can see some people feeling a bit uncomfortable having to shout "Pink Fist!" or "Greetings homosexuals of earth!".  But then, I can see those people not wanting to play in the first place...

One worry I have is that the game is, really, just a series of conflicts. These conflicts are hugely fun: they're mostly seductions, with a Squad member seducing a straight. But there's little character development.

And that's how the playtest ran. The conflicts were fun and got a great reaction from the players. But, although the players enjoyed playing their characters, there wasn't a sense of the characters developing.

I find this very difficult: the game got such a positive reaction that it's tempting not to mess with it too much. But I do feel there needs to be some deeper level: most comedies have some development of the central characters. In this game, the development should probably be romantic: as the characters seduce straights, they work out their own relationship issues. But all that needs mechanical support and...aaaargh.

I don't think the lack of character development is really an issue here.  It's a nice, lightweight game that was a blast to play.  I really felt that the focus of the game was innuendo and rude jokes, but then Claire and I have a tenancy towards that anyway (as James found out after including a priest PC in his game set in a victorian orphanage).  The smuttiness generated a lot of fun, and what you have so far seems to be a wonderful innuendo engine.  Personally I think that's awesome, but if your design goals are different, then work will be needed.

There's very little reward for seducing straights and guards.  Also, Guards are dealt with the same as Straights (that is, seduction).  Guards have to be overcome to get to the target, and Straights who get seduced won't chase you at the end, but there are two things I'd like to change:

First, I think that the way players deal with Straights and Guards should be different.  That is, at the moment, the Gay Squad just seduces everyone.  Maybe Guards have to be dealt with in a different way or something?  On the other hand, the seductions were the most fun part, so I'm not keen to reduce the number of those.  I think this needs thinking about.

Secondly, it would be neat if there was some tangible, mechanical reward for seducing straight, dealing with guards and disabling security devices.  So maybe this is where you get character development: Shag enough blokes and you get over the baggage with your ex?  Something like that.

A couple of other points: the game's Fan Mail system didn't get used at all. I didn't push this: I took this as a natural sign that the game didn't need it.

I think this is quite telling and the reason for it is quite obvious: The resolution mechanic is already based on the player's judging each other's seduction attempts, so amusing or good play is already rewarded and adding a "Benny/Fanmail/Brownie Point" mechanic on top of that is a bit redundant.

It's probably a good idea to provide a complete set of security devices, straights and guards for people to use the first time through, so they have an idea exactly the tone of the things.

The only other thing that might be of value is this: I think that it's pretty important to set out the lines and veils that you want at the start of the game.  I mean, it worked very well for us with the "Fade to black" thing, which is pretty much what everyone was expecting and what everyone wanted, but I think it's perhaps a bit more complex that that with a game about such an awkward topic.  Some people might get upset about my "Metal Queer Solid" or "Gaydar activated plaid sprayer" comment for example.

[andrew_kenrick]

Whilst I didn't play in the full game of it, me and Graham did have a quick game the afternoon before and it was a blast!

I think the boardgame element of it is very important - it's very visual and enticing, and gives the game a great focus. I agree with Rich that not much of it was used. Could you have it so that each of the players makes his entry via a different entrance? Maybe give each player a different sub-mission/goal? So Bob Nerdly might have to sneak in and hack into the security centre to disable the security systems on the exit, or whatever.

It's interesting that you say that the fanmail wasn't used in the 5 player game, as we were flinging it about all over in our game.

I think with regards to character development you have the basics there already - you have baggage and neuroses.  Did these get used in the 5 player game? I think you could easily make them more central. If you recall we discussed Truisms from Covenant and compared them to Baggage - could a similar system be used, whereby baggage can be "resolved" during a game?

And finally I concur about the lines and veils discussion. I think we discussed this briefly midway through, and perhaps more than many games it's important to get out of the way right from the start.

[Graham W]

That's great stuff, thank you. Lots to get through.

Jason, I probably wasn't clear: the players interacted fine (for example, when they were playing guards) but the main player characters didn't. This meant that a mechanic had failed: characters have Neuroses and other players get a reward for triggering those Neuroses. But there wasn't much triggering.

On the character development thing, I think Malcolm and Steve are on the right track. At the moment, each character has Baggage (e.g. "Last boyfriend dumped him for being too old"), which isn't too different from the agendas that Steve suggests (same kind of character developing possibilities, anyway).

