For Mature Audiences [FMA] Reviewer Request

[David Artman]

Hi, folks;

I have come out of Game Chef with some feedback which is great and some which has be a bit lost. I am seeking some way to "write myself" out of the problems with the text. As such, I need some reviewers to check it out and reply to my handful of questions below.

For Mature Audiences

My Concerns:
1) Does the current text about framing and extending scenes help you see how to "ramp up" or "push" your issues and your fellows' issues?
2) Do you have any suggestions for ways in which play could be more personal and cathartic?
3) Did any particular mechanical rule or section of text confuse you as to the point of play?

Any other suggestions or advice are welcome. Yes, I know this is an unusual game; yes, I know its presentation is still a bit too "confrontational" or "edgy." I have plans for reworking the entire example of play and toning down some of the "emo" elements. But right now I want to see reviews of the original text, in part to see if there's any consistency of initial reactions to the original draft.

Thanks, any and all!
David

[dindenver]

Hi!
  NGH is my play style. Just the idea of IWNAY makes my skin crawl.
  That being said, it seems like a fine text. The only play example that seemed weak or to miss the mark was the example of exiting a scene. The interaction between Forrest and Boop seems like an example of dysfunctional or broken play. Like each of the players were forced to interact and couldn't find a common narrative.
  Still the rest of it seems pretty solid. There seems to be a lot to work with andthe rules seem fairly clear.
  A couple things bother me though:
1) Tooth dealer - Why is he called that, it did not make sense to me...
2) The role of the Tooth Dealer seems pretty light. The players do the scene framing and escalation, so the role seems to not be a full time job, seems like the TD would spend a lot of time twiddling their fingers waiting for Damage and being a watchdog for the rules... Maybe the first person to Exit the last scene should be the Tooth Dealer for this scene? With the person to the right of the first player being the tooth dealer for the first scene?
3) Also, what is it that gives them life? y6ou hinted at it, but they were too vague for my pea-sized brain, lol
  Good start man and good luck!

[David Artman]

Thanks for reading; I'll reply below:

NGH is my play style. Just the idea of IWNAY makes my skin crawl.

Understandable. But without it, FMA is not going to work, do you agree?

That being said, it seems like a fine text.

Thank you!

The only play example that seemed weak or to miss the mark was the example of exiting a scene. The interaction between Forrest and Boop seems like an example of dysfunctional or broken play. Like each of the players were forced to interact and couldn't find a common narrative.

This could be tightened, I agree. However, it is sort of depending upon the previous piece of artwork, where Forrest looks on nervously at a pack of cigarettes. Did you check the artwork, via the links? (I should make them live, now that Game Chef is over and I'm no longer constrained to plain TXT.)

1) Tooth dealer - Why is he called that, it did not make sense to me...

Ahhh, OK, I am gonna guess that you didn't check the art, here: the first piece of art shows this weird half-Plushie, half-cadaver thing holding up a blood-flecked tooth for the "camera" and smiling wickedly. Tooth Fairy... abuse, addiction... Dealer. Tooth Dealer.

2) The role of the Tooth Dealer seems pretty light. The players do the scene framing and escalation, so the role seems to not be a full time job, seems like the TD would spend a lot of time twiddling their fingers waiting for Damage and being a watchdog for the rules...

You're the second person to mention that... I am thinking of GMless play, now. The only problem is that it's entirely possible for all PCs to be in the same scene, with Stuck Needles and intros and so forth. Who's the TD/GM when that happens? Consensus?

Also, having a single TD means that Damage should be fairly consistently apportioned, and that proposed Scars suit the Questions and don't just come out of left field. For example, if someone tried to propose a Scar on Boop of "Hyper Violent," that would be forcing Alice to deal with a 'pseudo-issue' with which she has no connection. I figured the TD could be there to put proposals back on track. Also, the TD could be the person with no issues to deal with (I hear a lot about that--folks don't have anything to deal with that's on the level of abuse or addiction).

Maybe the first person to Exit the last scene should be the Tooth Dealer for this scene? With the person to the right of the first player being the tooth dealer for the first scene?

I'd have to go more mechanical than that, less round-robin. For instance, the TD is the person with no Spikes at all, if any. (Starting play, the TD would be whomever is not in the scene after the first player frames, with "ties" going to the player closest to the starting player's right, as you say.)

