I just returned from another one of those German forum meet-ups. Yesterday’s Polaris game was a blast (what people call a homerun these days). Here are some highlights and a lesson.

• All of the six players came up with incredibly great ideas. The best was a demon called the bee eater, who brought the sweet scent of flowers and honey and who used honey as the vessel of his power and made the people taste its sweetness.
• A very dense web of crosses and weaves between the protagonists, keeping players on the edges of their seats even when they weren’t moons.
• Three of the six protagonists just naturally emerging as the main characters, two as sidekicks and one not at all, with all players totally jazzed about it.
• Random stuff people had written down as aspects or in the cosmos being picked up and making sense.
• The fate aspects, both initial and acquired in conflicts, mostly being fulfilled in the end.
• Real, consequential character development and growth.
• A very dense and consistent atmosphere of beauty, decadence and tragedy.

I used to think that bloody hard adversity by the mistaken is key to making Polaris rock, and sure did we have conflicts in most scenes, but as opposed to previous games I’ve been in, we did not press too hard, and apart from a few times “YOU ASK FAR TOO MUCH”, most things got accepted. The game was much more amicable, and also, in some scenes the moons (usually full moon) started providing adversity and the mistaken just sat back, waiting for the moment for “WE SHALL SEE WHAT COMES OF IT” but it never came. As we played, ownership of the story shifted, everybody contributed at all times by making suggestions even though we stayed with the rules on “where the buck stops”. Fewer key phrases got used as the story had taken on so much momentum, and the contributions were adding so well to it, that we rarely felt need for it.

We had ripped the experience rules badly in order to be able to make veterans in one session, but with the last round of scenes, we stopped to even make experience rolls as one protagonist joined the mistake and the two “sidekick” protagonists’ deaths were simply narrated, without conflict, in the main protagonists’ scenes with the sidekicks’ players nodding enthusiastically (one of the sidekicks accidentally killed, Elric style, by another protagonist who loved him).

The lesson here is to go with the flow and let the transcendence happen. Ben has written a fantastic game and his rules and source material took us to that place, but we went on from there and brought the game to a breathtaking final which we could not have done quite that way had we not transcended the rules.

Questions and comments are welcome.

- Frank

You are aware how much your report fits the blog post about respecting the fiction over at anyway?

Moin Harald,

Well, I like Vincent’s article (it kinda reminds me of this), but I do think that my "transcendence" is more than just “the fiction leading”. Because even when the fiction leads, the rules normally follow (like with the rules on character death in Sorcerer). To stay with the “dancing couple” metaphor, in our Polaris game the fiction let go of her partner (the rules) entirely and startet spinning in wild circles all on her own.

- Frank

Hey! This is really cool.

Yay on Polaris rules-breakers. Actually, given your end state, you proably broke the rules less than many previous players have (including me!) For instance: all the stuff about the protagonists shuffling off during someone else's scenes (with the player's nodding along) is there, in the rules. In fact, it's the only way a protagonist can die before hitting Veteran. All the stuff about everyone contributing to different characters: also there.

But there's definitely some absences.

So I had a metaphor talking about the rules in Polaris the other day. Particularly about "it shall not come to pass." What I said is "It's like a gun in a bank robbery. Ideally, it never goes off. But it still matters that you have it."

When I read you talking about people waiting for the phrases, but then moving on when they didn't receive them, it makes me think of that. The rules are there, absolutely. But they're not being used actively, simply there.

Check me on that. Do you think that that's a correct description?

There's some other interesting stuff here, too. Worth getting into. But I want to get a sense of this, first.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

When I read you talking about people waiting for the phrases, but then moving on when they didn't receive them, it makes me think of that. The rules are there, absolutely. But they're not being used actively, simply there.

Yeah it is in the rules! I think you're the first group (at least, that I've heard of) to ever use the rule in that way. It's on page 76.

If you are using a protagonist as part if a scene (or even if you aren't), either active player can include that protagonist in their statements, but only with permission of that protagonist's Heart.

I'm  not going on a tangent with Frank here unless I hear what he and Ben have to say on this.

oliof wrote:
I'm  not going on a tangent with Frank here unless I hear what he and Ben have to say on this.

Hi Ben,

Let’s see. Your hunch about the general key phrases is correct, we kept using them. However, at one point a lot of content got established outside the key phrase framed scenes. After 11 scenes of 18 (if I’m counting correctly), we cut from early spring to late summer and discussed what had happened in between, including some major developments for the protagonists. Basically, I just had a flash and suggested what had happened in a “GM narration” kind of style, and the others just nodded along. This was also the point where I turned my own protagonist into a sidekick.