I'm wondering about having Baggage Cards: if you draw a Baggage Card in a conflict, you narrate your baggage coming into play (in the way Malcolm suggests, "His eyes remind me so much of Steve...") and add five cards to your Baggage Pile. You can claim your Baggage Pile later in the game, if you get over your baggage. (Perhaps there should be another type of card to get over your baggage. I'm not sure).

Actually, now I've mentioned that, I quite like the idea of an Ex card, which means you have to narrate your ex being present. Anyway.

On the idea of whether you need character development at all, I want to keep it fairly light: to give just the hint of the characters changing of the course of the game. What I want, really, is a bit of bite: like that Ex card, which you can either gloss over in a comedy moment or make more poignant. I don't think I want character development in the sense of changing the character sheet.

Lots more to respond to in the next post.

Graham

[Graham W]

Scott, interesting stuff, thanks, especially on the competitive bit...

In fact, just to really confuse you, what would probably make it even more fun for me would be adding a bit of competition to it.  Unless I've missed something (entirely possible -- it was a noisy hall and I was tired) the end game is just everyone trying to get out of the club cooperatively.  Maybe some victory conditions there, with it being more of a race to get out, might make the end game a bit more tense.

Do you remember commenting how good natured the game was? I think one reason for that was that it's co-operative, not competitive. It draws heavily from Breaking The Ice, in fact: the tension derives from competing against the system, not the other players.

You're right about the end game not being very tense. I'd like it to be sort of cooperatively tense: perhaps you could insist that each player returns to a different insertion point; or perhaps you could say that no more cards are drawn during Pink Alert. Something to make it it more difficult to get out, but not to make the players compete.

Tell me if I'm talking bollocks, of course.

Graham

[Graham W]

Andrew, the neuroses were barely used in the five-player game. I'm not quite sure why: again, I didn't push it.

I like the idea of starting each player from a different entrance. Originally, I avoided that because I wanted the Squad to interact: but, hell, they can still talk over Rich's hidden microphones, and they'll meet up soon enough.

Hmm, sub-missions (oh, look, "submission"). Well, there's actually nothing to stop a Squad Member, say, going to the Security Room and throwing a challenge to shut down a security system somewhere else in the base. But it could be made more explicit. I wonder.

The Lines and Veils thing is very interesting. I hadn't considered how important it was until our mini-game. I noticed you looked rather nervous when we got to the seductions, and wondered why, and then realised I hadn't explained there didn't have to be any explicit details.

So, yes, I tried to start the five-player game off with a Lines and Veils discussion: I said "Personally, I'm uncomfortable with explicit details and I like things to fade to black quickly: what do you guys think?". Everyone just said yes, so that's how it worked.

Graham

[contracycle]

Before fiddling with the complexities of modular maps, I suggest just trying to play two different maps in sequence.  Character development could be introduced at the point of transition from one map to another, as a character management phase between two play phases.

[Rich Stokes]

Andrew, the neuroses were barely used in the five-player game. I'm not quite sure why: again, I didn't push it.

Graham, it's possible I wasn't paying attention at the time, but I don't remember anything ever being mentioned about the neuroses.  I assumed that they might come into play under certain circumstances (My character apparently fainted if he ever saw an animal, I figured that a security device might be a guard dog or something) but it felt like there was enough meat in the rules already for the kind of game I was expecting.  That is, a camp and somewhat silly but utterly hilarious homosexual themed version of mission impossible.

[Graham W]

Thanks Gareth, that's useful. Yes, the modular map is an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how you'd implement it: given that everything has to fit together, even in a random order, and there's got to be a VIP room in the centre with a target. I'm sure it's possible, but difficult.

Rich, did the neuroses add anything to the game? Should I get rid of them? You were meant to get a card every time you used someone else's neurosis: if we'd remembered, would that have made a difference? Andrew and I used them a lot in our quick two-player game.

Oh, here's the bits of your post that I haven't dealt with in more general sense above...

The callouts were a lot of fun, but I can see some people feeling a bit uncomfortable having to shout "Pink Fist!" or "Greetings homosexuals of earth!".  But then, I can see those people not wanting to play in the first place...

Well, quite. Also, remember the infantile pleasure of shouting naughty things in crowded rooms.