But still, we run into the problem of having all PCs in a scene (and no TD available); or the potential for inconsistent Damage apportioning; or the potential for revenge play, where a current TD (PC B) permits an egregious Scar to PC A because, in a previous scene when A was TD, he or she permitted a egregious or inappropriate Scar to be applied to B.

I'm not trying to knock down your idea--I want to get in some actual play (shudder) to see if the TD really is just thumb-twiddling. Keep in mind that a bored TD could intro an NPC, if he or she saw a way to ratchet up a scene that's otherwise going a bit flatly. But I am also thinking that "conventional" play will have relatively short, intense scenes where anyone not in the scene is likely to be on the edge of their seats anyway, watch the train wreck in progress (or the enlightenment).

3) Also, what is it that gives them life? you hinted at it, but they were too vague for my pea-sized brain, lol

The second piece of art shows the Tooth Dealer injecting Boop's blank-eyed doll with a giant (to their scale) syringe full of a darkish liquid. I saw that and thought, "So THAT's what the Tooth Fairy wants teeth for--to inject a serum made from the blood residue and bring Plushies to life! Muahahahahaha!"

Or something like that.

Good start man and good luck!

Thanks again for taking the time to read and respond. It's very much a work in progress--in particular given that I will be replacing the art with "actual play" photos of plush dolls in conflict, Spiked and Scared to suit a slightly different example of a session of play. The art I used totally inspired the game as it now stands (even the Tooth Dealer), but I am realizing that my examples of play are sexist and generally unilluminating (i.e. too short). I don't know if the sexism came from the art's suggestiveness, or if my own brain "saw" such content where it wasn't. But I'm not proud of it, and so I want to develop a different set of issues and Plushies, to avoid any such content.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, couple of thoughts:
1) Of course IWNAY is central to FMA and can't be played without it. Quite honestly I couldn't think of a hack of this game that would work with NGH...
2) I think artwork (especially artwork that inspired you) is WAY more valuable than photos of real plushies...
3) I think the sec was not over the top. It was overt and implied certain association with drug abuse, but it did not cross a line in my mind.
4) The portrayal of Forrest in the game is sort of incongruous with the rest of the cast. We have a dude who controls people by enabling their drug addiction. We have a gal who can only have fun when they are high and Forrest, who is too timid to show us what he is about. So the scene where he is sorta on the sidelines waving and when he is finally engaged, he backs off tells me that either the character is not fully formed in your mind or the player behind these actions is not engaged in the premise fo the game, you know? The intro to the game really talks about how important the premise of staying engaged even through the uncomfortable parts is to this game. And right here in the example we have a disengaged character. I don't think a picture of Forrest hanging out with Boop will make up for the shallow interactions between players portrayed here.
5) The idea of forcing the first person to exit a scene to be the Tooth Dealer would be to keep people engaged. In my mind I see a scene with three players and one Exits and the other two go on for a bit and this is the prize/penalty for not sticking to it with the other two players. TD time!
  I think you are close to a good game, so now your only real barrier is losing sight of your design goals and diluting your design...

[Illetizgerg]

I'd imagine that I'll probably be viewed as being "immature" for saying this about a game designed around this premise, but I really don't get the point. Players control avatars who are based on themselves, but then not, and are allowed to hurt each other in bizarrely abstract and spiteful ways, but then the game is supposed emphasize support.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it or anything, I'm really not, so I hope you don't interpret it that way. I guess this just isn't a kind of game I would ever want to play, but I have to ask myself "what about this game makes me weary of it, and are my concerns things that other people should be concerned with too?"

I guess it might help if the actual goal was explained a bit better. Like, have you actually played sessions, and if so what have your players walked away with? I could really only see the game being frustrating, and even if the other players "stayed with me" through my frustration I think I would just come out feeling pissed. I really don't understand how I could be simultaneously supported/hurt by players who are trying to bring their own evils to light (which in turn gives more validity to the hurting part, and makes the support seem like BS).

- Gregory Zitelli

[David Artman]

2) I think artwork (especially artwork that inspired you) is WAY more valuable than photos of real plushies...

