So at the NoVa Forge meetup yesterday we managed to get through the second-ever playtest of Misery Bubblegum.  It's improved.  It merely confused people horribly, rather than actively reaching out and torturing the players.  Progress!

We had this really interesting string of events, in terms of what people were excited about, and I've been unpacking it in my brain all day.  It went roughly like this:

Dave and Corwin played variously tough-guy returning Hogwarts students, Poppy and BrAHk, repsectively.  They were, in fact, wildly different as characters but their roles as regards the issue I'm about to discuss were frighteningly identical.  Eerie.  This was the first exposure to an indie game for either of them, and I really hope I get a chance to show them a finished game (say ... DOGS) next month.

Shawn de Arment played Glenda, a good little witch trying to live up to the name.  Oh, and to attract boys.

BrAHk and Poppy needed somebody to act as an adversary to their tough-guy attitudes, so I introduced Flavius, Head Boy of BrAHk's house and all around quietly perfect guy.  He knows they can do better.  He has faith in them.  Oh how they loathed him at first sight.  Shawn, naturally enough, had Glenda fall for him at first sight.

So then the really interesting bit happened.  The game has at its core an explicit mechanic for forming opinions about other people.  Corwin had BrAHk form the opinion that Flavius was gay.  Suddenly the excitement at the table ratcheted up massively.  Dave had Poppy follow in that opinion very quickly.  Both of the characters figured this guy who was undermining their macho-macho act had to be gay.  We were conscious of the homophobic qualities of this, trust me.  Shawn immediately chimed in that Glenda's opinion was that Flavius was not gay.

I was totally stoked.  This sort of thing, with people second-guessing others, and with opinion impinging on desire and vice versa (of course Glenda thinks he's straight, she's got the hots for him!) is precisely what I want the game system to support.

In the next scene, Dave and Corwin took the next step, and had a horribly compromising position that, basically, made it infinitely clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that Flavius was in fact gay.  I'm drawing a nice opaque veil over the details, and that veil will not be lifted.  But at the end of it, Poppy and BrAHk's opinions were fully confirmed, and Glenda had given up any hope of romance with Flavius.

I was really uneasy about that, and I thought at the time it was because of the level of sexual detail, but I think now that it wasn't:  That one scene was very exciting to play out, but everything that followed it seemed hollow.  Nobody had any interest in Flavius any more, even though they'd just established all of this material about him.  He never got another moment's attention.

So, thinking about it in retrospect:  The state of having opinions about something that's undetermined ... that's exciting.  Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.  The moment in which your opinions are either confirmed or denied is hugely exciting.  But then, the state of actually knowing ... that's boring.

And once I think about it that way, I see the same structure in desire:  Wanting something is exciting.  The moment of getting it is hugely exciting.  Actually having it is often boring.  Feel free to cue sexual metaphors if it will make you feel worldly to do so.  I actually think of it in terms of the doldrums of Christmas afternoon in my youth:  the days of waiting are spent, the presents are all opened, the only thing that remains is the dull feeling of new possession.

Now don't get me wrong:  this session was a hoot.  The main problem was that the conflict resolution mechanics are still incomprehensibly scattered.  That's an issue completely distinct from what I'm talking about here, and one I'm confident can be addressed.  So, the whole "I think he's gay, he IS gay, moving on," thing wasn't bad.  But ... but ... I imagine (and hope for) the game where the players all cooperate to keep Flavius's actual orientation as deliberately unknown as possible, so that their opinions about it are free to run unfettered (and conflict against each other) as powerfully as they can.

Since we were in the Hogwarts universe, I've been thinking about Snape.  Is he evil?  Good question.  Any answer would be infinitely less fun than the question.  If it had been proven at the end of the first book that Snape was, in fact, evil and in league with Voldemort then one of the core elements of the series would have been ripped out to die gasping on the floor.  That moment of revelation would have been cool, but the loss of tension would have been sad.

If you're going to answer a question like that (as, for instance, Joss Whedon does very well) then the answer needs to raise lots of other, equally (or more) interesting questions.

Note what I'm not asking:  How to make players want to do this.  There will be an Indie Design thread, when I get the experience more fully unpacked.

What I am asking:  What sort of patterns do you see in player excitement about these issues?  I've got one proposal (anticipation = exciting, gratification = exciting, possesion = boring), but that really could be an artifact of the gaming group, and of my point of view.  Do your players get excited at the same stages?  At different stages?  In different patterns altogether?

On the whole I concur -- suspense is more interesting that knowledge.  However, the primary caveat I see to that is that knowledge is interesting when it is useful.  If they could have used "Flavius is Gay 2d6" or whatever in some later scene, it might have kept him current.