As for themes, we did use them when we used the corresponding key phrases, but as I said, that happened less and less as the game continued. We did add some fate aspects that were established in conflicts earlier in the game. Also, when my protagonist gave the higher starlight weapon of his family to his little sister because she was the one that really ought to be wielding it, I erased it from my protagonist sheet and the player of my little sister added it to hers.

The cosmos was kept up to date for most of the game though I think we did not update it any more in the last couple scenes when it was pretty clear already where the story was going.

So well, we did not abandon the rules entirely, we were just kind of rushing ahead of the rules. I think the reason why we particularly hacked, and later ignored, the experience rules was that they were getting in the way of our pacing.

- Frank

Hi Harald,

Actually, I'd like to save talk about Vincent's article and how that relates to what we are talking about here for later, because it would require me talking about Sorcerer and Poison'd and all kinds of stuff.

- Frank

That's why I wouldn't want to conflate this AP report, which is very interesting. Please go on discussing particulars. How did he experience rules get in the way of your pacing? I've never played Polaris besides a demo, but I always found the experience rules to be very low-key in handling time and only perceived them as a secondary pacing element; i.e. I thought they'd help people to find the denouement after an intense decision for their protagonist before everone moved on to the next big thing. After reading the report I'm convinced that If you (as a group) have your own (working) idea of pacing, this process can be bypassed without problems.

RIght?

Frank wrote:
Hi Ben,

Let’s see. Your hunch about the general key phrases is correct, we kept using them. However, at one point a lot of content got established outside the key phrase framed scenes. After 11 scenes of 18 (if I’m counting correctly), we cut from early spring to late summer and discussed what had happened in between, including some major developments for the protagonists. Basically, I just had a flash and suggested what had happened in a “GM narration” kind of style, and the others just nodded along. This was also the point where I turned my own protagonist into a sidekick.

As for themes, we did use them when we used the corresponding key phrases, but as I said, that happened less and less as the game continued. We did add some fate aspects that were established in conflicts earlier in the game. Also, when my protagonist gave the higher starlight weapon of his family to his little sister because she was the one that really ought to be wielding it, I erased it from my protagonist sheet and the player of my little sister added it to hers.

The cosmos was kept up to date for most of the game though I think we did not update it any more in the last couple scenes when it was pretty clear already where the story was going.

Hi there,

I was in that beautiful session and I have never experienced a Polaris session like this before. The other ones were emotionaly draining and ever so hard-pressing that afterwards you felt exhausted. Not this time though. It all emerged just perfectly organic (?) and smooth. Some players, including me, stated before the play that they were very tired and I did not like the idea to get even more tired because of Polaris! But then this perfect, deep well of play, imagination and shakespearean drama! Ben, this game is just a jewel!

I think the group was our first line in success, the "rest" was getting away from the phrases, but alway having in mind that they allowed us to get to this point and to have them if needed.

This was the second time -of maybe 7 or 8 sessions- that I saw the "endgame", only because of our mending with the XP-rules. I am inclined to say that, played as an oneshot Polaris need this kind of mending... otherwise, the XP-rules are a little bit too slow and that is even true for a campaign.

If there will ever be a revised edition or so than some pacing advices or equal stuff should go into the book.

Frank, cool that you have written it down here! It was a true homerun.

MfG
Dirk

Hi Ben,

I know that this sort of thing is out-of-fashion these days, but Polaris was really written with a large number of different possible player types in mind, with the idea that each one of them would seize on different parts of the rules and utilize them in different ways

I don't see how this relates to Rule Zero at all.

Tangency: In my first PtA session ever, we had a similar experience. All the rules were in place and honored except we transcenced the conflict rules to a point where the producer was desperately clutching at straws to find something to conflict over. In other words, we outpaced one of PtA's core mechanisms. It's funny that that was the weekend we first met, Frank.

Isn't Rule Zero "ignore the rules if they get in the way"?

I thought that was the "golden rule"!?

MfG
Dirk

Rule zero = the Golden rule = one of the players, and only one ("the GM") can change any rule on-the-fly, or ignore the results obtained by the use of any rule, without having to tell the other players that she/he is doing this, if he/she thinks that this "will be more fun" than following the rules.  (many, many players believe it's impossible to play a rpg without this "rule")

Reading the description of the game session, I think that Frank's group didn't use the golden rule at all, but simply reached an implicit agreement to change some of the procedures of the game ("the system"), something that every group of players can always do about any game (from D&D to soccer to Chess) without invoking any "golden rule".

Hi Moreno,

Yes, that is what the evil "Rule Zero" discussion is about. I guess I don't have to count the ways. The actual phrasing you will find in RPG books, however, more often than not will be: "If the rules get in the way, ignore them." I was expecting confusion and controversy to arise from this, but if it doesn't, I'm the last one to complain.