The artist has been unresponsive to my repeated requests for a quote or for permissions. He has suggested that he will auction the art, if more than one Game Chef wants it. I consider that tantamount to a simultaneous submission, which in other creative professions will get you blackballed. Thus, I am almost at an impasse RE the original art.

Further, don't forget my concerns about the sexism (and, now, about Forrest's low engagement--no, I didn't really "feel" his issue like I did the other two... maybe I was trying to show a mix of major and minor issues, in play? Dunno, now...)

5) The idea of forcing the first person to exit a scene to be the Tooth Dealer would be to keep people engaged. In my mind I see a scene with three players and one Exits and the other two go on for a bit and this is the prize/penalty for not sticking to it with the other two players. TD time!

In understand, but I still wonder about who will Damage or Scar that first exiting person? The one(s) who's needles he or she removes, presumably. And if a new Scar, who ratifies it; consensus? It's a tricky sequencing issue, basically. I'll give it some thought (it's in my ToDo notes).

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it or anything, I'm really not, so I hope you don't interpret it that way. I guess this just isn't a kind of game I would ever want to play, but I have to ask myself "what about this game makes me weary of it, and are my concerns things that other people should be concerned with too?"

Thank you for reading it, all the same. I will try to answer your main question with a reply I have made to these points before:

I really don't understand how I could be simultaneously supported/hurt by players who are trying to bring their own evils to light (which in turn gives more validity to the hurting part, and makes the support seem like BS).

"FMA is not meant to be a form of mortification or self-abuse [or mutual abuse]; rather, it's supposed to be a "safe" way to enact and live through the potentially horrifying consequences of debilitating issues so that someone's "Moment of Clarity" can come around the gaming table, with close friends, instead of lying in a gutter in Vegas in their own puke."
...and...
"If the whole game functions as I envision it, it should play as the most-cathartic experience possible, because it removes the "fictional distance" that other media--including RPGs--interpose to address hard personal issues."
(http://game-chef.com/af2008/comments.php?DiscussionID=628)

Both of those points will be included in my next revision, along with some other illuminating points from similar discussions at Game Chef.

Does that help you see the "push till you heal" thing? Along with the above points about how new Scars are supposed to circle around the player's fundamental issue(s), not come out of left field with all-new pseudo-issues?

Thanks again, guys!
David

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, the wording is carefully chosen:
The person who exited the last scene first is the TD for the current scene. With a proviso for the first scene.
  So, after the first scene, the TD already knows who they are and has plenty of time (the whole scene) to decide if they want to damage their own character and how much. My gut tells me that they will probably damage their own more than others, just so they don't get joshed for going easy on it...
  And yes, that means there is an almost guarantee that they will be damaging their own character, but if everyone has to do it, it will be as fair as possible.
  Alex C had a game with rotating GM responsibilities and it went pretty well, you might want to talk to him about the ups and downs he went up against.
  Good luck man!

[David Artman]

The person who exited the last scene first is the TD for the current scene. With a proviso for the first scene.

Sure, that works well enough... if I decide to go GMless, which I haven't yet decided.

So, after the first scene, the TD already knows who they are and has plenty of time (the whole scene) to decide if they want to damage their own character and how much. My gut tells me that they will probably damage their own more than others, just so they don't get joshed for going easy on it...

OK, it concerns me that you suggest this, because one NEVER damages oneself. Removing one's own needle doesn't result in Damage--"you can handle your own shit." And, by the mechanics, you won't ever be Spiking an unscarred location on yourself, to frame a scene.

So are you saying that, when Damage occurs because I extract someone ELSE's Needle, I do the Damage to myself, rather than let the Needle owner do it? That could work (in GMless play) to avoid "revenge fests" or favoritism. And, sure, most folks will be harder on themselves than others would be. Hmmm.... it has some merit.

Good luck man!

Thanks again for your feedback!

[TempvsMortis]

I don't know, but to me a lot of the "rules" in the game seem very abstract. Now, that isn't a problem so long as it just enables free movement of the players, but if you cross a certain line you quickly run into the problem of losing the necessary level of structure required to invoke the "emotions" that you are supposedly trying to. You have to be careful - basically - that you aren't trying to hard.

