SUMMERPLAY

Hi, Forge!

I haven’t been here in a while, but I recently had a brainstorm for a game and wanted to share it with you to see what you think.

My idea is a game called Summerplay (working title). The “high concept” is this: the play group plays a group of children who are, themselves, playing a game of make-believe. In this way, the premise is very malleable, as the children characters will, in-game, decide on and alter what their make-believe is about.

The ruleset, which is just figments at this point, will involve three tiers. Without trying to get too complicated, one is rules for deciding what happens within the children’s make-believe (I call these “plotting rules”) and another tier decides how the children are able to come to these decision if there’s argument in the (I call these “fair-play rules”). These are both things the characters themselves will be more or less aware of, just as you were as a child when playing  make-believe. A third tier will have a type of control over the other tiers: it will be a ruleset that really only the players will know of, though the child characters will have a vague sense of it, and it is based on a currency system called “say” (as in, “my character has more ‘say’ in the issue”.)

The “plotting rules” would be basically what each of us went by to determine our own games of make-believe as a kid—so if you were playing Cowboys and Indians, it might be agreed that one character gets shot.

How a player plays the game will be heavily influenced by a system based on two seemingly unrelated quasi-sciences: the pop psychology known as “birth order”, and the limited-application sociology known as “GNS”:

First-born children know the rules and they seek to enforce them, often feeling it is either their right or their obligation. Either way, they see it as their duty to make sure play flows as it should.

Simulationist players will most like to play first-born children, and their characters will often have more “say” in fair-play decisions.

Last-born children like to be the center of attention. They like to tell stories, make jokes, and change things up. When playing make-believe, a last-born will often be the idea-person, offering suggestions for what happens next.

Narrativist players will most like to play last-borns. Last-borns will often have more “say” in plotting decisions.

Only-born children are outgoing and bossy. They often seem like little adults. Never having to share in their households, they never want to share at play. This sense of entitlement drives them to be the best, first, fastest, etc . . . and if they don’t get their way, they are consummate whiners.

Gamist players will most like to play only-borns, as they (the players) will have an advantage in how they earn and spend “say,” therefore giving them an overall sense of control in the game.

Middle-born children do not get adults the automatic respect of the others: neither the exaltation first-borns receive, nor the doting the last-borns receive, nor the undivided attention the only-borns receive. They are therefore very good at earning respect, and sucking it up when they don’t get it. This makes them get along easily with their peers.

Players with no particular agenda for play, or no preference, may do well as middle-borns. They will have no clear-cut advantages or disadvantage in using “say”.

The differences between the hierarchy of rulesets, and between the birth-orders, will create a sense of “drift”.

Ideally, a gamist group could play a bunch of only-borns, a narrativist group could play a bunch of last-borns, and a simulationist group could play a bunch of first-borns, and mixed group could play mixed.

However, I see most of the fun and uniqueness of the game coming in the fair-play rules, which will be geared towards simulationists. They will be based on things like age: “I’m 9 and a half!” vs. “Well I’m 9 and three-quarters!!”; and mechanics like: “Uh-huh!”/”Nuh-uh!” However, I see gamist only-borns using more devious strategies like bullying and whining.  The appeal for narrativists may be in flowing stream-of-consciousness style between the “stances” within the game of “make-believe” the way that children do.

Since my ideas are new, undeveloped, and vague, I only have some general questions for the group:

1) Sound cool or uncool?
2) Has this sort of thing been tried before?
3) If so, where? And has it been successful?
4) Any questions for me?
And finally:
5)  Guess what? (Chicken butt.)

-steve

Sounds cool enough alright.

I say that have a "Scale", based on how many of each player-type there are in percents, where you are on the scale dictates how much free-form ("nun uh, uh ah!) there is as opposed to how many rules(You fell on your back, shot with your left hand, so I dictate...).

I'd also add a Gender axis, as it has a huge effect on how people behave, especially in regards to children in a family.

Thanks, Guy!

Yes, I definately want to make gender an element of play, somehow. Not really an "axis" since gender's sort of a binary thing--you either have one set of equipment or you don't. I know gender and sexuality are more fluid in the real world, but that's beyond the scope of this game, I think!

Having a system that dictates how many rules you use based on the make-up of the group appeals to the manic systematizer in me; however, I envision it being more organic. A group of "only-child" gamists will naturally turn into a contest to see who can garner the most "say"--not because the gamist ratio is 1:1, but because gamists will be gamists.

I'll try to make this more clear with something more like an example: Say you have a group of "last-born" narrativists. They will probably be the most interested in the plotting rules, because those will be how the story grows. Let's say their characters are playing cops and robbers. One of the characters, as a robber, says "I'm jumping in the getaway car!" and then, using some plotting rules, a cop gets to interject: "Yeah! But all your tires are flat!" Now a group of narrativists might accept this, because it makes for an interesting turn of events. No one argues it, and no one has to use "say" to challenge it. Throw in a "first-born" simulationist playing as a robber. He doesn't like this turn of events so much! He uses fair-play rules ("Nuh-uh! You can't do that cuz there's no way all his tires would be flat!") If he has (or, perhaps, spends) "say", the other players have to meet him on his terms, and a battle for the probability of the tires being flat ensues. Gamists would be most concerned that their side wins out, whether because it makes sense narratively, or in probability--so they would be most concerned with collecting "say", no matter how it's used.

-steve

Putting all the Big Model terminology aside, I think this is an interesting idea. Can you describe in more detail how the "plotting" and "fair-play" rules interface? The impression I am getting (please correct if wrong) is that each is its own ruleset with internal idiosyncratic features, which interface through a common set of inputs and outputs (Compare D&D's spell and attack mechanics interfacing through battlefield positioning and damage effects).