-This is my first "real" post here, and it is also my first play-test-
Keep that in mind with the critisism.  I make no claims to be 'a pro'

-The Full Contents of this Play-Test can be found <a href="http://www.theplaytest.blog.com">here
The intent of posting here is to get feedback and answer questions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Play-Test Start Date 01-13-07
Play-Test End Date 06-23-07
Play-Test Days - 2nd and 4th Saturday of the month.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After months of planning, plotting and tweaking our material, it was finally time test our projects with live players.  It's the moment of truth as far as I'm concerned.

In the previous weeks we had created a yahoo group, inviting play-testers and uploaded the following materials.  (in PDF format)

• Sanctum: The Fallout/Ends and Means Phamplet - A brochure that gives a vague overview of the character creation process and the world setting for this particular game.  It explains via narration, the overall idea fueling the game and system and how they work together.
Ends and Means: Playtest Revision - The current revision of Ends and Means.
Ends and Means: Conflict Resolution Flow Chart - A graphic and text based flow-chart that guides you through the conflict resolution system; step by step.
Treatment - Sanctum: The Fallout for Ends and Means - A document that gives a straight-forward explanation of how this particular play-test will run, what style and atmosphere the game will have, and what can be expected from playing Sanctum: The Fallout with the Ends and Means system.



We had twenty beta testers join before game, and several inform us that they intended to play, but they hadn't joined the yahoo group yet.  There were several players who did indeed show but were not a part of the yahoo group, and there were part of the yahoo group who were unable to make it to this first game.  I'm hoping for a higher turn out next game.  (games are on the 2nd and 4th Saturday) 

Armed with nothing but our prized projects, dedication and hours and hours of pre-meditated preperation, Week One was finally upon us.    We were either ready or we weren't...and it was time to put our material through the ultimate test; Live players who would actually be playing the game.

Me and Adam arrived an hour ahead of everyone else to ensure that we could be set up and ready to go when our play-testers arrived.  I was a little worried about turn out because our intended location was closed for the holidays and we were forced to change our time and location with barely a two week's notice.  Instead of gaming at 7PM-Midnight in Minneapolis, we had to run the game from 3PM-8PM in Chanhassen. (About 15 minutes or so further south than intended)  While it did affect our numbers, it was not as distasterous as I feared, as we still managed a fairly decent turn-out at fifteen people.  We have confirmation of at least four more, with a possible fifth, so we'll have to see how that turns out.

Our play-testers started arriving at about 2:30PM; a half hour earlier than expected;  everyone was seated and ready to go by 3:15.  Me and Adam had discussed our game-plan before our play-testers arrived and came to the conclusion that we should start with me explaining my world and the setting before he got into the rules and system.  I had estimated that we'd be doing alot of sitting down and even more talking this first night, so brought bribery of snacks and drinks to prevent too many interuptions.  (It turns out to have been a good idea because it took much longer than I anticipated it to, but I'll explain that later)

Phase One:  Explain the world and Setting to the players.

I started off with introductions and then promptly started explaining the theory behind Sanctum as far as it concerned the Beta-Test.  I hadn't ever play-tested my own game, or even run a game before so it was completely new water for me; luckily, Adam was there to prod me in the right direction if I started to drift ahead of myself and he was a big help in giving suggestions on what order I should cover things in.  It helped in keeping me from getting too far ahead or from glossing over something that really did need more explanation.  I started out with the basic concept of ordinary people living ordinary lives, but then I started getting too much into making the actual character.  Adam suggested we explain setting first, and so I took his cue and dropped character development for now.

One of the first things I wanted to explain was the Atlas and Census, but it was really not going to make that much sense until I explained more about the places already in the world and I didn't want to confuse eeryone.  (I had started to explain it a little bit and then backed off; when Adam pointed out that I could explain it later)

While the city itself was going to be mostly created by the players themselves as they role-played, there were going to be objects and places that would already be a part of the setting; existing from day 1, regardless of the player-base.  I then proceeded to describe and define those places and give a general feel to what they added to the city, or what atmosphere they helped create.  I then told them that these places were going to be described further in the Atlas, which I'd get back to after I explained a bit more. 

The objects/places were:

• Coffman Student Union - One of the Largest buildings in the city, it looks like a normal building from the outside.  There is a marble plaza with a working fountain by the entrance with a maypole where one might expect a flagpole.  Inside of the building, a prison from the early 19th century replaces where the parking garage should be and in the basement, there was a overflowing garden with tangled trees, a dark black lake and glowing rocks. 
(note:  I had meant to inform them that the cafe was now a grocery store, but it completely slipped my mind; I'll have to make sure I make that clear before we start play next week)

From The Testers: Alot of questions were asked about the individual rooms of coffman and if they were normal or not.  I explained that only the features mentioned were absolutes and that anything else was really up to the players, as long as it was within the setting limitations.  (Which were pretty generous, considering the theme of Sanctum)  The testers got pretty excited at this point, and I heard alot of really good ideas being thrown around.

Concerns: Nothing in particular right now.  The testers spent alot of time discussing all the possibilities and none of them seemed very outrageous and they seem to understand the concept pretty well.

• A Giant Clock Tower - A gigantic brick clock tower looms over the city, roman numeral hands keeping time.  I purposefully did not add many details to this tower, other than it operated on a pulley system of weights and chains, that it was a stone structure.  The Clockface was plain and the hands were of steel.

 

From the Testers: I hadn't even finished describing the tower yet when hands started going up.  They wanted to know more details and they wanted to know specifics that I hadn't defined.  When all the questions were through, the clocktower had some new modifications.  It was agreed that there was lots of pigeons living in there, that there was a staircase going up to the top of the tower and that it did indeed run on manual gears and pullies, not electricty.  The idea to have the clock face read 13 numbers instead of 12 was denied.  The question came up on if someone could go in and kill all of the pigeons, and if they did so, would they just re-appear or were they gone, gone?  COULD someone do that?  Wouldn't someone know?  Then we had a player actually ask if we could keep track of locations and buildings, or maybe write them down somewhere.  There was some general murmuring and someone asked if we planned on at least making a map.

At this point, I stopped with some of the descriptions to go back and discuss the Atlas some more, because that's really hitting on why I created it in the first place.

The Atlas: Nothing more than a notebook binder used to keep track of all the buildings, places and objects within the city.  While players do not have to write down the places they create, anything that is NOT written down can be altered by another player at whim.  (If it wasn't important enough to be recorded, then is it really that important?)  Some locations will be created by the stage-hands, (me and Adam), while other places will be created by players.  Each location/place has a single number/page assigned to it, regardless of how many sheets of paper are used to describe or define it.  The name of the location/place is copied to the index of the binder, along with the number, and the owner's name to make it easy to find.  The owner is the person who wrote it down and no one can make changes to that structure/location without first notifying the owner.  (Because the owner would be aware if something is happening or has happened to a place familiar or owned by themselves and it also gives the player a chance to act upon it, including if they wish to use conflict resolution to do so)  If someone creates a place but has no interest in if something happens to it, they can place ownership as "None"  This means anyone can alter the description freely through roleplay, and they just have to document the changes and sign off that they made the changes.

