[Messenger] First Run: "A and B"

[Wood]

Ran my Messenger system for the first time tonight, and to my slight surprise, it went very well indeed. No hitches whatsoever. 

Characters were a conscience-stricken "Liquidator" and a slightly brainwashed corporate "Asset". Their mission was to acquire some land for the Company in New Delhi. The land was owned by a commune full of pacifist refugees who had escaped the UNited Kingdom before being sent to the Camps some twenty-six years before. They were briefed that they had Cost Plan A and Cost PLan B. Cost Plan A involved buying the place above board. Cost Plan B involved massacring the inhabitants (not necessarily cheaper, since the fall-out would, financially, have to be taken into account). If Plan A became more expensive than the projection for Plan B, they had to switch plans. Of course, the inhabitants wouldn't sell.

There, then, was the plot. The characters had three days to find a way to avoid ordering the deaths of one hundred and twenty men, women and children. They did it in the end, coming up with an excellent solution that gained them both a Disloyalty Point, and earned the wrath of the manager of the enclave on whose behalf they were sent out. The success of this was based on a Compassion Risk, which gained the character, the Asset, a total of more Compassion points than she began with, which was dramatically satisfying.

I wrote up the whole system in four pages and sent it to the two players; one got time to read it, the other didn't.

Observations:

1. although the bidding of points was initially counter-intuitive for the player who hadn't read the system, he picked up on the second go. The other player is notoriously rubbish at grasping systems, to the extent that when it's her turn to run, she usually ignores rules almost entirely - and yet, she understood it (and the odd mathematical ramifications) perfectly.

2. The players were concerned about the Narrator having a finite amount of points. I explained that I didn't see it as a problem, since the Narrator could simply pace the risks he'd take. I was certainly in no danger of running out this evening. They accepted that, although now I'm having doubts. Anyone got any thoughts?

3. The side effect of that, mind, is that the Narrator is very firmly in opposition to the players. This actually helped storytelling. It upped tension. So did the whole physical thing with a you sticking a handful of hidden stones into the middle of the table and flipping your hand over to reveal the stake.

4. At one point, the assassin character rugby tackled a guy and kept him on the ground with an arm lock. Since the guy was a weedy pacifist hippy type, I decided this didn't need a Risk. The guy just did it. Although it defied our expectations (even mine) of what you normally did in an RPG, it underlined the assumptions of the game - you only take risks in what you're not necessarily going to be able to do. 

5. The characters talked through the possibility of going through with the massacre, but they didn't. In fact, Composure and Conscience risks didn't come up once. Maybe next time, eh?

[Wood]

Incidentally:

Messenger rules (4-page pdf)
Messenger character write-ups and character sheets (4-page pdf with added embarassing typos; also, the other character illo is as yet unfinished)

[Wood]

*tumbleweed rolls by*

30 views, no comments? Am I just throwing my thoughts into the audient void?

[Mikael]

Heh. If you want more readers and more replies, consider conjuring up a more grabby subject line. Also, you're saying that you had a playtest that went without a hitch, which is nice but does not really invite comment. Does this mean that your game is ready to publish, after some little layout polishing? Or do you still have some serious open issues? What are they?

The situation you had set up was certainly something that could not be ignored, even if it was something I would not have liked to play. It does not feel "protagonizing" in the right kind of way. Something about balancing monetary cost and human lives in an RPG rubs me in the wrong way, even though it might be the hard-hitting core of your game.

If you are worried about the limited GM resources, all I can say is that you are in good company with PTA, Dogs and others. I personally think a lot more games should go this route.

Hope this helps,
+ Mikael

[Wood]

It's nowhere near ready. The system's still a bit wonky in places. I'm doing it again tonight, actually.

The situation you had set up was certainly something that could not be ignored, even if it was something I would not have liked to play. It does not feel "protagonizing" in the right kind of way. Something about balancing monetary cost and human lives in an RPG rubs me in the wrong way, even though it might be the hard-hitting core of your game.

You see, that whole corporate lack of responsibility vs. personal humane morality thing is kind of the point of the game. I think of it as kind of an idiot bastard child of Bruce Sterling and Naomi Klein. And yes, I'm expecting it to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Having it have mass appeal isn't really my intention. If it was, I'd pitch it to ArtHaus and see if they'd print it.

Incidentally, how is the situation not "protagonising"? Serious question. What's the difference between a protagonising situation and a deprotagonising situation? The players took a situation which was limited and found a plausible, creative out (they used corporate in-fighting to bring the whole project to a grinding halt).

