Need help getting my game ready for playtesting (and a name)

[Ayyavazi]

Hello all,

So, I am making a game about competing for the rights to collaboratively create stories. It should be able to handle just about any setting, mood, or plot type (genre, in not so many words).

I am done fiddling with the resolution system thus far. Basically, each player controls a character, which is made up of some advantages and disadvantages (these are free-form and decided as appropriate by group vote). Play begins with the creation of the McGuffin and the characters, each of which must be opposed to at least one other character.

Once this is done, the session's Mcguffin is created by the group and play begins at the Conflict level.

Players announce a Conflict (basically a still smaller McGuffin) in turn order (determined clockwise from a randomly selected starter). From there, play progresses in a series of rounds. Players each draw a card from a deck of playing cards (I am undecided whether it should be kept secret or not). They can purchase additional cards by spending their advantages (which are used up for the duration of the conflict), or force opponents to discard a card at random by spending an opponents disadvantages. Each use is narrated by the player at hand. Once all spending is complete, players compare hands and the high card wins. From lowest hand to highest, players narrate the result of the round, leaving room for their accomplishments to be marred by the next narrator. The winner of course has final narration for the round and is awarded one success. Play continues in this round format until one player has three successes. This player wins the conflict, narrating its outcome, and gets a conflict success. A new conflict is announced and the process starts over. Once a player has three conflict successes, they have won the Session, and narrate the outcome. From here, a new session, conflict, round chain starts. Once a player has three Session successes, he wins the whole game and narrates the final outcome and what happens with the Mcguffin. Additional levels can be added as necessary to accommodate particularly epic stories or to extend play time. Layers can also be removed to reduce play time, such as for one-shot games.

What I need help with is the material I provide to my prospective players to assist them in creating/choosing setting, moods, plot-types, and how to create their McGuffins accordingly. Without this, the players would be left floundering, not having any intellectual cues to riff off of to make interesting stories.

Can anybody help me with this? Also, who finds the concept interesting and would be willing to play-test it? Further, what kind of name could you suggest for a game such as this?

Thanks again everyone.
Cheers,
-Norm

P.S. Is this post designed in such a way as to generate maximum interest, or should I start a new thread with a different title and a different presentation? What hints can you give that will get me maximum exposure?

[Mike Sugarbaker]

What's the first thing that you're itching to run with this system?

[Simon C]

Hi Norm,

Sorry, this isn't quite what you asked for, but you might find it interesting to read this review I wrote of another game "Radience", which sounds like it's in similar territory to yours.  I was quite critical of that game, and I think reading the review (and maybe the game too) might help you avoid some pitfalls.  The link is here: http://simoncarryer.blogspot.com/2009/08/review-of-radiance-by-mjgraham.html

I think you're on the right track looking to give guidance about how to provoke interesting play.  For games I've designed, I've found that figuring out what situations work well with the rules and which don't is something that only comes after playtesting, rather than before, but you're right to be looking at this issue now.

[Ayyavazi]

Thanks for the info Simon. I'll take a look at it as soon as I get a chance.

To be honest Mike, I want to use my quick-start rules to play out possible alternate endings to the Lord of the Rings Saga. The game handles mirroring of movies and other stories very well, allowing players to get answers to questions such as, "What if Boromir had gotten the One Ring from Frodo?" But, it also has the potential to create unique stories of its own, provided I can find the right way to guide people to coming up with what they need. But mostly, I'm itching just to see what the system can do.

Thanks again!
--Norm

[Mike Sugarbaker]

It's interesting that you call out the Boromir example in particular - your system sounds like it'll support the kind of intensely antagonistic PC-on-PC action we used to call "face stabbing," and the Boromir moment is among the face-stabbiest in LotR.

I don't think you need lots of help getting ready to playtest; I'd say it's time. I'm interested to hear about the results.

You don't even really need a name at this point. If you just want one for convenience, you could always go with "McGuffin Facestab" :-)

[JoyWriter]

I'm afraid this doesn't interest me, yet, because I prefer people's "right to contribute" be related more heavily to their use of other player's fiction, and either the appropriateness of their content in other people's eyes, or their ingenuity in reapplying and subverting the existing stuff. Basically I want all rules systems I use to underline the shared and persistent nature of imagination in rpgs. I'm not sure I see that in this mechanism yet, although I'd love to see you apply it to the very thing you want to run with it, so I can see how it does cool stuff.

