[Silence Keeps Me A Victim] First successful playtest, or I need math help.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Last night was a great experience. I playtested my game with some friends, and it kinda worked and got some positive results. It was my first actual play experience validating the frustration I've been going through. Anyway, I've got my present text in open text format and pdf. The character sheets are also in open text format and pdf. They may or may not be helpful for following along.

I had three players; Tim, Willow, and Len. The first thing we did was generate the characters issues which in game terms are called chains. We did this by having each player write down three things that might be hard for someone to face, and drive them to become isolated from society, on strips of paper. I then mixed up the strips and redistributed them randomly. This got very positive comments from the players. This is absolutely directly stolen from Jame's Brown's, "Death's Door."

I then had each of them give their character a name, and an occupation that let them stay isolated. Then I had them generate their True Name which is the name of their child. Then they generated two mask powers for their children. The mask drains the children of their vitality, and the fantasy world around them of some of it's vitality. It also gives the children Kewl powers. The disadvantage is that each time they use a power in a scene they increase their Grey trait, at the scenes end. That means if they use both mask powers, they will have two more points of Grey in the next scene. Grey is the resistance they have to overcome. It's where the G.M. gets his dice from. Here's what we have so far:

Joe Brown, a disabled homeless veteran, whose chains are; I lost my legs in an accident, and I have no money. His Child is named Joey, and he is a masked baseball player who can be very fast and very strong. Joe(y) is played by Len.

Arthur, a park ranger, whose chains are; Disconnected from his parents, and Why does no one understand me. His child is named Pendragon and lives in a park. He has the power to drain the light away, and wither things with a touch. Arthur is played by Tim.

Sara Marlowe is a security guard, whose chains are; Why am I different, and why am I alive when others have died. Her child is named Princess Sara. She has ultimate fighting powers, and can get into inaccessible places. Sara is played by Willow.

I'm very happy with how very little effort has sketched fairly solid character ideas.

The way the game plays out is the players set up a scene in the real world where they are either trying to create a connection to another human being, increase their confidence, or increase their satisfaction in their life. They then set a scene where their child is trying to achieve something a goal in the fiction that is metaphorically similar to the adult. The children will gain either voice, safety, or acceptance.

The difficulty of the roll is based on their Grey. They gain more dice they can use by working in their connections, confidence, and satisfaction. With later traits having more dice. The way it works is the player automatically gets one colored die. Colored dice aren't an important concept, they are just a way to designate between the d6's the player rolls, and the d6's the G.M. rolls. The children can add in adult traits, and/or their mask powers to gain more dice. The G.M. rolls Grey dice equal to the players Grey and wins ties. There is heavy stealing in this set up from Paul Czege's, "Acts of Evil." A major difference is I'm lazier than Paul so I have the players automatically set the scenes. You could argue this is an actual important difference based on where our games are trying to push the player characters. That's not really an argument for here though, I just want to sound smart and stuff.

We started with Len as he was anxious to go first. He set a scene in which he was trying to beg for money and increase his satisfaction. In the fantasy world he was trying to hit the ball. He also used his mask power of being super fast to help him hit the ball. He lost and I described a child with perfectly fine legs grabbing his cup and running off. Len immediately followed up with trying to create a connection by yelling for help. I had him wait, so I could go onto the other players.

Tim created a scene where there was a lost Boy Scout and Arthur found him but the child was scared. He was trying to find him and make a connection. He either didn't have ideas for the child's scene, or I interrupted him. I created an almost parallel scene of him trying to calm a hurt puppy. I think this lacked power and is not the way I want to run the game, more about that at the end. Tim used none of his mask powers and went for a straight roll and lost. I described the child being scared and yelling, "I'm not supposed to talk to strangers!" The Boy Scout then ran away from Arthur through some underbrush that used his short stature to great advantage. This gets interesting in Tim's next scene, where he burn's down the forest to force the boy out.

Willow wanted to increase Sara's confidence. She created a scene where someone was trying to break into the building she worked in, and in the fictional world her princess was beset by Ninjas. She chose to use her ultimate fighting power to help her defeat the Ninja's. She gained a confidence of, "Criminals Beware!" and a Voice trait of, "I'm a champion of the people!"

