Wil ran a playtest of Stranger Things for UGAX last night.  There were four players: Alan, James, Seth, and myself.

My memory is not to be trusted, but here's what I recall of the others: Alan played a bravo named Jack who was involved in some kind of loansharking; Seth played a 'transmuter,' a Stranger who exchanged things for other things--he came across to me as a very strange troubleshooter and interloper--and James played a fishgathering crone with goat legs who came across a murder victim in the lake. 

I found the setting very accessible, much moreso than Trollbabe.  Thinking along Edward Gorey / Tim Burton lines, I came up with Gorza.  Gorza is a Stranger who makes his living as an under-the-bed monster.  Parents hire him as a character-builder for their children. 

Gorza is tall and froggish and clammy, having oversized, clutching hands, demonic magic, an appointment book, and a conjoined (but detachable) fetal twin who is sentient and capable of limited independent action.  He also has a relationship with a milquetoastish twenty-five year old man named Bill, whose mother has employed Gorza for fourteen years in the vain hope that Bill will someday become more lionish, like his father.

In the first scene, Wil and I developed the idea that Gorza has become a counsellor and cheerleader to Bill, something like the role William Shatner plays in Free Enterprise.  Most of Gorza's noteworthy conflicts were of Shadow, in trying to get Bill to step up and do things.

I liked Gorza enough so that I fell into an immersive 'my guy' mode when I was playing him, so I may have missed out on some of ST's author-mode goodness.  Ah, these old gamer habits.

Wil laid out story hooks for each player--there were murders, demonic bargains, a cursed tavern in which any money left for payment disappeared, and, for Gorza, a crush of Bill's who had some kind of magical green thumb that threatened the entire City with kudzu-like overgrowth, and who was being hunted by a Van Helsing-type character.  I managed to reconcile this hook with Gorza's impulses by trying to hook Bill up with Green Thumb Girl, thinking that putting Bill into such a sticky situation would be a good test of character for him.

Play proceeded very independently, almost resembling four small one-on-one games, and I was impressed with Wil's ability to keep up with four storylines--especially when he had to narrate successes off-the-cuff.  Stranger Things really puts a lot on the GM's shoulders in these early moments where the characters are fumbling their way towards each other.  I would like for there to be some way to distribute that load somehow between the other players.  Maybe the first player, counting clockwise, who's not in the scene, can serve as GM for each player's scene?

(I haven't seen the manuscript for either this or Trollbabe, so this problem might have been due to our blasted old gamer habits coming into play and pushing us to be subservient to the mighty GM.  Still, it would be cool if some mechanic, maybe something to do with the tiles, could help spread out the GM responsibilities when the players are acting independently.)

Eventually, James and I got together: Bill and Gorza were out in the city looking for Green Thumb Girl, and at this point, I was missing the presence of the other players, so I inserted myself into James' scene.  Unfortunately, I didn't have a good enough understanding of James' story, so I (the player) understood that our GTG was the murder victim whom James' character had previously stuffed into a brush pile.  Wil didn't agree with this interpretation, though, so then the GTG story migrated over to Alan and I came into James' story, which dealt with the vigilante kidnapping of a gargoyle.  This was really the only occasion when Wil and I weren't on the same wavelength, story-wise.

I managed to turn that conflict towards my own ends, pushing Bill to intervene nobly and eloquently on behalf of civilized law and justice.  We were running a short game, so I took this as the end of my story and narrated a denoument in which Gorza reported to Bill's mother that he had finally succeeded.  This was pretty satisfying to me, and I was happy with the game play; we had managed to reconcile a number of different inputs into something that was reasonably coherent.

When we debriefed, though, we had a similar "I guess I lost" reaction where one player reported pretty much total disengagement with the game.  Looking back, I have a couple thoughts as to why that might have happened:

First, that player started off with only a situation -- their character in a dark alley, stalking someone.  There was no story premise or characterization expressed in that opening scene that might have cued Wil to the kind of story the player was interested in. 

