ACTUAL PLAY: Prelim Playtest #3 for DEAD INSIDE: THE ROLEPLAYING GAME OF LOSS & REDEMPTION

Per Ron's request, I'll attempt to reformulate the third preliminary playtest session for DEAD INSIDE.

Note that this playtest happened over a year ago (April 2003), before the text of the book -- especially the text of Chapter 7: the Introductory Scenario, "Brave New Spirit World" -- was finalized. Aspects changed before publication, and in addition, several Scenes developed out of improved play rather than the written text. Furthermore, two of the players (B & E) had run through character generation and the first part of the Scenario (roughly Scenes RW1 through RW3, plus SW1, and one or two Crosstown Traffics) the previous week, before the remaining two players were free on the day of this playtest session.

The Players were:
B: 31 yo woman, my wife. Gamed a little with her ex-husband, whose issues and playstyle really killed her -- mild to start with -- interest in gaming. However, she "speaks gamer" and understands the gist of my RPG ramblings. She played an athletic activist character (Kendra) who inadvertently broke her soul -- she performed an impossible feat and still *failed* at something important to her. Kendra helped escort women past protesters into an abortion clinic; one day, she -- amazingly-- caught the reflection of a guy with a hunting rifle in a car's windshield. She threw herself between the bullet and the teen she was escorting -- if the guy had had any sort of aim, she would have been killed instead of the girl. Unfortunately, the guy screwed up and missed. . . but a freak richochet killed the teenage girl. Kendra's soul broke then.) She found her way into the Spirit World by helping a friendly ghost (Bill from RW1).

E: 31 yo woman, friend. Utter newbie to gaming. Played an idealized, fictionalized version of herself (Oriana), whose soul had been "lost" (stolen? broken?) as a child in an event that killed her parents. Raised by an Average Person Shaman (i.e., guy with no real clue about the truth of the cosmology), she had a lot of baggage on magical rituals in the Real World that's just bollocks in the game (Good [+2] Freaky New Age Jazz Quality). Her dead father had apparently been a Sensitive, and his Crow Tulpa finally found Oriana one day, and helped her find her way into the Spirit World (via the Glade from RW3).

R: 31 yo woman, friend. Wife of ER. Long-time gamer and LARPer, in systems from Vampire to Champions. Favors "bruiser girls" (her words), but played a shy, nervous girl (Jessica) who had been born without a soul who was a patient of ER's character.

ER: 31 yo man, friend. Husband or R. Long time gamer and LARPer, in systems from Vampire to Champions. Favors combat monsters, he played a portly, middle-aged Jungian psychologist and a mild skeptic (Dr. Martin Sloane) who had actually been born Sensitive but lost his soul by giving too much of it to his clients.

Jessica and Martin entered play via helping Bill in RW1. [Yes, this was a duplication of the same Scene that B/Kendra had played through in the previous week. If I recall correctly, since B wasn't there for the first half of the session detailed here, and E wasn't present for the first part of B's session, nobody twigged to this.]

We were all friends -- some for years -- before the idea of a playtest ever came up.

===================
Okay, E, R, and ER showed up to play; B was working night-shift and joined in later. By previous agreement, E's character Oriana would sit on the sidelines until Martin and Jessica entered the Spirit World, where Oriana and B's character Kendra would meet up with them on the advice of an Imago.

CHARGEN: Took fifteen minutes to run R and ER through chargen together; that includes ER reading a printout he'd made on Carl Jung and my hasty copying of their character sheets into my notes.

Jessica works in a video store. She's reshelving musicals when she sees a Ghost walk in through the wall. Then, old psychologist, Dr. Martin Sloane, the only one who'd ever been any good to her, walked in. Martin had driven through the Ghost in the parking lot. Much amusement as the two Dead Inside characters -- "mental patient" and "psychologist" desperately try to hide the fact that they can see the Ghost standing there from each other. However, when the Ghost suddenly comes behind Jessica and screams in her ear "I KNOW YOU CAN SEE ME, BITCH! HELP ME!", she jumps -- and as Martin blanches, he notices. They quietly walk outside -- followed by the Ghost -- and reveal the truth to each other... upon which Martin lashes into the Ghost, and demands an apology: "I don't care if you're dead or not; there's no call for that kind of language to a young girl."

Bill the Ghost apologies, and spins his sad tale of woe. The two PCs decide to help him, and immediately feel better (Soul Point gained). Two amusing bits:

1. Martin calling his service to let his secretary to know that he'll be on indefinite emergency leave and to reschedule his (few) patients with his backups.
2. Not only do Jessica and Martin refuse to take any money from the recovered briefcase, Martin writes a substantial personal check and Jessica signs over her meager paycheck to place in the briefcase for Bill's family. (Jessica got more Soul Cultivation ticks there, because Martin has the Wealthy Quality; it would hurt her more to hand over that money).