I don't want to keep up the play by play so here's a quick synopsis. Len's character Joe Brown, makes a connection with a female who catches the child and returns his money, whom he then takes to coffee and tries to increase his confidence while simultaneously having his baseball playing child tag first base. Double entendres of that nature were not something I saw coming, and was very amusing. Tim's character rescued the boy Scout by burning the forest down in the fantasy world and the puppy doing the same thing in the fantasy world. He then entered a game mechanical death spiral. Willow entered a Win cycle, navigated the social intricacies of a formal ball, and making a connection with a helpful psychologist.

Our characters ended up thusly (numbers in parentheses indicate how many dice that trait has associated with it):

Joe Brown, a disabled homeless veteran, whose chains are; I lost my legs in an accident, and I have no money. He has a connection to a compassionate female friend(1), and is a decent guy(1). His Child is named Joey, and he is a masked baseball player who can be very fast and very strong. Joey has a commanding voice(1), and I'm good at this game(1). Joe(y) is played by Len.

Arthur, a park ranger, whose chains are; Disconnected from his parents, and Why does no one understand me. He has a connection to a lost boy scout(1). His child is named Pendragon and lives in a park. He has the power to drain the light away, and wither things with a touch. He has a voice trait of; I am the destroyer(1). Arthur is played by Tim.

Sara Marlowe is a security guard, whose chains are; Why am I different, and why am I alive when others have died. She has a connection to a helpful psychologist, Dr. Philbert(1), and a confidence that causes Criminals to Beware! Her child is named Princess Sara. She has ultimate fighting powers, and can get into inaccessible places. She is a champion of the people(1), and has a beautiful gown(acceptance(1)). Sara is played by Willow.

Finally tally. Willow hates the game, Tim seems to be reserving judgment, but generally positive, and Len is enthusiastically positive. This is exactly the responses I expected to see. Willow likes to play games where her character does cool over the top stuff, like in a wushu/kung fu flick, or perhaps something like the Tick. She also wants games that have tactical depth that is important to game play, and competition. This game isn't going to give her the rewards she's looking for. Tim doesn't have a strongly preferred playstyle, but is cautious until he knows everything about the game so his decisions are informed and appropriate. Len is looking to tell his characters story, and immerse. I think he's my target audience.

Please allow me the time to make the next post about what I learned and what I would like to discuss in this thread. It normally takes me half an hour to several hours to make a post....

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

What did I learn? I find it very interesting that the game seems to be writing itself now. All of the ideas I had and was struggling to create when I first started this process are gone, except for declaration. The community is gone. The playable character creation is gone. The heavy handed attempts to force a dark game are gone. The attempts to have competition and tactical depth are gone. The one specific fiction is mostly gone, and most importantly the anger is gone. So my original goal of changing my life with this game is already achieved, so I'm on good ground. Now to change other people's lives....

Really quickly... some info I didn't include. The player gets rid of a character's chains by making a test against 6 + their Grey for the first chain, and 7+ their Grey for their second chain. So if they have 4 Grey, then the gamemaster rolls ten dice for the first chain, and 11 for the second. Their child regains their voice after the second chain is broken.

Things I need to address:

• Declaration. Having the players forced to describe emotions needs to be in the game. I feel this is the one idea I've created that's important. I don't think this needs to be a right that's won any longer, but a step that the player has to do.
• The Death/Win cycle. The game is unbalanced in that it can become too easy or too hard. I'd like continually difficultly so there can be a sense of achievement. I presently don't have the mathematical ability to address this well.
• I need to consider some limits to the fiction the players create for the children. I think presently that just requiring that they are masked and can't speak is enough. Do I want to limit them from making things like flash cards to get around these limits?
• What happens when the child regains their voice and removes the mask? Do I need to create an answer to this question or let the players answer it themselves? I'm leaning towards the second option.
• Who wins on ties? Something as simple as this can heavily flavor the game I think.
• Should there be a way to reduce Grey? The present idea is you could "store" extra successes to bring it down. Is this something I should allow as it decreases difficulty and may undercut the sense of challenge? On the other hand if someone is in a death spiral this may be the only way for them to get out.
• I need a way to bring the characters together in the real world, and/or the fictional world. I like the idea of giving a mechanical bonus for tying fictional worlds together and at the same time creating some kind of interfering "static."
• Could I let people store successes and only be able to use them to take away other peoples Grey? This would be only if the characters are connected to each other in one of their worlds.
• I need to develop a gamemastering technique for this game of "drawing out." I should give no input into the fiction except failure states, and accept offers for failure states. I need to develop a way to draw the story out of the players, even the turtles. The game should be about their voice. What are some of the methods I need to use? How do I succinctly describe it? "Ask questions then roll." Remember. Ask questions then roll.
• How do I use the child's traits? Presently the child is resolving both worlds dilemmas but they draw on the adult side's connections, confidence, and satisfaction to gain more "healthy" dice. When does the Adult use the child's voice, safety, and acceptance?
• I need guidelines for how each of the child's needs gets developed and what are appropriate sentences to add to voice, safety, and acceptance. Also how does acceptance differ from satisfaction?
• Is this game, no one gets hurt, or I'll be there for you?
• I need a better way to have Grey increase.

