If you have never playtested a game of your own design, let me tell you, it is humbling beyond your capacity to imagine. Yesterday I ran my second session of The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. The experience has been incredibly instructive, and also quite mortifying. The player characters are detailed here, if you're curious, and the one-sheet is here.

And in addition to the observation I made here about the player and GM needing to negotiate Premise through play, these are my realizations:

1) You wouldn't think it, because the system lets the player create whatever character they want, without imposed limitations, but it is very easy for players to create characters they actually don't like. What happens is they write a Trial, and then extrapolate from it a character who makes complete sense. It is only later that they discover the elegance of their extrapolation has produced a character that doesn't hold their interest.

2) The chargen process of Trial-to-character is far less protagonizing than the chargen sessions our group has had in the past, that have fueled player interest in each other's characters and greased the wheels of protagonism. I think when a player produces an elegant extrapolation from their Trial, other players are prompted to comment favorably, provoking finalization of the character concept, without recognizing they aren't actually interested in the character that's just been created.

3) The Trial is a collapsing of Premise, Situation, Setting, and Kicker, intented to be a powerful motive force from the outset of gameplay. In execution, perhaps because it tries to be too much, its impact is very, very much diluted from what you get with a real Kicker and Premise, and lacking in immediacy. Play sort-of floats. Players don't know what they feel strongly enough about to call for scenes, so they play reactive.

4) The GM doesn't know when to call for a dice roll. Without explicit Premise, hardly anything feels like a meaningful conflict.

5) My goal with the W/F/D mechanics was to replicate the uncertain creative input of the Fortune deck that was so fantastic when I ran Everway a year and a half ago. But World, Flesh, and Devil are far more coarse categories than the 72 possibilites produced by the Fortune deck. I would not have thought it, but the handling time is actually increased by having coarser categories, as the players practically bleed from their efforts to interpret outcomes.

I think it comes partly from trying to force the dice to protagonize the character in accord with the player's pre-conceptions, rather than allowing the input of the dice to reinterpret the character. But what the hell do I know, I've been wrong on a lot of shit here.

6) I had this notion that if I introduced NPC's that fit story roles described in Dramatica, that players would instinctively recognize the protagonizing possibilities and author their characters accordingly. I tried this on two of the PC's with Impact characters (who are confronting the same core issue as the protagonist, but addressing it differently), and on one PC with a Contagonist character (who works to divert the protagonist from the path they're on). These three NPC's proved to be not the least bit engaging to the players. Certainly, because of other issues with the materialization of PC protagonism, I don't consider this conclusive evidence that Dramatica character types wouldn't function as I've theorized under other game circumstances. But I certainaly didn't expect the totality of utter disinterest and forgettable scenes I got.

My respect for games like InSpectres, The Pool, Sorcerer, and Everway, that I've played, has only grown.

Paul

Hey Paul. You sound pretty discouraged...don't be. I've played more than one game of earlier versions of Universalis where the fun factor was zero. Very educational. The last game I played at Demon Con was a blast as a result.

Specifically to your above items...I think items 3-6 are symtoms of the problem, not problems themselves.

From what you've described here in other threads #1 and #2 are the areas where the game really doesn't work as desired. Throw away any discouragement you have about the others (4-6 especially) and just work on how to fix 1 and 2 (I had to take a month off from playing or even thinking about Universalis before I'd put enough distance in between to objectively see what was broken.)

I have a feeling that if you get 1 and 2 solid that will lead to ways to make 3 more functional. I don't think the problem with Trials is that they attempt to do to much (or more specifically, I don't think there is enough data yet to support that as a conclusion). I think rather the disintrerest and disconnectedness of your character creation that leads to the Trials not having the desired impact. Fix the characters and the Trials will likely work fine [although communal Trials for the story as a whole rather than unrelated brainstormed Trials for each character might be a way to go]

As far as 4 and 5...these are, in my mind, clearly the result of 1 and 2. If you aren't truly committed to the characters as either player or GM, its no surprise to me that the dice mechanic was falling flat. I suspect, that if you get to the point where everyone is totally committed to those characters...interpretation will become much easier.