From the Testers: They really seemed to dig the idea, and we had alot of questions about what was allowed and what wasn't.  Adam had to jump in here, because part of the question related to his system and it really was answered best by understanding the rule that creates the limitations. (I'll leave this part of the explanation to adam)  The basic rule however reminded them that the biggest question was if it was "setting appropriate" to create on a whim.  If something was overly convienent, (ie, a key to a locked gate that just happens to be under a rock near that gate), you really shouldn't be creating it without a stage-hand.  The same goes if it it were not an object or place that was appropriate to the setting. 

observation: At this point, I think both Adam and I realized at about the same time that what Sanctum considers 'setting appropriate' was pretty vast.  I could be mistaken, but I'm not sure if Adam considered that a game like Sanctum might stretch the boundries set by Ends and Means further than originally planned.  (I don't see this as a bad thing personally.  Ends and Means isn't broken by Sanctum and it still offers explanation for what IS limited by the power of narration, even if the example given in his book is contradicted by Sanctum itself)  I reserve the right to be completely wrong about my observation; after all, I'm no mind-reader.

concerns: I had reservations about the atlas and census when I first made them but became convinced it was nessisary.  Adam expressed a strong reluctance to introducing them to our beta-test but I felt that the work it would create would be worth the effort and would help keep the game consistant, maybe even promote role-play and interaction.  The testers seemed daunted at first but I noticed alot of interest as I went on with the explanation.  They started asking questions immediately about what kind of things they could add and what limitations there were on creating them and the further we got into the night, I felt a relieved to see that some of the players just seemed to expect that we would have some sort of system to keep track of everything.  I'm going to maintain for now that with the way we are playing, the Atlas and Census are indeed nessisary tools.

I moved on to The Census after the Atlas, since it was the same concept but with people instead of places.  (I had no sooner finished talking about the altas when someone brought up NPC's so I figured it was as good a time as any.)

The Census: Our setting has a pre-established and finite number of people in our city.  (500) The play-testers are included in this number, as are NPC's.  The numbering system works the same as the atlas, with the numbers referring to each person, rather than how many pages it takes to define that person; each person is one number out of that 500.  Because each and every person counts, it was explained that if any person were to die, whether NPC or PC, a stage-hand MUST be notified.  One of the reasons is because even faceless NPC's matter in Sanctum, and the long-term affect has to be documented as it affects the game as a whole.  I didn't get into all of the details because we had described it in the treatment, and we had already established that anyone could create an NPC and put them in the Census Book.  (And just like the Atlas, if one person didn't do it, someone else has the right to)  Also like the Atlas, if a player wishes to alter an NPC listed the atlas, they must let the owner of the NPC know, so they can be aware of the change and possibly have a stake in it)  Also like the Atlas, if an NPC is not owned by someone, (they must be on the character sheet to be owned), they only have to roleplay out the scene and then document the changes on that NPC's sheet.  Just like the Atlas, if something is not documented, then it is no one's fault but your own if other people do not roleplay those changes. (because how would they know?)

Concerns: I still worry about if I'm overdoing the details but the testers seemed to like the idea that they could reference something and have a way to keep everything straight as far as people and places are concerned.  They also seemed to really like the fact that they could have control over their own enviroment and that they didn't have to be baby-sat by a storyteller to do everything.  I feel like I created a monster, but then again I really can see the benifit of having this way to allow development of not just PC's but NPC's, and players seem to approve of the fact that they can turn a faceless NPC into more of an actual person, who could impact the game or other players in some manner.  I think I understand completely what Adam was worried about when he expressed his reservations, but I'm still on the mind-set that the atlas and census is going to be important to the game.

Going back to that clocktower and pigeons...I  answered the question about the pigeons and the clock-tower, and the players seemed to approve of the answer.  We could establish that if someone wanted to kill all the pigeons, they could do so, because while the clock-tower belonged to the stage-hands, we did not object to the alteration as long as it got documented so that someone had the chance to react to those dead pigeons.

more setting structures-

• A Giant Plaque - set at the foot of the clocktower, reading the letter D and carved in stone, this plaque was described as being overgrown with plant-life but still clearly visable, the letter not obscured at all.  The original height was about eight feet by twelve, but I adjusted it to be about twenty Feet by thirty feet with a smaller plaque set beneath that one that had the original sizing, sort of like a mini-version of the larger plaque.

From the Testers:  They didn't really have alot to say about the plaque, but seemed to have alot of interest in it.  We established that the font of the D was Garamond. (why?  because a tester wanted it specified, and so we obliged.)

• The Weather - It was explained that while the weather appeared to go in a seasonal sort of climate, it was not area effect in nature.  If it rained one place, it rained over the entire city.  If it snowed, it snowed all over.

Concerns: I haven't really worked out the weather too much, and I'm not sure how big a factor it will play into the game.  I'll have to look for it as we keep testing.

• Animals and Wildlife -   This explaination was simple and to the point.  Wildlife existed...any and all of it, whatever the players felt like creating, and yes, they could be in the city.

 

From the Testers: I got alot of grins at this one and alot of laughter.  They seemed to think the idea was great but there wasn't really alot of commentary other than the general approval of 'anything goes'.

Concerns: I'm not sure yet.  I haven't really dug this far into the game and it could burn me later.  We established later in the night that yes, you could in theory train an animal (like a badger) to open a door, but no, they aren't going to start talking.  I'll have to keep an eye on this...It could get messy, or it could be irrelevent.

• The Desert - Surrounding the city, is a desert.  It doesn't go anywhere, although it give the appearance of such.  In the desert are sparse trees and shrugs, sand and the occasional oasis.  It never leads anywhere but more desert, even if you traveled for days and days; but if you turn back, you can see the city after only a few minutes of trying to return.

From the Testers: I didn't even get to this feature before players started asking what was outside of the city. I remembered I had forgotten to describe the desert and I had no sooner than gotten the words out of my mouth to describe it than they pounced on the idea.  Did it not go anywhere and did it look like it was going nowhere and not any further than the city, or did it actually lead somewhere if you walked in it long enough?  Could you get lost in the desert?  What was out there?  Was it dangerous? 

Concerns: I actually forgot about this feature until a tester brought it up, literally asking what was outside of the city and joking about if it led anywhere of if it was just some desert or ocean.  I don't think I have any actual concerns just yet.  Players seemed content with the explanation and seemed to like the overall idea of it.  I was trying to keep from jumping ahead of myself with content and explanations but this group really just charged forward and kept leaping for me.  I'm satisfied that alot of the questions they asked, I had already had explanations for and just hadn't gotten to them yet.  The desert has potential to cause alot of trouble in game, so I'm going to be watchful for complications, but I don't think it's going to come up right away.  The focus seems to be on the city, not the desert.

• Stars, Moon, Sky - The sun and moon are a transparent, shadowy red.  The stars look normal but they are not in any recognizable constelations or positions. 



From the Testers: Again, one step ahead of me, I no sooner mentioned the moon then they leaped ahead to asking about the moon, sky and stars.  It just goes to show that they really do want the small details just as much as the big ones.  I really have Adam to thank for reminding me that some things are really better pre-defined ahead of time.

Concerns:  None at this time

Phase Two: Character Creation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went back to explaining the character concepts.  We had touched a bit on it when testers were just arriving but we hadn't really dove into it fully yet.  I started with the basic concept of our beta test and that our goal was to keep it simple.  No superheroes, no super mystical powers or famous historical figures.  Everyone was an ordinary human being, who was living an ordinary life for the most part.
It was then explained that by ordinary, it was meant that players were not going to have super-powers or be famous historical figures.  They could be from any period in time, from any place in the world, but they had to follow the guide-lines of historical probability.  We started to get alot of questions right away, but there wasn't alot of confusion about expectations at this point.  Some of the questions asked, I already had an answer for and was ready for it, but some of them definiately made me think for a moment  because I hadn't actually considered my answer to them.