What I want to talk about:

• Mainly mechanics. I feel as a game designer this is my weakest area.
• Any of the questions above.
• General Feedback or questions, this is an open thread.

[Larry L.]

Clyde,

In another thread, Ralph pointed out that the game didn't really seem to be addressing the promise of the title, in depicting how victims' silence keeps them victims of past abuses. Do you think the gameplay incorporates this now?

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Larry,

That's an interesting question. Ralph's question gave me some focus on the game, and is what I credit for the game starting to write itself. To answer your question... no it doesn't address the premise, not directly. I think that if you look at the game, the focus of the play, and the title you can see the question-- and perhaps answer through play, but you don't have to. I'm comfortable with that.

[nitramwi]

Len here...

Yes, I really liked the game.  Target audience?  Wow!  *Blushes*

I quickly "got" what was happening in game as we made up characters.  I developed a "game plan" for my character as each scene unfolded, and was offering other players advise, (which was some times not wanted!), and I've suggested that keeping the interaction strictly between players may work best for a game like this.

A few points...

First, the mechanic to determine winning or loosing could use some work.  Rolling a bunch of D6's, with a 4, 5, or 6 being success could be changed to success on 5 or 6, and introducing "critical failures" on 1's only could help.  My idea folks!

Also, the whole idea that characters "must" interact and be together... The heck with that!  I say, be new, bold, creative, whatever.

If players are not "creative" enough to do that "in game", well, why force it?  This seems like a perfect game for the other players to be audience to the personal drama each player can create.  If players can create "ties" to each other, hey great, go ahead and create some reward for that kind of play.  Be bold dude!  Chart the "unknown"!



Lota of luck, looking forward to your next session.

[Willow]

Clyde-

A lot of the unforgiving nature of the current build which I pointed out to you is rooted in the GM winning ties- even if you use one mask on your first roll (which I think is the opening tactic you want to encourage), you have a 1/2 chance of failing.  (And a 1/4 chance of failing with no successes, and having your grey go up to 3 with no benefits.)

Right now the penalties for using both abilities in one scene are too high.  What if you used both of them you got a higher bonus, like +3 or even +4?  What if there was some way to guarantee success, but at a high price?

The dual-natured aspect of the game was interesting, and I encourage you to allow the players to allow themselves to customize it to their own visions as much as possible.  Adult/(Inner) Child is one combination, and it works for you, but how about Self/Idealized Self?

My biggest complaint about the game is actually that at no point did there seem to be any 'in-character' voice.  Strike that- Sara had a 'fuck this shit' remark; but other than those three words, everything was pretty much a top-down tell-not-show experience.  While silence is a large part of the premise, the real world characters should have conversations or monologues, and I think removing the voice of the imagination characters is a barrier to roleplaying.

[Valamir]

Is this game, no one gets hurt, or I'll be there for you?

I'm very interested in your current thought process along these lines.  I think, moreso in most games given the subject matter, the choice of approach will have major impact not only on how the game plays, and the experience of the players at the table, but right down to the game mechanics and how players use system.

I have a pretty strong view on how I think it should be, but I'd like to hear more on your goals for the game in this regard before I comment on it.

[TJ]

I find I am having difficulty offering constructive criticism at this point because you keep changing so many things.  After the card-based play procedure at Forge Midwest I was surprised to see narrative-based dice mechanics again. 

As of the latest play test, I think you are still aiming for This Is Game.  And I think you should keep heading that way.

I am still pretty unsure about keeping the characters separate.  Without more reasons to interact at a mechanical level, the player characters might as well be in different games.  I foresee sessions in which some players choose to involve their characters in each others' stories while excluding other player characters, intentionally or not, and that could cause very unequal levels of screen time and investment.

