Hi there,

The Beef Injection series of threads is my bid to focus our attention and effort on some game presentations that got swamped in the recent wave of posts at Indie Design, as well as to provide a model to newcomers about the purpose of the forum. I've passed over some very good game ideas that were presented in isolation, in order to concentrate on the ones which were presented in playable or almost-playable form.

Mike Holmes has mentioned several times, and I agree with him, that there exists a line between consensual story-telling and role-playing. I'm not sure just what constitutes that line, and a thread about it in RPG Theory would be welcome, but I don't want to debate it here. I do think that the Tarot Story Game will be a player in that discussion, though. I really don't know whether it's a role-playing game with highly organized Drama mechanics, or a consensual storytelling experience with very formal "pass the conch" rules.

There are lots of things in the game, but the main one, it seems to me, is the Story Layout: a set of open "spaces" based on Tarot, like "Opposing forces" or "Fears" or "Past/Flashbacks." Everyone basically gets five minutes to talk, and gets to lay cards or tokens onto the spaces. (There's a lot more organization, much of which is very interesting, but you can read it yourself.) What interests me most is that the order in which cards come to occupy places in the layout is not specified, which strikes me as quite viable. After all, a story might begin with Atmosphere, or with the Antagonist, or any number of things, and similarly, the whole range of things can also provide any one of its elements as a resolution.

Here are some notions and questions that came to mind. Bob, if you're there, help me out - and anyone else, please chime in too.

1) A couple of the optional steps allow quite a bit of elaborating on a single Story Space with additional cards, which seems kind of draggy to me. Maybe it's my main influences at work (American pulp writing, comics, movies) that call for a "get to it" approach, and I shouldn't call for any change to what others might prefer, i.e. a more contemplative approach. But on the other hand, I don't quite see how all that elaboration can avoid eventually bringing in elements that are best used instead to fill in a different, named Story Space. [Oh yeah ... my bias toward "lean" is also clear in that I almost recommended two minutes rather than five.]

2) The proposed endgame seems kind of weak - is it mainly just a matter of someone saying, "I think it's done," or everyone getting tired, or what? I understand that if a great story has been made and spaces are still open, then that's cool, and I understand that once the Story Positions are full, then the group might decide to say "endgame" (much as I tend to play Soap, relative to the time-cutoff) ... but do I understand that if the positions are full, then we might go on, and on, and on, with no end in sight?

3) I confess that I have no idea why the "Transfer" step (the capitalized, underlined one) exists. For one thing, doesn't it permit a player to get two turns in a row? And why not just permit a player to use an Icon instead of a card during a regular turn? That gets the Icons on the table and doesn't lead to these extra turns. Especially given that multiple Icons may be played during this phase, it strikes me as kind of a weird "bunch of turns except that we're between a turn" step.

4) If actual story creation is the goal, then sooner or later there has to come a resolution - usually based on key decision or act by the protagonist (in addition to other things, but this is the core one). [This is one of the primary flaws with consensual storytelling, in my own view, because it often seems to be on the verge of making a story but rarely, well, climaxes.] One of the key elements in Narrativist role-playing is generating a sense of "inescapable focus" through the input of everyone present, in which protagonist decisions absolutely must be made, and emotional commitment to those decisions is high. I'm not really seeing when or if this happens in this game.

5) This is just a Tarot-detail thing, but it seems to me that playing a Major Arcana card should carry some kind of weight in the story. If my points #2 and #4 turn out to be relevant, perhaps the Major/Minor distinction might play a role.

So, am I missing an element of play which contributes to that thematic "punch," or am I missing the point in looking for it in the first place?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

I'm not going to quote the message because the whole thing would get too long wiht my reply....

Thanks for reading the game and for your impartial insight and commments. This is my first draft of the game (with just a minor self playtest, my wife and a friend want to try it, I'll post my test results after next weeks trial). It'll probably have a few changes made before the group test.

I had been reading a variety of threads related to superhero games prior to deciding to put this thing together. One was about a Theatrix Supers game. I decided, if I ever made a game, I wanted to have that 'flashback'.forward, etc. scene framing in it. I like the idea of novels, TV etc showing things non-linear, like from the concurrent enemies actions. My personal favorite part of Tarot Game is that you could start the game by playing to "Outcome", then play to the rest... not something that happens in the old RPG's I used to play.

About your points.

1) Optional Steps, "Get to it"
I put in that "All players may play to a Layout position filled...." in case a longer game is wanted or to allow players inspired by a narration to add their 2 cents... but it does seem draggy (as well as duplicating the Icon role), and alters the 'clarity' of the original card/space relationship.

Two Minutes rather than 5. Hmm, my thought on this was 10 spaces plus icons 3-4 players would add up to around two hours, but my wife just reminded me how long those 5 minute oral presentations seemed in college. Although the 5 minute time does give a little thinking time. I'll have to see how this works out in my group playtest, the times may very well need adjusting.