I guess my point is: Yes, if the rules get in the way, absolutely do ignore them. Just make sure you know what you're doing. And also: It's not necessarily a lack of quality in the games design if you feel a need to ignore the rules at some point.

- Frank

Hi,

I am a fan of playing by the rules. At least since my arriving here at the forge. And I know a lot of my kind too. AND I thought that this is the consensus here on the board??! AANNDD I thought Frank would reak havoc with his statement...

But then this!

No complains, no anger and no heated discussion!

Maybe it is a sign the something happend here or I that I had some wrong impressions.

Maybe it is so because of the way we played, more the way how we played. What I mean with this is that if EVERYONE in the group understands the rules completely ther is no problem win changing them from time to time!

MfG
Dirk

OK, I'll bite, controversically.

In a game of Polaris, I let my knight, Algol, fail and be corrupted a bit sooner than the system would have forced me to, because it seemed approriate story-wise. Concretely, he hesitated and let his adulterous lady love jump to her death instead of making a conflict out of trying to save her. From outside, in story terms, I'm told it was cool. But it's bugged me ever since because it diminished Algol's tragedy that he didn't fail in spite of struggling with all his will and virtue, as he would have a bit later, he failed on purpose, or perhaps because this evil otherworldly possessor spirit named Troels (that would be yours truly) made him.

I really wish I'd played him by the book, doing my best to be a big damn hero, going down in a blaze of glory and human frailty. Not by choice. Next time, I'll be true to my protagonist. And at least to me, the resulting story will feel better and more tragic.

Yours, Troels

Hi Troels, okay, I'll let that pass as controversial. I knew it! ;-)

Please note though that "playing by the book" does not mean "try best to win conflicts" (as a player). That's totally up to each player to decide. I take it you did feel that not only did your protagonist have to put up a good fight, but you as well? You do realize that very different things would have happened if you had, don't you? Polaris is absolutely unpredictable once you really go into the conflicts full force. Which I like a lot, by the way. It was just, in this game here, not what clicked with us. As Dirk said, we played it smoothly.

- Frank

Troels wrote:
But it's bugged me ever since because it diminished Algol's tragedy that he didn't fail in spite of struggling with all his will and virtue, as he would have a bit later, he failed on purpose, or perhaps because this evil otherworldly possessor spirit named Troels (that would be yours truly) made him.

Frank wrote:
Please note though that "playing by the book" does not mean "try best to win conflicts" (as a player). That's totally up to each player to decide. I take it you did feel that not only did your protagonist have to put up a good fight, but you as well? You do realize that very different things would have happened if you had, don't you? Polaris is absolutely unpredictable once you really go into the conflicts full force.

Hi Troels,

You don't get story NOW, you get story later, when re-told.

Frank,

I do not doubt that you had a blast. I have been there, sort of, in that cooperative storytelling mode you are describing, when people get creative, riff off each other, and a sort of consensus emerges on where the story is to go, and it wasn't what *you* had planned before those other people started coming up with stuff. It feels good, it can be memorable and really fun, as much fun as any freeform ever is (which is saying something!).

But what I think you give up with this style is the struggle. "Polaris" helps us tell beautiful, poetic stories of desperate, doomed struggle. And the stories of struggle have the potential to cut much deeper if they are brought out by an actual (friendly, of course) struggle at the table. That is what the dice are for, and most importantly in Polaris, the conflict phrases. With them, you negotiate, which is in itself a struggle, to keep the story just on the bleeding edge of bearable, with "but only if...", "you ask far too much" etcetera. The shagging, and reducing it to handholding implying further and forbidden intimacy, would have been just the thing that "you ask far too much" is there for IMO.

As I said, I have no doubt that you had a good time, and really in the spirit of Polaris. But when you leave the rules behind, rules that have such amazing ability to focus the game, you risk losing the focus. Imagine a freeform-ish evening of "My Life With Master". Could it be done? Sure. But if everyone isn't at the top of their game, so to speak, and you don't hit that collective storytelling synergy thing, it could end up sucking rocks much more easily than a game played by the rules. To me, that seems to be the risk of transcending the rules, losing focus.

Also, on a bit of a tangent, you say that Hendrik, as Mistaken, framed the scene describing the feelings of Capella, Tanja's protagonist? That would be a major no-no for me. I've done that to PCs, as GM, a number of times, and it's a great way to reduce players' emotional investment in their characters. I can sort of see it not sucking in that group storytelling mode, but generally, yipe!

Yours, Troels

IIRC (and it's the way we play) the rule for the mistaken is first and foremost, use the conflict mechanics to introduce or support elements you think are fun/cool/whatever-standard-you-want-to-use. Then, as a SECONDARY consideration the mistaken should oppose/complicate whatever the heart is doing. For example, if the heart is driving the protagonist headlong speeding into tragedy and doom, the mistaken should NOT double down the speed of descent (unless he wants to), but should slow/complicate the Heart's attempt to corrupt the protagonist. In a way, the mistaken mindlessly pushing tragedy and corruption is _violating_ the rules.