As for 6, I'm not entirely following you on that one, but it sounds to me that you introduced the NPCs in hopes of fixing something that wasn't working, and that the fix didn't work either. I think if 1 and 2 work, than 3-5 work, then there won't be any need to try to do 6 at all.


Point being to all of this, don't put WFD in the scrap heap of ideas that didn't pan out, and don't think that it needs a ton of new work. The actual problem is pretty focused and likely very fixable.

Hey,

I think that TWTFATD is one of the best examples of "experimental" design we've had at the Forge. I mean that literally - it was an experiment. Let's try this, this, and this in one pot, stir, and heat (play). The manuscript alone instantly became shared vocabulary among the regular posters here - as an idea, it became a signpost ("as in TWTFATD ..." became a common phrase).

Now none of that means that the experiment itself has become Some Amazing New Game. Experiments don't have to. They are stompings about in the brush of the Unknown, and with any luck, the explorers return one day and tell us something. No matter how the game turns out in application, knowledge is gained, and this particular game may well be a textbook case of Value Added, no matter what.

I think that a recent Forge insight should be taken to heart by everyone: the game author needs to play the game. One doesn't design, then flit it onto the Forge and wait for the "returns." Part of the process of design is actual play by the author.

Oh, and all that said, I do agree with Ralph that it isn't time to junk The World Etcetera yet. What Paul's presented are data. Data require comparison, analysis, and reflection ... and most especially, repetition.

Best,
Ron

Hey,

I think that TWTFATD is one of the best examples of "experimental" design we've had at the Forge...it was an experiment...stir, and heat (play).

Oh, I announced and discussed it on the Forge as a serious design, not so much an experiment as a strong, viable hybrid of the best features of The Pool, Sorcerer, and Everway. But when I think back, you're right, initially I didn't treat it mentally with the same seriousness. Had my chance to GM for our group come around at that time, I would not have run tWtFatD. It...ahem...didn't seem suited to anything specific.

What really got me motivated to play it was when Ben created the font. I mean, I had solicited for World, Flesh, and Devil icons, but when he actually created them, and they were so fantastic, it changed the way I treated the game in my own thoughts.

One doesn't design, then flit it onto the Forge and wait for the "returns."

Scott Knipe flits. I've seen him. He flaps his little moose wings. And his tiny hoofs click against each other. And with little golden toots that shake his tail, he travels from blossom to blossom.

I do agree with Ralph that it isn't time to junk The World Etcetera yet. What Paul's presented are data. Data require comparison, analysis, and reflection ... and most especially, repetition.

Yeah, you're both right. With just a little bit of reflection I've learned a hell of a lot about the collapse of protagonism, interestingly, stuff that might not have registered as powerfully on my cortex if I hadn't seen things work significantly better in the past.

And seriously, I didn't post about it for sympathy, but to share the wealth, so to speak, so others might get value from the collected data. And for there to maybe be discussions. But yeah, time off from thinking about it seems like a good prescription.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote:

Scott Knipe flits. I've seen him. He flaps his little moose wings. And his tiny hoofs click against each other. And with little golden toots that shake his tail, he travels from blossom to blossom.

So looking at the posts and the game I think that the lack of Premise really seems to be a major sticking point, and it is somewhat (unfortunately) linked to the chargen. The fact that everyone comes up with their own trials and own skills based off said trials seems to focus alot of attention on the individual and not enough on the group as a whole.

It seems to me that this is a game that would do best to have a first session where you talk about a unified premise. From there either A) each player writes their trial; or B) the players write a unified trial. If it was A it would be best to talk them over and maybe make some changes based on each other's and the agreed upon Premise. From there annotations would be made, etc.

TWTFTD looks like it would be an awesome solo game (a player and a GM) because it very much focuses on the individual. Something needs to be added to make it more of a group game than an individual game.

Another idea might be something like the Accords and Hallows in The Questing Beast. Possibly either the GM or the group would come up with these and derive their personal trials from there.

What I am trying to figure out right now is what is it that Sorcerer and The Pool, both of which can and/or do focus on the individual, are doing "right" as opposed to what you feel TWTFTD is doing "wrong." Sorcerer up front says that it is not made to be a "party" game (as in a group working together) but that it works best as individual stories that interlock, cross paths, and end up infinitely tied together. What can be done to facilitate that (if that is what you want) in TWTFTD? Do you think it is systemic or do you think it could just be a question of GM style?