Mechanically making people sad is an incredibly hard task, especially when you are so detached as the game maker is. What exactly does the damage mean aside from some abstract notion of "whatever the players want"? Many open games like this have a pacing system because they can enable such a system better than things like the Storyteller system, and it greatly tightens up the punch of things and keeps people on track, especially with such abstract things passing around. So I think you should consider some way of creating a fixed playtime of sorts so that players can look ahead and go where they need to go without dragging their feet (this was done in Shock: by forcing the Antagonist to spend points for every die he/she rolled, of which there was a fixed amount).

Can a plushie die? You do all of these things to the physical dolls, but you need to more concretely tie it to something to prevent it from becoming a gimmick. What if a plushie's limb is deflated because of damage? What happens when a plushie loses all of its stuffing? How many needles are players supposed to have (this is quite important for simple gameplay purposes)? The way you present it, if I were you, I'd be afraid of the physical dolls becoming glorified flowcharts or graphs of the gameplay (which they really already are). I'm not saying you need to just jump the whole thing and do it over, but try and come up with more concrete things, and be more specific.

I don't know how many hooking it takes on average to remove all the stuffing from a plushie, but I think it's a reasonable rule to say that when all the stuffing is gone from a plushie they are dead and their story is over. It can be said that their life-blood (as you've stated, literally blood) is being spent by their existence, and so every time they're damaged a little bit of their soul is killed until eventually there is nothing left and the return to an inanimate state. Also, when a limb is fully deflated, perhaps you could say that whatever part of the plushie's soul is associated is gone now and numb, so in the example of Boop's heart on her arm, perhaps if the arm is deflated it means that whatever scars are on her arm (the sexuality of the heart, and the addiction of the armpit mark) are now un-healable and unresolvable, and will now haunt her forever, maybe in a much worse state. So maybe that means that she still is promiscuous and seductive, but she feels dead inside, feels no desire for other plushies and is really just going through the motions. As for the addiction, perhaps the deflation for that would mean that she's given up hope of ever escaping it and has just fallen into the inevitable dark spiral. You could also physically manifest it in-game by saying that the plushie literally can barely move its arm, because their emotional harm has been adding up and killing them, and the inanimacy of the arm is a sign of its impending death. By tying literal death of the plushie to the wounds you generate a true fear of the hook, not to mention a sense of true payback. It also brings genuine emotional heaviness to the whole scenario, because inevitable demise is always a sad, painful thing, and by saying that the emotional pain a plushie feels is the same as their physical pain - that every emotional wound is actually killing them - it generates an image of sad toys that are doomed to fight, cry, suffer, and die. Much more punch there...

[TempvsMortis]

Also, another suggestion: make scars mandatory. Scenes shouldn't start with players sticking themselves with needles, they should start with players sticking each other with needles; thus, all scenes start with conflict, mandatory. Then, at the end of scenes, the removal of needles should always result in at least one scar. Thus, all scenes end on drama, mandatory. Also, if you take my suggestion about stuffing being life force or whatnot, and the lost of all (or a predetermined amount of) stuffing results in the final climax of a plushie's story, then this will speed along the loss of stuffing and result in a game that doesn't last the whole day.

[David Artman]

Thanks, TM (real name? I'm crediting folks for feedback in the final book.)

I don't know, but to me a lot of the "rules" in the game seem very abstract. Now, that isn't a problem so long as it just enables free movement of the players, but if you cross a certain line you quickly run into the problem of losing the necessary level of structure required to invoke the "emotions" that you are supposedly trying to. You have to be careful - basically - that you aren't trying to hard.
...
Many open games like this have a pacing system because they can enable such a system better than things like the Storyteller system, and it greatly tightens up the punch of things and keeps people on track, especially with such abstract things passing around. So I think you should consider some way of creating a fixed playtime of sorts so that players can look ahead and go where they need to go without dragging their feet.

I intend to further unpack the Starting and Extending Scenes sections. I do not, however, plan to do anything like a structure, story arc, or end game. It's intentionally freeform, with a slight resource mechanic (pair of needles) to give some constraint and pacing to the game.

In general, though, I hear you on the mechanics !-> emotions. I don't really expect the game system to drive much in the way of personal exploration. Rather, the system is a sort of "map" of progress of play, and the Spiking is the principle way to push a player to face the music, so to speak.

