Recent Playtest

[greyorm]

As I recently mentioned, I planned to use Cameron's http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=677&forum=2">A Game Within A Game in the context of my 3E game.  What a life-saver!

After the closing session of the last adventure, I was stumped for where to go.  After that session, I realized I'd missed an excellent opportunity to expose the characters to a new situation and a very intriguing, mythic hook, but I didn't feel right backing up over everything already said and done.

Personally, I felt everything I was coming up with to be lame -- old-hat, "You're hired by this guy to..." (which is exactly how the last session ended).

So with some trepidation as to how my players would react -- images of pitchforks and torches dancing in my mind -- I asked my group if they would like to try something a little different and gave them the run-down on how Cameron's game worked.

I ran AGWAG pretty much as given, excepting a couple changes: I provided my players with a list of "cues" -- things, people or places they could interact with or use in their narratives for whatever purpose they wished (to help them get started, and point out story threads they may not have thought of) -- gave them a half-hour time-limit each, to make sure everyone got a chance; and only ran one start-to-end session per player (not two).

The starting point for the narratives was easy enough to decide on, since the party had either just arrived by ship from the north or been dismissed by their employer for a week of well-deserved rest (Of course, that's anything but what they got...and no thanks to me!).

The ending point was a little less clear, since I had no idea where to go with the game or where the players wanted to go.  Loosely, I defined the end point as all the characters together in some situation that required them to stay together as a group.

And this is the part that excites me the most: I explained to them that they would basically be setting up their next adventure (and they did a fine job!).

(There was also the provision that if they did not like the end-point of the last person's narrative (and assuming the characters were all together at that point), they could resolve it and embroil the characters in a new situation afterwards.)

They understood the idea easily enough, and went at it.  One character told a story about being captured and imprisioned by a group of hostile southerners; the next told of how he was captured by the same group, after being beaten and robbed of all his recently gained loot; the last told how she had been approached by a group of cultural dissidents and recruited into their cause (opposing the group that had captured the other two).

It was a little rusty and slow at first, and I'd like to say it went really well, but for a first run I think it went fairly well.  I haven't heard any feedback yet, but I had to run immediately after the game, and wasn't able to ask.  I plan to do that at the next game and see what they thought.

But, the point is that they managed to entangle themselves, as a group, in a situation they created.  And there are some interesting "character bits" in there...the roguish northerner (who wants to gain riches and wealth) was beaten and robbed of a small fortune, much to his aghast howling and sobbing.  This was probably one of the most memorable moments of the evening.

The REALLY evil thing, though, is that it put them all in the perfect situation to lead into another adventure, and it only worked out that way because they narrated their own story.

We run another narrative session with the last player Thursday -- who wasn't able to play that evening -- and I'll update on that if anyone is interested.

Side note: Hrm...I just realized how one COULD work the whole "end point" deal...the "pat beginings" written at the start of every D&D module ever written ("When the baron urgently requested your help, you didn't realize wiping the bandits out would be so difficult.  Now, on your second day of bounty-hunting...")  I may work it that way next time.

Sure, not everyone's cup of tea, but for those looking to avoid akward lead-ins for adventures, it could work well!

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds very cool. Several questions.

Did all the mechanical stuff seem to work right? Were any of the plot shifting abilities too weak or strong? Any that you thought up that should be included, but aren't? What was the mechanic used to make all the one player's money get stolen (interested as that seems to be the highlight)? Were any mechanics abused, or used incorrectly? Did you have to step in and edit anything?

Mike

[greyorm]

Good questions.  

This was my group's first experience with a narrative-oriented game, and there were what I imagine to be the usual rough spots: player uncertainity of what their "boundaries" are, tentative questions to me about what should happen or if such-and-such was permissible.

Actually, the only thing I didn't like was that while I played listener, I didn't have a character to be the storyteller with!  It was fun watching, so next time I might use an NPC and do plot exposition/behind-the-scenes with it.

The mechanics seemed to work fine as written.  I was worried that the devices terminology might be too vague or difficult myself, and would thus generate alot of questions in play (slowing play down/breaking narrative), as was one of my players.

However, when we actually used them they worked fine and things went smoothly: no one had any trouble or made any mistakes, like misuing a device.

I did have to step in and "hold hands" a couple times at the begining, but (like I said) as this was their first time, that was expected.  I didn't tell them to do anything or deny anything, or really act like a DM at all.  Once they figured it out, they went at it.