-Shane

PS: I am not taking shots at your style of GM-ing (I have no real experience with it so I can't really say), just posing the question.

Shane,

I'll take a shot at this, although I doubt I'll have the answers, since I haven't been able to articulate them yet despite much conversing about it.

Paul ran The Pool for us last fall. It was awesome - one of the best games I've ever played in, marked by some fantastic scene framing and a distinctly non-party style of play.

Now Paul's running WFD. He's deliberately focusing on the negatives in his posts to get at the problems that may be incumbent in the game, but in truth, it hasn't been all bad. Nor has it been nearly as interesting as The Pool.

In my mind, Premise is one of the big sticking points. But the interesting thing to keep in mind is that most people don't play games with an articulated Premise provided for them up front, and when we made characters for The Pool we weren't given one to work with. Hell, Paul didn't reveal the Premise he was working towards until well after the first session of play.

So the problem isn't necessarily the lack of Premise, but the up front focus on creating your own Premise.

In The Pool, we were given some fairly sketchy backgorund information, a somewhat malleable guideline for our characters (we were supposed to be members of the same mercenary company, but one of the players totally eschewed this idea anyway), and then we made characters accordingly, as a group expressing to one another what we thought we would be cool for each others' concepts. The effect? Even without a Premise, we were creating characters that we knew would engage us, and that we knew we could riff off of for our purposes.

For WFD, we were given sketchy background material, then asked to write Trials, which were explicitly supposed to contain a Premise of some sort. We then made characters, and while we commented on each others' PCs, we did so only in regards to how well they were fulfilling the Trial they had written, with no regard whatsoever for how they might work to illuminate the other Trials or characters in the game.

There's a pretty big difference there, I think.

I may also have issues with the amount of content the Trials provide; much of the game has a sort of pre-scripted feel to it, despite the fact that Paul has created and elaborated upon the information we gave to him. I reserve my final opinion on this subject until after next Monday, when we play our final session, but the way it feels now is that we're going through the motions, trying to get the stories we imagined in our Trials, and maybe even fighting the GM to get to that place we wanted to be (and let me tell you, I'm the player whose most guilty of this particular trick).

Take care,
Scott

Having played the game a few session now...do you think it would be a hugely radical change to just have 1 set of Trials for the game itself rather than by character?

Hey Ralph,

Having played the game a few session now...do you think it would be a hugely radical change to just have 1 set of Trials for the game itself rather than by character?

Right now, I've got dramatically renewed interest in and respect for Seth's mechanics in Alyria, where players collectively establish something that's a lot like a Trial, attach characters to it, and then decide which of those characters they want as PC's.

So, I guess the short answer is, no.

Paul

Scott,

...much of the game has a sort of pre-scripted feel to it....the way it feels now is that we're going through the motions, trying to get the stories we imagined in our Trials, and maybe even fighting the GM to get to that place we wanted to be (and let me tell you, I'm the player whose most guilty of this particular trick).

I know you know I'm very much aware of the conflict you're describing. And I've been thinking about it a lot. It's interesting that you use the term "pre-scripted" instead of "railroaded." Were you going easy on me with that choice of terminology? Do you actually think it's railroaded?

I don't think so. I've got enough experience as a GM to know how to win that particular fight. Hell, I demonstrated as much when I ran Everway last year. This is something different. I think we've proven that it's unwinnable. And it's a conflict that took me completely by surprise. It's nothing I ever expected. It's conflict over genre incoherence.

When I ran Everway, the prep itself was fun. When I ran The Pool, the prep was fun. Prep for this game has been dreadful, worse than you can possibly imagine. Why?

I don't think there's a problem with the content of the Trials. I'm thinking the sticking point is with the non-explicit genre expectations embedded in them. The GM can't deliver on the different genre expectations of each player. That really would be four separate stories. So he preps adversity that's in keeping with his own genre expectations, and watches it fail consistently, each and every time, to be engaging to the player. So his prep feels like an exercise in futility. And the player is desperately frustrated for lack of protagonizing adversity that's in keeping with his own genre expectations. So gameplay feels pre-scripted to the player, because he's forced to deal with adversity that isn't personally meaningful.

