Today, more reflections from my improv. class and some game mechanics for Sudden Light inspired by them.  As a side note, I'm quite amazed at the extent to which running through improv. exercises played out among non-gamers has offered me some critical distance from game design process and a wealth of ideas to inspire narrativist gaming.  I'm beginning to think that gamers desiring to improve their game experience and game designers should take improv. classes.

One of the most interesting exercise we tried today was called "yes, but..." and "yes, and..."  Basically, the writer framed a scene and established the characters for two actors.  One actor played the scene normally, while the other actor answered "yes, but" to what the other actor said, adding an element of resistance.  After the scene was played out to its fullest extent, we re-ran the scene with the second actor responding "yes, and," basically agreeing to whatever the other actor suggested.

The first exercise was far away more fruitful and engaging than the second.  With the "yes, and" structure, it seemed as though only one actor was contributing to the scene, with the second locked in the mode of instant agreement.  Very simply, the second actor was de-protagonized, and was basically at the whims of whatever struck the first actor's fancy.  I use Paul Czege's term here deliberately, as it was extraordinarily difficult for the "yes, and" actor to establish any semblance  of their character beyond sheer agreement.  As frustrating as this was in the improv. environment, I can only imagine how being forced into agreement without any recourse to dissention in the gaming environment would be quite frustrating.  Also, as this was improvisation, a few of the actor's suggestions were somewhat ridiculous, but the second actor had no chance to alter or bend them in such a way to effect a recovery of the scene.  However, the "yes, but" structure yielded conflict.  With every step of the first actor's movement being scaled down and modified at every turn, the scene developed a sense of coherency, movement, and energy overall.  The occasional, quite random suggestion of the first actor was not allowed to drastically alter the trajectory of the evolving narrative and gave the second actor a chance to bend the first actor's suggestions into a more sensible framework.

As I've been reflecting on the position of the Protagonist player in Sudden Light, I've been becoming more and more concerned that the player in this position might feel de-protagonized.  The Sublime and Mundane Guides frame the scenes, play all story elements outside of the Protagonist's control, set stakes with each other, and resolve scenes, while the Protagonist player is limited to the singular character and setting draw limits for the bidding mechanics.  In short, I've inverted the traditional RPG structure, creating multiple GM's and a singular player.  Even though part of the thematic structure of the game deals with the forces in life that free or imprison us from realizing our true potential and gaining perspective, I do not want the player of the Protagonist to feel these things or alienated from the storytelling process, even though the character of the Protagonist is the "star" of the story.

Mechanics:

The Will rating of the Protagonist supplies the player of this role several means of altering the direction of the story.  At the end of each scene, the Protagonist player gains a number of Influence Tokens equal to his or her current Will rating and may be spent in several different ways.

At any time during the game, including scene framing, setting stakes, and conflict resolution by the Guides, the Protagonist player may spend 2 Influence tokens to Resist the current narration.  When the Protagonist player Resists a narration, he or she agrees with previously narrated events, but may  an element of complication to them.  Once a Protagonist player decides to Resist, he or she temporarily assumes narration and begins the next sentence of the story with the phrase "yes, but..." filling in a difficulties, exceptions, or twists to the current Guide's telling of the story. 

Any Influence Tokens spent by the Protagonist player to Resist a Guide's narration are immediately added to that Guide's Influence Pool and may be spent normally.

If the Protagonist player Resists in such a way to as narratively alter or negatively effect an Aspect already In Play, the Protagonist player must pay one half of the Aspect's current rating (rounded down) to Guide of that Aspect. 

A Protagonist player may also Resist and remove any Aspect from being In Play.  To do so, the Protagonist player Resists (paying 2 Influence Tokens), narrates the scene so as to minimize the importance of an Aspect currently In Play, and plays number of Influence Tokens equal to the rating of the Aspect to that Aspect's Guide.  An Aspect removed from a scene in this way may not be brought back In Play to the current scene, but may be brought back In Play to any subsequent scene as normal.

A Protagonist player may also want to agree with a Guide's narration and may simply want to add some depth to his or her current narrative trajectory.  By paying 1 Influence token to the currently narrating Guide, the Protagonist player starts narration with the phrase "yes, and..." and may add color and details to the story which do not complicate the Guide's narration.

I have been looking for a way to phrase these situations in 'What a shambles!' and this is a great way of doing it. Mind if I borrow it, just the phrasing and not the mechanic, for my game?
Cheers
Iain

iain wrote:
I have been looking for a way to phrase these situations in 'What a shambles!' and this is a great way of doing it. Mind if I borrow it, just the phrasing and not the mechanic, for my game?
Cheers
Iain

Thanks very much
Cheers
iain