•

"How about different languages and dialects?"

"What about Written Languages?  What about Sign Language?"

I don't know if this one threw Adam for a loop but it caught me completely off-guard; I hadn't even thought about it.  We discussed it with the players, although I had formed an opinion just a few seconds after my brain caught up to the suprise of realizing I hadn't considered that question yet.  My immediate thought was of how neat I thought it would be if No, written languages couldn't be understood in the same way verbal languages were.  Lucky for me, the testers seemed to agree with that opinion, and we all agreed that Verbal and Sign Language could be understood by everyone, but written language was an exception to the rule and if you didn't know that language, or how to read, you were just out of luck.  I was pretty pleased with this unexpected twist, but more pleased at how interested the testers actually seemed to be in the question in the first place.

Observation: The testers have started to assume ownership of the game and forming attatchments to thier ideas; this is exactly the sort of attitude I was hoping to get.  If they have already started to make attatchments and making active changes in the enviroment this early on, that's the first step to caring enough about the game to actually PLAY the game.  Considering that actually caring about the game itself is one of the most important things to making something work?  I'm thrilled to see it happening with the playtest.

Creating the Protagonists

I gave everyone a sheet of paper and Adam explained to our testers that someone didn't need to know the game mechanics in order to create a character/protagonist.  I really just let Adam take control of the floor at this point and I think I had finally become alot more comfortable with the flow of everything in general.  Adam guided them along the creation process and kept them focused on not the history of their protagonist, but of what drives that protagonist.  It is an important part of Sanctum as well as ends and Means, and it really covered both the game and the system so I thought it was fitting we both were involved in this part of the night as far as explaining it all the our testers.  He dug out the idea of what they were and what values/motivation they had while I prodded them to not just pick a who or what, but a when and where.  What year were they born?  Where were they from? 

Adam charted the characters on the whiteboard as they came into existance and by the end of the brainstorming we had the core of the protagonist coupled with what drives them.  ie, The Bum - Alcholism.  (I think Adam is going to cover it more specifically in his entry, but if not, I'll come back and get more detailed)

Ends and Means Character Sheets

Once everyone had a character concept on the white-board, we took a we busted out the Ends and Means Character Sheets, passed them out to everyone and started explaining that.  We didn't get very far when we had to pause so I could explain a quirk that Sanctum created in the character creation process.  It is an optional modifier but it is still a modifier and so I explained the following.

Personality Type: "Skeptic, Realist, Questioner" and Extremity: barely, mildly, greatly, extremely -

I gave a very basic run-down of each personality type and then explained how aspect is just giving definition to a mind-set that most protagonists are already going to have.  It's more of a reminder than it is an absolute and it can be changed at any time.  There is no reason why a skeptic couldn't turn into a questioner, and there's nothing to say that a questioner couldn't turn into a realist.  It's just part of character development and there is no technical advantage or disadvantage to taking this feature. 

From the Testers: It seemed like everoyne had a question, but most of them had to do with wanting examples.  They seemed really confused at the start of this segment, and I ended up getting confused myself for a moment.

Concerns: Personality types seemed like a good idea when I created them but as I tried to explain it, it created so much confusion that I was ready to remove it from the beta testing right then and there.  I was ready to conclude that the the feature was a failure and that Adam was right in suggesting that it wasn't needed, when I considered that it wasn't nessisarily the feature that was the problem but that my oral explanation of it failed to do its job.  As I continued to answer questions that the testers had, and continued to give examples, it dawned on me that I might have jumped to conclusions about personality types being a failed modifier; in fact the idea seemed to grow on the testers once they understood it and I do have interest on if it actually adds anything to the game-play.  It stays, for now...but I'm not entirely sure I'll feel that way at the end of the testing.

Ends and Means - Defining them in a character

Once we got past the Personality Types, It was Adam's turn again, since who best to explain Ends and Means than the person who created it?  He went through the mechanics of his system,  (see his posts for details) and instructed our testers on just what Ends and Means were and how they are both tied into who their protagonists are and what makes them tick.

concerns: They caught on to the concept fast enough but some of our testers had a hard time trying to establish what sort of means they might have, or what ends could be considered worth writing down.  I don't really remember this being an issue in the last play-test involving Ends and Means so I'm wondering if it is because our testers are used to having supernatural abilities or features to explain how things get done that it is harder to find a mundane way of doing the same thing?  I couldn't help but notice that it was those who were new to Larping that finished their ends and means first, and didn't seem to have the same hesitation in determining what they were.  Eventually, everyone was able to figure out thier ands and means and I don't think we hit any major snags along the way.

observation: At some point during the brainstorming for ends and means, we took a small break to order Pizza.  It was 6PM already and we were pretty hungry.  Everyone had finished their Ends and Means character sheet and Adam was talking more about the actual system and how it was used when the pizza finally arrived.  We took a break to eat and I was glad to see that people were pretty excited about their characters. There was alot of buzz going on as people started fleshing out thier protagonists enough that we actually started putting them in the Census. There was even one tester who created an NPC and included that NPC as one of his means.

Concerns: I'm not sure about Adam, but I didn't expect this part of the game to take so long; (there were a few individuals who came to game knowing exactly what they wanted to play and were a bit ahead of everyone else since they had read the rules, treatment, ect, so I don't think we can really blame the treatment, the system or any other lack of preperation on our part) Everyone seemed to take it well, but teaching 15 players how to play a brand new game in a world they know nothing about with a system they have never seen before just took longer than I expected.  I'll have to look at ways to ways to streamline my explanations and if it's even possible.  It could just be that we had alot of material to cover and were starting with a blank slate.

STILL TO COME:  Ends and Means: Conflict Resolution!  (Phase Three to be posted Soon!)

observation: Me and Adam seem to be working well together and that's pretty encouraging as far as I'm concerned, because it indicates that we understand enough about each other's project that we'll be able to trouble-shoot any complications or glitches that we run into as the testing continues.  I think it's important to remember that there are not one, but two different play-tests going on at the same time, and that can really affect how the players are affected or affecting the entire game.  To be really discriminating, I'm really running two beta-tests at the same time, which means there are technically three beta-tets all at the same time.

(Sanctum: The Fallout, itself is Core-Setting RPG that is created with adaption in mind; namely to different systems without losing the integrity of the concept.  This beta test is an adaptation of  Sanctum to the Ends and Means system.  The Treatment for this beta-test is not a limit of Sanctum but an example of what can be created through the adaptation.  This means I am not only testing Sanctum: the Fallout, but the modification of it.  I have to keep in mind that not only could my adaptation fail, but it could be my core idea itself that caused it- hopefully, that isn't going to happen though!)

Directed Imput is Good, fire away.

And as the blonde that I once was, I forgot to actually state what was obvious to me.

Sanctum: The Fallout - A RPG by Sara Adyms (me)
Ends and Means - A LARP System by Adam Bjorn Cerling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm fairly new to this, so not entirely sure what questions to even ask, or what sort of trouble-shooting to do until it pops up in game.  The Concerns are what I'm focused on most right now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Sara,

Direct questions are probably the best way to go here.  There's one in each of your concerns in these posts - I'd suggest teasing them out and asking focused questions.

For example, you expressed concern about how long it took to generate characters initially.  Are there obvious ways to streamline this process?  Was the length of time an artifact of playtest or player style?  That'd be the sort of question people could sink their teeth into.  This is a substantial report full of interesting stuff, so some guidance will probably net you better feedback. 