[Meanwhile, E is ooohing and awwing over the roleplaying and characterization going on, which I think enhanced the feeling of performance and the need to be "on."]

Bill shows the pair how to enter the Spirit World (via RW2, Madame Lupino). Lupino gives them a little more info on the cosmology, tells them they will find help other the other side in the form of two young women, and Opens a Gate for them. They duck through to appear in Wyld Park, at the foot of the Bridge of Souls.

[B gets home from work; pizza is ordered; and play resumes with E and B's characters approaching R and ER's characters in Wyld Park. Some "flashing sign over their head that reads PC" out-of-game effect here, to be sure, but there was also a mild in-game justification from Bill.]

Kendra and Oriana, who have spent one session together in the Spirit World together, take Martin and Jessica under their wings, and start to explain the "rules" of the Spirit World. [This worked really well, as both B and E didn't have a firm grasp on how the *game* rules worked, but had pretty much nailed down the rules of the *setting*. Very flavorful and engaging, adding to the wonder and mystery of how things worked, on both a player and character level, I felt.]

They roam about, experiencing some Crosstown Traffic Scenes before arriving at Archaic Cafe. Oriana and Kendra have a decent relationship with the Proprietor, Evie, who's served as an Imago for them and set them Tasks to perform. This NPC spills some more info and gives Jessica and Martin Tasks to perform solo. Jessica is forced to confront her Vice of Envy (Task #4, the green paving stone).

[R failed Jessica's Vice Check roll by a slim margin, and got rather upset -- she really, really wanted to make it, not for the reward of a Soul Point, but because she wanted to try and overcome that as part of the character. She was really digging the angst being generated, but didn't want to fail. This started a flurry of looking through the rules printouts by all of the players, looking for something that could help. One of them -- I can't remember who -- asked if Jessica had used her Virtue of Patience yet. She hadn't. Now, normally, a player could activate that to ignore a Vice Check totally, but here we were in the middle of one. I judged that she could use the "free Upshift feature" of the Virtue use -- which would change her roll result enough to be a success, but she'd have to explain how her Patience conquered her Envy. Which she did, with relish, and all the players cheered.]

Meanwhile, Martin is sent to the Quiet Oak (Task #8) to speak to the "being with no mouth." When confronted by the question posed ("Which is stronger, lover or hate?"), he answered "I don't know." The follow-up question burned him to the quick: "Why?" The doctor was left at a loss. The being then said "When you can answer why, you will heal." Martin wandered off, pondering this conundrum, and eventually found himself back at Archaic Cafe.

[ER's character's response caused flabberghastment in the GM... He honestly and sincerely told the Imago that he didn't know why he didn't know which was stronger of love or hate, and I hadn't anticipated this. I decide to let it hang until he could answer, so his Task and test here were ongoing until he came up with a solution. . . which he did, at the dramatic Climax of the the Scenario, immediately before attempting to ensoul. Very satisfying. It also cause a rewrite of some sections of the Scenario.]

They walked through some more Scenes together, gathering Soul Points by random acts of kindness, expressing deep interest in and concern for other characters.

[They did a tremendous amount of exploration of the setting -- and each others' characters -- and tried to connect up complementary NPCs who could help each other (something I hadn't anticipated). And all the while, they're talking about their characters' pasts and feelings and deep questions of ethics and philosophy. Very neat. The discussion they had in an attempt to help Martin make up his mind about the strengths of love and hate -- and why he didn't know which was stronger -- was fascinating to listen to.]

[This would be a good place to note that a few of the Scenes they experienced do not appear in the finished book: some were cut from the manuscript because they weren't working -- the rockstar and valet Scenes. I decided to lose them because they just didn't gell; in the recent discussions here, I think they may have been too binary (yes-no) solutions without an underlying rules structure (like the Virtue/Vice Check subsystem) to support or justify such a situation.]

Two Scenes particularly stand out in my memory, for both in-game and out-of-game coolness:

1. The PCs met an Imago who gave them Task #2 ("Go to the Fountain of Tears, and do what must be done"). They make their way there to find a Dead Inside, like them, husking into a Qlippoth. Now, none of them had seen one yet, though they had be warned about them. . . and becoming them ("there's little chance of being saved from that state"). This kneeling guy, flickering between a normal appearance -- and in obvious pain -- and a growling shadowy form (which looked, to their eyes, utterly wrong and evil). Basically, a man becoming a monster, against his will. The core of this Task is for the PC(s) to decide what "do what must be done" means. Does it mean run like hell? Killing the man before the monster conquers him? What?

