[Polaris] Deaths in the Senate

[Per Fischer]

And so it was that I finally got around to try playing Polaris, more or less by coincidence. I bought the game a while ago, but along with a bunch of other games as well, and never got around to give it a try. Then I got an email from Paul, who was visiting Edinburgh and was looking for an indie game experience.

We initially met for a drink in Edinburgh, and I invited my old story game buddy Joe along as well. According to himself, Paul is not really a gamer, but he's interested in story(telling) games, and is working with his own game designs as well, with many of the mechanics we know from story games, without the terminology. Kind of interesting.

We had a nice afternoon, where Joe and I tried to bring Paul up to speed with what's been happening on the indie-forged scene the last couple of years. And we decided to try a one-shot Polaris, because it needs no prep and can work with three players. Joe had demoed the game on the local Conpulsion last year. I read through the whole book again before we met, and found it utterly inspiring.

So, a couple of days later at my place we met again. I cooked a meal for us, we had some red wine, talked more and listened to electric jazz and sat down to play. Joe read the intro section and bits and pieces from the setting, and it clicked. Here are the knights:

Alphard (Played by Paul)
Office: Knight of the Order of the Stars
Blessings: Starlight Sword
Ability: Lore of Demons, Flawed Heart
Fate: Blind Child, The Grief of a Woman

Connections
Tenoghalos. A demon that has haunted Alphard in his nightmares, perhaps because of a failure he can't remember.
Zozma. Childhood friend.
Atria. Believes that Alphard is not flawed. Believes in him.

Matar (played by Per)
Office: Knight of the Order of the Stars, Convener of the Senate
Blessings: Starlight Sword, Senatorial Crystal (sees where Senate Members are)
Ability: Lore of Demons
Fate: Blind Child

Connections
Atria. Matar's wife.
Queen Schedar. Whom Matar had a sexual relationship with.
Tenoghalos. A demon and Matar's father.

Keid (played by Joe)
Office: Knight of the Order of the Stars, Guardian of Southwatch, Razor (Senatorial guard)
Blessings: Starlight Sword
Ability: Lore of Demons
Fate: Blind Child

Connections
Atria. Sister, who once betrayed Keid.
Tenoghalos. Blackmail?
Zozma. A fellow Razor.

We decided on few NPCs, and to tie them all together i a tight web of relations. The scene content is a bit hazy, and has been compiled from our combined memories. But help me out, guys, to expand and correct.

First scene saw me setting the scene as Mistaken for Alphard. Zozma comes to see Alphard. Alphard tells him to go away, then realizes he brought Tenoghalos with him. He is frightened and seeks asylum in a safe place, but ends up agreeing to present Tenoghalos's motion to the Senate in exchange for the demon promising to never come to his home again. First exposure to the conflict phrases with excellent effect.

Next scene I think Joe set a scene with his Heart Keid. Keid brings evidence (an ice shard of some kind) to the Senator's (or the Convener's - can't remember) building, but the Senator is gone and it starts to melt. He threatens the secretary and throws her off the roof. There was a conflict here with Keid's fellow Razor Zozma over Keid's sister's betrayal of Southwatch, but the details are hazy.

Keid was arrested after a row with Zozma and Atria.

I think I played the next scene as Heart for Matar, calling for the first Senatorial meeting in the Fall. Only one item on the agenda - a motion from Alphard (which of course was coming directly fromTenoghalos). We might have muddle the game mechanics here, but I suggested what the motion was: let the demons into Polaris. After some debate and complications, the vote ends up undecided, and Alphard has to cast the deciding vote. A tense moment as he actually refuses to vote and subsequently is arrested and cast into jail next to Keid.

Paul describes the following scenes such:
Then Keid and Alphard are in jail and somehow Alphard is released in return for Keid being sent into the Mistake. He convinces himself that this is for the greater good, since he will be free to get revenge on
Zozma (for bringing Tenoghalos to him in the first place, I think).
[Note: Paul thinks this is where we had a bit of a confusing conflict where he was trying to work in the "blind child" thing, but it didn't really come off.]