2) endgame weak
I agree. I had written virtually the whole game when I realized I didn't know how to end it. It is a bit weak. If the story is done early then it ends. If the Icons are played, all the Layout positions Filled, and the story isn't done? Technically at that point the session would end at the expiration of the last narrators timer. My wife has suggested that a story session could continue by taking the "Outcome" card of the filled layout, and filling the "Basis" position of a new blank layout. This could lend itself to a more role-playing type continuing story.

3)Transfer step
Originally when my wife, friend, and I were hashing out this game on the phone, I was thinking of passing play from the current player to the remaining player with the greatest number of cards, or clockwise in case of ties. With players drawing from the deck only when play gets to them. I figured that this method would pass play to the player who has narrated the least, and with the most options, since they have the most cards. I was afraid that this could end up excluding narrating players. The existing play method was to allow everyone an equal chance. The Transfer method was to allow an orderly icon elaboration just after a card is layed... instead of later when that "scene" isn't current. The only thought on the multiple Icons was to allow everyone a chance to narrate a popular space, say "Opposing Forces". The current player could expand on the narration, but it would cost an Icon.
This currently is a bit of a stuttering step. It probably would be clearer and more simple to just allow Icon Play instead of Card...
I'm also thinking of returning to something like my original thought on play order.

4) Story creation
I'm open to suggestion here, having just discovered these new (to me) games and concepts in the last couple months. I was looking for a rules-lite role playing deep game(s) to show my wife (who was having problems with D&D2ed, and all its rules). I haven't played/Gmed much in 10-ish years (mostly 70's-80's AD&D, Traveller, and GMed a couple great Champions campaigns- the great parts mostly seemed to come in the solo-duo between sesssions games where the rules rarely came into play). My search led to "The Window", list discussions led here...much reading... Great Stuff! I've never ran/played in a real narrativist type game, but I want to! Bought InSpectre's... it going to be the first to try on my gaming buddies.
Anyway, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not quite sure how or what to do to accomplish this....yet

5) Major Arcana
This is one of the problems with a design made by people who are comfortable/ experienced with the Tarot. I would tend to automatically lean my narration to a more important level (or introduce a powerful being) when using a Major Arcana because I know that about the cards.

With respect to #2,#4, perhaps it would be a possibilty that the "Story end" must be accomplished with the play of a Major Arcana. Or, that 'x' number of Major Arcana must occur before a story ends, possibly leading to multiple layouts to accomplish a story.
Another idea might be to add a Major Arcana "Card Focus" as well as Premise, story idea, etc. In this case the story would have to head toward the principles of a Major arcana (possibly even requiring some influence in every scene-for instance 18 The Moon- maybe the moon must be in every scene, or cycles, or wax/wane, rebirth etc) , the "Story Ending" would be reached as the Card Focus is comes into the Layout in play.

The optional rule of "Play cards to the Layout in order..." was my weak way of trying to create a story ending goal. I figured that closer you got to the "Outcome" space the more the narration would narrow in the 'home stretch', but it definately changes the fill in any order aspect that I like so much.

Thanks a lot for your reply, please let me know what you think.
Bob McNamee

The Tarot is such a rich thing, there must be a way to make a good game using it... but I want to avoid books as much as possible

Hi Bob,

There's a lot to talk about in your post, but I'll get to most of it later. For now, I was thinking about the Tarot angle in the most general way possible.

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either the game is played by people who are at least passing familiar with the Tarot, or it has to be a "Tarot-teaching" game. It can't be both. Your solution of using a deck with the "meanings" (if a single word can be taken as such) actually printed on the card, is a weak one - it's not using a book, sure, but the cards themselves are "the book" in a reference sense. It still means the players are reading a reference as they go.

My call would be to bite the bullet and let the game speak to those who are interested in the Tarot in the first place (or like me, spent enough time with it earlier in life), and have that be sufficient. In other words, don't concern yourself with helping those who don't know enough to play; if they aren't that interested, then the game itself won't interest them enough to want to play it.

There's an RPG Theory discussion going on that you might be interested in - it concerns the difference between role-playing and consensual story-telling. It spun off of my comments in the first post of this thread, so come on over and join.

I also think that you might be interested to know that both The Window and Theatrix are considered, by some Forge members, to be flawed in their "create story" missions. Paul Czege has a thread 'way back when called "Drama like your cold feet under my covers" which addresses the issue in detail, and I think you'll find it thought-provoking.

Best,
Ron

I've read the Window related one's... I also agree that it's flawed. Probably one of the reason's you never hear about it being used. I like the create-any-character stuff (something I liked about Champs), and the easy to remember skill resolution. But the decision of when to roll, whether to alter the target number etc is not clear, as well as heading hard toward sim land. I'd be more inclined to play anything I would have used Window for in Pool or WFD.

Dropping the Tarot for Dummies aspect would make things easier, if It's for the Tarot knowledgable, or those willing to consult a book. I could just stress the influence of the Cards as well as a greater importance of Major Arcana.

Bob McNamee