[Ben Lehman]

Before I can answer your questions about math, I need to understand how the system functions, mechanically.  Right now, your playtest document is totally opaque to me.

What are the sources of a player's dice?  Just mask power?  Are they limited to drawing on two mask powers?

What do players use connections, confidence, etc for?  How much do they start with?

The GM's die pool is totally fixed, right?  He has no oomph?

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Alrighty...

Hey Len,

I don't intend to force the players to interact with each other. I would like to give a small bonus to make them interested in doing so. The way I see the game is you start off as this person who has issues that keep them from interacting with humanity, and through the game they become stronger and hopefully eventually overcome their issues. I think them starting solitary in their own scenes and then connecting with each other will be good. The problem with keeping everyone separate is that you can end up with a game where everyone spends most of their time watching. This may not be a problem if everyone is pulling off genius scenes that engage everyone, but I think this is unlikely to occur as everyone likes different things. Having people enter into each others world on the other hand is going to engage more people and is in keeping with the theme of the game.

Now I know you aren't advocating keeping people out of each others scenes, but letting them take care of that themselves. The problem is that as a game designer, I need to express my vision, and at the same time create play that is rewarding. To do that I need to reward behaviors I would like to see and restrict those I don't want to see. I can't expect people to divine my intent.

I'm looking forward to Saturday also.

Hi Willow,

I think you are right, but changing to the player wins ties doesn't kill the success spiral, it actually increases it and will make rolling dice basically pointless a few scenes into the game.

I think you are totally right about the roleplaying, since my days of Larping I struggle at the table to introduce roleplaying as a GM. This is a weakness I see and am still trying to figure out. However I didn't feel like the players were pushing very hard for this style of play either. Whether you feel that's true or not that's my perception.

As to changing the adult/child dicotomy, like I told you at the table, that's not going to change. I totally get that you want a game where the characters are strong, vibrant, etc. This isn't going to be the game for you. I appreciate that you played and I hope you'll be willing to butt your head against the game at some point in the future as I do appreciate your ability to dig at mechanics. I promise not to make that call too often, as I think you will find the play unrewarding.

Hi Tim,

I'm not requiring criticism to be constructive. I'd prefer raw honesty to sparing my ego. The cards at Forge Midwest were bullshit. They choked the life out of any of the creativity the players might bring to the game. I'm sure by now in reading my answer to Len you'll see I don't intend for players to have to stay separate, and that I intend to encourage them not to stay separate. This is based on the feedback you folks gave me at the table.

Can you explain what you mean by, "This Is Game?" I don't understand what you mean.

More coming...

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Ralph,

I am leaning towards, "I'll be there for you." Here's my present thinking. The game is about crushing the silence by finding your voice. The way I see play is that you put out the issues that you have a hard time dealing with and you either through play try to address them in the fiction, or end up seeing someone else trying to address them. To me it seems that creating the game so that someone can throw a brake into that process is not a good idea. I will readily admit that I haven't given this enough thought.

I'm curious to your thinking as you say you have strong opinions? I'd love to hear them, but I'd especially love if you can explain better how you see this part of the game having such a strong effect overall on the game design/play. I can understand that strong effect is true, but I couldn't explain why it's true.

[Valamir]

Hi Ralph,

I am leaning towards, "I'll be there for you." Here's my present thinking. The game is about crushing the silence by finding your voice. The way I see play is that you put out the issues that you have a hard time dealing with and you either through play try to address them in the fiction, or end up seeing someone else trying to address them. To me it seems that creating the game so that someone can throw a brake into that process is not a good idea. I will readily admit that I haven't given this enough thought.

That was pretty much my way of thinking as well.  Making a game to drive towards exploring hard core painful issues and then pulling up short when it starts to go beyond uncomfortable seems entirely contrary to the mission of the game.  In a way, drawing a veil over the more painful parts is actually promoting the silence rather than crushing it.

I'm curious to your thinking as you say you have strong opinions? I'd love to hear them, but I'd especially love if you can explain better how you see this part of the game having such a strong effect overall on the game design/play. I can understand that strong effect is true, but I couldn't explain why it's true.