[Ayyavazi]

Thanks Mike and Joywriter,

First, you are right Mike. The game is ready to playtest, assuming the group either uses an existing story or knows what kind of story they want to play (and/or aren't paralyzed by choice). However, if the group needs some examples of what can be done, or needs help understanding how to create an epic story like LotR from the ground up and then play through it, there is nothing there for them to use. That is what I need help with. That said, I do want to playtest my game. I just don't have a gaming group right now, and I don't have enough reliable internet time to get an online game going.

And the fact that the players are all working against each other (facestabbing) is exactly what the game is supposed to handle. There isn't a GM of any sort (the duties are shared equally), and the entire conflict is supposed to come from the players. The only adversaries the players have is each other.

As for you Joywriter, I can understand your dilemma. The fiction created by the group is important for the development of the story. Certain rules (very slack ones) are in play that keep things flowing along the lines that the group is working with. Still, the point of the game is winning narration rights and using them. Once something has been narrated, it has to be adhered to in the fiction. It can't simply be ignored. But, the fiction takes a back seat to the gaming itself. Think of it a little like chess, risk, or stratego, or magic the gathering. There is an underlying story (to a smaller or greater degree) in each of them. But, the focus is on the gaming. This game isn't going to jar you because of the questions you have to face, and it isn't going to give you a deep and immersive experience. It's designed to be about resource management and winning the right to narrate the story you all want in such a way that it ends the way you (as an individual) want, whether or not the rest of the group likes it.

Thanks for the input though. Maybe you guys will be interested in testing for me at some point.

Any other ideas to help me get the story elements fleshed out so people know how to create one, or any name suggestions?

Thanks again and cheers!
--Norm

[Mike Sugarbaker]

For the time being you could steal a story-seed generation system from another game. In a Wicked Age has a great one for your purposes.

[Adam Dray]

The storytelling card game Once Upon A Time, in case you're not familiar with it already, is basically a struggle for story narration. It fails, in my opinion, by trying to serve two masters: competition and telling an interesting story. I recommend caution angling your rules for competition for narrational rights. Make sure you force players to tie back to the fiction -- better, make it impossible to ignore the fiction and keep playing (see Dogs in the Vineyard).

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Norm,

I also suggest investigating the various 1990s experiments by authors at Hogshead Publishing, especially The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Pantheon. My own take on them is that they shared the difficulty of Once Upon a Time that Adam has described (and matches my experience), and that playing them would be a great benefit to your own decision-making about your game in progress. Some of the most ambitious minds in game design at that time were involved in them, and it's a shame not to learn from their work.

Best, Ron

[Ayyavazi]

Thanks for the example games guys. I'll take a look into them as soon as I can secure copies and take the time to read them. For now the system is ready for playtesting, but I lack playtesters. I'm sure I'll find some eventually though. If I don't before I read these works, I'll put more questions here. Thanks again,

Cheers,
--Norm

[Ayyavazi]

Hello again folks,

I have only been able to acquire a copy of Baron Munchausen, but reading it has brought the issue you folks discussed to light in a different way.

So, how does my system handle it? It doesn't. Perhaps that makes it fail on the same level as Baron Munchausen's and the others, but I think that depends on what you are going for in the game. If I were going for a more traditional RPG (by this site's indie standards) I might want to fix it for certain. But, my goal is to try to make an rpg that is enough like a board game that it can be played in the same manner as one, while still offering a taste of what makes RPG's different from board games in actual play: the fiction. Now, in some games the fiction is made to be important enough that it can't be ignored (ala Dogs in the Vineyard's fallout mechanics). In others, the game assumes the players will care enough about the fiction to not ignore it or disrespect it, and still fit it into the game's mechanics and system. I wonder if this difference of techniques leads to potentially different agenda support, in that tying fiction to mechanics probably helps to support some Narratvist play, and some Simulationist play, while allowing it to take a backseat probably supports more gamist play.

