In what was perhaps a fit of overweening confidence (or maybe just weening overconfidence), I said I would run a demo of my Ganakagok game at Dreamation 2005 in East Brunswick in a few weeks.

The link above connects to a substantially revised and extended version of the Iron Game Chef entry I submitted (last year, I guess). I'm pleased with the current draft, and am hoping for some comments with respect to session-running: which rules or other aspects of the game look like they might cause play to bog down, become contentious, or otherwise not be a whole lot of fun for players new to the game (but, I will assume, interested in playing)? Conversely, which aspects of the game look like they might generate interest or require elaboration in play?

Bill

Okay, I've read the rules. I know how characters can do things. I know that the Dawn is coming.

What I don't know is what those two things have to do with each other. Why should players want their characters to go out and explore new lands, make alliances with neighbors, or have grand celebrations? If I can get more of a sense of what sort of image you have of a play session, that would help me analyze.

Yeah, that's a good question. My vision of how play will proceed I think can be tied to the "stages" of the game: for example, in the first stage, when things are closest to "normal," players will have their characters do things just to see what can be done; this has the effect of both familiarizing players with the mechanics and engaging characters in and with the game-world. I've suggested in the rules that players create a background detail for their characters that motivate them to act--the sample character Gujanopak has discovered the frozen body of a colorful bird, for example, and wonders what it could mean.

My hope is that these initial motivations will generate enough activity to drive the Good Fortune/Ill Fortune mechanism, where players try to maximize the Good Fortune they and their clans accumulate while inevitably driving up the Ill Fortune available to the GM to cause things to happen.

By the time the second stage of the game is reached, the characters should be aware that Something Is Going On, and that it is up to them to figure out what needs to be done. At the same time, the players may be engaged in making their village run smoothly. They are gaining the experience that lets them know how they can do things with their characters.

In the third stage of the game, the portents of the second stage begin to reach crisis points, and the characters must take it upon themselves to act: to actually come up with a solution to the problem, and to cause it to be implemented. Now is where the players' experience with the game mechanics will bear fruit, as they try to convince people to go with them to safer ground, or do battle with the spirits of the Sun to protect Ganakagok, or whatever it turns out needs to happen.

The fourth stage is the denouement, I guess: where we learn how successful the characters have been, and what the consequences of their choices will be.

Now, I realize that you're probably asking a more specific question, something like, "What do I (either as a player or as a character) get out of taking action?" And the answer is something like, "Characters need to act in order to ensure the survival of their village; players gain in-game resources by acting." Why should they want those resources, you ask? In the beginning, to answer the question or solve the mystery underlying their initial motivation; as time passes, to fix the problem that their initial investigation will have revealed.

The broader question that you may be getting at is the "So what?" question, the "Why should I play this?" question. What I think the game premised on is the question of how we deal with the inevitability of change (and loss). In thinking about that, it occurred to me that that's actually a pretty common theme in fantasy, motivated as it so frequently is by a kind of nostalgia. What I like about Ganakagok is that what's being lost is an alien culture in a completely strange place. Now, that may not be everyone's cup of tea, but that's what I'm striving for here. I'm not sure how well I accomplish it, but it's certainly useful for me to clarify in my own mind what I want the game to be about.

I hope that addresses Tony's question; I've tried to respond to it fairly completely but in a way that I hope doesn't sound defensive. Having said all that, I'm interested in comments and criticism.

Tony, I'm inclined to disagree with your comment. But, since I might have simply misunderstood what you were referring to, I'll explain. It seems pretty clear to me why the characters will be, uhm...."doing stuff." The Metaplot section covers that pretty well, in my opinion. The characters are faced with a strange occurance, which they must look into. Soon, it becomes apparent that their homeland is in danger, and they are forced to react.

[OOPS, CROSSPOSTED WITH BILL]

You envision characters going out to explore for the sake of exploration and knowledge, and to find an escape from the doom that is moving toward them all. Yes?