What exactly does the damage mean aside from some abstract notion of "whatever the players want"? Can a plushie die? You do all of these things to the physical dolls, but you need to more concretely tie it to something to prevent it from becoming a gimmick. What if a plushie's limb is deflated because of damage? What happens when a plushie loses all of its stuffing?

This is a case of the narrative informing the meaning of damage. Scars are loosely symbolic (and their symbolism can morph over play); Damage is even more symbolic. I don't see much utility in making a sort of "literal" interpretation of damage, like a withered limb no longer is usable, or no more stuffing means death.

But that's NOT to say death and lesser "physical" results of damage isn't possible. The problem is that death stops the exploration (until a new plushie is made). Hell, death is the EASY way out for some folks with seriously fucked up issues. You don't want that escape hatch, I don't think.

But withering, lameness, emotional death--yeah, those are a large part of "hitting bottom" and getting to the Moment of Clarity. The alcoholic has liver failure; the junkie catches AIDS off a dirty needle; the deviant becomes impotent. The depth and breadth of possible damage meanings is vast--I could no more make a laundry list of results from withering than I could list all the symptoms of every abusive, addictive, painful issue.

That said, THANK you for showing me another spot that needs more verbiage and examples. The short time frame of GC meant that some stuff had to be "just understood"--I intentionally used language from similar games to try to cause a "resonance" or echo in the judges' minds, so that I could shortcut a lot of verbiage (a tacit 10,000 word limit also put me under the gun a bit). I WILL be expanding these related sections--basically, using a ton of the stuff that I've come up with in making replies to kind readers. I am writing v1.3 as we speak, literally!

How many needles are players supposed to have (this is quite important for simple gameplay purposes)? The way you present it, if I were you, I'd be afraid of the physical dolls becoming glorified flowcharts or graphs of the gameplay (which they really already are). I'm not saying you need to just jump the whole thing and do it over, but try and come up with more concrete things, and be more specific.

Two needles. Changing "set" to "pair" now, so I don't forget....

I am not so concerned as all that about the plushies being "flowcharts". They ARE. So is any character sheet which dynamically changes during play (i.e. most). But more importantly, the plushie is supposed to be You At Your Best--I'm now thinking of making that canon, rather than a suggestion for a motive for picking a particular plushie. And the Scars all circle around You At Your Worst.

Look at it--just look at it! Your Best, riddled with damage and ugly marks because of your Worst. Can you turn away from the issue, NOW? Got a plan for kicking that habit, yet? No? How about NOW? (Credits to Vincent Baker.)

...so in the example of Boop's heart on her arm, perhaps if the arm is deflated it means that whatever scars are on her arm (the sexuality of the heart, and the addiction of the armpit mark) are now un-healable and unresolvable, and will now haunt her forever, maybe in a much worse state.

Hmmm, I dunno. Making an issue unresolvable is totally antithetical to the Point of Play. I mean, "Yeah, you came to face your issue, and now the rules tell you you can never Heal it--implying that you can't walk away from this shit." What kind of message is THAT? Sure, it would be pathetic and sad... but the game IS also about "redemption." Kick that chair out from under the player, and they're left swinging from the rafters.

Ya gotta keep in mind that you ARE and ARE NOT your character. The game is pointless if it becomes "let's pretend with dolls." It's "let's face our issues boldly and squarely, using this doll-abuse mechanic to really highlight the downward spiral our issues impose upon us." Fall flat on your face here, not in the gutter in Vegas (to re-quote myself).

By tying literal death of the plushie to the wounds you generate a true fear of the hook, not to mention a sense of true payback. It also brings genuine emotional heaviness to the whole scenario, because inevitable demise is always a sad, painful thing, and by saying that the emotional pain a plushie feels is the same as their physical pain - that every emotional wound is actually killing them - it generates an image of sad toys that are doomed to fight, cry, suffer, and die. Much more punch there...

Good from an angst-generating-fiction perspective. But FMA doesn't tell fictional stories: it predicts the future of real life. (Demi-fiction?)

I wouldn't want a player leaving a game with their "dead" plushie under their arm, wondering why they couldn't handle the issue, why they are "doomed." There lies danger, not mere sadness.

