Hey Folks,

Last night me and a friend of mine decided to give Shock a whirl and see how the playtest rules drive. He's a writer who's main experience has been with the WW products but he's played a few of the Forge games as well, mostly through me. I'm still breaking long held play habits and adjusting to the new stuff, but loving it. We were both excited about the text, and we're familiar with most of the bibliography. So we set about making up some stuff. I pitched a New Paris, mainly because there's an AP thread that had jammed this image in my head a few days ago. He wanted genetic modifications, monstrous freaks, and things start to shake out until we end up with:

Issues: Class Warfare, Identity
Shock: Genetic Modification, Cloning

We end up with this purebred unmodified aristocracy who's world is kept in motion through the use of genetically modified workers; very Time Machine. In order to have some workers they can interact with, since the modified folks are considered unclean, they have huge numbers of clones for the menial jobs that might require interaction with the aristocracy. So, all the bellhops are the same guy, all the file clerks, etc. Paris is now all huge gleaming spires and such, but centered around the tower is an area reserved as 'Old Paris' that's a disneyfied version of Paris during the height of the renaissance era. It's all salons, boutiques, parks, and cafes. It's clean and beuatiful, and all the high tech niceties are all hidden until made necesary so as not to break the illusion. All of this stuff is being generated in concert with creating characters. We'd talk about some aspect of the world, which would spark some character idea, which would necessitate some world building to fit them. It was neat, and we were excited about it. We had some trouble with the Praxis scales, but we settled on:

Cooperation -> Violence
Truth -> Propaganda

We weren't sure how to best go about selecting them. There was some discussion of how this positioned our characters releative to the Issues/Shocks, but there wasn't a wellspring of ideas on how to use that positioning to best advantage. Maybe we just sucked last night, but I think we needed some more examples of how Praxis can be used as a tool in getting you a certain type of story relative to the Issue/Shock matrix. We got past that though, and we ended up with the following PCs:

File Clerk 69726 (Identity/Cloning)
Story Stakes: Finding his parents
Coop/Violence: 5 Truth/Propaganda: 3

Traits
Looks just like 69725 other clerks (Propaganda: 1)
Remember's the smell of his Mother's perfume (Truth: 1)

Relationships
Parisien Beauracracy: 1

So the file clerk is this clone with this memory of his Mother's Perfume from when she tucked him in at night, and it haunts him. He wants to find out who he is and where he comes from. Our other character was:

Jared Nephilim (Class Warfare/Genetic Modification)
Story Stakes: Becoming umodified
Coop/Violence: 6 Truth/Propaganda: 3

Traits
Scorpian Tail (Violence: 1)

Relationships
High Society party crowd: 1

Jared ends up as an assassin used amongst the aristocracy in their petty squabbles. He passes for purebred until the hideous death tail comes out when he's getting a victim. He's gone AWOL from his lord and has been passing in purebred circles until he can find a way to get unmodified. We both kept some skills and relationships in reserve as you can see. We also both went hard on propaganda, but we'd also misunderstood about whether Antagonists have relationships. The last paragraph on page ten before the example is really confusing. We settled on them only having traits, but were a little bummed out. We'd initially thought the antagonist could change what scale things were on and so thereby force you to win a conflict by something you didn't want. You'd win the conflict stakes but you'd say, beat the info out of a guy instead of talking him out of it.

So at this point we're figuring out antagonists, and I see Jared's antagonist as his former lord and so stat him up. He's got Unlimited Wealth (Cooperation:2), and The Eyes of the Hoi Polloi (Truth: 1), Shock Troops (Violence: 2). He stats up the File Clerk's opposition, which at first is his Mother, but eventually becomes the Government Coverup when we get to the first bit of play and he can't figure out how to position Mom against me. The Government has Coverup (Propaganda: 2), Suicidal Mother (Truth: 2), and something I don't quite remember at the moment.

So we're all ready to go, and it's at this point that we're not sure what to do. We've got a lot of stuff here, and we're jazzed about it, but we aren't sure how to start. So I position a scene with Jared at a gathering where he's got a contact with information about back alley unmodifications, but the lord is there, and we do a conflict with the stakes of "does the lord recognize you." He declares he wants to win by Propaganda, and it's obvious that unless he really flubs it I just have no way to effect the outcome because if he rolls high enough I can't move it back anyhow. He rolls a six I think, and I've got no response, so the Duke doesn't recognize him. The stakes were weak, but I'll be honest in saying that we had a pretty hard time even getting to those. We seemed to have no incentive to build the story. One of my friend's comments was that it was too open, that there was little incentive not to make the first conflict for the stakes of the whole story. Obviously the big reason not to is to let it develop in play, but we didn't have anything that felt solid enough to hang that play off of. Something like the town in Dogs, or more appropriately the producer's plot in PTA. Shock seems to be missing that, or at least it felt so for us, so we were left sort of floundering.