Martin didn't hesitate: "I run over to help him."
GM (me): "You know, if you touch him, you'll probably lose all the soul that you've managed to pull together, and more."
Martin: "I don't care! No one deserves that much pain, whatever they've done!"
He lays hand on the flickering being, and says "I do whatever it is I used to do for my patients, giving them my soul-energy."
GM: "You give some soul-blood to the husking figure -- mark off one Soul Point -- and then, like a powerful suction, *another* is ripped away from you." (to the other PCs) "You see Martin touch the husking man, and see the soul-power from his hands enter and start to slow the flickering... but now, *Martin* is starting to flicker in time with the husking creature."

Several things happened at once:
Jessica said, "NO! Don't let him do this! He's the only one who's ever been kind to me! Don't let him die!"
Kendra: "I protect him!"
GM: "How?"
Kendra: "Uh. . ."
Oriana: "Ward! I saw that guy Ward last week. That means I can do it now, right?"
GM: "Yup!"
Oriana: "You two," (to Kendra and Jessica) "each put a hand on my shoulder and help me shield him!"

They do this, Oriana channels energy (at least 2 Soul Points each) from all of them to protect Martin, who can now heal the man back from monsterdom.

[This high-action, high-intensity Scene just about came out of nowhere. The players went, scarily fast, from a kind of dithering, exploratory mode directly into a smoothly-functioning team.

ER reacted with what seemed uncharacteristic speed and verve. . . until you remembered his PC was a doctor, a healer, who did do this thing to his own detriment, heedless of the cost. R's the gamer who favored "bruiser girls" emoted instead of taking action -- but this was actually more cool than it looks on the surface, because R'd been playing Jessica as *incredibly* shy, and this may have been the longest string of words to come out of her at one time up to this point; the threat to her one friend spurred her to break down psychological walls. B's first reaction, as Kendra, was to protect him, even though she had no idea how to do so. Her exclamation sparked E's memory of seeing how an NPC protected herself vs. another NPC in her first session; under the rules of the game, many powers observed in use can then be activated by the observer. ]

[Note that it was the newbie gamer who came up with a solution to the problem, and one not necessarily addressed explicitly in the rules. Sure, multiple characters can combine Qualities in a single situation. And sure, a character can burn their Soul Points on behalf of another. But I hadn't anticipated people putting them together, so this was a pleasant surprise for me. ]

[BTW, the man was saved, and all the characters ended up -- eventually -- mildly to the good, Soul Point-wise, for their great sacrifices and concern for others, alongside acting nobly without thought. The Scene was very intense for all of us, so we took a short break before getting back to the game. As I puffed on a cig out on the balcony, ER came out, leaned in conspiratorially, and said, "That was awesome."]

2. The PCs have been lured into Sewerland, pursuing a Martin's Shadow -- a "lean and hungry" piece of work, given how nice Martin ended up being -- who has stolen another PC's Child Imago (representing their lost innocence). They give chase, trying to dodge the critters and crawlies that lurch out of side tunnels to slow them down. Kendra -- the most athletic and agressive of the bunch -- has somehow gotten stuck behind everyone else. She keeps getting madder and madder, since the leader (Oriana) is determining their pace, and losing the race (physical conflict) with the fleeing Shadow. "Screw this," she says. "I'm using Dream-Leap to run up the wall and along the ceiling as fast as I can, then I'm going to drop down and side kick this Shadow into bits."

GM: "Okay, burn one Soul Point to run up the wall and then roll 2d6 plus your Athletics Quality Modifier. To catch up, you need an 11."
Kendra: "Fuck it, I'm spending two Soul Points on this."
GM: (figures out the likely effect of this according to the rules) "Ah, okay. Roll *3d6* plus your Athletic Modifier."
Kendra: (rolling) "16!"
GM (to other players): "Okay, um, you hear something like a crack of thunder behind you, then a rush of wind, and you see a dark streak moving very, very fast along the ceiling of the sewer passage..."

By the time the PCs caught up, Kendra had squished Martin's Shadow under her sneaks and did a little watusi. The others huff and puff up, and she says,"Uh, sorry, dude, I kinda broke your Shadow."

Martin: "That's okay, he was getting a little big for his britches." (waggles finger at pile of spoo that is his baser nature) "Remember this: no more little girls for you."

And there was much hilarity around the table.