What do you think? When I make a broken game, I make a broken game, eh? Who else can say they wrote a game that massively deprotagonizes player characters with genre-incompatible adversity?

Seriously though, right now I'm really looking forward to what Fang might deliver on genre expectations for Scattershot.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: I don't think there's a problem with the content of the Trials. I'm thinking the sticking point is with the non-explicit genre expectations embedded in them. The GM can't deliver on the different genre expectations of each player. That really would be four separate stories. So he preps adversity that's in keeping with his own genre expectations, and watches it fail consistently, each and every time, to be engaging to the player. So his prep feels like an exercise in futility. And the player is desperately frustrated for lack of protagonizing adversity that's in keeping with his own genre expectations. So gameplay feels pre-scripted to the player, because he's forced to deal with adversity that isn't personally meaningful.

Hi all -

I've gotten immense value out of a few discussions around here where folks talk about "playing before you play." It came up in Ron's Sorcerer prep threads (I think - the Art Deco Melodrama ones?), and in a few other places. Maybe "pre-scripted" is more about that issue than "railroading" or genre expectations? There really seems to be a somewhat-delicate balance between things that should be "prepped" (by the GM and/or players, individually or as a group) and things that simply have to happen during play. Trials in WFD seem to live right at that balancing point - meaning they are very powerful, but as a consequence (perhaps), they can also leave too little to be accomplished/established/resolved/revealed during the actual play.

BTW, my value in this area has come from realizing how much "playing OUTSIDE of play" my group does. The GM frequently goes out to lunch with (separately) a couple of the other players, and sometimes, they do "too much", resolving/establishing things in their one-on-one sessions that really need to happen with others present. So . . . it's not *just* avoid play BEFORE play, it's . . . have things happen (where "things happen" is defined in terms like "actual, meaningful decsions are made" and "emotional/protagonizing elements are explored") DURING play. Obvious, perhaps, but for some reason, all too easy to forget.

Gordon

I think this is a very different thing than "playing before play," but perhaps an example is in order. Scott Knipe's character, Saul Eckley, can be found here. This is Saul's Trial:

"Maccyx-Roho scientists have discovered a subterranean wonderland beneath the Antarctic ice, but in exposing it have unleashed something awful upon Leslie Pointe. Their ambition fuels their progress, and progress must be had at any cost."

What you don't see in it, or at least what I didn't see in it until we were actually playing, is Scott's interest in his story featuring monster movie stylings, humanoid creatures tearing down the streets of Leslie Pointe, terrorizing the residents, that kind of thing. The Trial seemed entirely appropriate for the Ballard-esque future-primeval setting I'd delivered in the one-sheet.

So, what happens when I'm delivering adversity to Saul, definitely customized to the conflict described in his Trial, but very much in keeping with my own genre expectations, exposing him to strange politically motivated mercenaries in the jungle, and the clone of an ex-U.S. President holed up among bizarre phosphorescent wildlife in the subterranean environment from his Trial? It isn't engaging to him.

And when, during the second game session, he finds himself in a tense situation in a hut with the mercenaries, narrating the outcome of a dice throw, he steers things in the direction of a zombie movie, angling for feral humanoids to break through the windows.

The problem for the GM, the way Ron summarized it when I described things to him, is that it's impossible to deliver genre through play. Yet as a GM, I found myself in the position of having to police genre. What does it do to the game if Scott's story goes the way of a monster movie, while Danielle is dealing with issues of the breakdown of dignity and family in her storyline?

That's what I mean by genre incoherence.

Is it specific to tWtFatD? I dunno. It wasn't a problem when I ran The Pool. When I delivered NPC's and scenes during that game, they were engaging to the players. I can't help but think the combination of Kickers and group character creation created consensus about the nature of protagonization for the game.

Paul

Paul,

By that example, you're right - definitely NOT "play before play" related issues there. But re-reading the final paragraph of Scott's comments, I *am* still left with a "play before play" resonance (esp. the "amount of content" concern). Maybe both (P before P and Genre Expectations) are valid, but seperate, issues in WFD currently?

Gordon