[Silent Sound] Problem with Flashbacks and Memories

[jburneko]

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Jesse

I've read your other threads on the topic and I'm very interested in the development of this game, even though I know little about the Silent Hill franchise. I also read all there is to read on your blog.

The solution of having always a good and a bad memory seems like stretching things too far. There's no way to guarantee that a scene can justify two memories, or two interpretations of memories.

I'd rather go with something based on Fortune, putting everybody on the edge of their seats.

For example: you could decide that memories are not, at first, divided into good or bad. Upon a Flashback, a player describes what his character remembers, or, probably more appropriate, what he admits. The Flashback need not be followed immediately by a roll.
Then, when the player needs a bonus for an action (or if the GM frames a scene) reminiscent of the memory, there could be some roll made on the spot. Depending on the result, the memory is revisited: problematic details are added by the GM if the roll shows up bad and vice versa. Perhaps you can allow for ambiguous results, that could make it interesting. Lots of backward justification in perspective, but if the game hums along well players will often be saying "Of course!" (That's one thing I learned from Dirty Secrets).

You might decide that Absolution is always on the way when a memory is "confirmed". Depending on how you view Absolution, what matters is what you make of past experiences to live in the present. Mechanically, you could view it a bit like Overtures in My Life with Master: you always gain a point of love, but you might also earn a point of self-loathing.

Other option: you keep two separate tracks of memories (perhaps taking advantage of the dual nature of the city). One track is what the character believes, the other is what the audience knows (or believes). This can introduce interesting situations of a character believing he has done well all his life, but the audience knows that he will have to pay at some point in the story. Or vice-versa: a guy about to commit suicide so much he loathes himself, when suddenly a revelation makes him reconsider everything.


A question about the bigger picture. What drives a character to not immediately admit their crime? Are there opportunities to spill out their guts before end-game, and thus, "blow" the dramatic finale? This might be quite okay ('Oh, I guess she wasn't a central protagonist after all') Or do you expect the characters to do something once their crimes are admitted?

I also remember that you create NPCs based on some role: the Perpetuator, the Rejecter, the Victims and the Stressors. Are there any Judges or Accusers or just some guy ready to hear a Confession? Maybe these roles show up naturally as play unfolds.
While reading this post I had a vision of a space between the two cities, where various "accused" characters (probably the PCs) come together and talk about their impending doom in a very "now I'm wiser, but that's the way things are" way. This could be some nearly final scene actually.


I'll stop here, I've thrown enough ideas around and would like to read your feedback to focus my future contributions. If I remember well, it's okay to post a message before play if you follow it up with a report (in the same thread?), so be sure to keep us posted as soon as you've tested!

[jburneko]

Hey!  Thanks for the feedback!

I actually kind of like the idea that memories are just memories and the risk comes when you draw on them.  I will definitely think on that.

If you read the rule set that's up on the website, it's very outdated.  I haven't updated it in a while and I'm currently working with a much leaner and meaner setup.  Play testing revealed that the game's core identity was a bit fractured.  You kind of honed in the text's attitude that the characters are HIDING from their guilt.  That they don't want to admit to what they've done and the town is trying to force a confession upon them.

However, when I actually played the thing the players gave me three characters who were absolutely AWARE of their guilt and were coming to the town because they believed they could make amends there.  After watching this for a couple of sessions I learned that this was the better setup.  Under the other setup characters are very passive and laden with avoidance tactics and this actively punishes players who want to actually get in there and address their guilt.

So the game isn't about forcing the character to ADMIT their guilt.  They've already done that.  Instead the characters are *burdened* by their guilt and they're seeking to in some way to "make it right."  The town is there to try to convince them that they can't; that it's too late.  So it's perfectly fine if the characters confess to whoever they want because admitting isn't the point, making amends for it is.

A step in that direction that I discovered during play testing was that the players linked their Crime, Memory and Lure in very concrete way such that the NPCs that were drawn from them were directly related to their Crimes.  That's something I hadn't anticipated.  I was expecting the town's reflection of the crimes to be more indirect and metaphorical than what ended up happening in my play test.  Again this proved to be better and so linking those three things is now an explicit thing.  This sort of re-purposes the three layers of the game.

Flashbacks -> These are about deepening the details surrounding the crime itself.
Normal Town -> This is about confronting situations built from the consequences of having committed the crime.
Shadow Town -> This is about psychological stress of struggling to go on.

You mention Judges and Accusers.  That's exactly what the function of Monsters are.  Hell maybe I'll call them Judges in the future.

Part of my radical redesign removes the explicit end game conditions and epilogues you see in the current text.  Now there are two ways the game can end (for a given player).  One is the player runs out Determination while in the Shadow World.  This represents the character's collapse under the burden of his guilt.  This sort of makes Determination a kind psychological hit point system which I'm not sure I'm happy with but I'm thinking about it.

The other way the game ends (for a given player) is that during a conflict in the Normal Town the player can "Call For Closure."  Calling for Closure means the player believes that this is the "it" moment for his character.  That whatever the outcome of the conflict the character will have dealt with his guilt one way or another.  This issue I'm having here is whether one Calls for Closure just BEFORE or just AFTER the conflict.

The idea is that I want Calling for Closure to represent an emotional risk for the character.  If you Call for Closure BEFORE a conflict the risk is simply what's at stake in the conflict.  Whatever the outcome the character has to live with it and walk away.  However, one thing I've learned is that in the kind of play I'm trying to promote "climaxes" are often recognized only AFTER they've happened.

This makes me want to put Calling For Closure just AFTER a conflict.  Basically the player goes, "I think that was it.  I'm calling for closure."  In this case I think it would "trigger" an end game situation that is much more similar to that in the current text.  The character is swept up into the shadow for one more confrontation.  That confrontation would be weighted in the character's favor if he won the conflict before calling for closure and against the character if he lost it.

The first method risks going into conflict *thinking* it's the climax and then having something happen mid-resolution that makes it obviously not.  The second raises the question of why a player would ever Call For Closure just after he lost a conflict.  I'm not THAT worried about the second condition because there's nothing stopping a player from Calling For Closure with any lame conflict mid-game just because his stats are high or whatever.  The mechanic already assumes a certain honest engagement with the situation at hand and I think I'm okay with that.

Jesse