[MSG] entering [++] and exiting [?] Situations

[Paul Czege]

Hey Wood,

I like MSG. I love the creative passion in your humor and writing. And I think the rush of player activity after the Company has explained the situation and the players elaborate themselves into it would be badass fun, especially with a large group of players. Lots of indie RPGs have a rather tedious, work-like set-up phases before scenes can happen. In MSG I'm seeing players throwing themselves into a situation. "I'm in Venezuela. I have a local translator and good plan for taking General Arellano's mistress hostage at the spa." Sounds like great creative fun and a worthy wake-up call to designers of tedious regimes for negotiated scene setup and stakes setting.

I have a mechanical question though. It's pretty clear you intend play to have multiple Risks per Situation. But what's to keep the winner of the very first Risk from narrating some improbable resolution that resolves the whole Situation? Or conversely, if you do have multiple Risks, how do you ever know when the Situation is resolved and the Company role switches to a new player? Am I missing something somewhere?

Thanks,

Paul

[Wood]

Hi Paul! Thanks for the positivity. This makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Anyway. What's to stop the first Rep coming up with an improbable solution? This is an extremely good question -- and one that I am not sure I have a very good answer for.

I am not sure that I want to write in the final version "please don't do this or the other players will hate you." That would be silly.

I think that really it's up to the Reps, inasmuch as -- and I didn't make this clear in the text -- they all have to declare their Risks together and then take turns doing their Risks, all of which happen at about the same time. So the Reps have to talk among themselves as to what their Risks are and they have to come up with a solution that works, for each of them.

Anyway, you exit the Situation when you've all done a Risk. Anyway, I think this is the single most useful thing anyone has had to say, and the first thing that has made me go, "oh, yeah. That's a really good point." I will think about this more.

[Paul Czege]

Hey...that's interesting. Everyone's Risk is set before anyone rolls? So it's freeform roleplaying until the Company has said to each player, "Yeah, that's your risk"?

Can I confess my one overwhelming disappointment while reading the game? It's that the core mechanic for resolving what happens in the game fiction is a narration trading mechanic. If you win, you get to narrate, with very little guidance from the mechanics. There's a minor constraint, that the outcome has to justify the change in Self or Compassion, but I'm not sure this constraint will be particularly creatively inspiring to players.

Except if everyone's Risks are all set before anyone rolls, well, that's a different animal. Different Reps can be at different points in the narrative timeline when their Risks are set? Then there are all kinds of creative constraints in play. The player narrating an outcome isn't just dealing with the narrative of events leading up to the current turning point. He's dealing with that, plus an awareness of what might happen elsewhere, and what can't happen, and if other characters are at different points in the narrative timeline than him, then he's dealing with that knowledge too. And his narration is an input to Risks that haven't yet been resolved. This isn't narration trading as seen in other games. It's not "everything turns on this dime." I'm not even sure what to call it.

Is this how you've played it? How much playtesting have you done? And importantly, in what order do you resolve the Risks?

Paul

[Wood]

I should say that in many ways this is the mainstream RPG writer's vanity project. I've done thirty or more books for WW now, and I suppose I felt that it was about time I finally wrote up my homebrew and sold the thing. I have been exceptionally fortunate in that io9 picked it up in the first couple days and got me something like 1700 hits on the free version. Which is nice. But I am

Hey...that's interesting. Everyone's Risk is set before anyone rolls? So it's freeform roleplaying until the Company has said to each player, "Yeah, that's your risk"?

Er, you know, actually, I don't think it's tremendously clear, and in actual play -- and we've had a bit, but not as much as I would have liked -- we haven't been consistent in that. I don't think it can be boiled down to timelines and stuff. Basically, everyone plays until everyone has made a Risk, but just because you know what your Risk is, it doesn't mean that you can't contribute to the continuation of the story (and gain Soap).   

Can I confess my one overwhelming disappointment while reading the game? It's that the core mechanic for resolving what happens in the game fiction is a narration trading mechanic. If you win, you get to narrate, with very little guidance from the mechanics. There's a minor constraint, that the outcome has to justify the change in Self or Compassion, but I'm not sure this constraint will be particularly creatively inspiring to players.

Except if everyone's Risks are all set before anyone rolls, well, that's a different animal. Different Reps can be at different points in the narrative timeline when their Risks are set? Then there are all kinds of creative constraints in play. The player narrating an outcome isn't just dealing with the narrative of events leading up to the current turning point. He's dealing with that, plus an awareness of what might happen elsewhere, and what can't happen, and if other characters are at different points in the narrative timeline than him, then he's dealing with that knowledge too. And his narration is an input to Risks that haven't yet been resolved. This isn't narration trading as seen in other games. It's not "everything turns on this dime." I'm not even sure what to call it.

Is this how you've played it? How much playtesting have you done? And importantly, in what order do you resolve the Risks?

All of these things are very good points, (and this is partly why the version I've currently got out there is the beta playtest) and I must confess we haven't adequately explored these things in play. But yeah, that's kind of the idea.