First, I think that the way players deal with Straights and Guards should be different.  That is, at the moment, the Gay Squad just seduces everyone.  Maybe Guards have to be dealt with in a different way or something?  On the other hand, the seductions were the most fun part, so I'm not keen to reduce the number of those.  I think this needs thinking about.

That's interesting. I understand the sentiment: at the moment, Straights are pretty much like Guards, and there should be more differentiation. But I don't know how you'd implement it: I wouldn't want to get rid of seducing guards, because it's fun.

Secondly, it would be neat if there was some tangible, mechanical reward for seducing straight, dealing with guards and disabling security devices.  So maybe this is where you get character development: Shag enough blokes and you get over the baggage with your ex?  Something like that.

There's the intangible reward that, if you don't shag enough guards, you're more likely to get caught during Pink Alert. That'll become more of a worry if everyone has to go back to different insertion points.

That said, there's essentially no reward for disabling security devices (no real need to disable them, since they don't chase you during Pink Alert). And that's worrying.

As for a more tangible, mechanical reward: I don't know. I'm not sure I want people counting their victories: it might stop people being honest when they rate the narration.

It's probably a good idea to provide a complete set of security devices, straights and guards for people to use the first time through, so they have an idea exactly the tone of the things.

Yes, definitely, good point. Also, it means you can play the game with virtually no set-up time (although the preferred way is to spend five minutes scribbling your own descriptions).

If anyone wants to leap in and help clarify these thoughts, they're more than welcome.

Graham

[Rich Stokes]

One thing Graham: As far as I can tell, having more cards in your hand isn't actually much of an advantage.  For two reasons.

1) You don't actually use any cards on yourself.  They go to other players.  So having more cards only helps the other players and therefore doesn't seem like much of a boon.

2) There were a couple of times when people forgot to pick up replacement cards after tests.  The only way to rectify that was to pick up cards again until you had 6 in your hand.  If I'd been given some extra, would that mean I'd be replenishing my hand to 7 or 8?  If so, that leaves a pretty small draw pile.  With 5 players and 52 cards in the deck, if everyone had 8 cards (which is only 2 extra) you're looking at only 12 cards in the draw pile.  If they all earn 3, you only have 7 in the draw pile.

Possibly a better reward mechanic might be something like a token which allows you to use a card from you own hand during a test?  That way the cards you hold are useful to you, but only if you spend a resource.  Or maybe you can spend these points on a 1:1 basis to increase the total you draw on a test?  So if you get a 5 and the guard was worth 7, you can spend 2 points and seduce him anyway.

I'm not exactly sure about that.  I think the game will break quite badly if you try to make it properly competitive.  If the agents are working together, the players tend to be pretty honest about their opinions of the seduction attempts.  If they're competitive, there's a temptation to deliberately be stingy with the cards.  "If I give him a 3, he'll fail and that means I'm more likely to win"

Hmmm

[Graham W]

2) There were a couple of times when people forgot to pick up replacement cards after tests.  The only way to rectify that was to pick up cards again until you had 6 in your hand.  If I'd been given some extra, would that mean I'd be replenishing my hand to 7 or 8?

I think the rule is: if you have less than 5 cards, draw until you've got 5. So you can hold more than 5 cards in your hand, but you don't get to replace them when they're gone.

1) You don't actually use any cards on yourself.  They go to other players.  So having more cards only helps the other players and therefore doesn't seem like much of a boon.

You're right. It's difficult, because I need some way to reward people, and giving them cards is an obvious one. I can think of a few ways to do it:

1. When you do cool stuff, you get cards to add to your hand. They're a reward for you because they make you more able to judge narration.
2. When you do cool stuff, you get cards to add to your hand. They're not a reward for you directly, because you'll give them to other players. But this reflects the cooperative theme: help the other players and they'll help you.
3. When you do cool stuff, everyone gets a card. It's a group reward.
4. When you do cool stuff, everyone else but you gets a card. This probably rewards you, in the long term.
5. When you do cool stuff, both you and the person you do the stuff to get a card.
6. When you do cool stuff, give a card to another player. This probably reward you, in the long term.

Of those, I think I like the group reward best. But I'm still a bit unclear about this.

Also, I could make cards more scarce. Imagine if you started with, say, three cards rather than five (with the rule that, if you have less than three cards, you can draw cards until you've got three). Would people be more proactive about getting cards then?

Graham