[The real-person interactions around this were very interesting: on the whole, the PCs let each other do their own thing, so long as they seemed to have a handle on whatever it was they were doing, even failing at things and screwing up. But when a *player* started to dither, the other players leaned forward and started to offer ideas and options, not in a pushy way, but in a sharing way. Additionally, when a PC took an action within the game, about half the time there'd be a struggle for spotlight time. In those cases where there wasn't a struggle for the spotlight, the other players moved to supporting positions in the Scene (best illustrated with #1 above with the Qlippoth and husking) for the spotlight character. In those cases where there was a tussle for spotlight time, it was almost always brief, and after the "lead" of the Scene had been determined, the loser of the tussle moved to a supporting position alongside the other PCs without discussion. There was no sulking about it, or attempt to steal back the limelight be doing their own thing, just a smooth locking into place.]

[In only one case did I as GM intervene. E, as Oriana, had been doing most of the talking and acting and reacting with NPCs and situations for a few of the preceeding Scenes. In the particular Scene, B as Kendra had started to take the lead, for in-game (connection to the topic and NPC in the Scene) and out-of-game (she hadn't had a chance to get really involved in the previous Scenes). E as Oriana starts talking -- not interrupting B, but just speaking over her as if B wasn't talking, or even there -- she was interested in what she herself had to say more than paying attention to her fellow players, no matter that she wasn't even talking about the situation in the Scene, but something tangential. I held up my hand until she stopped talking. I then said, "B was speaking first. Let her finish, then I'll listen to what you want Oriana to do." And that was enough to snap E back to realizing that, yeah, other people were playing the game, and it wasn't particularly nice to be a spotlight hog.]

The characters all eventually ensouled, and are now Sensitive. We may be revisiting the characters soon for a short COLD, HARD WORLD series, but I suspect we'll jsut end up making new characters, because these characters would be too powerful for the conceit.

===================

I think the biggest theme that sprung up in play was that PCs were their best -- effectively in their goals and morally in their outlook -- when:

A. Expressing the strongest elements of their character, where personality, history, Virtue, and Qualities combined; and
B. Resisting the weakest elements of their character, where personality, history, Vice, and Qualities combined.

Also, it was during those times that the players were most immersed in their characters and getting the most enjoyment out of the game.

I find that very interesting. While I hadn't been able to formulate that in the text (or even at the time), in hindsight that's a damned good thing because it's part of my outlook.

One intriguing thing is that the sole male of the group took on an authority figure role that was explicitly unauthoritative in the Spirit World. Indeed, his skepticism undercut that authority, and the two characters (Oriana and Kendra) had authority since they knew the area. After some play and gaining of familiarity, there was no real party "leader,"though Kendra and Oriana kept the highest amount of respect. Then, during the episode with the Qlippoth, Martin's act of selfless courage vaulted him into a position of irreproachable respect . While by no means the "leader" of the little band of PCs, he became the wise advisor -- the one with the intellectual and moral authority to say a plan was good or bad, if asked. The Merlin of the group, you could say.

R's character started off as a shrinking violet, but after the Qlippoth episode, shed her shyness. (Indeed, after her outburst, R shifted vocal patterns for Jessica from "shy, quiet, mousy girl" to "average girl, a little reserved" -- which she didn't do on purpose or even notice until it was pointed out to her.

After the mild admonition about letting other people speak, E the player's portrayal of Oriana altered slightly. How can I put this? Okay, previous, the characterization for Oriana had been flighty and easily distractible, but that was because that was the way that E was acting and reacting herself around the table. Afterwards, while the character remained mostly flighty, she became a bit more focused in the game -- and E was *much* more focused on the play experience as part of the group rather than simply personally.

B was kind of lackadaisical about the whole game experience -- until she did something cool. Then she was invested, and continued to do attempt more and more coll things, culminating in the Sewerland Scene described above.

All of the players loved this game, calling it "the greatest gaming experience" they'd had in years. When I pressed them for whys, I got kudos for the system and setting, but also for their level of immersion in their characters, my method of freewheelin' but firm GMing, the posing of questioons with no answers (leaving them to decided), and the chance to try something in gaming that was both a little different -- something with a risk of personal player psychological exposure -- as well as a safe place to experiment.

To sum up, here are some other things I noticed about this group:

* They all were slightly more amenable to *intentionally* exploring personal (that is, their own) psychological quirks via a PC than most other gamers I've gamed with. R specifically generated Jessica to explore the concept of Envy in her own life, and to try something other than another "bruiser girl character." ER became interested in Jungian psychology, and wanted to play a guy who would know all about that stuff, but not truly buy into it. B wanted to kick butt and be buff. E created an idealized/caricatured version of herself that she didn't really characterize until it was brought home (somehow) by being pulled up short as mentioned above. From that point on, E and Oriana were slightly different.

