The Forge Archives

Inspired by the FLCL thread in RPG Theory. Here's a link to the game as it stands: A very brief rough sketch.

The way it's turning out is sort of a metagame for use on top of other RPGs, but I think it has potential to be an entity of its own.

WTF?
A Game of Competitive Storytelling

One player plays the role of the protagonist. She or he has a very basic character concept, like "school kid."

Everyone else playing the game is a "director." During the first session of an FLCL game, the directors take turns, somewhere between 5-10 minutes, presenting their story elements to the protagonist through narratives, descriptions of scenes and role-playing the supporting characters of the story. After one director has finished her turn, it's time for another director to have a swing at it, building from the previous director's story elements or shunting the protagonist into something completely different.

After all the directors have had a turn, the player rewards the directors with varying amounts of director tokens. If the player liked a director's story elements more, she rewards that director with more tokens than the others, but every director gets at least one token.

The session continues with the director who got the most tokens at the end of the introductory "episode." At any time, another director can spend a token and automatically get 5 minutes of real time to direct. After which point, the original director gets to finish her alloted time.

Well that certainly stands the standard Director Stance apportionment mechanics on their heads.

Any more to it, or is that as complicated as you're going to go with it? Would be fun to hear about a playtest.

Any limit on the maximum number of Tokens? If not, I think that some newbies might make mistakes ingiving out too many. Without a scale it's hard to tell what would be effective (and without a playtest one can only guess as to what would be an appropriate balance).

Or is it the intent to enable the player to be able to give out so many tokens that they can effectively squelch a director (other than his min token)? Is there a set of introductory episodes each session? So that tokens can refresh? Or does the game end when tokens run out?

There's an issue with change of control. It says that the director who is interrupted by the use of a token gets to take over narrating once the other director's time for his token is up. This seems to indicate that there's some logical apportionment of control in the "normal" game, but I see no comments on it other than that the director with the most tokens gets to start. Read literally, that would mean that that director would get to narrate everything for the entire game, except when the other directors interjected with tokens. Another reading would say that the player with the most tokens must spend one to start, and that narration can only happen by the expenditure of tokens. Is that the intent, or is there some other change of control during the normal course of play?

If this latter idea is the case, what happens if no director spends a token? Can the original one just keep narrating until he's interrupted by an expenditure?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesAny more to it, or is that as complicated as you're going to go with it? Would be fun to hear about a playtest.

After sleeping on it, I'm wondering if I should include a bidding mechanic in case several directors want to interrupt at the same time. That can weigh heavily towards whoever has the most tokens, but I guess that's just a part of the rewards for being the director that the player prefers.

Quote from: Mike HolmesAny limit on the maximum number of Tokens? If not, I think that some newbies might make mistakes ingiving out too many. Without a scale it's hard to tell what would be effective (and without a playtest one can only guess as to what would be an appropriate balance).

Maybe the director's rewards should precisely reflect their rank among their peer directors. Say there were three directors, the least preferred director only gets one token. The second-to-least preferred director gets two tokens. The most preferred gets three.

If there were five directors, the most preferred director would get five tokens. The second best would get four, third best would get three, fourth best would get two, and worst would get one.

This probably isn't a game for thin-skinned directors, now that I think of it. Perhaps I should add a passage that clarifies that a low reward doesn't literally mean you're the worst, just that you're the least preferred for that session, which would hopefully get the director to make better use of his director-time when he spends that one precious token.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIs there a set of introductory episodes each session? So that tokens can refresh? Or does the game end when tokens run out?

I was thinking there would be an introductory episode for every "series." A series is a collection of "episodes," or sessions. A different series starts when there is a new player or when the player wants to play a new protagonist. The player can reward the directors at the end of every episode, during the "closing credits."

Quote from: Mike HolmesRead literally, that would mean that that director would get to narrate everything for the entire game, except when the other directors interjected with tokens. Another reading would say that the player with the most tokens must spend one to start, and that narration can only happen by the expenditure of tokens. Is that the intent, or is there some other change of control during the normal course of play?

Both options are rather intriguing. The first option has a sort of baseline director (executive producer?) that controls the underlying story of a particular episode, with periodic interruptions by other directors. This can be nice because it has an underlying story infrastructure from which to deviate and draw contrast.