Last night, I lucked out, because Wil and I were on decently compatible wavelengths when it came to the stories we were able to present.  That compatibility is very fleeting and difficult to reproduce. I welcome anything a game can offer to help create it.  This is kind of a hobby-horse of mine now, but I think that Stranger Things could really benefit from some kind of mechanic, like an Issue, something that goes beyond a Kicker and really teases the preferred story material out of the player.

Secondly, that player inserted elements into that first scene that nullified each other--a mysterious stranger intervened in the pursuit that resulted in both the pursuee and the interloper escaping out of the scene.  With no development in that first scene, that player was behind a lap, story-wise, and I don't think they ever recovered.  I think the message (or mechanic, although I don't know how you'd formalize this in a mechanic) is "Don't exit a scene until you're sure that something has happened, story-wise--or unless things are really dogging and people need a breather."  And if you recognize that's happening, a do-over might be appropriate.

Mind you, that might be in the manuscript already--again, I haven't seen it.

All in all, though, it was a lot of fun to play for me, and has been a lot of fun to mull on during a slow afternoon at work.  Thanks to John & Wil, and I'm eager to see how this evolves.

Hi guys,

I played Jack, a gambling street bravo with Shadow Walking as a special ability. 

The environment of play made following other player's stories problematical for me. We were spread out around a living room, and we had music playing, which occasionally got too loud for me.  My hearing isn't 100% and I often have trouble hearing people over background music.  Also, as my scenes continued to be unengaging, I got more bored and less attentive.

Here's the sequence of events for my scenes:

1) I announced that Jack was in Murder Mews looking for someone who owes him money because Jack's landlord was about to kick him out.  Wil then framed a scene where I had already caught a debtor, who started to spill something -- I interrupted by declaring a conflict to detect a mysterious evesdropper.  (I know I interrupted a hook, but I wanted a chase first thing.  I figured Wil could drop the hint at the end of a chase.)  I won and Wil described a figure darting away.  I suggested that while Jack noticed, his original quarry escaped.

2) Seconds later in the Mews, I gave Jack a short monologue about how he's pissed at having his collection interrupted, and sent him out to track the evesdropper.  Conflict ensued, with the intent of seeing where the evesdropper went.  I did this intentionally because I thought it would be a great way for Wil to take me into a situation.  Again I won.  Wil described Jack finding a dead body in the street.  In retrospect, I should have spoken up -- I think this narration failed to meet rules of successful conflict -- my intent was to track and watch, yet Jack ended up seeing nothing.  I didn't know what to do with a lone dead body in the street, so I declared that Jack looted the body and left.

3) I started by requesting a scene where Jack runs into a woman fleeing from someone.  I think our body language misfired.  When Wil made no expression and did not respond, I assumed he didn't like the idea and pitched another: "...or maybe I could go to a gambling den to try to make money on my meager take."  He accepted that one.  Jack enters his favorite den, only to find the tables magicked to make all coins disappear.  Here I think I failed to explain the intention of my Demonic magic conflict -- I wanted Jack to trick other players into betting coins against his ability to keep his coin from disappearing.  I wish I'd said it that way.  Anyway, this was another conflict I won, but the muddled intent produced nothing of interest.  Afterwards, Wil had an NPC say "This is happening to everyone who deals with the moneylender Mulch." 

4) I requested a scene speaking with the owner of the gambling place.  Wil described the scene and, while I began to convince the owner to pay me in return for solving his disappearing coin problem, Wil had a bunch of NPCs from Seth's funeral party come in and make noise.  I appreciated the cross and would have liked to engage, but I hadn't been able to hear all the details of Seth's story line, so I was at a loss.  I pursued my conflict persuading the house owner and got the commission.  The scene ended when Jack set out to track down Mulch.

5) I requested a scene where Jack rescues the Wild Woman (who had been evicted from the Cursed tavern in Johnzo's first scene) from the human monster hunters pursuing her.  Jack chased off the Van Helsing and offered to help the woman find a place to stay.  I took a relationship with the woman.  This is where I finally cared about what was going on in my scenes.