One of the players needed to cut down on their prose and poetry, since they were describing every little event.  Maybe a primer on focusing on narrative points of interest would be beneficial, or just mentioning that stories should be told about the interesting bits (that's one of the things I tried to help along with the time-limit).

Another initial stumbling block was one scene involving the storyteller encountering a fire in a nearby building -- an event created by a listener -- but it was something that didn't directly affect her character.
I mentioned that since the goal of the game was to get from start to finish as quickly as possible -- and the listeners were to attempt to almost prevent this in amusing/interesting ways -- the listeners should only use the devices to add details that directly affected the storyteller and required a response from them.

The character in the above example just skirted the whole issue by, "from nearby, I watched the locals tame the blaze in the temple" (or something along those lines).
The listener would have been better off stating, "a fire erupts in a nearby building and quickly engulfs the entire street, leaving you trapped behind a searing wall of flame!"

However, I certainly don't see why they COULDN'T use their devices to add indirect details like that (after all, now I have a fire I could use as part of the background plot)...I just didn't think for the first time through such would really get them into the spirit of the game.

I can't think of anything that should have been included, the devices seem fairly complete; though as this was only the first time I or my group played, we might not have encountered something to prompt ideas on the issue.

To answer your interest about the mugging, it ran a little something like this: the storyteller's character (having wasted a large portion of his coin on drink that evening) noticed a group of suspicious individuals down the street and ducked into an alleyway to hide and watch them.
One of the listeners added the detail (through elaboration) that the alleyway wasn't unoccupied, the character having failed to notice a mugger behind him who proceeded knocked him out and stole everything on him.

I'm not surprised the player went with it, being one of my best players, though he hollered good-naturedly about it and we all as a group had a laugh about the character's misfortune (knowing that he's a greedy bastard and a thief).

Like I said, we play again Thursday, as the lead-in to the regular campaign, and I'll let everyone know how that goes.

I'd really like to thank Cameron for writing up AGWAG/CU and posting it!

_________________
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
-----
  Support Peace

  http://www.sharedvoice.org/">http://www.sharedvoice.org/

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-10-17 14:00 ]

[greyorm]

We ran the AGWAG/CU session for our last player as the intro to the "regular" game, as planned.  Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to talk to the players about what they thought of it all until just last night.

This is what came up in that conversation:
One player was worried that the storyteller had too much power, and wondered if there wasn't some way of limiting it without making the whole exercise essentially useless.

Now, honestly, I'm inclined to let the players/group police themselves, but I can easily see situations wherein too much authorial power would actually be destructive to the game.

The situation which highlighted this was the character's story and motivations: the character has a magical gem stuck in his forehead and no idea what it is, how it got there or what effects it will have on him.
The player realized and mentioned that they could have gone to a sage to discover the desired information, and then been able to state whatever they (the player) wanted as the answer.

After discussion, two things became clear:
First, the other players can easily prevent or contradict a player who appears to be abusing their authorial power with their plot-twists.
Second, the player cannot be certain that the truth is as they state it, even if they describe it, because of the nature of the game (which exists in the context of the character telling a tale to their friends) and the GM may ascribe motivations or behaviors to people or events which the player is not aware of.

The first is what actually occured in our game: another player used a plot-twist to send the storyteller's character off to rescue the sage's daughter by having the sage state the desired information would be payment for doing so.

The second would have been very easily be implemented by my stating/knowing the sage was either just plain wrong or lying for some reason; or that the character was in the telling of their tale.

Another problem that was mentioned was the problem of two people playing twists at the same time; it became too difficult to work such situations out, especially if the twists contradicted one another or were incompatible.  Hence, we decided that only the first twist declared, per story-statement, was used, with the GM determining who that was in the case of confusion (or the storyteller; either would work).

Now, a thought occurs to me based on my (admitedly limited) experience with play and the power of listeners to alter the storyteller's story: as much as they can limit the power of the storyteller, s/he can also foul them up.

As an example, I used a twist to put a sorcerer into the story of one of my players; I meant for the sorcerer to be an opponent, but I didn't specify.

Me: And how did you react when the sorcerer appeared?
Storyteller: I was surprised when she appeared and began putting our attackers to sleep.

It was a surprising twist, and an interesting one I wouldn't have thought of.  This brings up whether more or less detail should be used in statements?  I'm not sure there is a good answer, or a right one, and likely depends on storyteller/listener intent/desire/goal to determine what is appropriate when.