* This group required a strong in-game social or character context for character motivation; mission-based goals in the absence of such context ("clear that dungeon!" or "save that prisoner that you don't know for some money rather than personal reasons") were definitely less interesting. (This is part of the failure of the deleted scenes mentioned above.)

* The PCs in this group related to all aspects as the setting as characters rather than "game tokens" or "faceless obstacles." This included scenery and equipment, often going so far -- with my normally tacit consent -- as to invent setting details.

* This group needed everyone to have some level of buy-in to whatever plan they needed in pursuit of a goal. Even when time did not permit discussion (see examples above), they tended to fall in line and support the group's lead, badda-boom.

* This group seemed to get sidetracked from their goals early on, caught up with the issues mentioned above (roleplaying the character, backstory, context requirements, buy-in requirement, social relation to everything). While on some level, this appeared to be "dithering," I don't think it was -- it was engine-revving. It was the players buying-into the game.

* When the group "stopped dithering"/"got revved up," they moved like lightning and thunder, with remarkable amounts of teamwork (in my experience) without any table-talk or previous Scene's worth of plotting or planning.

================

Thoughts? Comments?

Chad, thanks for posting this play summary. I see some of the points you were aiming at in the earlier thread.

I've experienced that sort of pacing before -- having players appear to dither until they reach buyin, then jump into action almost spontaneously -- but your description of the phenomenon made it a lot clearer to me.

Andrew Norris wrote: I've experienced that sort of pacing before -- having players appear to dither until they reach buyin, then jump into action almost spontaneously -- but your description of the phenomenon made it a lot clearer to me.

chadu wrote: I wonder if we can isolate what cause this sort of pacing: is it simply a matter of individual playstyles intersecting, or does a rules-structure enhance it, or is it dependent upon an unspoken social contract, or what?

* They all were slightly more amenable to *intentionally* exploring personal (that is, their own) psychological quirks via a PC than most other gamers I've gamed with.

Emily Care wrote:

* They all were slightly more amenable to *intentionally* exploring personal (that is, their own) psychological quirks via a PC than most other gamers I've gamed with.

Is this called for explicitly in the game, was it done spontaneously, or did you introduce it for this session?

Emily Care wrote: I'm really intrigued by your system. (Though--forgive me--as I read about them wandering about doing nice things for soul, I couldn't help but think of a happy version of kill puppies for satan. Have you ever read the Shirley Jackson story "An ordinary day with peanuts?")

The thing that keeps on getting me, Chad, is that:

A) I haven't read your game, but it sounds quite like it sturdily supports narrativism, and

B) that your comments about the game make the play sound remarkable in some ways.

What I mean by this is, have you played Over the Edge? Unknown Armies (actually, what am I saying, you've written for this game, haven't you)? Or Sorcerer? Or Hero Quest? Or InSpectres? Or... well, it's a long list.

When playing these games, you're telling me that you didn't get play like what you describe above? You're "normal" players must be entrenched really deeply, then. Really deeply.

All of the play that you note is just like pretty much all of the play that I experience all of the time with a wide variety of players. If there's any difference, it's that the players don't end up "dawdling" around exploring things in quite so much depth, because they're constantly getting to the points where they're addressing premise - that is, making important decisions about their character's ideals and beliefs, etc.

That is, I think what you've got is a system that pretty strongly supports this sort of thing - but I'm guessing that you're using some other techniques that, being more traditional, don't work so well with this form of play.

For instance you mention party play to say that it's only loosely party play. A lot of us into this style of play don't use party play at all. Each player just has a character, and they do whatever makes sense for them to do. Thus completly avoiding the problems of having players have their characters go with others just to "keep the party together," and the like.

Would you be interested in hearing more about such methods of play?

Mike

Mike, you might want to just buy the game. There's a list of influences in the back. ;-D

To save Chad some trouble, I'll just look at my copy of Dead Inside and list the games he lists as being influential:

Castle Falkenstein
GURPS Fantasy II (as my own editorial aside, Chad is the first person I've met who likes that book)
Marvel Superheroes Role-Playing Game (the one with the universal chart, not the new one)
Nobilis
OctaNe
Over the Edge
Pendragon
RISUS
Storyboard from Magus Creative Games (this is the first one I'd never heard of)
Underworld (GMS's game)
Unknown Armies (2nd edition)
Wraith: The Oblivion (2nd edition)

So, I think Chad covered every major game that I think I'd recommend for a game like this, though my own hubris might add Pretender to that list, and as part of the "Cult of Ron", Sorcerer, as you mentioned, probably deserves mentioning in this context as well. Myself, I'd describe Dead Inside's system as sort of "FUDGE meets Over the Edge with a touch of Pendragon," but better than that. ;-D

That's kinda what I thought, Kirt (I did note that I recognized him from UA). What I'm saying is that I'm surprised that someone influenced by, say, Nobilis, would see the play he's describing as unusual. I would have thought that he'd have seen a lot more of this at this point.