It's sort of like getting a familiar in so many fantasy or magic-based games.  It can be this whole big lead up and take lots of effort.  And then you've basically got a parrot that gives you some extra mana points.  Blaaaaah.

(My familiar was a chimpanzee who wore a waistcoat, and talked whenever he was alone in a room with someone.)

Aww, man, you should have milked the uncertainty over Flavius for all it was worth. Introduced conflicting bits of evidence: "Ah-ha! I knew it!" "Hmm, maybe I was wrong about this guy..." If the system supported this sort of development (with the reveal only happening after the whole thing had built to a nearly absurd level) that would rock.

I can see such mechanics being applicable to lots of MB situations too. Does the girl who acts like she hates me actually like me?, why is the school bully such a dick anyway?, whatever. Stuff where in terms of plot the whole tension of trying to puzzle it out is lots more interesting than if you just found out right away.

Really, I suppose it's a lot like a mystery story, except over some petty social situation instead of a homicide.

Aha!  You have discovered what is called in the TV scriptwriting business, the "Moonlighting Factor".

You can set up romantic tension between two characters, have them clearly attracted to each other but unable to connect for some reason... but you can NEVER have the tension resolved.  As soon  as they become either a couple or definitely NOT a couple... >>POP!<<  all the tension is gone.  By the time that happens, you had BETTER have something else at least as powerful built up, or it's the end.

I'm getting caught up still on games I've missed, but it occurs to me that what you're wanting, here, is for all conflicts between opinions to be resolved as "yes (or no), AND" or "yes (or no), BUT", to use Vincent's terminology. I'm going to have to look over your opinion rules before making a suggestion, but I'm thinking something like "opinions can't be resolved until they are replaced by other opinions"?

Hey Tony,

I find "we all don’t know, and we choose to keep guessing“ so much more interesting than "the GM knows and doesn’t tell us“. Personally, I have often stated things like: “I wanna know what’s going on, so I can act upon it!” But even I see the benefit in keeping it open for a while. However, I don’t generally agree with “knowledge is boring”. (Neither did I find my Christmas presents dull after unwrapping them. Playing with them was the best part!)

Knowing that Flavius is gay is boring, because it settles the matter for the protagonists. That’s due to the situation in play, but not a general rule. Knowing that Snape is evil isn’t boring. It’s: “Oh shit, Snape is evil, now what the hell are we gonna do?!” But that’s probably not what Misery Bubblegum is about.

- Frank

Frank wrote:
“Oh shit, Snape is evil, now what the hell are we gonna do?!” But that’s probably not what Misery Bubblegum is about.

So Nate, are you saying that we don't ever have to know if Flavius is gay? Or just that once we find out Flavius is gay, something new question has to show up?

I know you're not asking me, but I'd say yes... either the fact that Flavius is gay should raise its own question, or some other question needs to immediately become apparrent.

E.g. "okay, Flavius is gay -- why's he looking at me like that?" Or "so Flavius is gay, whatever, would you stop ragging on him, you jerk?" Or "sure, I like Flavius, he's cool. But I don't like him like tha....-- uh -- gee -- do I?"

From the (alibet limited) vibe of the post, that would almost be a goal of the game, yea. If the coolest, most exciting, most exemplary situations of the system revolve around quessing, bantering, leading up to an amazing revelation of some kind, it would seem that would be the portion of play to focus on and perpetuate. And how do you do that? Keep stoking the fire.

Goals, I've noticed from some of Tony's first posts and this (granted, I haven't been over recent design threads thoughly), is to replicate something of the whole teenage world of rumor, intrigue, and suspense. Soap Operas and Comic Books also follow this to an extent, which means Tony should have a good leg up on this ^_^ To perpetuate the kind of atmosphere in these environments, one revelation leads to something else, rarely is there actual closure. They drug out the mystery of Wolverine's identity for almost twenty years, almost a decade(?) after Xavier wiped Magneto's brain we had Onslaught rip asunder time and space. The original Pheonix storyline was built for years as well, each answer bringing more questions, more teritory to discover.

In some cases, Falvius' orientation may not mean much of anything and that could be fine never actually knowing one way or another. Flavius struck me as an incidental character anyway. Central characters like Snape, or Wolverine, the answer will come out at some point, so to keep the characters really alive in this kind of environment you want to ask more questions because of the one answer. The easier one flows into the other, the easier it will be to follow and keep wrapped up in.

daMoose_Neo wrote: They drug out the mystery of Wolverine's identity for almost twenty years, almost a decade(?) after Xavier wiped Magneto's brain we had Onslaught rip asunder time and space. The original Pheonix storyline was built for years as well, each answer bringing more questions, more teritory to discover.