And to answer my own example question there, I would be concerned about length of time, but not too much at this point.  There seem to be a lot of factors at play that may have slowed it down this time.  You'll definitely want to see how people handle it without any assistance, just using the rules as written. 

Maybe that's the problem is that I don't really see any fatal flaws yet; I think I was almost hoping for someone to point them out for me.
I'm hoping that the game itself will reveal them, but so far, it's just been a few slights.

I'll keep updated on the play-test and if anything big comes up, I'll yank it out.
~~~~~~~~~~

My biggest question was the one you just answered.  I wouldn't mind this one being answered also; Is the Atlas and Census needed, or just adding more work without being nessisary?    My opinion hasn't changed; I think it's still nessisary, but I wouldn't mind other views.

Sara

Hey Sara,

Nice to see Ends and Means being used. Could I ask some questions to clarify things?

What's the argument behind using the Codex? The idea of having 500 people is neat, but what's its function in the game?

You say that, in the Atlas, only the owner of each location can give permission for changes to be made. Could you explain your thoughts behind this?

To me, it sounds rather restrictive: one of the beauties of Ends And Means is that players can use Director Stance and narrate things about the environment. But, if we're playing a scene at a location which is owned by someone, would we have to check with the owner before narrating? If so, what about really small changes: say, we decide there's carpet on the floor or a table in the room?

I'm particularly interested that you say "the idea to have the clock face read 13 numbers instead of 12 was denied". Who denied it? Why?

Graham

Nice to see Ends and Means being used. Could I ask some questions to clarify things?

What's the argument behind using the Codex? The idea of having 500 people is neat, but what's its function in the game?

You say that, in the Atlas, only the owner of each location can give permission for changes to be made. Could you explain your thoughts behind this?
To me, it sounds rather restrictive: one of the beauties of Ends And Means is that players can use Director Stance and narrate things about the environment. But, if we're playing a scene at a location which is owned by someone, would we have to check with the owner before narrating? If so, what about really small changes: say, we decide there's carpet on the floor or a table in the room?

I'm particularly interested that you say "the idea to have the clock face read 13 numbers instead of 12 was denied". Who denied it? Why?

Week 1 - Part 3 : Adam Continues the Report

Sara's is a hard act to follow. I won't give quite the blow-by-blow report, instead simply calling out the notable points as I see them.

<H3>Beginning an Act </H3>
I began by explaining how to assign Weight at the start of an Act; how that earns you Plot Points; how Plot Points turn into Potential; and what Potential is good for.<BR><BR><I><B>Concern: </B></I>As usual, I stumbled over describing the difference between assigning a high weight and a low weight to an End or Means. I need a short, punchy sell for this, something viscerally clear, that matches the experience of play. It’s hard because a thing with high Weight isn’t “powerful” – it’s easy to defeat if you expect it. Low Weight is more reliable, but costly.

Part of the problem is that the numbers have nothing to do with any fictional characteristics of the End or Means. They refer explicitly to how the author wants to use those elements in the story. I called the number “weight” to draw parallels to dramatic “weight” in a story, but I’m not sure those parallels will hold true in play.

<B><I>Insight: </I></B>Perhaps I'm working this out even as I type. High weight on an End or Means <I>establishes</I> your protagonist in the act. These come out early in the story, demonstrating what your protagonist is "about." When they work, they work easily and without a hitch; when they fail, it's an injustice that must be answered.

Low weight on an End or Means <I>reveals</I> your protagonist. These come out later in the story, showing what your protagonist is truly made of. When they fail, they demonstrate the character's flaws. When they work, it's a hard-won triumph. Rely on these too long and the costs eventually drag you down.

A median Weight on an End or Means doesn't have a known place in the drama yet. Maybe in later Acts it will become an establishing trait or a revealing one, but for now, we're waiting to learn more.
I will try to answer this again later by asking people after the fact: “What did it feel like to use your high-Weight Ends and Means? What about the low ones? Are you planning to do the numbers differently next time? How?
<H3>Cues </H3>
Next I explained Cues – the first brand-new part of the system I hadn’t explained before. I think the pieces began falling into place in people’s heads at this point. For the first time, I was telling them how stuff they did in game could loop back and affect their character sheet. That’s what GNS Theory calls a “Reward System,” and I have a hopeful feeling that it will end up driving the game like an engine, without the Stagehands having to initiate a thing.

<H3>Conflict Resolution</H3>
Last, I tackled Conflict Resolution. First I explained the difference between “Task Resolution” and “Conflict Resolution” systems (without using theory jargon, of course). I lightly sketched the idea of Stakes, mentioning that sometimes they lead to Compromise. Then I described choosing Ends and Means, comparing Weight, and how the Lead wins. I explained how the Director is established and what she does. Voila! Conflict at its most basic.

To help with an example, I used two players' new characters: one, a medieval baker with delusions of grandeur, who was holding a grand party; the other, a modern gold-digger looking to schmooze with the elite. The conflict was over whether the gold-digger would get an invitation to the party.
Next I described the exception, Stealing the Scene, and its counter, Commanding the Scene. Sara piped in with the very important and true warning that having the Scene stolen from you hurts!

About then we broke for dinner.
Matt reminded me about ties, and so during dinner I explained tie-breaker orders of comparison, and Auctions.

After dinner I explained what made an acceptable Stake, which included a brief discussion of the Treatment’s Scope. Then I described the difference between Minor Stakes and Major Stakes.

Last, a Conflict with three or more participants. Eight people jumped on the example of a young man who needed to have his life turn around. Whose philosophy will he adopt? The resulting fray showed how the principles of a basic conflict extended into a group.

<I><B>Observation</B></I>: I was surprised by how easily people accepted the rules I was laying out. I was expecting more people to balk at the idea of resolving a whole conflict with one exchange, or with Major Stakes requiring player consent, or with Scope being an artificially limiting factor.
Once they start playing, I'm sure the real hard questions will start coming up.

Monday, January 15th - Preparation.

With the <STRONG>Ends and Means</STRONG> system, the supporting cast (NPCS)&nbsp;are determined by the <STRONG><EM>Ends</EM></STRONG> that players have chosen for themselves.&nbsp; So, Adam and I got together for dinner and to familiar ourselves with just what kind of world the players have created.&nbsp;(After creating the <STRONG><EM>Opposition Brief,</EM></STRONG> I have to agree with Adam, that Sanctum is a cold, cruel world!....AWESOME :)

We started by posting each and every <STRONG><EM>Ends</EM></STRONG> that was created by someone on a post-it note; one ends per post-it.&nbsp; It just so happened that&nbsp;the mini post-its that I had brought with me were mulit-colored.&nbsp; Adam ended up with blue and I ended up with pink and that's when Adam had yet another devious idea.&nbsp; "Let's sort them by gender" He comments, grinning at me.&nbsp; I start laughing and agree; sorted by gender it is!&nbsp;&nbsp; Adam takes the guys, I take the girls and both of us note that there is almost an even ratio of guy and girl in our beta-test.&nbsp; Once we're finished, we start sorting them into piles that suggest a theme, clumping similar <STRONG><EM>Ends</EM></STRONG> together until we feel it is about as organized as it is going to get.&nbsp; At this point, We grab a different colored post-it note and start giving each one a title that might best explain what the mean could be and when we are finished with that, we go about&nbsp;labeling it with the exact opposite as well. &nbsp; ie: Loved ones : Isolation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Create something of worth: Destroy things of value.&nbsp;&nbsp; The first title is what the players are attempting to achieve, the second title is the opposition.