6) Jack took the woman to the gambling den -- also an Inn -- to persuade the owner to put her up.  This time I failed, took a reroll using the relationship with the rescued woman -- but failed again, leading to her being incapacitated.  I narrated how the house owner got a suspicious look, pulled out a glowing gem and pressed it on her chest, yelling "Demon!  Out of my house!"  She fell backwards unconscious and Jack stood mouth hanging open.

We wrapped up the night at that point.

COMMENTARY

I was the one who reported that I was not engaged until the last fifteen minutes, when Jack rescued the woman.  Now, to be fair, he was running four players in a game that works best with two.  I suspect he may also have assumed I needed less attention as I'm an enthusiastic and experienced TB player.  However it happened, I had a hard time finding ongoing conflicts, people who needed help, or quests.

I don't think I failed to indicated what might interest me.  I threw openings in every scene request.  I stated Jack's landlord was about to kick him out.  I tried to follow and observe someone furtive.  I suggested rescuing a woman in scene 3.  I investigated the magic disappearing coins.  I sold Jack's services to the gaming house keeper.  I request rescuing a woman again in scene 5. 

What I thought was missing from Wil's offerings in my scenes were grabby NPCs.  In scene 1 and 2, I did leave things open for Wil to offer me anything pre-planned, but that didn't work.  I'm afraid Wil only gave me passive situations with no human factor -- no ongoing conflict, no-one asking for help.  From scene 3 on, I got more agressive with my scene requests.  I had to work hard to be grabbed. 

--------------------------------------
Wil, for future reference: anytime you want me engaged in a Trollbabe-like game, have me stumble into a an ongoing conflict -- two sides arguing or fighting, preferably unequal, preferable with some apparent injustice or unfairness.  Bang, I'm there.

Alan wrote:
I was the one who reported that I was not engaged until the last fifteen minutes, when Jack rescued the woman.  Now, to be fair, he was running four players in a game that works best with two.

Johnzo wrote:
Unfortunately, I didn't have a good enough understanding of James' story, so I (the player) understood that our GTG was the murder victim whom James' character had previously stuffed into a brush pile.  Wil didn't agree with this interpretation, though

First, I'm very happy to hear that you guys played my game. I get a huge thrill to know my work is actually being used. Thanks so much for playtesting.

It sounds like you guys faced a few hurdles that made play a little tougher than it should have been. And that's okay. Things might be bumpy at first, but with some reflection (like the Thursday group often does) it gets better. Four players is just too many. Three is ideal, but to have four, I think you need some very experienced players (experienced with this game specifically) who can rapid-fire their scenes and keep the pace up. Otherwise, it takes a little too long to go around the table.

Speaking of tables, it sounds like you were scattered all over the living room. Normally, this is how I like to play, too, but with ST, it's critical that everyone can see the map clearly and are physically close to the other players. Not being able to hear each other well is death to a game like this. The game text says that all players should be involved in all scenes (whether their Strangers are there or not) -- giving suggestions, commenting on play, speculating about future events -- kibbitzing their little hearts out.

Being quiet during someone else's turn is not expected or desirable.

To address some of Johnzo's questions:
Some GM tasks are distributed among the players, mainly in scene-framing requests, relationships (the players control NPCs), and narration rights. It does take some practice to get the hang of it, but an ST or Trollbabe player has tons of authority when it comes to authorship. Staying fixed inside your character's head can deny a lot of the power the game gives you.

The primary check on misfiring scenes, however, is not a mechanic, but a technique. The technique is the near-constant player-to-player commentary on the game. It's encouraged by the rules to always talk about your scenes, during, before, or after -- and say whatever you have to say about them. "Wow. That was intense. I loved that." or "I don't really know what to do with this body thing. Anyone have any ideas?" or "Can we move this scene to the base of the tower instead? I have an idea about joining Bill's next scene maybe." Whatever. I think as gamers we sometimes get used to the idea that we must affect the game only by our character's words and actions. But Stranger Things (like Trollbabe) is totally collaborative. The actions you create for your character are only half of the game. The other half is simple, direct communication among the players. "Let's have more bats!" and "This scene isn't working for me. Can we cut now and pick up with something different?" Like that.