Alphard sits in a cave, growing a beard and fashioning some sort of ice spear, and appears, disguised, at the Senate. Meanwhile, Zozma has been appointed head of the Senate.

Keid rushes in, talks to Tenoghalos, who offers him something (can't remember!), refuses, and heads into the main hall, where the demon has (as far as we can tell) turned everyone to ice.

Alphard throws his spear at the head figure, who turns out to be not Zozma but the King. (Was someone trying to stop him? Atria?)

The King shatters into a hundred shards, whereupon Alphard throws himself onto the shards, impaling himself.
(end of Paul's notes)

I have to say, even this short game showed huge potential. The evocative color of the, not very extensive, setting and the ritualistic way the scene setting and conflict resolution works is amazing. Simply amazing. Every scene started twisted and turned its own incredible ways, and everyone around the table, no matter what role in a scene, was stressed to their creative limits.

Guys?

Per

[Paul T]

My experience was pretty much the same--I was blown away by the evocative quality of the game and the text. Beautiful, tragic, and really gets you into the spirit before you even start playing. It was quite amazing to me to see how how strong, how powerful the setting was, without actually setting anything in stone. Having read some "flavor text" (it seems a shame to use the term), we were ready to go, creating characters and beginning play with practically no hesitation. You get such a strong image just from reading the flavor text and using the key phrases that you're basically ready to go as soon as you're done. But all that without actually giving any specific information about the game world (well, there is a little, but only a little)! It's all defined by the players' narrations... but it gives you the illusion that it isn't.

I found the session a little awkward, mostly because I went into it not knowing any of the rules, but I did enjoy it tremendously, and can see the powerful potential of the game in "proper hands".

My first note is that there is at least one scene missing from the notes above--the one where Matar was Heart and his new secretary is some sort of spy. However, it seems I'm not the only one who is hazy on the details of that one! Maybe Joe can help us out.

In second order, I have a few questions about the mechanics. I hesitated to ask, since I haven't read the rules, and they may be answered there, but since this thread as started up, I might as well jump in.

-I am quite confused about the mechanics for exhausting Themes. They help you by allowing you to use more powerful negotiation phrases, but I'm not sure how they are supposed to tie into the narration. Is one supposed to check off a theme and just make their statement ("And furthermore, the secretary...")?

More specifically:

-Whose Themes does the Mistaken exhaust? His character's? The little "M's" on the character sheet suggest to me that that is how it is supposed to work. However, the focus of Themes on things very specific to the character (like Offices and Abilities) would seem to make that awkward. As Mistaken, if your character has the Theme "Clumsy" as an Ability, would you exhaust it in a conflict to narrate a moment of clumsiness on the part of the Heart?

That's the most logical conclusion for me, but then it seems odd to have such a heavy character focus in the Themes--Fate is the only Aspect that isn't directly linked to the character. For instance, the use of the Blessing "My Special Three-Legged Horse Spartacus" for the Mistaken would seem to be limited.

-When exhausting a Theme, are you expected to add information to the story? In the awkward conflict mentioned by Per, I wanted to use the "Blind Child" Theme to explain some connection Alphard had with a child as a motivation for him to leave the prison and thereby send Keid to his terrible fate. However, there was no way to do that without a lengthy explanation, and that clearly doesn't mesh well with the conflict process (consisting of a short statement made by a player, and then a chance for the other to respond). We saw very quickly that it wasn't working very well, and moved on, but it was decidedly awkward. How much narration is one supposed to add when exhausting a Theme?

Put a slightly different way, is it the author's intent that a Theme may be exhausted in a conflict pretty much anytime a player wishes to, so long as he or she is clever enough to be able to work it in, or is it rather that the Themes only come into play when there is already a clear connection in the story, and thus may not always be possible to exhaust at all?

A couple more questions:

It wasn't entirely clear to me what a player's goals are, as Mistaken. I can see that the Moons are more or less impartial participants, and the Heart wants to drive his character forward as strongly as possible. But what's the Mistaken's "goal of play", as it were? Is one of the players trying to push for experience rolls, and, if so, is it the Mistaken or the Heart?