&nbsp;When we finish, we then write down each of the opposition values on a sheet of paper, which are now "our" &nbsp;<STRONG><EM>Ends&nbsp;</EM></STRONG>and then we brainstorming for possible <STRONG><EM>Means.</EM></STRONG>&nbsp;&nbsp;ie, men of violence,&nbsp;disease,&nbsp;&nbsp;The list is almost a full page long, with two columns when we are finished, and so we start picking from among them.&nbsp; We want to match the number of <STRONG><EM>Ends</EM></STRONG> pretty closely, but do end up with a few more <STRONG><EM>Means</EM></STRONG> than <STRONG><EM>Ends</EM></STRONG>.&nbsp; It turns out this is okay for now; we may be creating more as we go, or changing the ones we have.&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;We now have a list of <STRONG>Stage-Hand's</STRONG> <EM><STRONG>Ends and Means</STRONG></EM> for use in making our supporting cast.

Keeping this list in mind, we begin to make some protagonists of our own, and end up with the following.
Sara - Vice Dealer, Prophet.&nbsp; -And coming later, The Match-Maker.&nbsp; (I reserve the right to change these before Friday)
Adam - The Librarian, The Dictator
And so we wrap up the night, Our <STRONG><EM>Opposition Brief</EM></STRONG> complete.

----Goals before Saturday----

Type up Character sheets, Census Descriptions&nbsp;and Atlas Descriptions.
Create and Type up Supporting Cast.</html>

Week 2 -Coffman Student Union 7PM-Midnight. "Day 1" in Sanctum.

Real-Life problems plaqued the play-test size in week 2. Two of our players were MIA due to a sick kidlet, and several more could not make it due to Real Life obligations, Work or Illness.  In short, our second training session was not needed, but proved useful in letting our early arrivals prepare for costuming, talk about thier&nbsp;motivations for playing and get to know each other. Our overall count was the same, with three additional spectators who haven't decided yet if they are prepared to take the jump from table-top to LARP yet.

There was some initial worry; Would this play-test end up like so many other play-tests? Would we have a good first game and then fizzle out before we even got going?  It happens alot in even pre-established games, so being optimistic was the only thing I could really do; People would either want to play, or they wouldn't.  Optimistic or not, I continued to worry until people started showing up, finding relief as I realized, not only were they showing up, but showing up in costume and talking about thier characters while we waited for game to start.  I'll post a seperate entry with a gallery of our play-testers and the costumes they sported.

As Stage-Hands, Me and Adam opted for a white T-Shirt with Black Pants.  Our Supporting Casts characters would be identified by an assessory. Adam sported a shoulder harness with holster and black leather hat for his "Communist", and a white sheet for his "Librarian", while I had a tie and jacket for my "Vice Dealer.", A Skirt for my "Match-Maker", and stole Adam's sheet for my "Oracle"

concerns: My main one was attendence.  It seems to be a false worry for now, but Adam has warned against assuming it won't change.  So far, so good; we'll see if it continues to be that way.

The Pre-Game Huddle:
We called everyone's attention at about 7:10, only a few minutes behind our slotted schedule.  We had full attendence, not counting those who let us know ahead of time that they'd be missing this game but would be at next.

We started out by handing out character sheets, which were no bigger than a index card...in fact, they WERE index cards. We had the testers assign thier and Adam handed out the tokens that would represent plot points.(Adam had typed the Opposition Brief up, along with our supporting cast characters on a single sheet of paper, which was to be our own character sheets.)

observation:It never ceases to amaze me how fast people will lower thier numbers when they realize that they get more plot points that way. The look on people's faces were priceless...absolutely priceless.

Ready, Set...
We then determined that Coffman University would be the main rooms, the garage would still be the prison and the cafe would be the grocery store. I had meant to establish an OOC room, but I don't think we did. This could have been bad, but it turns out no one really seemed to need one, as anyone who wanted a break, went and sat at the registration table...which worked just fine.

Adam ran the floor with an Explanation of Cues - See Adam's Post for more information - and then after he went through a few more details, he turned the floor over to me to set the floor for game to begin.

I re-stated the conditions of Sanctum, and what people would be waking up to, ran through what was inside of Coffman and what things could be expected from the world...and answered a few questions.

concerns:There was some hesitation on my part when the question was raised on if the protagonists would ever find out what put them in Sanctum.&nbsp; Adam has been prodding at me for awhile for this question and I have been reluctant to say one way or another.&nbsp; Sanctum itself has any number of possibilities and I was hoping to reserve having to decide one way or another until I saw where the players seemed to want to go. Since this is a beta game and is unlikely of branching out into other games, I chose "Fate/Time" was the abductor and that the conclusions characters would draw would never be a lack of information, just a possible 'not what they expected to get for an answer' instead. They seemed fine with this, but it's going to take some considerations on my part on why it was so hard for me to just pick one.

Game!
Having gone through everything we could think of, we then called "Game on" and told people to go find where they would be waking up, because they'd be doing so in 1....2.....3.....4....
I've never seen people run so fast.

concerns: When I first started talking about how and where they would be waking up, I found myself feeling as if I had repeated myself so many times that I was being redundant. I stumbled over the introduction and it seemed awkward, although players didn't seem to mind that much; I need to work on the execution of what is in my head into actual explanation!

Ready, Set...Game!

So, the players hit the floor running, each one determined to call dibs on thier own personal piece of Sanctum. Adam slips into the role of "The Communist" aka, Cpt. Sergei Petrokov, while I go peek out in the halls to watch the trainwreck that is surely unfolding...or is it? The players waste no time on bumping into each other and the results are amusing to watch. Tiffiny's character, "Gilda Watson" is a social-climbing gold-digger from the 1920's assumes that she must be hallucinating as she voices her thoughts out loud, wondering just what was in her drinks last night. Chris, who is playing "Ricky Fortunado", (The Bum), just assumes he is still drunk as well...And then there are the painfully sober, and faithfully religious who aren't handling the shock quite so well.

It's fourty Minutes since game start and no one has wondered into "Coffman Union" yet to interact with Adam's SC...and no one has tried to kidnap me either, whether it be for questions or for confusion. I'm tempted to see just how long we could let the game run itself, but throw on my suit jacket and tie instead, walking right into the fray as my SC "Vice-Dealer" Vesper Lauphel. It takes another twenty minutes before someone makes use of me as a Stage-Hand, and that is for a brief question about whether or not there there is a supply store of some sort.

Observation: The play-testers needed so little of us, that we spent the majorty of time playing the Supporting Cast (SC) ...literally. We play out our supporting cast characters no differently than if we were another player, with the exception that we can be subjected to Major Stakes in a conflict without being asked if we accept.

Concern: It's going -Too- smoothly. I'm with Adam in wondering if this is a fluke or if it's really that well-oiled. I'm sure we will find out after a few more games, but I can't help being optimistic.

Stage-Hand Versus Stagehand - Vesper Lauphel versus Cpt. Sergei Petrokov

I knew Vesper was going to be a different sort of bastard than Sergei, and it -was- my intention to make Vesper one of those "Love to Hate" Persona's, and with luck, a nessisary evil. She's Vice-Dealer, which means she's used to having a market; or in this case, she's creating one by trying to get a monopoly on everything. So, naturally, I expected some opposition.

What I wasn't expecting was for Adam's SC to be pitted directly against my own SC so often. The players wasted no time in chosing sides and so they started using Sergei as a way to oppose Vesper.

This happened not just once, but three times.

Observations: I love the fact that players have started to form sides and act on intentions. They are putting alot of planning and internal dialogue into what they are doing and it's really adding a theatric charge to the entire game. The Ends and Means system is working very well with Sanctum, and I'm satisifed with the overall effects.

Concerns: I worry about protagonists becoming too dependent upon SC. Stage-Hands play these to promote role-play and to introduce friction, plot, and dialogue that assist in keeping the game fluid and interesting, but there seems to be an awful lot of focus on our SC. So it's creating some question in my mind as to why.