Basically, I'm mirroring what Em said. I think that what's going on is that we have a load of abashed vanilla narrativism going on here. This is why I mentioned OTE first - his play reeeealy matches perfectly all the OTE play that I've ever encountered. Basically, nothing to promote addressing premise, but then neither is there anything else that the game promotes. So you end up with just a lot of floaty exploration until, as Em put it, they "strike premise".

Basically, I'm just flabbergasted that somebody could know all of these games, and not have encountered this sort of play yet. My pals who liked the OTE play were wargamers (we're playing WWII minis next month). About as "experienced gamer" as it gets. And even they ended up playing OTE in the manner described.

But, thinking on it, I guess that's just another example of how different each player's experiences are in RPGs.


As to what supports this in his game, everything that I've heard about it so far seems to lead right to this sort of play. I've heard of no real mechanics that directly support narrativism (he denies it in the post above), yet from what I hear, character enumeration is about listing somewhat freeform traits. Well, given the overall premise of the game, no surprise that people would select traits that would be fun to explore in such a context. So, without outside influence, if you had asked me what the game would promote from the start, I'd have said just what he got.

Again, I keep wondering why this seems like an odd phenomenon, and why Chad keeps wondering what can be done to capture the feel of the game in quesiton. I think he already has it. How do you get entrenched gamers out of their trench to play the game like it's designed? I dunno, I'm not sure one can do that.

Mike

Hello,

Dead Inside is verrrry near the top of my to-play list at the moment, but based only on my reading so far, it seems like this: Fudge with the Fudge points turned up to 11 and split into several different powerful categories which can transform into one another.

For those of you familiar with Fudge, you can see how effective this design is. If you called Fudge points "Soul," and provided an in-game way to get them, and you could spend them for various bonus effects yet also slurp them out of other people and bank them in various ways ... well, what you have done is take (as Sullivan calls it) the metagame mechanic and made it far more important than the basic "hit it" competency-based mechanic, over time.

When you link that mechanic to character ethics, which Dead Inside shares in spades with Sorcerer, then wham - Narrativism. All you gotta do then is raise a bunch of ethical quandaries, and Dead Inside has an excellent built-in Kicker: you have no such points, you are soulless. Go.

So I'm not surprised that "omigod Narrativism" play happens frequently, using this game. You'd see the same thing if the bonus/EP dice in Over the Edge were linked to characters' actions in ethical terms. It doesn't seem abashed to me at all - especially since characters might, in play, decide not to "help people and give them stuff" (the hard but virtuous way to regain Soul) but rather to slurp and steal it, becoming soul-vampire bastards. So the choice is really there.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: What I mean by this is, have you played Over the Edge? Unknown Armies (actually, what am I saying, you've written for this game, haven't you)? Or Sorcerer? Or Hero Quest? Or InSpectres? Or... well, it's a long list.

Mike Holmes wrote: When playing these games, you're telling me that you didn't get play like what you describe above? You're "normal" players must be entrenched really deeply, then. Really deeply.

OK, even more surprised, then.

Again, what I'm sensing is "missing" from all out narrativism are techniques like Bangs, Kickers, Scene Framing and such all pushing hard for those moments. Not that I'm saying it should have these things. Just that with them it sounds like you'd have play just like Sorcerer, FWIW.

Mike

Hiya,

Are we getting all GNS-y here? In some ways, I kind of hope not. If so, though, Chad, then what you're talking about is plain Narrativism. The "playing a game" part is not Gamism, it's just System; the "happens thus" part is more System.

Anyway, I'm tempted not to go further in this direction of discussion, but rather to consider some of the interactions of the people themselves about play, during play. Chad, did people get into one another's characters as avid audience members? Did they offer suggestions and kibitzes to one another? Did they cheer, or sympathize, or anything similar?

Best,
Ron

xiombarg wrote: Mike, you might want to just buy the game. There's a list of influences in the back. ;-D

To save Chad some trouble, I'll just look at my copy of Dead Inside and list the games he lists as being influential:
(snip)
So, I think Chad covered every major game that I think I'd recommend for a game like this, though my own hubris might add Pretender to that list, and as part of the "Cult of Ron", Sorcerer, as you mentioned, probably deserves mentioning in this context as well.

Mike Holmes wrote: Basically, I'm just flabbergasted that somebody could know all of these games, and not have encountered this sort of play yet.

