[Everway] Story when?

[cthulahoops]

Hi,

Well, I've finally decided to post to the Forge after lurking for quite some time...

I've just finished a three session game of Everway, and thought I'd post a summary of my experiences.  I bought sorcerer a while ago, and was fascinated by the System Does Matter essay contain therein, which led me here.  Various articles here led me to buy Everway, and hence this game.

There were four players, two of whom were in my previous OtE game, one whom I've played with before, and one person I've never roleplayed with before.  While enjoyable, I've tended towards illusionism in many of my previous games, and have been struggling with a general low level dissatisfaction.

The first two produced an artist named Lever, driven from her world for pursuing art.  The second, Voice, a priestess of a dragon cult travelling in search of a cure.  The third a warrior woman named flame. Finally there was Old Man, an ancient druid who had refused to die, surviving for centuries by defying nature and drawing the life force from countless worlds.  Now, he's realised the error of his ways and is trying to make peace.

The scenario setup was a realm in which two similar cities had been at war for fifty years, and unable to make progress in direct military attacks have been fighting by bombs and assassinations.  This idea was inspired by the fortune card "Drowning in Armour", which formed the realms fault.

I brought the characters into the scenario by asking them the players to design characters who would perform missions for a fairly nice water cult.  This was pretty much the only limitation I put on character creation, more on this later.  This cult had a temple in one of the cities and recently all the members there had been arrested.  The characters' job was to investigate, report, and try and make things better.

Pretty quickly after arriving in the realm, the characters discovered that the prince was ill, apparently poisoned by agents of Marble Path (the other city).  Voice and Old Man set about trying to see the King in the hope that Old Man could use his druidic powers to help, while Lever and Flame snuck into the castle.  Flame accidently killed a guard on the way in.

Anyway, there was some messing around involving agents of Marble Path, an insane princess, a stubborn King and paintings that filled people with guilt (a creation of Lever).  Finally, the characters were called before the King to account for their actions.  They explained that the Prince was ill because of a personification of the war, and that peace was required...  the fact that Flame had killed a guard became a stumbling block, and then...

Old Man asked to see the body, and after some brief parting words, gave up his own life so that the guard could live.  The player had apparently seen the ending for the character as giving his life to save the prince, or princess or kingdom - and had realised in the moment when the death of the guard was discussed, that this man had a life and that accepting death so that an ordinary person could live was the perfect end to this character's life.  More than that, he wanted the character to die alone, so that he wasn't doing it for glory or fame - which was different to his earlier attempts to save the prince.

Ironically, this action gave the character a legendary heroic status which had no reflection on his previous life, and gave the other characters the leverage they needed to bring peace.

And this, I think it what Story Now is all about right?  We sat around after the game and there seemed to be real engagement about Old Man's sacrifice, and what exactly it meant.  None of that ending was planned, it was a coming together of story elements in a spontaneous and unplanned manner.

Not everything was right, though.  Firstly, the situation I'd chosen was really difficult to resolve.  One of the conclusions drawn was that it was impossible to bring peace inside a generation because the war was so deep seated.  I didn't really expect the players to latch onto solving everything as a goal, but I don't think any other ending would have been satisfactory.  Next time I need to make the situation more personal.  When I write character driven, open ended games they tend to end up with situations with no feasible solution.

Secondly, the scenario didn't connect to the characters.  The players had produced interesting backgrounds for their characters, but then I didn't tie the scenario back into these.  Each character had different types of conflicts and issues in their backgrounds, and these didn't tie naturally to addressing the situation at hand.  I needed to give much more information about the scenario in order to try and get characters and players more involved in the premise.  This is the main thing I've been getting recently though, the need to more open with information to keep everyone involved.

But overall it was a great game, and a real demonstration of Story Now.   Next step, Sorcerer - wish me luck.

Adam.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Adam,

What a nice post! Welcome to the Forge, and thanks for your kind words.

I was a little wary when I started reading this thread, because I've played a lot of Everway. It's a game that prompts a lot of different play-experiences and a lot of discussion, and I was kind of braced for a long and difficult interaction.

But here we have this awesome actual play to discuss instead. I'd like to return to add more, but for right now ...

1. Your Narrativist-fu is flawless.

2. I actually prefer Everway scenarios which don't lend themselves to easy or complete endings. Most of the examples and suggestions in the text tend toward "make everyone hug, establish harmony and multiculturalism, and piss off to the next realm to fix their problems too." I've called the game the "Next Generation meets the Village People" on occasion, although I'm also one of its staunch defenders.