[Wood]

Sorry -- that got a bit garbled, and I just realised I can't edit. Let me try again.

You declare the Risksd over the course of the Situation, but you resolve them at the end, and the one who came up with a solution first gets to resolve first.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Wood,

Basically, everyone plays until everyone has made a Risk, but just because you know what your Risk is, it doesn't mean that you can't contribute to the continuation of the story (and gain Soap)....
You declare the Risksd over the course of the Situation, but you resolve them at the end, and the one who came up with a solution first gets to resolve first.

Okay, my brain is divided between two possible understandings of what you're describing. Either:

1. The play by the Reps immediately after the Company has described the Situation is more like a big board meeting or worldwide conference call in which Reps hash things out, and gather information and introduce NPCs by making phone calls, but the timeline advances equally for all players during this. And so Risks are more like proposed individual actions the Reps plan to undertake to achieve a solution to the Situation, rather than conflicts being resolved by characters at the point of actually doing something. And then when everyone has a Risk you resolve them in the order they were proposed, even if this isn't the order they'd play out in a beginning-to-end fictional timeline.

Or:

2. Play allows for Reps to actually take actions, like travelling and having independent conversations with NPCs, advancing their individual timelines unequally. But once the Company tells a player what he wants to do with his Rep requires a Risk, that Rep character is fixed at that point in the narrative timeline. So the Company flits back and forth across the active group of Reps, advancing what happens and playing NPC conversations and whatnot, until every Rep has a Risk. But the players whose Reps have Risks aren't totally frozen out of the ongoing situation play; they can play out conversations that would have happened before their Rep would have arrived at his Risk, and they can elaborate NPCs and stuff into what's happening to gain Soap. And then when everyone has a Risk you resolve them in the order they were proposed, even if this isn't the order they'd play out in a beginning-to-end fictional timeline.

Am I getting it, with either of these?

Paul

[Wood]

Actually, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Either is a perfectly reasonable way to play.

So, given that I'm working on a "proper" edition right now, do you think I should make it clearer in the text?

[Wood]

Actually, this is very useful. I'm revising it right now, and I think the clarity was sorely needed. I'm really grateful for the critique.

[Wood]

Graphics from the new version!

http://flickr.com/photos/70352222@N00/3063144661/sizes/o/in/set-72157610222121635/

[Paul Czege]

Hey Wood,

Awesome. Any chance of a pdf of just what you've changed? Rather than re-printing the whole thing I wouldn't mind patching my print-out. I'm getting together with some gaming friends from out of town on Saturday, and I'm thinking of proposing a playtest.

Additional questions, suggestions, and feedback:

1. You consistently use the trademark symbol as part of the title of the game. Did you actually trademark the title?

2. If we play on Saturday I'm thinking of having all the Reps do name tents, or name tags.

3. I love that in the near future people have spam names.

4. On p. 20 you write that Reps "get back" points in the Resource they used to win the auction to be the Company. The implication of saying "get back" is that the Rep can't end up with moe points in the Resource than they started with. Is this true? Or could a player who played well as the Company allowed to end up with more points in the Resource than they started with?

5. On P. 23 you explain that the Company is "only allowed to make one of the Reps' Relationships into a member of supporting cast" in a round. Is a "round" one player's complete turn as Company? So it's synonymous with "during the current Situation"? Also, the restriction is one supporting cast from each Rep's relationships? Or one supporting cast total from all the Reps' relationshps?

6. On p. 24 you write that "the Company can't use one of your Relationships this Round if you haven't yet introduced her into the Situation." Does that mean the Company can't create a member of the supporting cast from your Relationships before you've introduced your Rep into the Situation? If so, what are you achieving with this rule?

7. On p. 28 you write that stakes are decided "at the moment the Reps say they're doing something and the Company says, no, this is what I want to happen." So, every Risk has stakes, right? What happens if the players just decide to do whatever company wants? "Yep, I'm calling my contacts, we'll have the jackals poison the drinking water of the Ashram."

8. On p. 30 you describe how the Resource for a Risk is determined. The player chooses whether the Rep is Risking Self or Compassion; but if there's a disagreement, then the Company has the final decision. So it's "my choice" but "your decision"? If this wasn't intentional humor, I suggest you listen to Wouldn't Want To Be Like You, by the Alan Parson's Project, and then leave it in.

9. On p. 33 you're describing Helping Out, and write that "if the players on theh side with the advantage win, each player on that side gets what the other player Risked". By "other player" you mean the Company? So if the Company Risked 8, and the Reps win, each of the Reps gets 8 points? In ordinary non-helping Risks, the points come from the Company's pool. Where do the extra points come from here when the Company loses in Risk where the Reps are helping each other?

And that's it. And hey, I don't care if it's a vanity project. It sure seems like the WW trenches have driven a lot of your energy into MSG. In my experience, the best RPGs are borne from passion and creative frustrations.

