Unsung: SWAT -- introspection (session 3)

[xiombarg]

You might want to freshen up with the previous thread.

This session was a lot slower and more introspective, but it got real interesting toward the end.

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung3_nar.txt
http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung3_ooc.txt

As before, the first link is the "narrative", slightly edited, and the second link is a slightly edited log of our out-of-character chatter.

I'm very interested in what people -- particularly Mike, but I'd love to hear from anyone -- think of what went on. In particular, I want to know why Mike thinks hiding information makes our play -- and the game --incoherent. I mean, there's no declaration about hiding information -- or not hiding it -- in Sorcerer (unless I missed something, and I might have), and that's not an incoherent game, is it?

(Personally, I think hiding information, while it CAN have something to do with GNS, it doesn't have to. In my case, it has more to do with a GNS-independant love of suprise.)

I'd also love general comments about the game or the system. As a reminder, this is the system we're using:

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung_playtest.html

...tho we're doing advancement differently at this point, so you can just ignore that.

Alexander had an interesting additional suggestion regarding Gift Points, which I'll elaborate on in a different thread in Indie Design when I'm less tired.

[Dana_mun]

( loki, the ooc txt doesn't work =( )

anyway yeah this was one of those really...really slow moving episodes untill the end. I think the slowness was due to the fact jason/frix wasn't able to come. the lack of his volitility kinda slowed things down

[suffusionofyellow]

Yeah, you might want to fix the ooc link, because I'm assuming Dana translated all that italian there, and I don't speak the language. In fact, in the official narration log, you might even want to subtitle it all, with parentheses or something.

I'm flattered that you feel Jason is a driving force in the game, and glad that I don't come off as rushing anyone. I sometimes feel I try to move faster than the action. Personally though, I don't think the lack of animation  was due to anything more than this being an 'off' episode. Not everything can be develope on the battlefield. In every war film or police series, there is always that introspective episode that develops the characters.

Important question: Is Unsung moving to every other wednesday now?

[xiombarg]

Okay, I fixed the link. I named the file wrong. Yay typos! Try it again, and then hit "refresh" on your browser:

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung3_ooc.txt

Yes, I think I'm moving the game to every other Wednesday. I think it's best we discuss scheduling in the Yahoo group.

[Mike Holmes]

Ron has since stated that the text implies that OOC information should be in the open, and I think that if it doesn't that he would feel that it should.

But it's not a big deal. This doesn't make the game Incoherent; there's no such thing as an Incoherent game per se. It means that ithe game doesn't take any steps to cure this potential source of incoherence. Which didn't become problematic at all, as we discussed it as it came up. Further, if it does come up in play with other groups it's hardly a breaker. I was pointing to it as an interesting example, not an earthshaking flaw.

It's interesting that Dana thought things were slow. Other than your normal IRC latency and my admittedly distracted state (I was doing at least three other things at the time), I thought things proceeded quite normally. In fact, when the pace did pick up later I thought that we were pushing it. I liked the Gifts that we gave, but it seems like the IRC context makes us want to do nothing but deal with Gifts with no other exposition in between at times. That is, when it's fast, it's unrealistically chock full of co-incidences and plot movers it seems to me.

That's better than boring, certianly, but I think that the game is becoming so focused on Gifts that we're losing the ability to advance things in any other way. I think that's problematic, and relates to the other difficulties that we've been discussing. I mean, if the game is really supposed to be that tightly focused, I'd suggest getting rid of most of the other stats, and just have it be round-robin Gift giving. Just frame from moral dilemma to moral dilemma. What we were doing at the end of the game last night.

Mike

[xiombarg]

But it's not a big deal. This doesn't make the game Incoherent; there's no such thing as an Incoherent game per se. It means that ithe game doesn't take any steps to cure this potential source of incoherence. Which didn't become problematic at all, as we discussed it as it came up. Further, if it does come up in play with other groups it's hardly a breaker. I was pointing to it as an interesting example, not an earthshaking flaw.

Okay. But I guess I don't understand why information-hiding is incompatible with Narrativist play, and therefore incoherent. Perhaps I'll start a seperate thread on this in the GNS forum.

That is, when it's fast, it's unrealistically chock full of co-incidences and plot movers it seems to me.

Well, actually, that's yet ANOTHER reason for veto. So someone can put on the narrative breaks if they feel its getting out of hand.

And certainly I think the amount of co-incidences and plot movers is a matter of taste. In the face-to-face game, there were more "generic" Gifts, in the sense that the Gifts provided a moral choice, but didn't rely on a coincidence, just the situation that would naturally come up. Perhaps my local group's priority is slightly less pervy, as it were.