If you are worried about the limited GM resources, all I can say is that you are in good company with PTA, Dogs and others. I personally think a lot more games should go this route.

I'm not all that worried about it, actually. It was one of the players' concerns. To be honest, I'm getting happier with it the more I think about it, because it means that the GM has to husband his resources as well.

[Mikael]

By doing it again, did you mean rewriting the rules or playtesting it? If playing, how did it go?

I am sorry I used stupid jargon like "deprotagonizing". Upon further reflection, I was also sort of wrong. If someone starts playing your game, knowing that it will have money vs. human lives type situations, and accepting that they if they play poorly, they might end up in a situation where the mechanics or the GM judgement forces their character to end up siding with the money, then all's fine and dandy, no stepping on player's right to make meaningful decisions happening here. But I, personally, would not accept that, since there would be no meaningful decisions on the offer. I know where I sit on that decision, like probably most of us, and - here's the essential part to me - I would not accept the money over innocent human life solution no matter what the rules or the GM tell me. Furthermore, I would not like to play the character who accepts that.

All matters of opinion, I'm sure. You have a strong vision for the game, and seem to have a good start with the implementation, which is certainly more than I can say about my desktop-drawer-game.

Cheers,
+ Mikael

[Wood]

By doing it again, did you mean rewriting the rules or playtesting it? If playing, how did it go?

I meant playing it again. We're probably going to do it a third time on Tuesday. The second session was a straight murder mystery. As the investigation happened, it became apparent that one of them was being framed. The actual murderers were clumsy and made mistakes. The story was more straight, had moral issues of its own, and went well.

I am sorry I used stupid jargon like "deprotagonizing".

You know, I checked out the definition here, and watched a recent discussion about it over on rpg.net, and I am still none the wiser as to what it means.

Upon further reflection, I was also sort of wrong. If someone starts playing your game, knowing that it will have money vs. human lives type situations, and accepting that they if they play poorly, they might end up in a situation where the mechanics or the GM judgement forces their character to end up siding with the money, then all's fine and dandy, no stepping on player's right to make meaningful decisions happening here.

It's not that they end up siding with the money. They're working for these bastards because they have no choice. It's a circumstance of birth. But the fact is, the Company, being a multinational and all, is by definition inefficient and corrupt (at least it is in the assumptions we hold in the game. It's my assumption in real life as well, but then a. that's beither here nor there and b. I'm a granola-crunching bleeding heart Naomi Klein groupie, so what do I know?) The only responsibility the Brand ("fast becoming the world's foremost lifestyle and government brand") recognises is the responsibility to turn a profit for its shareholders... and so it's sociopathic. But it's also riddled with in-fighting and loopholes. Also, the individuals working for it didn't choose to work for it. They can be better than that. The fact they can be better than that is the point of the game.

Now in that first story, the choice at stake appeared to be a simple, "get them to take the money or slaughter them" dichotomy. Actually, the choice was how the characters would avoid having to make that decision by exploiting the loopholes and corruption at the heart of the Company ...and how they could get away with it. Various solutions got proposed, some of which were coldly logical and barely better than the massacre. In the end, they got another department involved, scotching the project. There will be repercussions later on, and complications.

But I, personally, would not accept that, since there would be no meaningful decisions on the offer. I know where I sit on that decision, like probably most of us, and - here's the essential part to me - I would not accept the money over innocent human life solution no matter what the rules or the GM tell me. Furthermore, I would not like to play the character who accepts that.

Which is the whole point. The game is about not being that person, even when the easiest way is to accept that as a fact of life. 

I wouldn't want to play that game, either. And the mechanics would have severely penalised a character who did accept that (the more you knuckle under to the company, the more you lose Circles in psychological resources).

Does this make sense?

[Mikael]

Makes sense, surely. And sounds more and more intriguing. Just to make sure: Can you die fighting for the solution you feel is right, rather than succumbing to the Corporation's power and executing the wrong one?

Cheers,
+ Mikael

[Wood]

Makes sense, surely. And sounds more and more intriguing. Just to make sure: Can you die fighting for the solution you feel is right, rather than succumbing to the Corporation's power and executing the wrong one?

Cheers,
+ Mikael

There's loads of things that could happen. There are degrees of reprisal depending on who you are. But yeah, you can die doing the right thing. And that can be a victory.

[Mikael]

Well, this sounds a lot better than my initial impression. Can I die now?

[Wood]

Well, I can't stop you.

That would be deprotagonising. :)