I've got some mechanical questions that I'll post over at the Glyphpress forum, but after hitting this roadblock we sort of petered out. There was an abortive attempt at a scene for the File Clerk getting in to find his records in the restricted hall, and again he easily passed with Propaganda, using his "looks like all the other file clerk's" trait. We found that when the scales are stacked like this there really needs to be some incentive/temptation to go with your weak suit. My reference for this sort of thing is Trollbabe, where going against the strong side of your number comes up a lot because you're really pushed into it by both the mechanics requiring it (can't fly without magic) or the story has developed in such a way that it's unappealing (don't want to bash in the head of the Prince's son, so we talk.) I see the potential for the second reason in Shock, but not so much the first, and obviously since we were floundering we weren't put to the test that way.

So, our test was pretty mixed. We really want to play these guys, but we just don't know what to do.

Help?

-Tim

In my initial ideas about creating a game, included a mechanic about the flow of the game - basically that you had to go through the 'little stuff' to have a chance to tackle the big stuff.

This is why systems with "Advancement" are popular - they allow for you to rachet up the stakes more and more until when you get to the point you are powerful enough to resolve the meat of the issue you had a history with it.

I suppose what I am saying is going through the 'context' makes the issue more important.

Uhhh, ok - lets also look at the Polaris example. There are good, solid, creative reasons not to have the first conflict be "Resolving the whole story" - but there are no mechanical reasons not to. Again, advancement systems help with this - but lead to terrible problems in the way they are implemented.

Maybe what we need here are something (like Joshua's FLFS Thematic Batteries) that needs to, no must, be charged up so that you can resolve the conflict.

<blinding flash>
Like the River in Weapon of the Gods.

The Challange : Will I hit the opponent and damage them?
The 'context exploration' : All the other things that you to fill you river (fancy manuevers, long speaches)
The mechanical bonus : The River - the bonus for oing stuff other than resolving the conflict but instead exploring it.

Uhhh... am I making any sense here?

Hey Simon,

I think we're talking about similar things, but there's a bit more to it. I've played plenty of games which required you to provide motivation and pacing beyond a quick ending. I agree with you that in general it's an easier experience to reproduce when you have some mechanical support for it. Shock sets up a lot of really useful thematic stuff right during character generation, but our problem came in acting on it. You're really tied to the Antagonist, and if you blow Antagonist creation you have very little leverage on your protagonist. After our initial scenes we had trouble following with another collision of protag/antag, and without that you have this really simplistic resolution system that loses all the bite of the back and forth. Moreover, even in our direct conflicts, since we decided to weight the characters heavily on one side of the praxis scales the Antagonist had little recourse unless the rolls came up really unfavorably for the Protagonist. So much so that I felt like we were really missing some crucial piece. Which is the real reason it sort of petered out.

I guess, to use Vincent's terms, I felt like our Protagnoists were fit, but not the opposition. This lead to a general lack of ability to engage those smaller conflicts. This is a distinctly different situation than my experience in Under the Bed, which has a really good back and forth. I'm thinking we either missed something, or Josh has got something in his head that didn't make it into print that makes this work more smoothly. Or perhaps this is what he was talking about with it not creating enough fiction. As it stands it struck both myself and my friend as this neat framework, but more for a writing excercise than for a game.

-Tim

I like the Antagonist being able to pull relationship Praxis-switches.  I think it would make for more variation in conflicts.  And yes, that paragraph is confusing. 

Ha ha! You didn't even get to the part that's really broken!

OK, see, here's what isn't really explicit in the current text: the first scene is exposition. It's the Antagonist putting the Protagonist in a terrible situation, something that they'll have to work at to get out of. So think about it that way: what's the worst thing that could happen to this Protag right now, vis-á-vis the Story Stakes? Have the Antagonist do that and the Protag will have to do something to react. From there out, the Protag Player should be leading the story, if not every scene and conflict.

If the Antagonist didn't do that, didn't attack the Protag in a direct way, either the Antagonist is broken or the Story Stakes are. To fix them, make them spicy. Put the characters in situations that are difficult, untennable.

Get the dude fired. Obsessed over. Accused of AI murder. Imprisoned for racial impurity. Whatever it is, don't pull punches. The Antagonist is there to stick a fork in the heart of the Protagonist. The Antag isn't there to make life hard for the Protag. The Antag wants the Protag completely changed. That can mean dead, that can mean losing his will, or his family, or working for The Man. Reread the last page of 1984 for the way an Antag succeeds.

So I would have stuck with Mom.