Is this because players are used to situations in which Storytellers control the game through NPC's?

Is it because we are just interesting SC and people want to interact with us for that reason?

Do the players really understand that we are playing on the same rules as them? If they believe us to be 'powerful', do they realize that they have the ability to do the same things, or promote the same sort of roleplay?

I'm a little worried that our players are used to being re-active rather than pro-active. Some of this worry has been disproven already by the sheer amount of incentive that some players have taken in making thier own mark on Sanctum, but I'm watching for the long-term as well. It bears alot of watching, and if it is there; I'm going to have to focus on why it's happening and what can be done to reduce it.

Sanctum Versus The Players : I finally get use as a Stage-Hand.

Finally....Over an HOUR into the game, someone finally comes to me for Stage-Hand related things. There is a small group of protagonists who have secured the top of the clock-tower and made it into a sort of fortified refuge and watch-tower. They have a telescope, (provided by someone's means) and they want me to tell them what they see, and that they are trying to see over the city and see how big the city is. Can they do it? How big is it? How far can they see?

I am about to tell them, 'Sure, you look out and you see about two miles to five worth of city to any side of you." when I stop myself, realizing this is the perfect chance to use the Opposition Brief, even if I don't have to. Using the opposition ends of Keep them ignorant and my opposition means of enviroment, I then declare my stake of it being too foggy to see to the edge of the city. The players involved choose the stake of "I'm able to see how big the city is."

They win the stake, and I choose to not steal the scene. I do however win narration. I describe how they look over the city with the telescope and they see that on the edge of the city, which is a few miles to any side of the clocktower, there is a desert. There doesn't seem to be a determined end to the desert.

The small group of players have just won thier first 'conflict' against the actual world.

observation:There was palpable excitement when the players won thier stake, and although I didn't to create a conflict against them, doing so really seemed to add flavor to what they were doing. It seemed the players appreciated earning the answer instead of just being given it outright.

concerns: Adam seemed to have a concern with the scenerio, and asked me to validate why it needed to be done in the first place. What was the benifit of them winning or losing the stake, and did the conflict matter?

I admit that don't share the concern, but I understand the logic of questioning the decision. It's important to know WHY it matters, and so this is the explanation I gave.

While I could have just given them the information without a conflict, this was the first time that either one of us used the oppposition brief that I am aware of that wasn't via a supporting character. The opposition brief exists because it's a rather powerful tool used to drive story, plot and to offer a counter-balance to the weight of what players are doing. So, by introducing opposition without actually using a SC, We are using the opposition brief to create situations that further the actual story, regardless of the outcome of the conflict.

So, a question for Adam[/i]: Does this explanation make sense? Did you intend for the opposition brief to work this way, or was it to just help create Supporting Cast? I have the belief that players like to feel as if they can make a difference, and that conflict doesn't have to be just when players disagree with Cast to Cast outcomes, but when a Stage-Hand makes use of a possible conflict, I think it gives the players the chance to feel they achieved something, or have something to achieve.

Inventing Extortion

After the watch-tower scene, it occurred to me that just because we don't have to be involved, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. I realize that this is exactly the sort of thing that drives me CRAZY in other L.A.R.P.s, and that it might grate on Adam if I did it, I decided to do it anyways. Don't get me wrong, things were really great as so far as the game, but I was interested in seeing what affect Stage-Hand induced conflict would have. (Besides, It was bound to happen eventually, even if not this game, so why not?) Ironically, it was the players themselves that set my mind rolling to the idea of 'extortion' and it was Adam who named it. I still have reservations of whether or not it is really extortion, or a glorified bribe.

I had in mind that in normal 'LARPs', the Story-teller usually wastes an hour of your time to see if you can get something that should be pretty simple done. For example, They can turn getting some groceries into some epic ordeal in which you get attacked by fifty bad guys and instead of just saying "you get there, or you don't", you have to do some long-winded scenerio that ends up taking two hours...just so you can go to the city. With Ends and Means, you can introduce the same conflicts but without wasting all that time...

So, when a small group of players wanted to get some supplies, I informed them that one of some of Vesper's thugs was going to try and stop them. They got prepared to throw stakes, and I decided if I could take the shortening one step further. I told them that if the group could pay me off with two plot points total, (not per person), then they wouldn't enter into a conflict with the thugs. They could have chosen to conflict, and certainly the advantage was with them, but they instead chose to take the automatic win and pay me off.

The result? They got a conflict to add to thier story and got another reason to form an opinion about what happened without actually having to enter a real conflict.

Exploring this idea a bit more, I'm going to have to say that I think the general concern about this is the usual frustration that normally comes with opposition given by the ST's in a MET style Game and how much time it can consume, sometimes without even given you any sort of answer. Mostly, because there are times when all someone really wants sometimes is the answer to thier question. "Can I do this? Yes, I understand that the building is dangerous, I just want to know if I can do it!" and then spending hours figuring out if you can do that one thing when it might not even be something that important to the character.

So who's to fault? If those running the game didn't give any sort of opposition, then there would be no conflicts, there wouldn't be alot of tension, and I don't think there'd be the thrill of achieving something that comes when there's the chance you could fail; And it isn't that the players don't want this conflict, because many times they do.

The fault lies not with the players or those running the game most times, but in that with many systems, conflict resolution comes at the cost of consuming a generous chunk of time, and reducing the actual roleplay to nothing more than system mechanics that don't reflect the actual story. This gets frustrating for the players, and for those running the game for several reasons, but I think the main one comes from the time demand and consumption that doing non-player to player conflict has, not to mention the timesink of players waiting on the already over-taxed Storytellers just so they can reach the point of conflict resolution.

With Ends and Means, you achieve the benifits of conflict without the drawback of compromising huge chunks of time by being able to focus on the roleplay, instead of the mechanical function, - My own style of storytelling focuses on the Story, not mechanics...so this makes Ends and Means uniquely qualified for Sanctum: The Fallout, as a L.A.R.P.

observations: Most of the players seem thrilled with how quickly conflict is resolved. Many of them are used to M.E.T. (Minds Eye Theater) and there was an very tangible suprise from some of them when they realized they had won or lost the stake in a matter of moments. Mechanics decide what the outcome is at the beginning, and how it happens, instead of both. This adds a fluidity to the game that most players aren't expecting. It is that more fluid style of game-play that I want in the game, so I'm rather estatic that it is working as planned.

concerns: I know Adam had some concerns about extortion, and it's really too soon to tell if the mechanic can be abused. I think he has some points, but as he pointed out himself; the system is designed in a way that will curb most of the power the stage-hands holds. The power of plot-points can work for or against the players, just as they can against the stage-hands; and that makes it a rather self-balancing scenerio.

The Atlas and Census

observations and concerns: Adam's had a few concerns about these, and they had a very valid foundation. He worried that players might not want to participate because it required work on thier part. He also felt it would be more work for the stage-hands.