Either way, as written the system assumes that all fiction created matches the feel and the story currently in progress. I will probably implement a loose social contract solution, something along the lines of everyone agreeing that given descriptions are ok or not. If there are enough votes against it, the description doesn't fly. If not, then it does. However, I see this potentially causing people to feel cheated (even though they are still numerically in the same position). Allowing them to buy it off with some resource (so that if they were voted against, they could trade something to overturn it, or vice-versa), might mitigate the problem a little, but it also means things that don't match could still be introduced, possibly ruining the mood or the story itself. As is, because the entire thing takes place mostly in director stance, I don't see mood so much as the problem as the ability to completely derail the story. Anyone have any ideas of how to elegantly solve this with the mechanics system I've put forth so far? Feel free to make new resources or what have you, or new ways of things interacting.

Thanks again for the input!

Cheers,
--Norm

[JoyWriter]

I wonder if this difference of techniques leads to potentially different agenda support, in that tying fiction to mechanics probably helps to support some Narratvist play, and some Simulationist play, while allowing it to take a backseat probably supports more gamist play.

I think it can support all of the classic agendas, as allowing strange player ingenuity is one of the strengths of such a system, and is very satisfying in a competitive context, but the problems of adjudication can become severe in that situation. There are countless solutions to this, and they can be built in, but it's totally understandable to want to leave that, as they all need testing not to shift the whole game around (it's easy to get captured by a subgame that way).

Don't forget that magic the gathering can actually be seen as a roleplaying game in that sense, because it is more and more building up a framework of being able to visualise and interpret the game's events in terms of in-game fiction, despite that fictions inability to effect events, and it uses deck building as a form of character creation!

In terms of mood setting, one way I have seen this done (cuing off the magic cards example) is to imply the style of narration appropriate for each kind of victory. This starting list of possibilities acts as a clue to tone, and creating such an interpretation matrix may in itself put you some way towards creating a coherent tone, providing the system is self consistent and doesn't of it's self produce massive tonal clashes. As a more general point of victory, perhaps the player who wins can shift the interpretation key to a different one, so suits now have shifted meanings. The in-fiction rational for this? When the vampire lord is winning people huddle in their houses, when V (ie for vendetta) is winning, people take to the streets and rebel, when the mad scientist succeeds, you must go to his lab to stop him.

In each of these situations, someone causes a shift in a tone of the whole surrounding scenes by their actions. Where the action focuses and how it plays out changes. This in a way acts as a halfway house between anything goes narration and strict task lists, especially if you can only change one of the suit's meanings at at time, and people don't have to put their highest card up if they'd rather act according to a different suit anyway.

Actually, looking back over the thread, you already have adjudication in the game: Players must stick with the winners narration as fact. Deciding the extent of that narration's influence, and how much you can go "it was all a dream", is an in-play job! If this doesn't matter, then winning narration is no big deal, but if it does, then you'll need some competition proof mechanisms for it, like secret voting or roll offs or something. Perhaps that very question of extent of narration is a back door to get my preferred stuff in there?

[Ayyavazi]

Hey Joywriter,

Thanks for the input. Here's my thoughts and questions:

You mentioned suits being changed in interpretation, and that confuses me a little. As is, the suit of the cards is irrelevant. All that matters are the values, even in the event of a complete tie. Are you suggesting that I should explore different suits having different abilities, such that the very cards you use to win can be spent by the suit to accomplish something different, so that you could weaken your position for the hand, but set yourself up for some cool narration or something like that? Or did you mean something else entirely?

I really like your idea about the scenes revolving around the last winner. That makes a lot of sense, and actually gives me a pretty cool idea. The winner sets the scene for the next conflict, but not the conflict itself. The only way for the next player to ignore this scene would be to buy off the previous winner with his current resources, offering him story or character tokens in exchange for the right to narrate a different scene. This would still have the caveat that what the winner stated last still has strength. It wasn't all a dream. The best that can be done is a flashback, flashforward (tricky at best for this sort of game), or a parallel scene. From there, the winner of the that scene and the previous now each have a scene that needs to be addressed. They would have to bid for it, and the winner again has the "scene priority". The next player either has to address the original scene or buy off the winner again, giving him increasing control over the game in exchange for control of the scenes. But eventually, someone will have to go the mad scientist's lab to stop him, and if they have given him too many resources, it will be too late...

