Session 3
The third play-test of Gnostigmata used Beta 4.0 that you can download from here.  You can read an Actual Play account of the first play-test session here and an account of the second play-test session here.  The state of the characters at the end of this play-test session is available here.

The Social Aspects
The players were:  Ralph Buttner, Melissa Kirk, John Kirk, and Adam Reid.

Our session only lasted two hours this time.  We only got through a single scene in that time.  The scene dragged a bit, but was highly instructive in letting me know what adjustments I need to make.

Act II Scene 1
We tried out a random technique in determining the characters in the scene, rather than use those in the text.  It worked, but I’m not overly keen on it.  I think a little more structure would be helpful.  In any case, Geoffrey (Ralph Buttner), Father John (Adam Reid), and Catherine (Melissa Kirk) were present in the scene.

We negotiated stakes of Act II as follows:

If the Gnostics win: the Gnostics learn that the genuine Gospel of Michael is located at the Vatican.  They are contacted by the Illuminati with a clue concerning the contents of the gospel.  Also, the Gnostics set their Agony to 0 and can add a point to 4 different traits.

If the Catholics win: the Stigmatics learn the genuine Gospel of Michael is located in the Vatican.  Cardinal Fleur knows where the Gospel is in the Vatican.  Also, the Stigmatics set their Agony to 0 and can add a point to 4 different traits.

We negotiated stakes of the scene as follows:

If the Gnostics win: the Gnostics learn that the Cannis Dai and Illuminati are long-standing enemies.  Also, each Gnostic character gains a rank in one trait and the Stigmatics each gain a point of Agony.

If the Catholics win: the Stigmatics learn that Catherine is a Gnostic.  Also, each Stigmatic gains a rank in one trait and the Gnostics gain a point of Agony.

The scene was set in a park in London.  There was a rose garden, some statuary, a small stone building, and a parking lot.  A car was parked in the lot and a London bobby was letting his police dog out of it.  Geoffrey and Father John were sitting on a park bench and Catherine was flirting with the cop nearby.

The scene started out rather awkward and everyone agreed that it seemed rather forced throughout.  There didn’t seem to be any central conflict in the scene to start, so I had the bobby wander over to the priest sitting on the bench to start harassing him.  Apparently, there had been a series of muggings lately by someone dressed up in a priest’s outfit and the bobby wanted to check out the suspicious-looking character.  As I said, it was forced.  The cop and the Stigmatics ended up in a fight while Catherine tried to calm everyone down.  The scene ended with Geoffrey (the weapon’s dealer) pulling a gun and pointing it at the cop.  At that point, the Stigmatics won the scene, and narrated Catherine inviting both of them back to her apartment.  There, they saw a Gnostic Bible lying on a table which let them know that Catherine is a Gnostic.

Fade to Black

Observations and Solicitations
Well, the session won’t win any awards for its brilliance but it was highly enlightening.  The Stigmatics ended up winning most of the Scene Framing tricks, so the Gnostics were completely overwhelmed by the opposing side’s Pieces of Silver.  Ruprecht’s impressive lead in trait ranks didn’t really matter much.  This let me know that there is simply too much Silver being tossed about.  So, I’m reducing it in the next beta version.  During Scene Framing, players will get one Piece of Silver for every trick they take, rather than one Piece of Silver for every card.  I think that should increase the value of traits significantly.

What concerns me more is the amount of time it took to actually get to any real conflict in the scene.  The players just didn’t seem to know how to start attacking one another.  We went through this rather painful “getting to know one-another” phase that really seemed pointless.  The momentum we felt in the last play-test just wasn’t there in this one.  I have a feeling that this is because in the previous scenes someone had a vision of what the conflict was about before we started.  In this one, nobody really did and play seemed aimless as a consequence.  At least, that’s my theory.

To resolve this issue, I’m adding a new step at the end of the Scene Framing phase.  The purpose is to have the players briefly discuss what the primary conflict is going to be in the scene and then to position the characters in such a way that the scene actually starts 5 to 30 seconds after the conflict began.  This is actually an improvisation technique I read about in Impro; Improvisation and the Theatre by Keith Johnstone. I’m hoping this tactic will help players skip over the boring social niceties and jump straight to the good stuff.

I would appreciate any other suggestions on how to tackle this problem, if anyone has one.

I’m also keen to hear if anyone has any recommendations on how to decide what characters are going to appear in a scene.  The technique that is currently in the rules looks good on paper, but is problematic if the players change from session to session (which has been the case in every session we’ve played so far).

Thanks

Hey John,

What concerns me more is the amount of time it took to actually get to any real conflict in the scene....To resolve this issue, I'm adding a new step at the end of the Scene Framing phase.  The purpose is to have the players briefly discuss what the primary conflict is going to be in the scene and then to position the characters in such a way that the scene actually starts 5 to 30 seconds after the conflict began.

Stakes-setting is fast becoming the standard design solution to unfocused/not-so-dramatic scenes. But stakes-setting doesn't feel like play to me. It feels like work. I think we can do better. (And in fact I think this "scene focusing" issue is one of the hobby's most interesting problem spaces at this time.)

The rest of the solution universe, in my mind, lies somewhere in the actual working practices of authoring fiction. Authors don't hammer out stakes before writing scenes. They don't have to. Because they already have a sense of purpose and potential for their characters. What they do, in planning a scene, isn't to invent a discrete element of that potential for problematizing. It's more like creating adversity for a purpose and potential they already know.

So if you can somehow establish purpose and potential for your player characters, my thinking is that players will just naturally know how to attack it, without the need for stakes-setting.

Paul

Paul wrote:
Stakes-setting is fast becoming the standard design solution to unfocused/not-so-dramatic scenes. But stakes-setting doesn't feel like play to me. It feels like work. I think we can do better. (And in fact I think this "scene focusing" issue is one of the hobby's most interesting problem spaces at this time.)

The rest of the solution universe, in my mind, lies somewhere in the actual working practices of authoring fiction. Authors don't hammer out stakes before writing scenes. They don't have to. Because they already have a sense of purpose and potential for their characters. What they do, in planning a scene, isn't to invent a discrete element of that potential for problematizing. It's more like creating adversity for a purpose and potential they already know.

So if you can somehow establish purpose and potential for your player characters, my thinking is that players will just naturally know how to attack it, without the need for stakes-setting.

You know, this technique might also provide a rational means to determine who should be in a scene:

Steps for "Love Interest" Sub-Plot:
1) Meet Love Interest (player character present in all scenes until this is satisfied)
2) Express feelings of affection for Love Interest to someone - not necessarily the Love Interest (player character alternates being present and absent in scenes, starting with absence until this is satisfied.  Expression must occur when character is present.)
3) Narrate something of great emotional importance to your Love Interest, his/her "focus" (player character absent until satisfied)
4) Perform some action to impress the Love Interest that backfires (player character present until satisfied)
5) Narrate the Love Interest's "focus" being greatly threatened in some way. (player character absent until satisfied)
6) Narrate the Love Interest rejecting your character (player character alternates between presence and abscence until satisfied, starting with presence.  Rejection must occur when character is present.)
7) Perform some action to save the Love Interest's focus (player character absent for one scene, then player character present in all scenes until this is satisfied.  Character must be present and personally save the Love Interest's focus.)
8) Narrate the Love Interest expressing his/her love for your character. (player character absent for one scene, then player character present in all scenes until this is satisfied)

If a sub-plot is completed, a new sub-plot is chosen and started for the character.

Hmmm...That just might work.