Mike Holmes wrote: As to what supports this in his game, everything that I've heard about it so far seems to lead right to this sort of play. I've heard of no real mechanics that directly support narrativism (he denies it in the post above),

Ron Edwards wrote: It doesn't seem abashed to me at all - especially since characters might, in play, decide not to "help people and give them stuff" (the hard but virtuous way to regain Soul) but rather to slurp and steal it, becoming soul-vampire bastards. So the choice is really there.

Re: GNSy: I'm not qualified to speak about it (obviously, if I'm misusing the terms like it looks like I am), so I'll shut up on that now.

Ron Edwards wrote: Anyway, I'm tempted (snip) to consider some of the interactions of the people themselves about play, during play. Chad, did people get into one another's characters as avid audience members? Did they offer suggestions and kibitzes to one another? Did they cheer, or sympathize, or anything similar?

No, we shouldn't get too GNS-ish, I suppose, just commenting that this already seems to be a coherent form of play (and not too uncommon to boot). But I guess I'm asking Chad where the problem lies if any? Or would he agree that the game does just what he wants it to do?

I think he has a winner here is what I'm getting at, in terms of meeting his design goals.

What do you mean by "indirect" in the last post?

Mike

chadu wrote: Re: "OODwP" -- I've read it, and I really dig it. It's been a long, long time since, though. Having said that, I'm sure it was an unconscious influence on DI.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I guess I'm asking Chad where the problem lies if any? Or would he agree that the game does just what he wants it to do?

What do you mean by "indirect" in the last post?

Oh, what supports this sort of play? Well, not having read the game again, but going by Ron's description, its....almost too simple to describe. You've created what I call "focus" (a debatable term). Basically, you have ensured that your mechanics address only those things that the game are about. And this informs the players of what they are to do. The most potent part of your design was in ensuring that there wasn't anything in there to distract players from that sort of play.

Does that make sense? If I wanted a game that was just about Reindeer herding, I'd make the only mechanics about managing a herd of reindeer.

Why this is hard for people to get is beyond me, but most designers will have rules in their reindeer herding games for combat and other extraneous things - just in case a combat erupts. Well, they're asking for combat to erupt. Because what else do you do with combat rules?

Other than that, the soul mechanics say specifically that they have to deal with this phenomenon. I'll bet that you even have a relatively good "negative" position. That is, what happens if the players "ignore" their moral choices. Is that an interesting choice itself from a mechanical POV? This is all good design to enforce play being "about" that which is meant to be emphasized. There are loads of tactics like this, and you probably used some others.

I'm going to have to get a copy before I can comment any more cogently. This has all been part of your well crafted plan to sell loads of copies of the game to Forgies isn't it. ;-)


Every time I think I have a fix on the competition/cooperation thing, I get nothing. That is I understand the phenomenon, but I think we may just be talking about Gamism vs. Narrativism (which we weren't going to talk about).

Mike

Yup -- I either ignored or abstracted to hell everything that wasn't about the soul. The soul itself -- gaining it, losing it, using it -- gets the special mechanics.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm going to have to get a copy before I can comment any more cogently. This has all been part of your well crafted plan to sell loads of copies of the game to Forgies isn't it. ;-)

Emily Care wrote: I'd be curious to hear more about the asking "why" component.

Ask Why
But what about those cases where the reason for taking the action isn’t so clear-cut? Or the action itself, while significant, could be interpreted for good or ill? That’s when the GM needs to ask the question “Why?”

Whether as out of character table talk or through the lips of an NPC, “Why did you do that?” can often illuminate ambiguous actions. For example, say an NPC beggar asks a PC for some spare change for food. The PC refuses, and runs off down the street, looking for a restaurant. What does the GM do? He should ask “Why?” Take a look at some PC responses, and the varied results:
* “I never give money to panhandlers.” - Decay Tick
* “I haven’t eaten in days myself.” - Decay Tick
* “Lazy people make me angry; they should get a job.” - Decay Tick
* “I can’t be bothered.” - Decay Tick
* “I’m calling the cops to arrest that bum for vagrancy.” - Decay Tick
* “I’m going to buy him a sandwich instead of giving him a buck.” - Cultivation Tick
* “I’m going to call a buddy I have in Social Services.” - Cultivation Tick

For more on where, when, and how to place Ticks, see below, Cultivation Ticks and Decay Ticks.

chadu wrote: Yup -- I either ignored or abstracted to hell everything that wasn't about the soul. The soul itself -- gaining it, losing it, using it -- gets the special mechanics.

chadu wrote:

Ron Edwards wrote: It doesn't seem abashed to me at all - especially since characters might, in play, decide not to "help people and give them stuff" (the hard but virtuous way to regain Soul) but rather to slurp and steal it, becoming soul-vampire bastards. So the choice is really there.