So the observation that your scenario didn't have a quick and simple moral solution works better, for me. It puts more heat and asks for more judgment on the parts of the players.

3. Which leads me to ask, did any of the characters meet his or her Fate? It tends not to happen in the first couple of scenarios, but if those scenarios focus on relationships among the characters (PC or NPC), then it should become more and more likely as time goes by.

4. And which finally brings up your other major point, and I think it's a serious issue with Everway: is the "real" conflict of play centered on player-characters or on the settings they travel through? There's lots more to discuss about this, but I have to run do stuff. More later.

Best,
Ron

[Michael S. Miller]

Cool game, Adam!  I don't know what it is about Everway, but I think I've seen more self-sacrifice in Everway scenarios than anywhere else. My wife runs lots of Everway at conventions and has developed something of a following. Anyway, her most character-driven scenario is called "City of a Thousand Moons." Some details can be found near the bottom of my post in this thread. It's great because the characters' backstories ARE the story.

[cthulahoops]

1. Your Narrativist-fu is flawless.

Thank you.  I'm not so sure, but I'm working on it.

So the observation that your scenario didn't have a quick and simple moral solution works better, for me. It puts more heat and asks for more judgment on the parts of the players.

I don't know if I misstated the problem.  There was a simple moral solution, make friends, be hippy, love one another.  However, this is difficult to achieve.  It leads to lots of conversations with PCs going "wouldn't things be better if you were nicer to one another", and NPCs going "but they killed my parents/sister/pet dog" - but I find it difficult to empathise that strongly with the NPC and you get conversations that go around  in circles.

This is fed by what I'm interpreting as gamist expectations in some of the players in which the scenario gets reduced to "bring peace", rather than explore the conditions of war/terror.  The latter works fine with the insoluble conflicts, the former does not.

I'm not sure what I'm saying, maybe that I needed more fuel for the non-hippy arguements, if you look at a real conflict it's quite hard to reduce it to lets be friends because each side has a different history, philosophy and flaws.  By creating an almost perfect mirror I made the war difficult to defend.  I probably created the world to reflect my own hippy-ism, but then put myself in the position of portraying the opposite opinion.

3. Which leads me to ask, did any of the characters meet his or her Fate? It tends not to happen in the first couple of scenarios, but if those scenarios focus on relationships among the characters (PC or NPC), then it should become more and more likely as time goes by.

I can't remember what Fates actually were - they weren't overtly the focus of play.  I'll check when I get home and post then.

4. And which finally brings up your other major point, and I think it's a serious issue with Everway: is the "real" conflict of play centered on player-characters or on the settings they travel through? There's lots more to discuss about this, but I have to run do stuff. More later.

And I think that is the core of what I mean.  The game didn't quite connect because it focused upon the setting and gave too little thought to the characters.  I think that given the beautiful characters that this system produces, it's a real pity if the settings to which they travel don't focus on aspects of these characters.

It was still a damn good game though.  Thanks for your response.

Adam.

[cthulahoops]

I can't remember what Fates actually were - they weren't overtly the focus of play.  I'll check when I get home and post then.

Okay, so:

Well, the Old Man had Death as his Fate.   And I think he achieved that both literally and in the sense that he had a change in his perceptions that led to his death.

I don't think the others did.

Adam.

[greyorm]

Heya Adam, welcome to the Forge!
I've always wanted to try Everway, but never had the chance. How did the mechanics work out in play for your group?

And this, I think it what Story Now is all about right?  We sat around after the game and there seemed to be real engagement about Old Man's sacrifice, and what exactly it meant.

Story Now means the players have actual, real engagement right now during the game, with the decisions they are making at the moment, not just afterwards.

So, it isn't so much a "unplanned coming together of story elements" as it is getting to the engaging meat of the game and being amazed and interested in the events as they are occurring.

It certainly sounds like the Old Man's sacrifice was one of those moments where the player was engaged in addressing the premise at that moment of decision for the game.

Were there any other similar moments in the game for any of the other players? Or for the Old Man's player at any other time during the game?

I needed to give much more information about the scenario in order to try and get characters and players more involved in the premise.