Paul

[Wood]

Hey Wood,

Awesome. Any chance of a pdf of just what you've changed? Rather than re-printing the whole thing I wouldn't mind patching my print-out. I'm getting together with some gaming friends from out of town on Saturday, and I'm thinking of proposing a playtest.{/quote]Well, OK. It's still being fiddled with, but yeah, I can sort you out with something. PM me your e-mail address and I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.

Additional questions, suggestions, and feedback:

1. You consistently use the trademark symbol as part of the title of the game. Did you actually trademark the title?

Nope. The title is MSGtm. If I trademarked it, it'd be MSGtmtm.

2. If we play on Saturday I'm thinking of having all the Reps do name tents, or name tags.

That sounds ace.

3. I love that in the near future people have spam names.

It just seemed like the obvious thing to do.

4. On p. 20 you write that Reps "get back" points in the Resource they used to win the auction to be the Company. The implication of saying "get back" is that the Rep can't end up with moe points in the Resource than they started with. Is this true? Or could a player who played well as the Company allowed to end up with more points in the Resource than they started with?

No, they can get more than they started with. Bad phrasing.

5. On P. 23 you explain that the Company is "only allowed to make one of the Reps' Relationships into a member of supporting cast" in a round. Is a "round" one player's complete turn as Company? So it's synonymous with "during the current Situation"? Also, the restriction is one supporting cast from each Rep's relationships? Or one supporting cast total from all the Reps' relationshps?

No, it's one from each Rep. And it's per Round -- your turn as the Company.

6. On p. 24 you write that "the Company can't use one of your Relationships this Round if you haven't yet introduced her into the Situation." Does that mean the Company can't create a member of the supporting cast from your Relationships before you've introduced your Rep into the Situation? If so, what are you achieving with this rule?

No, that's just garbled. The Company can only use a Realtionship if you haven't yet introduced her.

7. On p. 28 you write that stakes are decided "at the moment the Reps say they're doing something and the Company says, no, this is what I want to happen." So, every Risk has stakes, right? What happens if the players just decide to do whatever company wants? "Yep, I'm calling my contacts, we'll have the jackals poison the drinking water of the Ashram."

Status quo. The Company loses nothing, the Rep gains nothing. But then, this is the choice, innit? Maybe I should make Reps pay a point or three from a Resource if they just bend over.

8. On p. 30 you describe how the Resource for a Risk is determined. The player chooses whether the Rep is Risking Self or Compassion; but if there's a disagreement, then the Company has the final decision. So it's "my choice" but "your decision"? If this wasn't intentional humor, I suggest you listen to Wouldn't Want To Be Like You, by the Alan Parson's Project, and then leave it in.

Heh. Yep. I will look at that.

9. On p. 33 you're describing Helping Out, and write that "if the players on theh side with the advantage win, each player on that side gets what the other player Risked". By "other player" you mean the Company? So if the Company Risked 8, and the Reps win, each of the Reps gets 8 points? In ordinary non-helping Risks, the points come from the Company's pool. Where do the extra points come from here when the Company loses in Risk where the Reps are helping each other?

That's right. They appear from nowhere. As if by magic. It's how the economy works.

A

nd that's it. And hey, I don't care if it's a vanity project. It sure seems like the WW trenches have driven a lot of your energy into MSG. In my experience, the best RPGs are borne from passion and creative frustrations.

Fair play to the boys at the Wolf, they're pretty decent, creative guys and I have done very well out of them. But yeah, after a while, writing hundreds of thousand words on the same thing burns you out.

[Wood]

God, I'm a duffer with that code.

[Paul Czege]

8. On p. 30 you describe how the Resource for a Risk is determined. The player chooses whether the Rep is Risking Self or Compassion; but if there's a disagreement, then the Company has the final decision. So it's "my choice" but "your decision"? If this wasn't intentional humor, I suggest you listen to Wouldn't Want To Be Like You, by the Alan Parson's Project, and then leave it in.

Actually, that's not the right Alan Parsons song. The right one is You Don't Believe.

Paul

[Wood]

I am not sure I would know the difference. But anyway, I looked at that rule again and decided in the end that I really liked it.

I am currently listening to "Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland" by Grandaddy.

[Wood]

Played an 11-point game tonight with four people who hadn't played an RPG before, ever.

I simplified it a little -- we didn't bid to see who got to be the Company first (and you know, I'm not sure we even need to) and I left out the Perks, but it was great, and everyone got the mechanics about Soap and Risks with no trouble.

We played Ashram Buyout, Kill Fluffy, Overtime and The Sweatshop Union Problem.

It took maybe twenty minutes to make the Reps and Brand and about ten minutes a round, which is on target.

Players grokked the mechanics of gaining Soap with varying success; the players who came up with the craziest USPs and Secret Tragedies and, interestingly, the least off-beat iLoves and iHates won dividends. But by the end of the game everyone got it and everyone wanted to play it again.

Which is nice.