Ah, yes: "the Nastygame."

I reviewed that textbox a bit in the writing of Cold, Hard World (in process!), and am even more firmly convinced that one can run a DI Nastygame, but that the characters for such will be disturbingly evil masters of the cost-benefit analysis.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'll bet that you even have a relatively good "negative" position. That is, what happens if the players "ignore" their moral choices.

chadu wrote: Whether as out of character table talk or through the lips of an NPC, “Why did you do that?” can often illuminate ambiguous actions. For example, say an NPC beggar asks a PC for some spare change for food. The PC refuses, and runs off down the street, looking for a restaurant. What does the GM do? He should ask “Why?” Take a look at some PC responses, and the varied results:
* “I never give money to panhandlers.” - Decay Tick etc
(snip)

neelk wrote:
For example, here's a campaign idea: Meeting the Buddha on the Road.

The player characters are ronin, the former samurai retainers of a lord who was, several years ago, treacherously slain by the agents of a rival daimyo. However, said daimyo has since repented of his evil ways, and has renounced his position and station to meditate, and has progressed far along the path to enlightenment. Very far: he has become an immortal boddhisatva (using the Full-Time Imago option) who has remained on Earth to help others on the path to enlightenment.

But he still killed the PCs' master. And blood calls for blood.

Mike Holmes wrote: I mean, if they're competing, what in the game is telling them to do so? Nothin from what I can see, so it has to be that it's a hold over from how other systems have told them that they have to play. They're still playing D&D or something, just transfering their expectations to your game (did they also end up killing folks and taking their stuff - just kidding - sorta)?

Have you seen The Pool (should be a link in resources)?

I don't get it, but that kind of free-wheeling invention seems to turn some gamers off. While they may have been "trained" that way by less cooperative and more adversarial play, I've also seen some folks come in that way. These would be the sort of people who would turn down an offer to play old Hogshead's Baron Munchausen; those who wish only to dictate their actions and not worry about having to describe scenery and NPCs and plot and such.

Anywho -- why did you bring it up?

Mike Holmes wrote:

Would "some gamers," those who'd be turned off by The Pool, happen to be the same players who were in your first game (or at least some of them)? How about the girl game? Do you think they'd be tured off by it?

Maybe about half of both groups would be up for the Pool or a New Style game, in my opinion.

Going back to the gender thread, again, I think this is all the "newbie" issue. (snip) In terms of social contract level, I think that one thing to do is to play with newbies like you did - all newbies at once. So that they can form their own opinions as much as possible. Playing with entrenched players is likely to rub off on them. If you do have to play with a mix, then I'd try to co-opt the experienced players into letting the new players form their own methods of play (as informed by the system). Might even learn the entrenched player some new tricks.

I'm not sure how much of this sort of thing is applicable to the existing gamer fanbase -- I mean, there's no way to force (or even encourage, really) the purchaser of a game to seek out players new to the hobby. Except, of course, by providing a very cool concept/premise, and that's always iffy.

If nothing else, then, I think I'd recommend to other game designers to always have a mostly-newbie (or long-lapsed gamer) playtest group, in addition to more "typical" playtest groups. Working through ideas raised that haven't been channelized by previous game experiences is eminently valuable -- at least it was to me.

CU

Yeah, my suggestion has nothing to do with design (I'm of the belief that there's little you can do on the Social Contract level there anyhow), but rather just a suggestion for anyone here reading.

But, yeah, always throw your game before newbs if you have the opportunity. :-)

Oh, and part of the whole point here is that what you have maybe is more suitable for newbs than "gamers." So sell it to the newbs, instead. Or both.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Oh, and part of the whole point here is that what you have maybe is more suitable for newbs than "gamers." So sell it to the newbs, instead. Or both.

neelk wrote:

chadu wrote: Ah, yes: "the Nastygame."

True, but they will be so damn cool. I would really like to run an "evil" DI game, because the mechanics push really hard towards being stylish bad guys, rather than gumby bad guys.

Since even bad guys need to conserve their Soul, DI ensures that evil protagonists will still be largely sympathetic.

For example, here's a campaign idea: Meeting the Buddha on the Road. (snip)

Emily Care wrote: re coop/comp: you talk about spotlight time. Is that part of the mechanics or just how you talk about it in your write up? Were they competing for some "official" (ie determined by mechanics) position of lead, or was it an informal "we're dealing with this character now" kind of thing? The example of one person talking over another made it sound like the latter. Which makes it sound like an issue of ettiquette rather than mechanics.