Now, as for your last paragraph, I am a little confused. You posted:

Actually, looking back over the thread, you already have adjudication in the game: Players must stick with the winners narration as fact. Deciding the extent of that narration's influence, and how much you can go "it was all a dream", is an in-play job! If this doesn't matter, then winning narration is no big deal, but if it does, then you'll need some competition proof mechanisms for it, like secret voting or roll offs or something. Perhaps that very question of extent of narration is a back door to get my preferred stuff in there?

I never intended for "it was all a dream" to ever be an option, since that would devalue the right to narrate, which I see as the whole reason anyone would care about winning. And what do you mean by a back door? Are you saying that what is left unsaid is the wiggle room everyone else is given to play with? Though true, I can see that getting out of hand. Kind of like using a wish spell in certain versions of D&D. I don't want players trying so hard to carefully word their narration so no one can mess it up that they cease to have fun or limit the other player's creativity in such a way that they cease to enjoy the game. And lastly, what are some competition proof mechanic examples? Anything you can think of that would work for my system off the top of your head? As is, I might just make it a bidding issue.

Thanks again,

Cheers,
--Norm

[JoyWriter]

You mentioned suits being changed in interpretation, and that confuses me a little. As is, the suit of the cards is irrelevant. All that matters are the values, even in the event of a complete tie. Are you suggesting that I should explore different suits having different abilities, such that the very cards you use to win can be spent by the suit to accomplish something different, so that you could weaken your position for the hand, but set yourself up for some cool narration or something like that? Or did you mean something else entirely?

Exactly! I noticed a free space in the resolution mechanism for a bit of an "oracular" mechanic, like everway, and considered that you could inspire players with it. So if the card you use colours the mood of your action, then allowing the winner to partially switch what the various suits "mean" is a recipe for automatically allowing them to shift the mood of events. It's one mechanical way for people to add weight to the "creepy graveyard" or "buzzing club" or solemn courthouse so people don't just break the mood, except by actually winning the conflict.

But eventually, someone will have to go the mad scientist's lab to stop him, and if they have given him too many resources, it will be too late...

Perhaps they can only delay the scene? That'd make it a difficult choice!

I never intended for "it was all a dream" to ever be an option, since that would devalue the right to narrate, which I see as the whole reason anyone would care about winning. And what do you mean by a back door? Are you saying that what is left unsaid is the wiggle room everyone else is given to play with? Though true, I can see that getting out of hand. Kind of like using a wish spell in certain versions of D&D. I don't want players trying so hard to carefully word their narration so no one can mess it up that they cease to have fun or limit the other player's creativity in such a way that they cease to enjoy the game. And lastly, what are some competition proof mechanic examples? Anything you can think of that would work for my system off the top of your head? As is, I might just make it a bidding issue.

By back door, I meant that I had resigned myself to this being a fun game without some of the things I really like, and then it occurred to me that trying to solve these very issues mean that it could start looking more interesting to me. It's just me being mischievous basically!

For background I made a game I call HOW a little while ago whose whole premise is deciding if some past event or capacity is enough justification for what you are trying to do now. It's a bit trippy and daft and suits me very well. It's built off the basic idea that you can pick two causal chains (like "he can't hit me because I'm up a ladder" vs "I can knock the ladder over and get him stunned") from a situation and roll between them, and have the one that wins sit forever after as a component of the mechanics of the game. That idea by itself is enough to adjudicate a lot of things.

By competition-proof, I mean they don't foul up and stop working the moment some people are working against each other, which you probably already get. Voting can work if it's secret (and so free from retaliation, unless you want to make that a part of the game too), you can also explicitly disallow certain kinds of undermining narration; where people say that a previous narration only referred to surface appearance, and your is the deeper reality (that covers deception illusion and all manner of contradiction twists). You could allow people to give up this protection by saying "it seemed" or something like it.

Bidding also works, as universalis has proved, but you'll have to consider carefully how people get those chips, so that people don't gain unchangingly unassailable leads, and so wipe out your card mechanic.