Finally, those of you who play Polaris at a more polished level, how strictly do you think it best to outline conflicts? We wove from straight narration into conflict and back very fluidly, without drawing boundaries, which was neat but also a little unclear in places. I could see the switch being much more clearly defined: "Someone has just used a key phrase. We're no longer in free narration but in conflict (meaning only key phrases may be used) until someone closes the conflict with the appropriate key phrase."

Thanks, Per, Joe, and Ben Lehman. Polaris was an eye-opener for me in a number of ways.

Best,


Paul

[Ben Lehman]

Play sounds cool! I'm always at a loss for my participation in these threads, so I'll say "yay for mechanics questions!"

In second order, I have a few questions about the mechanics. I hesitated to ask, since I haven't read the rules, and they may be answered there, but since this thread as started up, I might as well jump in.

-I am quite confused about the mechanics for exhausting Themes. They help you by allowing you to use more powerful negotiation phrases, but I'm not sure how they are supposed to tie into the narration. Is one supposed to check off a theme and just make their statement ("And furthermore, the secretary...")?

To exhaust a theme, the theme must be present in the scene and apply to the conflict. In the case of "you ask far too much" it must already be implicated, and the statement you are pushing at must somehow contradict or contravene the theme. In the case of "and furthermore" it must be already present and bringing about the "and furthermore" statement or it must be present in the statement itself.

-Whose Themes does the Mistaken exhaust? His character's? The little "M's" on the character sheet suggest to me that that is how it is supposed to work. However, the focus of Themes on things very specific to the character (like Offices and Abilities) would seem to make that awkward. As Mistaken, if your character has the Theme "Clumsy" as an Ability, would you exhaust it in a conflict to narrate a moment of clumsiness on the part of the Heart?

This is wrong. Both the Heart and the Mistaken exhaust themes from the same knight -- the one who is the focus of the scene.

-When exhausting a Theme, are you expected to add information to the story? In the awkward conflict mentioned by Per, I wanted to use the "Blind Child" Theme to explain some connection Alphard had with a child as a motivation for him to leave the prison and thereby send Keid to his terrible fate. However, there was no way to do that without a lengthy explanation, and that clearly doesn't mesh well with the conflict process (consisting of a short statement made by a player, and then a chance for the other to respond). We saw very quickly that it wasn't working very well, and moved on, but it was decidedly awkward. How much narration is one supposed to add when exhausting a Theme?

I think I covered this above. You're not allowed to do any explanation outside of just the statement itself unless the moons, when judging whether or not the theme applies, ask you for clarification.

Put a slightly different way, is it the author's intent that a Theme may be exhausted in a conflict pretty much anytime a player wishes to, so long as he or she is clever enough to be able to work it in, or is it rather that the Themes only come into play when there is already a clear connection in the story, and thus may not always be possible to exhaust at all?

The latter, definitely.

It wasn't entirely clear to me what a player's goals are, as Mistaken. I can see that the Moons are more or less impartial participants, and the Heart wants to drive his character forward as strongly as possible. But what's the Mistaken's "goal of play", as it were? Is one of the players trying to push for experience rolls, and, if so, is it the Mistaken or the Heart?

The Mistaken's goals are the provide conflict for the Heart. If the Heart is trying to keep his knight pure, that means constant tempations. If the Heart is trying to drive his knight into the ground, that means constant chances for redemption.

Finally, those of you who play Polaris at a more polished level, how strictly do you think it best to outline conflicts? We wove from straight narration into conflict and back very fluidly, without drawing boundaries, which was neat but also a little unclear in places. I could see the switch being much more clearly defined: "Someone has just used a key phrase. We're no longer in free narration but in conflict (meaning only key phrases may be used) until someone closes the conflict with the appropriate key phrase."

I don't understand this question, I'm afraid. Play in polaris flows in and out of conflict quickly, with no "outlining" needed (in fact, any sort of "what is this conflict about" discussion is toxic to play.) Yet, there is a very formal line in the sand.

yrs--
--Ben

[Paul T]

Ben,

I've been traveling, and so didn't get a chance to reply earlier, but I just wanted to thank you for your reply. You answered all my questions, even the one you thought you couldn't.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to playing this game again sometime, armed with a better understanding of how it works.


Paul