Hey Adam, I think that's the right direction, but slightly backwards...you don't provide them with more information about the scenario, they provide you with it. At least, that's my preferred method. That is, their character conflicts and backgrounds ARE your scenario, they form the premise -- it's rather "Hands Off" GMing.

I think you'll find you'll have an easier time getting them involved when they're the ones involving you in the premise, rather than the usual way of trying to get them involved in your premise/story/scenario by providing more background detail for your world/setting/story/whatever.

[cthulahoops]

Heya Adam, welcome to the Forge!
I've always wanted to try Everway, but never had the chance. How did the mechanics work out in play for your group?

The explicit discussion of DFK in the book really appeals to me.  I don't like the use of dice where randomness is unnecessary.  In particular, I'd rather avoid dice (or other fortune elements) where there is a clear outcome in favour of the characters, and the mechanics allow me to this.

The only combat in the game was a couple of exchanges between Flame and either guards or people with no combat skills.  I could resolve these with Karma, which allows for really quick resolution of a combat.

I started off drawing fortune cards and concealing them from the players as suggested,  but gave up on this later - I think the advantage of the players seeing and discussing the meaning of the card far outweighs any advantage from not knowing if they're seen while sneaking for example.

Yes, the mechanics seemed to work well, but I tend to play loosely with mechanics...

This prompts me to write a thread I've been considering about DFK.

So, it isn't so much a "unplanned coming together of story elements" as it is getting to the engaging meat of the game and being amazed and interested in the events as they are occurring.

Yes, I phrased that somewhat badly.  The purpose of my choice of words was that the plot was not heavily prescripted.  The "unplanned coming together" was intended to contrast with illusionist plot conclusions.

I think there were other good moments which fit that definition during play, but I find them hard to separate and define.  The conclusion stood out in my mind which is why I focused on it.

I think you'll find you'll have an easier time getting them involved when they're the ones involving you in the premise, rather than the usual way of trying to get them involved in your premise/story/scenario by providing more background detail for your world/setting/story/whatever.

Yes.  There is a problem specific to Everway here.  (Or particularly bad in?)  The players don't just produce a character they produce a world with their character.  This means that it is quite likely that each character will bring radically different premises to the table.  I would see one the GM's tasks in this situation as being to some glue to this process in order to help the players produce characters that will support each other well.

This is similiar I guess to defining Humanity is Sorcerer.

Adam.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Adam,

You wrote:

"I don't know if I misstated the problem. There was a simple moral solution, make friends, be hippy, love one another. However, this is difficult to achieve. It leads to lots of conversations with PCs going "wouldn't things be better if you were nicer to one another", and NPCs going "but they killed my parents/sister/pet dog" - but I find it difficult to empathise that strongly with the NPC and you get conversations that go around in circles."

Here's a thought:

Instead of making the conflict outside of the PCs, make them have the conlfict.  That means, instead of them being wise know-it-alls who show up and simply have to try to coerce people into believing what is right through "lots of conversations," they themselves have to make the right choices -- and don't always know which is the right one.

If the PCs, for example, wanted peace, but had been engaged in the war (ie. it was *their* parents, sister or dog that had been killed), or they wanted peace, but needed one side to win because of social or religious beliefs (an Athens vs. Sparta kind of thing), then you don't have a bunch of circular arguing with NPCs.  You have the players making the tough choices for their PCs.  This may not be what you're looking for, but it is a way around the problem you describe.  

Christopher

[Michael S. Miller]

I started off drawing fortune cards and concealing them from the players as suggested,  but gave up on this later - I think the advantage of the players seeing and discussing the meaning of the card far outweighs any advantage from not knowing if they're seen while sneaking for example.

I like this facet of Everway as well. The interpretations of the cards can become a sort of barometer of the creative tendencies of the group at that moment.

Yes.  There is a problem specific to Everway here.  (Or particularly bad in?)  The players don't just produce a character they produce a world with their character.  This means that it is quite likely that each character will bring radically different premises to the table.  I would see one the GM's tasks in this situation as being to some glue to this process in order to help the players produce characters that will support each other well.

A compromise between Raven's (and my wife's in "City of a Thousand Moons, mentioned above) method of "characters first, then situation" and what you seem to have done "characters individually by players, situation independently by GM, bring them together" is similar to what Christopher mentioned: Describe the base of the Situation: "There's a blood fued between two cities." Then have players make characters who have already been involved in the war in some way or another. Have them tell you what kind of involvement they've had. I've seen it work very well to give character creation one such constraint.