That's better than boring, certianly, but I think that the game is becoming so focused on Gifts that we're losing the ability to advance things in any other way. I think that's problematic, and relates to the other difficulties that we've been discussing. I mean, if the game is really supposed to be that tightly focused, I'd suggest getting rid of most of the other stats, and just have it be round-robin Gift giving. Just frame from moral dilemma to moral dilemma. What we were doing at the end of the game last night.

I dunno. There was plenty of non-Gift play in the second session, and that is the reason for the other stats. I'm not going for "the Pool with morality" here.

I want the possiblility for standard GM-style plotting -- and I like to think I did a little bit of that last night, tho it bordered on a Gift in some cases.

Also, I have to wonder if some of the intensification you're referring to has less to do with the game and more to do with the IRC medium, with the split between OOC and "narrative". As I said, in the face-to-face game, there was plenty of Gift giving, but not at the level we had last night.

And I'm not even sure I agree last night's level was excessive, per se... It may be a matter of taste. Since I've run Wuthering Heights before, it's tough for me to notice -- or care -- when it trips into melodrama -- if, indeed, it did. (Personally, I didn't find the coincidences to be that jarring at all.)

So what you're seeing as a problem with the system I'm seeing as perhaps a social contract thing -- perhaps the rest of us prefer a more gonzo style of play, so naturally drifted there.

[Mike Holmes]

Okay. But I guess I don't understand why information-hiding is incompatible with Narrativist play, and therefore incoherent. Perhaps I'll start a seperate thread on this in the GNS forum.

It's not, per se. The overall style of play involves more than just stating if something is G or N or S. There are all sorts of other fine criteria that make for the overall Creative Agenda. G, N, and S are just the most gross. Basically, the rest of us were playing with what we could call the Indie Netgaming set of assumptions overall, which is a Narrativist subset of our own devising.

Again, you're making mountains of molehills. I pointed it out as an example of the sort of thing that occasionally leads to incoherent play. Not some great fault with the game. In fact if your game adressed it, it might be one of the first. It's a problem that you see in many, many designs.

Well, actually, that's yet ANOTHER reason for veto. So someone can put on the narrative breaks if they feel its getting out of hand.

I agree. Have I come out against the veto? I haven't advocated a single particular change despite you trying to railroad me into doing so. I'm sorry, I don't know what the answer is yet.

And certainly I think the amount of co-incidences and plot movers is a matter of taste. In the face-to-face game, there were more "generic" Gifts, in the sense that the Gifts provided a moral choice, but didn't rely on a coincidence, just the situation that would naturally come up. Perhaps my local group's priority is slightly less pervy, as it were.

Yes, as I said, I think it's completely an artifact of the IRC play and the group. The delays make you want to see the action sooner rather than later.

But the system isn't doing anything to "correct" this. Either it's a valid way to play, or the system should say something about it.

I dunno. There was plenty of non-Gift play in the second session, and that is the reason for the other stats. I'm not going for "the Pool with morality" here.

Cool. Again, I'm just trying to give you an idea of the manner in which you might make the game a bit less likely to produce problems with Incoherency - none of my examples have been suggestions.

I want the possiblility for standard GM-style plotting -- and I like to think I did a little bit of that last night, tho it bordered on a Gift in some cases.

I think the sorta No Myth style of GMing is having an effect, yes. I do think it might work better with more plotting. If that's the case, however, that's something that also needs communication. Allowing for the "possibility" isn't making the game better.

And I'm not even sure I agree last night's level was excessive, per se... It may be a matter of taste.

I'm quite sure it was. All I'm saying is that one player found the other pace to be better.

So what you're seeing as a problem with the system I'm seeing as perhaps a social contract thing -- perhaps the rest of us prefer a more gonzo style of play, so naturally drifted there.

Again, I'm not having a problem with the Gift rates here so much as seeing little to do outside of the Gifting. I see it as so important to play, at least the way we've been playing, that normal IC play is becoming marginalized. I'm not seeing the attractiveness of dragging my PC from point to point only to be taken over at the most important points in the narrative. I'd rather mess with those decisions for other players.

I think that if you give the normal IC play some thrust that it'll all balance out.

Mike

[xiombarg]

I apologize if you think I'm trying to railroad you, Mike, or making mountains out of molehills. In the end, my main priority is that you have fun. And, yes, that's very vague. Also, I respect your opinion, so I confess to a certain level of anxiety surrounding this issue.

As for guidelines for play, I think you're going to like the final version of the game. I was always planning on having a HUGE chapter on how I think it should be done, from the ground up, as if I'm talking to someone who's never roleplayed before. Part of the purpose of this playtest is to shakedown what is going to go into that chapter.

[Mike Holmes]

The reply to this is essentially in the other thread, unfortunately. The issues are starting to overlap a little.

I'm having loads of fun. I didn't bring any of this up to say that I'm not. I'm just pointing out where I think improvements can be made.

As far as "how to play" text, I suppose that doesn't hurt. But if it can be encoded into inescapable system, of course, I'll be happier. :-)

Mike