What I am not yet sure of is if storyteller and listener power balances out, and who would get the short end of the stick if it doesn't (if either more than the other, dependent upon situation).  I'm thinking right now that it will depend on the skill and desires of the individuals as storytellers and listeners; a poor storyteller will end up having those things he really wishes to include fouled up by poor planning on his/her part, while poor listeners will suffer the same or fail to take advantage of good twists.

Further play and experimentation will reveal how all this works out, however.

Has anyone else yet had a chance to play?  Any comments or insights, or just how it went?

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Raven,

I suggest that this thread raises precisely the same issue that Paul has brought up in the "Drama like your cold feet under my covers" thread. In other words, given that we are using Drama mechanics, who's in charge when it comes to resolutions. It becomes even more important when Director Stance gets added in.

I suggest that the technique you're describing would benefit from hard-and-fast limiting mechanics, not squishy ones like "gee, we all promise not to be butt-heads." I'm thinking of things like certain NUMBERS of things that may be introduced, or even perhaps using a drawn hand of Once Upon a Time cards that define the parameters of what can be introduced. (Hey! That's exactly the way I would do it.)

But then again, I'm kind of a hardhead about limits and parameters. Who knows - maybe an agreement that whatever gets introduced is still just a suggestion, and that what "really" happens is subject to some negotiatory tweaking, would work fine as well.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

I suggest that this thread raises precisely the same issue that Paul has brought up in the "Drama like your cold feet under my covers" thread.

I disagree, actually; I think they are seperate issues.
I should have tied that together more tightly: what I meant to wrap that bit up with was I felt the problem was resolved by examination of the actual details of play and game-concept and so revealed to be no problem at all.

That is, no matter what the player attempts to introduce, they can be thwarted by either the other players or by the GM stating such is a lie/false/mistaken/exaggeration.

Frex:
Ls: "You slew a dragon with one blow?"
ST: "You bet!  A nasty beast it was, too!  A hundred feet long!"
GM: "Yeah, a Komodo dragon at considerably less size, but why tell them that?"

Problem forseen: "My character never exaggerates or lies!"
What then?  They just THINK they slew a dragon with one blow?  It was an illusion?  Which works for fantasy games and such with illusions and phantasms, but not those games which does not include such.
Or declaring that part of the genre flavor is that everyone is a bit of a braggat when telling tales; or the tales are told by bards/newscasters and whatnot who may have done so.
Still, if one wishes to avoid that flavor and run it as "my character is telling this story about what happened" those options don't work.

"Be reasonable" doesn't really work for me as a concrete rule, either (for my group it does, but not, frex, if I were to play this with strangers or new players).

So the question is how to encourage reason without making the exercise useless?  Everything I can think of off the top of my head limits the players so much that the idea of an open, collective narrative is pretty much thrashed; that includes the suggestion of Once Upon a Time cards (though that's an interesting game idea in and of itself).

Similar to that suggestion, I did include a list of cues for players to build the story from, if they wished to do so; but once used, a cue could not be used by another player.
I suppose that I might make cue-lists for every session we run AGWAG/CU in and declare that stories must be built using the elements contained therein.  Hrm...which is rather what you meant, correct?

Another solution might be to tell the players that any situations you feel to be unreasonable will be played out in normal game-mode.  

"You slew a dragon in one blow, eh?  Let's just see..."
"I take it back, I take it back!"

Your solution (collective tweaking) would also work, but it is also fairly loose (not that I mind); anyone out there have any rule-based ideas for limitations that maintain the spirit of the game?

_________________
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
-----
  Support Peace

  http://www.sharedvoice.org/">http://www.sharedvoice.org/

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-10-22 12:10 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-22 12:02, greyorm wrote:
Another solution might be to tell the players that any situations you feel to be unreasonable will be played out in normal game-mode.  

"You slew a dragon in one blow, eh?  Let's just see..."
"I take it back, I take it back!"

I like this last part. But limit it. Say the GM can make the player play out any one scene mechanically. This would be preventative, and might never come into play. Essentially the GM would hold it over the player's heads as a threat of what would happen if they did something too outrageous. This would make for an interesting balance mechanic.

Plug warning. (I'm becoming like MJ Young, I can just feel it).

Universalis has very specific mechanics that do essentially the same thing with conflicts and the like. It's one of my favorite mechanics. Employs classic game theory.

Mike