As for something in my head that didn't make it to paper, be glad. What was in my head is b0rkt.

Stay tuned for 0.2.0 but don't stop giving feedback here.

glyphmonkey wrote:
Ha ha! You didn't even get to the part that's really broken!

OK, see, here's what isn't really explicit in the current text: the first scene is exposition. It's the Antagonist putting the Protagonist in a terrible situation, something that they'll have to work at to get out of. So think about it that way: what's the worst thing that could happen to this Protag right now, vis-á-vis the Story Stakes? Have the Antagonist do that and the Protag will have to do something to react. From there out, the Protag Player should be leading the story, if not every scene and conflict.

Hey Joshua,

Just to highlight this again:

He declares he wants to win by Propaganda, and it's obvious that unless he really flubs it I just have no way to effect the outcome because if he rolls high enough I can't move it back anyhow. He rolls a six I think, and I've got no response, so the Duke doesn't recognize him.

The Antagonist can't win if sHe doesn't bid, so I'm not sure what's unclear here. Can you tell me how resolution was going, blow-by-blow? I have a feeling there's something grossly miscommunicated in the text.

Tim wrote:

The Antagonist can't win if sHe doesn't bid, so I'm not sure what's unclear here. Can you tell me how resolution was going, blow-by-blow? I have a feeling there's something grossly miscommunicated in the text.

So, in our case:

Protag Player: I want to win by propaganda, I use the lie to maintain my cover.
*roll dice* the propaganda die is a 6
Me: Uhhh... I don't have anywhere near enough traits to oppose you.

With our distribution this is going to happen a *lot* of the time. Which makes me think you're right, we're really missing something from the text.

Two things that frustrated me beyond belief in your game:

hir
sHe

I realize that you are trying to employ gender neutral terms in order not to alienate female (or male) players. But, honestly, the term sHe is painful to read over and over again.

I could deal with hir, if I really had to... but with the capital letter in teh middle of the word sHe, I just... it annoyed me.

I understand the effort - I'm heading into a gender studies major next year...
I just hate the attempts to de-gender terminology, at the expense of redability.

Either stick with he (which IS actually a universal term, just like "evolution of man" implies man and woman), stick with she (No males with argue that this is a sexist approach, because "he" is used as a railroad term all the time. fair trade), or switch intermittently between the two.

sorry... it just... annoyed me.

Hey Again,

Like this one: "Antagonists don’t have as many features as  Protagonists; they’re positions on the Issue/Shock Grid is a given and they don’t have a Praxis Grid or Relationships at all. Instead, they have Traits and Relationships in abundance."

What the hell? Antagonists didn't have Relationships at one point, but they sure do now. Terrible paragraph.

Tim wrote: What the hell? Antagonists didn't have Relationships at one point, but they sure do now. Terrible paragraph.

joepub wrote:
Two things that frustrated me beyond belief in your game:

hir
sHe

I realize that you are trying to employ gender neutral terms in order not to alienate female (or male) players. But, honestly, the term sHe is painful to read over and over again.

Either stick with he (which IS actually a universal term, just like "evolution of man" implies man and woman), stick with she (No males with argue that this is a sexist approach, because "he" is used as a railroad term all the time. fair trade), or switch intermittently between the two.

joepub wrote: hir
sHe

I understand the effort - I'm heading into a gender studies major next year...
I just hate the attempts to de-gender terminology, at the expense of redability.

Either stick with he (which IS actually a universal term, just like "evolution of man" implies man and woman), stick with she (No males with argue that this is a sexist approach, because "he" is used as a railroad term all the time. fair trade), or switch intermittently between the two.

It's a game about culture shock. Genderless pronouns are a way to show what I'm talking about.

Hey folks,

If this isn't coming around to helping my actual play I'd love to see a thread split for the pronoun issue. I'd really like to see any other commentary relative to our playtest though.

-Tim

sie?

Hehehe. Okay, I can live with that one. it was the intercaps that was killing me.

Also, want to footnote the first time hir appears? explaining that hir and sie are genderless pronouns?

And, to point out, they AREN'T genderless. They are mixed gender. "They" and "its" are genderless. Sie and Hir are collages, held together with crazy glue and modge podge, of what were once two viable gender pronouns.

oh, my bad. pronoun discussion ended.

just footnote the first time hir or sie is used, and explain the terms briefly. that way it avoids confusion, annoyance.

Thanks. done. end. fade to black.

You kinda confirmed my initial impressions of shock which is "I don't know how I would actually play this, but omg, the setting creation tool is pure gold." I look forward to watching the game devolop, though.

lampros wrote:
You kinda confirmed my initial impressions of shock which is "I don't know how I would actually play this, but omg, the setting creation tool is pure gold." I look forward to watching the game devolop, though.