I worry about whether the rules system reinforces that. I know that you say several times in the text that this is what characters will be doing, but if I look at the rules as an objective system, I see them reinforcing different behavior.

If I go out across the wastes, looking for a fabled monument of the ancients, I've just blown at least twenty Good Fortune (ten to go out, ten to get back) that could otherwise be helping my people. More than likely, in fact, I've either crippled myself or dumped Ill Fortune on my village in the attempt. At the very least, I've missed the opportunity to build up the village's stores through less risky behavior.

I haven't figured out, from the rules, what benefit I gain from that... do I get to define what is in the next map tile? Or have I just handed the GM an opportunity to explicate their meta-story at my expense?

By comparison, if I stay home and hunt penguins then I probably get eight or more stores for the village with every action, and I have virtually no chance of either hurting myself or accruing Ill Fortune. This gets much, much, better if I customize my character from the get-go for penguin hunting.

Now, personally, I like the idea of finding the ancient monument more than I like hunting penguins. And, from the text, it's clear that it's more in line with what you imagined. But I feel that I would be fighting (hard!) against the rules system in order to do that.

I feel like I must be missing something. Can you point out where I've misread the rules? Maybe then I can give you advice on how to edit it so that it will be harder for people (like me) to misinterpret.

Tony -- I get you completely. I think I want to avoid exactly the problem you identify, where doing the things you'd expect a heroic protagonist to do essentially makes you the GM's dope, while keeping your head down and sticking close to home gives you "freedom" (albeit an illusionary one, I would argue, but let it pass).

Were I running the game given the current rules set, and a player searched for an ancient monument and found it, I guess I might try to reward that by pushing some of the Ill Fortune generated into a pile that I could call "Lore of the Ancient One's Stele," giving players access to that pile if and when they came up with a way to translate it. This might in the short run result in greater trouble for the village, but if in the long run (i.e., the entire game) it meant saving it, then that would be interesting.

So I think I have some work to do in elaborating on how GM's should use Ill Fortune.

But the sort of choice that you describe a player making goes right to heart of the game's premise, I think: how would you respond to an ambiguous threat to your very way of life?

I'm going to mull over your comment a little more; I think there's a lot there for me to consider.

Bill

I was going to say, what better way to short circuit an impending disaster than ancient knowledge? If this is something that occurs with frequency or simply has occured in the past, discovering the monument could open doors into ways to defeat/survive this impending doom.
Alternately, the monument could also house the small village? Means a trek to get back to the village, get everyone mobile and back to the monument apperently, but could still be quite interesting and full fill the mission~

Yes, there are indeed ways that the GM could, by fiat, reward such behaviors.

I think, however, that players ultimately find it more empowering to be able to achieve something by a means that doesn't involve GM fiat. Just one of my personal bugaboos.

I have this sneaking feeling, Bill, that the system would play intriguingly if Ill Fortune was a resource controlled by the players, rather than the GM. Then it becomes less "This is the punishment you deserve for having tried something far beyond your abilities" and more "This is the reward you deserve for having tried something far beyond your abilities."

There would still be a powerful incentive not to risk infinitely, because of those sixes that cannot be deferred, but must be taken by reducing attributes and gifts and such. It lends game-mechanic power to the story of the explorer coming back from the wastes exhausted near to death, with his harpoon broken and his father's knife lost forever, but in possession of a great secret that can save the people. That would be represented by a character who lost almost everything to undeferrable Ill Fortune, but now brings back to the village a hefty chunk of player-controlled Ill-Fortune-Survived.

Tony, that's slick, I like it.

Huh. Yeah. And since the GM is already specifying how much Good Fortune characters need to achieve particular ends, it makes sense to just say that the GM controls *that* pool of tallies. There's a distinction between Stasis and Change, or something like that (the way things have always been, versus how things could be) that's being invoked. Neat, neat, neat. I think I can get a little playtest going this weekend; I'm going to see what happens.