The first concern so far has been proven wrong; the players overwhelmingly created new places and we had nearly fifty new places/locations for the Atlas.

But the second concern is very, very valid and apparent. I've chosen to want them typed up so they are easier to read, and this is going to create a rather large workload. If I decide I do not want them typed, there is almost NO work for the stage-hands. We'll have to wait a few more games before I decide the best way to fix this work-load issue. It might fix itself, or I might have to impose that I prefer the entries to be typed out. It's too soon to tell.

Adam's Excerpt

Regarding narrator dependence on Supporting Cast:
I agree that it's something I'll keep an eye on as well. I don't want the game to coast to a stop if you and I step out of our supporting roles for a couple of hours.

On the other hand, there's a good reason our Supporting Cast is compelling: we're energizing. As the narrators learn the game and the setting, they're playing it safe and cautious. Their protagonists aren't taking big risks yet; they're still getting our bearings. The protagonists like a pool table on an ocean liner, drifting serenely around the table, occasionally clacking lightly against one another.

Compare that to Vesper! Practically the first thing she says is, "This city's mine, and you have to play by my rules." That's like firing a cue ball at high velocity into the midst of it. CRACK! Balls zigzagging everywhere!<br />

I'm playing it a little closer to the vest with Sergei, but that's only because nobody's defied him yet. :) When they do (and I'll give them reason)... CRACK!

Ideally, I hope that our narrators realize that their Protagonists can be those cue balls. They can create that CRACK! They can try outrageous high-energy schemes, secure that when the furor dies, no matter what, their protagonists will still be in the story if that's what their narrator wants.

But every so often, when the balls start drifting to a halt, we will always be needed to mix it up. That'll always a very important part of the job.

On the Opposition Brief:

Yes, Sara, you used the brief correctly: It is for any time that a Stagehand needs to provide opposition when they don't have a specific Supporting Cast Character to do so. (In fact, I could have used the Opposition Brief instead of Vesper's card, that time Aleira was seducing Vespa's thug Jaleel.)

Also, I think your reason for opposing the narrators -- instead of just letting them have what they want -- is actually pretty sound. Narrators *do* like to face challenge and opposition! It creates moments of doubt and suspense, and that's really important. So kudos to you for noticing that!

Where I think you can do better is in defining your stake. Always make failure interesting. Failure and success are *both* means for moving the story to a new place. If you can just sum up failure with "no, you fail," and nothing is really different, then the story has gone nowhere.

"We try to see to the edge of the city."
(You use the Opposition Brief and win the conflict)

"No, you fail."
"Um... okay... guess we have to wait until the weather clears..."

Boring!
You told me that if they failed to see the city's edge from the clock tower, they'd have to find some other way, and *that* could be interesting. And you know, you could have been right! That might have led to interesting stuff. So it's not like you did anything horribly wrong.

But what if you defined a stake so that instead of failure *maybe* being interesting *if* they did this other thing next, you made sure failure *will* be interesting because it changes the situation?

"If you win, you see to the edge of the city. If you fail, not only do you fail to see, but the strong winds put someone in peril of falling to their doom!"

...That's kind of awkward, but that leads into another point: it's difficult to make a failure to get important information interesting. Stories need important information if they are to move forward.

Lastly, on extortion:
At the moment I'm thinking: this technique is unlikely to cause major problems. The narrators have plenty of power to get their way, and plenty of options. So go on and keep using it when you think the moment is fitting. We'll see how narrators handle it!

Act I Observations -By Adam Cerling-

Ends and Means in the setting of Sanctum got off to a dynamite start. There were so many fun moments that I almost don’t trust it! Surely E.A.M and Sanctum have more problems than came to light in the four hours of fun we experienced.

Here are those few moments that stand out to me in retrospect as details to watch:

1) Sara and I have very different styles of Stagehanding.

I like to resolve conflicts through the use of Ends and Means: one person gets what they want, and one doesn’t. I go about it gently, making sure everyone’s stake is clear, following the procedure carefully.

Sara, on the other hand, prefers to Bribe players into Compromise. She’s downright aggressive, in fact, always going for the hard sell. "Make this bargian! C'mon! It'll be cool, c'mon!!!"

It makes for a crazy dichotomy. Sara uses a hard sell to reach a compromise, making everyone happy. I use a soft sell to see conflict through to its bitter end, winner and loser. And both styles are by-the-book.

QUESTION TO SARA: Sara, is this because you're more comfortable with Bribes and Compromise than with the rest of the system? Do you intentionally try to avoid the rest of it?


2) The first big conflict. Setting good stakes.

Early in the game there was a big Mexican Standoff scene: my 1931 Soviet captain holding a gun to Sara's 2007 Mafiosa, her thugs holding guns to me, the 1917 American infantryman holding a rifle on them, non-combatants in the line of fire: good stuff.

We've got some learning curve yet as far as good stakes-setting goes. The first time around, I was hearing stakes like "I scare the thugs into backing off," and "I seduce this thug away from you." In one-on-one conflict, that sort of thing can work (prosaically), but in this case I told everyone to stop and ask themselves WHY they were taking these specific actions. This resulted in much better Stakes, like "We get the information," and "I protect the captain."

Tonya also commented that it was confusing to Direct that many stakes. I think I need to communicate a clearer procedure for this -- not a rigid structure, but a guide to help when it gets complicated.


3) Sara's gaffe with the penthouse raid.

At one point, Sara's supporting cast character (Vespa, the Mafiosa) was in conversation with a protagonist (Darius, the 2007 film-maker, played by Klaus). Tonya and Sarah B. came up to inform Sara that their protagonists were going to search Vespa's penthouse.

Sara made a gaffe at this point, in my opinion. She abandoned Klaus mid-conversation to go run a side-scene for Tonya and Sarah B. I don't think that's appropriate Stagehand etiquette. Here are the possible alternatives:

a) Sara sees no immediate conflict. "Go ahead," she says. "Don't do anything remarkable. I'll check in with you when I'm done."
b) Sara sees potential for a minor conflict. "You'll have to wait until I'm done with this scene." The situation at hand with Klaus gets first priority.
c) Sara thinks that this situation could have a major impact: it will require a good deal of her devoted attention. "That's a Scenario," she says. If Tonya and Sarah B. can purchase her time with 10 Potential, she'll make a graceful exit from the scene with Klaus and go to give them a Scenario.
In general, I think a Stagehand should avoid getting deeply involved in any situation: we should always be able to extricate ourselves with a minimum of effort. The situation at hand, however, always takes precedence over thenext one in the queue. The only exception is Scenarios, where Narrators pay their hard-earned Potential for our time.


4) "Extortion."

Sara came up with a Stagehanding strategy I had not foreseen. Some players would approach her to inform her of some action they were taking. She'd tell them, "Ah, but on the way, you get attacked by thugs! Unless you pay me two Plot Points!"

I'm not sure how I feel like that. It seems a lot like an abuse of power. But is it? All the players have to do is say, forget it; then get into a conflict with her thugs, choosing high Ends and Means; and now all of a sudden, Sara has to pay all *them* Plot Points if she wants to be obstructive. I guess maybe the thing I don't like is that the players may not realize how much power they really have in this situation. Sara's demeanor as an extortionist echoes certain abusive-GM archetypes I've encountered, when really the system prevents her from having too much of a bite.


5) Conflict can happen with a protagonist who isn’t fictionally present.

This came up three times:
Once, when Aleira (Kat's medieval harem girl) wanted to disarm a thug via her feminine wiles, it was a conflict with Vespa (Sara's supporting character) -- who was across the room.

Again, when Moira and Joy (Tonya and Sarah B.'s protagonists) wanted to raid Vespa's penthouse, it could have been a conflict with Vespa, who would have been elsewhere in the city.