The other option is to have the directer with the most tokens start off the session with maybe and entitled 10 minutes of real-time, after which point the story is fair game for other directors to interrupt. The new director is then entitled to his 10 minutes of uninterrupted direction time, after which point someone else can opt to interrupt. This is nice because it gives the director who only got one token last episode an opportunity to make his portion of the current episode really shine. Even if he's out of the episode once he's spent his token, the player will remember that portion fondly enough to suitably reward the director.

I think I'll go with the second option, then I can say an episode ends when all directors, or maybe with the exception of one, have spent their tokens. Whichever the case, the last director of the episode has his ten minutes to close it out and then must roll credits. The player gives out his rewards then.

I'm seeing a lot of social interaction happening between directors that isn't exactly competitive. For example, if one director has a really neat bit happening during the episode, I'd be hesitant to interrupt. Maybe if I did interrupt, I'd be heckled by the rest of the directors and forced to relent until a more dramatically appropriate time.

That sort of natural flow is great for any story, but if this is supposed to be inspired by FLCL, then I think it should encourage the kind of schizophrenic, non-linear role-play style by allowing directors to interrupt any time. The other directors may protest, exclaiming the title phrase WTF?, but interruptions will nevertheless be allowed and resolved immediately even if it's a completely jarring shift in the story.

( Example: Sam is playing a school boy struggling to come of age. The current director is running Sam through a scene where he's about to have his first kiss during a rehearsal for the school play. Just as he and his crush are about to touch lips, another director spends his token and interrupts the scene. Suddenly, a giant robot sprouts from the schoolboy's head and starts rampaging through town. )

I'm definitely seeing a few necessary social contract rules. Maybe "the only part of the story the director can't control is the player, you can do stuff to the scenery and go even farther, but the second the player protests what you're doing to the protagonist, you must stop it." Another could be "One director cannot run the supporting characters introduced by another director without consent."

I've just updated the page with the revisions discussed in this thread.

I'm going to be using FLCL as an example here, because really, I have no idea what else I could use.. and bland, hypothetical situations just aren't as vivid. ;) So if you're reading and thinking of watching the series, beware some spoilers in this post..

Quote from: gobiI'm definitely seeing a few necessary social contract rules. Maybe "the only part of the story the director can't control is the player, you can do stuff to the scenery and go even farther, but the second the player protests what you're doing to the protagonist, you must stop it." Another could be "One director cannot run the supporting characters introduced by another director without consent."

This is, oddly enough, the only two things I really had in mind when I started thinking about the game. Expanded a bit:

* Importance of protagonist: the directors have basically limitless power with their characters. Anything they want to have happen, happens. So why need the main character? Because there are some things that only he can do. This holds true in a huge amount of anime, not to mention fiction in general: it's not enough that he's the guy who just happened to be there, it's that there are forces at work which make him.. not necessarily destined - maybe he can choose not to use the Cool Stuff - but if he doesn't use 'em, it's not like anyone else can step up to fill his shoes.

For example, Naota needs to hit the satellite falling from space. Haruko can't do it. She just -can't-. It's all up to Naota. 'crazy sunshine' is building like.. crazy sunshine in the background, and *whommmm* as the reverb echoes.

There needs to be some way of identifying some things as Important, with a capital I. These are the situations where the character grows, which is incredibly fundamental to nearly every anime or manga series ever. It's.. the -events- - the things that happen - are not what's necessarily important. It's all the internal stuff it causes within the Protagonist/Star.

* My character, your character: There should be some way of sharing control of a scene at the same time. Really, it'd be more like giving up control and just going into a bit of roleplay-only situations. Something? hmm. getting on with it:

Best example I can think of with this.. the original thread was talking about each director having control of a certain sub-plot, yeah? One for aliens, one for home, one for school..

Think of those dinner scenes at Naota's house when Haruko was around. She'd be under the control of one director, and he'd be RPing with the Home Life director, just doing crazy shit and riffing off each other. Naota - the Star - is totally out of his element, and just trying to keep up.


..anyway, those are the two things I've been carrying around in me head. Not sure how well they mesh with your thoughts, Daniel, on what you've put together so far. =)

I really like those ideas! I'll incorporate them into my revisions of WTF? today.

EDIT:

Just updated the page, the page to include rules on jam sessions (when directors share screentime) and climaxes (when the protagonist's role becomes the primary thrust of a scene.)