Alan, I think some of your issues in the game would have been addressed if the sound and seating situation had been different. The other stuff, about scenes misfiring and you and Wil not connecting -- I see that as a lack of communication about play while it's going on. It's something I struggled with in my first Trollbabe sessions, and it was completely solved as soon as I starting talking directly to the GM and trying to be clear about what I was trying to do.

Thanks again for playtesting and especially for composing your thoughts and posting here. I really appreciate it.

Hello,

This thread is puzzling the hell out of me.

Johnzo, I cannot understand what you're talking about with your Golden Rule. Stranger Things and Trollbabe are like Sorcerer and not like InSpectres. So "what's going on" (e.g. who killed the butler, where's the castle, etc) are set during session prep, by the GM, and are not subject to making it up as you go along, by GM or anyone else.

Alan, you're also confusing me with your talk of scene framing, because in Trollbabe at least (and I thought in Stranger Things), anyone can state a conflict occurs relative to the player-character and define it. This isn't a request to the GM, unlike scene framing, and the GM is the same as anyone else for this issue. So not "getting" a conflict relevant to you seems strange.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
Alan, you're also confusing me with your talk of scene framing, because in Trollbabe at least (and I thought in Stranger Things), anyone can state a conflict occurs relative to the player-character and define it. This isn't a request to the GM, unlike scene framing, and the GM is the same as anyone else for this issue. So not "getting" a conflict relevant to you seems strange.

Ron wrote:
Johnzo, I cannot understand what you're talking about with your Golden Rule. Stranger Things and Trollbabe are like Sorcerer and not like InSpectres. So "what's going on" (e.g. who killed the butler, where's the castle, etc) are set during session prep, by the GM, and are not subject to making it up as you go along, by GM or anyone else.

I think I get where Ron is coming from. ST and Trollbabe are definitely not like InSpectres. There is actual pre-game prep that the GM does to establish some situations for the players to explore. These are simple and broad, but they are "true" and not subject to twisting by the success/failure narration mechanic. However, everything else in play is subject to on-the-fly creation. Most importantly, why these things happen.

For example, my pre-game prep said that Muulsh the money-lender had been cursed by a witch to make every coin owed to him vanish. That was a fact waiting to be discovered by a successful conflict roll. I didn't pre-make the reason why he had been cursed, though. So, that's something we all discovered during play as a result of our collaboration. It would not have been possible, however, for a player to say, "Conflict! I want to discover that the coins are vanishing because fairies are stealing all the gold on this street." Stranger Things doesn't have that kind of InSpectres-style narration power.

Now, I also get where Wil is coming from. Sometimes, the players will say something so cool, that it's much better to quietly shelve the pre-game situation you prepared and run with whatever it is they're interested in. I do that all the time. I don't think Ron's and Wil's points are incompatible.

The main thing is, in ST there is no moment-to-moment reality warping with narration rights like InSpectres.

John Harper wrote: The main thing is, in ST there is no moment-to-moment reality warping with narration rights like InSpectres.

Interestingly enough, both of what you guys are saying came up for my run of ST as well.  All my prep was abandoned as the players had totally cool stuff going on that was instantly engaging.  At the same time, I think the GM's job is to help pace those conflicts by limiting the scope of goals, much in the same way Vincent recommends for GMs in Dogs in the Vineyard- so that the player's conflicts and inputs can properly escalate and form before reaching a climax and closing.

Chris

Wil: Yes. Chris: Yes.

Both of these techniques will be explicit rather than implicit in the ST text. Like Trollbabe, ST adventures are about the consequences for the stakes, whatever they may be. They are usually created as pre-game prep, but they may also be created (by the GM) based on ideas the players have during the game. But the stakes, once established by the GM (though not necessarily spoken) form the structure for the adventure. How do you know when an ST adventure is over? When the stakes face the consequences, whatever they are.