Later, Moira (Tonya's medieval baker) was trying to seduce Cpt. Petrokov (my 1931 Soviet policeman supporting character). But Aliera had already been attempting the same earlier that evening. I suggested a conflict between Moira and Aliera (who was elsewhere at the time) to determine Petrokov's affections.

I think this is worth mentioning in the book -- it's a useful technique. But I'll need to urge players to take care not to interrupt others' scenes to make it happen.

6) Investing in your own failure.
Note to players: when you lose a conflict, embrace it! Fail like you mean it! You have control enough to make it dramatically appropriate: don't throw away that chance.
At one point, I defeated Father Alphonso (Lawrence's conquistador priest) in his attempt to kindle faith in Petrokov. When we began to act out the result, I needed him to give me an opening to distrust him. He didn't realize that I needed that, not until I prompted him.

Hopefully I'll have more chances to fail in front of players, showing them how to really ham up their own defeats. I did it once, portraying a minor thug seduced by Aleira. She wanted him to give up his gun -- and it was a fun moment, playing out how he gave her the weapon so she'd be able to protect herself!

7) Establishing hand signals.

I can think of two hand signals we need, to cut down on intrusive patter:
a) a "Where are you?" signal, to ask whether a group of players have established themselves in some other fictional location than is obvious;
b) a "See me when you're done" signal, to get the attention of someone in a scene without interrupting.

8) Downtime activities.

I can't dodge this bullet forever.
I don't want to do extra paperwork between games. But in a LARP, where significant time can pass between Acts, players instinctively look for a way to communicate what their protagonists do during that interim time.
Maybe the key is to see that downtimes only need to be communicated, not approved by a Stagehand. It's just an extension of the player's usual narrative powers.
This means that during downtimes, of course, nobody can initiate or resolve a meaningful conflict -- but that's what actual play is for anyway, isn't it?

8) The link between Weight and Effectiveness.

The decisions you make at the beginning of the game, assigning Weights to your Ends and Means, have a decisive effect for the rest of the game. But is that effect graspable? Does anyone "get" it? I'll have to check later, once a few more games are under our belts; but I have a fear that it's just not intuitive enough, that it feels too disconnected and random.

- 1) QUESTION TO SARA: Sara, is this because you're more comfortable with Bribes and Compromise than with the rest of the system? Do you intentionally try to avoid the rest of it?

-Sara Says...-It isn't so much that I am avoidant as much as I am not always trying to win something. Ends and Means is set up perfectly for bargaining and it's one of the things that set the system apart from most of the other ones; it's one of the things I love about it.

The question for me isn't really if someone is going to win or lose, but rather about broadening the picture. Sure, Player one could just rob the bank and win...leaving player two to get caught and it could end there. Instead of waiting to get to that point where person B could just steal the scene and get things his way, I love seeing the barter that can occur.

There are so many crazy possibilities that come up and I think it can be a reminder to think outside of the lines.
Perhaps for now it is an infatuation with seeing just how much a player wants what they are going for, or if they can be bribed into another course of action.

I'll start checking myself however, to make sure I'm not just lingering on when the conflict should be finished.
--------------------------------

3) I absolutely did make a major gaffe; one I'm sure not to repeat. Transgressing back to old-school habits, I put my current scene on hold and ran a scene Sarah's and Tonya's character.

The terms I was told that factored into this decision was that my understanding was they wished to break into Vesper's Penthouse and Steal back what cleared out from the store. Because "Contraband" was a Means on Vesper's Character Sheet, this was a major stake...which I felt deserved a conflict.

The mistake I made, was not telling them to wait for it...because they weren't paying me to run that scene and I should have finished the one I was in. It's an old school Larping habit that was done impulsively; one that should hopefully been murdered by this error.

Tonya was confused about why she should have to wait at first, so Adam gave an explanation about buying time and stakes that may require conflict, and afterwards, we both understood it a bit better.

4) "Extortion."
"Sara came up with a Stagehanding strategy I had not foreseen. Some players would approach her to inform her of some action they were taking. She'd tell them, "Ah, but on the way, you get attacked by thugs! Unless you pay
me two Plot Points!"

---This statement is only half-correct, so I'll explain it so that it might provide some insight on why I think it is a good thing, and how it can benifit the story---I'll give two examples, because I think it's relevent.

Including how I stumbled onto the idea.

There was one small group that had intentions to get some supplies. Seeing a way to fit one of the supporting cast members into the scene, I did. I couldn't help thinking that this particular conflict didn't have to be drawn out, and so I told the players upright that one of my thugs was going to interfere. They all started placing stakes almost immediately and so I offered an alternative. If the entire group of 5 could turn over 2 plot points total, the thugs would back off, and not want to start any trouble.
They thought about it and then just gave the points over.

They chose to take the extortion instead of bringing it conflict. They could have drawn it out but weren't overly concerned with doing so and as a result.

They lost two plot points, but in doing so, automatically won a stake of having the thugs back off before it ever went to conflict.

In another situation that could have ended in extortion...

There was a small group of protagonists who decided they needed some supplies and so they found a Home Depot. I hadn't intended to do anything first, but remembering that Hey...one of the supporting casts was sending her thugs all about and trying to corner the market, I decided to step in as one of Vesper's Thugs.

The thug stopped them when they entered and when they questioned him on who he was, he just shrugged, and said he owned the place.

The players had started to mull, deciding how to deal with this new obstacle when Ricky, Chris's protagonist cries out "Heyyyy! I work for your boss!" The thug looks at him and checks him out before asking "And who are you?" He answers in a drunk, cheerful manner, "I'm Ricky...Ricky Fortunado! I'm a PIMP!"

The thug just stares at him and then just gives a grin, looking at the others in the group. He then tells them that "Because Ricky's a good guy and makes his boss happy", that he's gonna let them in. They can help themselves to whatever they want, cause it's on the house.

This could have been a conflict, it could have been extortion...but it was just a really neat scene that didn't cost anyone anything.

Again, tools are tools, and almost any tool can be abused; it's just a matter of intention. For Sanctum, I think that it's 'extortion' that are going to fill in those voids we had during the first hour, where things were feeling a bit clunky and stitched together.

[adam says]
I guess maybe the thing I don't like is that the players may not realize how much power they really have in this situation. Sara's demeanor as an extortionist echoes certain abusive-GM archetypes I've encountered, when really the system prevents her from having too much of a bite.

Sara answers: Part of players realizing how much power they have is by demonstrating all of the different things that can be done in the first place. What limits the power of extortion is the fact that all it really exists as is a 'stake for sale'. It's offering an automatic win on something that could end differently if it isn't accepted. (not badly, just differently!) It's much like pre-emptive bribing, and in some chances, gives the protagonists a chance to look good, achieve something and have something for them to use for other agenda.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5) Conflict can happen with a protagonist who isn’t fictionally present.

-Sara answers with-And don't forget that conflict can happen against the actual world itself!

A question!

Is anyone actually following this thread?  Should I continue to update with the playtest as it goes, or should I just let it die off?  I'm not exactly a pro on this forum so am wondering if there is actually any interest here for the thread.

Sara.

It doesn't look like this post is needed, so will cease to update it here.

Sara

Updates will still be available at www.theplaytest.blog.com