Last week we played Executive Decision. Danielle was elected President. She appointed Scott as Sec. of Labor, Matt as Sec. of Defense, and me as Atty. General. We chose additional agendas. She chose The Cavendish Memo scenario. And then we played. It was very fun. And so I have very few comments/thoughts:

The main of play was wholly verbal, and unregulated by mechanics, not entirely unlike playing Cupid in Matchmaker. More satisfying in some ways. Not as satisfying in others. Both games are what I'm starting to categorize as "influence games."

Matchmaker has granularity of decisionmaking. Cupid shouts instructions to the Destined Lovers, who roleplay in response to the suggestions and to the roleplaying of NPCs by Everybody Else. (Vincent has since excised victory conditions from the game, but in the version we played Cupid is at war with Everybody Else, who's trying to derail the Lovers from finding their destiny together.) Over the course of play lots of suggestions are made and either acted upon or ignored. So as Cupid you see an erratic stream of impact on game events.

Executive Decision has interactivity with the decision maker. That is, the game is a conversation in which POTUS responds to your suggestions, maybe following up with questions, maybe challenging them.

Matchmaker doesn't have this interactivity. The Destined Lovers never interact verbally with the suggestions of Cupid. I think this is why the game is so exhausting for the Cupid player. (When we played, I was Cupid and Danielle was Everybody Else. In retrospect, this was probably perfect casting. I'm great at drowning out dissent by overwhelming a conversation, and she's incredible at roleplaying characters in ways that just draw others in to supporting her sensibilities for a scene. So perhaps Matchmaker with victory conditions was exhausting for both of us because we each had the perfect opponent. But I dunno. I think lack of acknowledgement creates a "shouting into the void" feeling that probably burns anyone out pretty quick.)

Executive Decision doesn't have granularity of decisionmaking. The President makes a single decision at the end of play. And, just like in Matchmaker, there's no system-derived force applied to the decisionmaking. But I don't think that's a big deal. Except Matchmaker feels more like a game. I think because granularity of decisions creates potential for gains and reversals, and provides information about relative effectiveness. I think Executive Decision would feel more like a game if there was some granularity to the President's decisionmaking.

(Don't get me wrong. Executive Decision, unmodified, was a blast. The liberal in me really wants to play it with Danielle's family. Her brother, sister, and sister's husband, are all in the military, and they and her mom all skew politically as you'd expect. And with how fiercely competitive they are I don't think the game would be playable with them if decisionmaking were more granular. But amongst like-minded liberals, I wish it were more game-like.)

Another argument for granularity is that calculations subsequent to play prove there was no winnable outcome for Scott. Although certainly more game-inclined folks could play a series of scenarios with a running calculation of outcomes. This would be...macro-granularity? (Ouch.)

I now think Matchmaker would benefit from some interactivity.

I have my eye on Victor Gijsbers' Stalin's Story (another influence game). There's granularity, but none pertaining to the Stalin player's decisions about sentencing one of the player characters to death at the end of the play. I'm thinking the game would benefit from rules about Stalin revealing his frame of mind. "Elena, you and Cmdr. Orovsky change seats." I like the text about the Stalin player being able to ignore the rules. But I'm not sure it brings the caprice of totalitarianism to play as powerfully as an actual rules structure for turning up the tension. I dunno, maybe I just have Bacchanal on the brain, but I'd probably have some of the card plays trigger frame of mind revelations from Stalin.

I need to re-read Munch-Mausen Tales.

And whoever wrote The Cavendish Memo scenario, it was very nicely done. Thanks.

Paul

Interesting.  You might want to try my <A HREF="http://www.freeforms.org.uk/Boots%20for%20the%20Glory%20of%20Russia.pdf">Boots for the Glory of Russia</A> a 9 player game set in a Boot factory in St.Peterburg between the February and October Revolutions of 1917.  I wrote it many years ago, and it is similar in themes to Executive Decision in some ways.

I mention it partly because it's free and you might find it amusing, and partly because the game originally was more game like - there we epoint scoring schedules to promote agendas, and victory was base don points. When Steve Hatherley decided to make it available for me as a .pdf her removed these mechanical ways of assessing victory, which left a game close rin feel to Executive Decision.

I personally like to have clear aims for players in my games, but not necessarily play balance.  I have I am afraid arther foprgotten the point I was going to make, but anyway, I hope the game amuses, and I'd welcom comment. I shall reread your AP post and try to contribute more meaningfully now.  UIt wa sthe reference to Stalin's Story which I have never seen which brought my game to mind...

cj x

Paul, if i may---

I need to understand how you use the term granuality before I can make a response to your AP post.  I am very interested, but I just want to check what you mean by the term before making any assumptions.  I really enjoyed your comments on Executive Decision which I have played, and unfortunately have not yet seen Matchmaker, though I look forward to doing so. :) I'd like to discuss ED, but first - granuality?

cj x 

Hey cj,

By "granularity of decisionmaking," I mean that the Destined Lovers make lots of decisions over the course of a Matchmaker game, so the Cupid player and the Everybody Else player both get lots of information about how effectively they're playing and exerting influence. In Executive Decision, the President only makes one decision. There's no granularity to that at all. To make it granular, the President would have to make more than one decision over the course of the game, and that decision would have to impact subsequent events and scoring somehow.

Paul

Matchmaker lives here. It's free.

-Vincent

Paul, good advice. I am thinking of three major changes in Stalin's Story, but I'm not sure they are compatible. First, through feedback I got in the recent Ronnies topic, I feel that it may be important to give Stalin a basis for believing himself to be insecure. Somehow there must really be a scheme or a potential scheme against him, which he has to fear.

Second, this topic makes me aware of the need to have Stalin do some things during the game that show his state of mind. This was already implicit in my understanding of the original text - Stalin should show his suspicion and displeasure while playing, but the text doesn't show that and there is no way for any of the other players to influence this.

Third, well, I'm not sure the layer with the actors telling a tale is actually worth the trouble - though maybe it is. This one I'm least sure about.

Anyway, back to the topic of influence games - could I make the first change to the game and have it still be an influence game? And should I strive to keep it one? As I understand it, the idea of an influence game is that players have a goal they want to reach, but whether they reach it or not depends on a free decision by someone - it is not decreed by the game mechanics in any way. The mechanics somehow steer the way people can influence the decision maker, but this influence is purely social and not itself quantifies or made explicit or constrained by the mechanics.

The question is - is this cool? From what you say about Executive Decision I get the idea that the answer is: it can be cool. Maybe I should play that game too, to get a better feel for this subject.

Hmm...I like the play within the play. What would really upnotch Stalin's Story for me is if the actors and the courtiers were actually playing two different games, each with the objective of not being sentenced to death. The actors would be using their input into the events of the play, and the courtiers would be using their own dialogue and authority. It would be a game of evading and directing Stalin's temper.

Paul