Also, another suggestion: make scars mandatory. Scenes shouldn't start with players sticking themselves with needles, they should start with players sticking each other with needles; thus, all scenes start with conflict, mandatory.

For one, that might not be possible given the resource limit (two needles each).

Second, that happens (a) any time I introduce another plushie, by spiking it prior to scene framing, or (b) every time another plushie self-introduces during an existing scene. So, fine, I stat a solo scene--like Forrest did--and then WHAM someone with a free needle spikes me to get into the scene (Droog). Or I tie up both my needles self-spiking and introing an NPC, and WHAM, someone self-introduces.

Finally, the self-spiking is a "telegraph" to the other players as to how heavy you're going to frame the scene (need more explanation and examples of this). Maybe I want to start softly, just having a pint at the Party Under The Bed, so I barely prick my beer belly Scar (current meaning: alcoholic), and I narrate as much. Someone else could easily RAM a spike into the beer belly and up my own ante--narrating that I lose track of my "pace drinking" and am getting seriously hammered--and then WHAM, I'm on the way to damage when I try to exit (most likely).

Oh, wait... are you saying that, when I exit, the player who spiked me MUST make a new scar or do damage? If so, I'll give that some thought. I'm inclined to say that it will "work itself out" by virtue of the logic of the scene. For instance, if I come up with a real hum-dinger of an exit line, maybe the other player will be, like, "Wow, cool, go on, man" and let me off without a new Scar or damage. Maybe he'd do that when he sees the seeds of Healing in my exit? It could go any way, even to "revenge fests." That seems like a feature, not a flaw. Further, sometimes folks just can't come up with another way to circle around the issue, to extend scars; or folks are temporarily stuck for an idea--I say let them off, don't make a mechanic which would force them to do so and which, thus, could cause play to stagnate while one guy is head-scratching. Lastly, some issues are fairly discrete--making a new Scar would just be incoherent or repetitive. No reason to force such "dittoing."

Do you see a benefit that outweighs those possible emergent aspects of play (or problems)?

Then, at the end of scenes, the removal of needles should always result in at least one scar.

The only scene in which the removal of needles DOESN'T result in a new scar or damage through an existing, spiked scar, is a solo scene which stays solo the whole time--probably rather rare, in actual play. Otherwise, nearly every scene has the potential to damage or cause a new scar on one or more plushies.

Rest assured, the stuffing will flow...

Thanks again for the food for thought and the ideas. I hope that I have well-explained why I am (mostly) rejecting some of them; and rest assured that this thread will be a BIG factor in my subsequent revisions and expansions. Every idea is great, if only because it helps me see how others interpret/imagine play and gives me a new vector to improve how I communicate my own interpretations/imaginings of play.
David

[TempvsMortis]

Hmmmm... Okay, I'm going to have to say that this does seem a little strange to me, an RPG as therapy and only that? Isn't it no longer an RPG (G "Games" being the key here)? I don't think the essay you sourced necessarily thought it should just be one giant trip to the shrink. (I don't know if a long time alcoholic is really going to be emotionally saved by a series of mechanics...)

Well, anyway, name's William. You didn't say the game was about redemption, so I didn't pick that up when I red it, it just seemed like a lot of messing with people's heads. But yeah, I was thinking that every time a scene ends a plushie receives damage. Also, why two? And I'd like to say, the reason I suggested people spiking each OTHER to start scenes, and not being allowed to spike themselves, is it increases the immediate involvement of other people in the group and keeps the whole thing about interaction and the group, and not just people sulking with their plushie and being emo. And I get that you want to "show" what a character is going to do when they spike themselves, but I don't think that's really effective, because a) it's to abstract to clearly communicate anything that the other players would understand, and b) its ultimately unnecessary. A scene is a scene, and people are smart. They'll pick up how things are going and how harsh to be, you don't need some glorified loud-speaker. (This mechanic actually seemed the least useful to me when I read it.) This is the reason I was thinking that people spike each other only, to start scenes, because it increases interaction within the group and you know clearly what it means. (And why two? Really, if you increase it you can do more things with it, considering it's your only concrete thing there, you can actually count it, so make use of it.)