Both the presentation of the game text as well as the mechanics can either facilitate a safety net or preclude one.  Text that implies that other players get to vet or approve of your narrative contribution to the game provide avenues for people to say "hey, I'm not really comfortable going there".  Rules that call for consensus will tend to lead towards a safe middle ground.  Rules that let you "spend a drama point" to avoid something bad, also can serve as a veto power over the fictional content.  On the other hand, rules that say "in this situation, this person gets to say what happens, period" and don't allow for "do overs" or vetoes, or edits take away the safety net and make it possible (even probable given the nature of the game) for content to enter the fiction that one or more players find objectionable or hard to face. 

The challenge then becomes how to ensure that those situations result in "I will not abandon you" by the other players, which most likely can't be accomplished by rules.

An interesting thought, however, is to carry over the message of the title of the game directly into meta levels rules in the game.  For instance, "Silence keeps me a victim" can also apply to a player who's lines have been crossed.  An exciting avenue of design consideration for you could be not to prevent the line from being crossed, but rather enabling the player to not be silent about it.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Ben,

The game works thusly:

The players frame a scene where they are trying to create a connection with another human, increase their confidence, or increase their sense of self satisfaction. The gamemaster will create what happens if they fail. Then they roll dice and the player narrates their success, or the gamemaster narrates their failure.

At the games start the players have access to three d6's. They always get one die. The other two dice they can get if they can work their mask power into the fiction. Using these dice has a cost as each time they use a mask power they add one to their Grey for each power after the conflict is over. So in keeping with the game above if Len used I'm really strong, and I'm really fast, to try to hit a home run with his baseball playing child. He would roll 3 dice, and after the conflict is resolved he would add two to his Grey. This would increase it from the starting value of one, to three.

Grey is what the gamemaster rolls. So in the above example the Gamemaster would roll one die. For Len's next conflict the gamemaster would be rolling three dice. The resolution is a comparison of the number of successes, where 4 to 6 on a d6 is a success. Presently the gamemaster wins ties.

If the player gets no successes on their roll they gain a point of Grey.

If the player is successful they gain the connection, confidence, or satisfaction they were trying to create for their character. They add a sentence to the line on their character sheet that corresponds to their choice. If they can work that sentence into the fiction in later conflicts they add the amount of dice for the level of attribute. Each of the attributes has three levels and provides more dice per level. So this means the first connection is worth one die when used in the fiction, the second level connection provides 2 dice, the third level 3 dice. This may be easier to understand by looking at the character sheet.

In Len's first scene he lost and a little boy took his begging cup and all the money that was in it. In his second scene Len tried to create a connection by calling for help to catch the little boy. In his fantasy world his child was trying to hit a home run. He used his Grey powers of Very Fast and Very Strong, so he had three dice. He had gained one Grey in the last scene due to using one of his Grey powers, so I had two dice. Len generated more success then I did so he wrote, "I have a compassionate female friend," next to the first connection, and narrated how she came out of the crowd and caught the boy. If he used this female friend in the fiction in a future scene he would have an extra die to roll.

Eventually the player is likely to have built enough connections, satisfaction, and confidence that they want to try to break their chains. The Gamemaster will roll 6 + the characters Grey for the first chain, and 7 + the characters Grey for the second chain. Resolution works the same they compare successes. When both chains are broken the child regains their voice and the player will get to tell us about the characters future. Game Over.

What's not working: I don't know how or why the children gain voice, safety, and acceptance, or when they use it. In the playtest I let the players arbitrarily choose to add a sentence next to voice, safety, or acceptance if they were successful. I also let them add sentences from either the adult's side or the child's side to the fiction to gain extra dice. This made the game too easy if they were successful in the first scene. If they didn't succeed in the first or second scene they entered a death spiral.

My thinking: The way I see it at the game's start the characters are completely disconnected from society, living in their fantasy world. The only thing they can draw on to support them is this fantasy world which is harmful at the same time. Eventually as they fulfill more of their human needs they should be able to give up propping themselves up with this fantasy world, and be able to support themselves through this basic fulfillment.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

An interesting thought, however, is to carry over the message of the title of the game directly into meta levels rules in the game.  For instance, "Silence keeps me a victim" can also apply to a player who's lines have been crossed.  An exciting avenue of design consideration for you could be not to prevent the line from being crossed, but rather enabling the player to not be silent about it.

Hi Ralph,

I've read this over several times. I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly. Are you saying that the game should encourage a player in saying, "We're crossing a line of mine," without giving that the ability to stop the fiction being created? If so then that is indeed an interesting idea.

[Valamir]

Yeah, its just a germ of an idea, but  buried within that grammatically convoluted sentence, that is what I was thinking.