Similarly, the heart is not obligated to be nice to the protagonist. He IS obligated to drive the protagonists story forward, but he can take in any direction he wants to.

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

My group has also been tending to misuse the advancement mechanics in Polaris, but we have the opposite problem of under using them and dragging out campaigns and stories too long. I have been thinking of proposing we scrap the advancement mechanics altogether to my group. (I've also been thinking of changing the big question from "How does your knight finally become corrupted" to "<insert a question here>" that is, make up a Big Question (Will they find true love, will they be redeemed (for a fallen knight being redeemed story), etc.) for each protagonist, which can not be answered until the knight has hit veteran status.

--------------------------------------------
Speaking personally, the conflict statement that bothers me the most is "you ask far too much." It puts the other player on the spot, having to come up with a new statement. About 75% of the time the other player says something like "err, nm. nothing happens." I think it has something to do with "flow" or "stream of consciousness" - we are throwing ideas out one right after another in a constant flow, but you ask far too much causes a rewind without bringing the conflict to an end, breaking the flow. We are considering altering the rule to you ask far too much costing two theme uses, but it negates the last person's statement and ends the conflict.

When we changed the setting to a custom one, we also decided to abandon the 4 themes, and simply allow 4 aspect uses between refresh (because the new setting did not seem appropriate for blessings or offices, and we couldn't come up with replacements)

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

We also have been "drifting toward freeform" in the sense of not using the conflict mechanics unless someone wants to. Scenes with zero use of the conflict statements, or only but only ifs + and that was how it happened are pretty standard for us. But I also agree their presence is very important (compared to true freeform) as a safety net. Our group strongly disagrees with any notion that we should use the conflict mechanics merely for the sake of inputting conflict. "What you say is awesome as is, but I guess I should object to it and add a complication for the sake of it" is anathema.

(This is probably a bit off topic, but I have been thinking of Polaris as a "sim" game. E.g. thinking the primary function of conflict statements is to help impose genre conventions, or resolve conflicting visions over setting or character)

-William

I find myself handicapped in this discussion by not actually owning the book. I just played it and got an impression. So I wonder if you could help me (somebody with the actual book).

How does Polaris specifically and concretely define the roles of the Heart, Mistaken and Moons?

Yours, Troels

PS Don' expect any response from me in the next week. I'm not rude, just busy and mostly offline. Busy playing roleplaying games, I might add :-)

Troels wrote:
Also, on a bit of a tangent, you say that Hendrik, as Mistaken, framed the scene describing the feelings of Capella, Tanja's protagonist? That would be a major no-no for me. I've done that to PCs, as GM, a number of times, and it's a great way to reduce players' emotional investment in their characters. I can sort of see it not sucking in that group storytelling mode, but generally, yipe!

The extreme authority Polaris gives to scene setters is a bit unsettling in theory, but in practice there are a few things to remember:

1. As said above, scene setting comes immediately after between-scene chatting. Everyone has a chance to propose suggestions for the next scene.

2. My group has developed a norm of letting hearts have first crack at setting scenes. (Also to clarify, I'd recommend the heart go ahead and put as much (or as little) opposition in the scene to start off with.) Furthermore, a heart can ask his mistaken NOT to do a scene (because the heart wants to take a break and play a moon/dummy). I'd say 80% of our scenes are started by hearts.

3. Setting scenes is hard, and requires alot of creativity. I'm very strongly inclined to give other players alot of slack and freedom when setting a scene, especially given points 1 and 2 above. I had plenty of opportunity to give input of scene setting. It's part of a broad theme in Polaris for me. Everyone is responsible for their own fun. You can't sit back and expect other people to entertain you. (at least as heart or mistaken) If you as a heart can't come up with scenes or at least offer suggestions/inputs, then you take your chances.

I've been really enjoying reading this, haven't felt the need to put my oar in right away, though.

I can, however, clear up the official ruling about speak outside of your slice of the Cosmos after "and so it was." Since "and so it was" is a key phrase, you can use it to speak for things outside of your section of the Cosmos. However, these things can be opposed by the regular means of conflict key phrases.

For instance, imagine that I'm playing the knight Betelguese, and Alexis is my mistaken, and Michael is the Moon:

A: And so it was that Betelgeuse awoke in the middle of the night, alone and filled with a crushing despair.
B: You ask far too much! I'm exhausting my ability theme, since I have the "joyful" aspect.
M: That totally works.
A: Uh, Okay. "And so it was the Betelgeuse awoke in the night with the demoness Lyra's claws wrapped around his heart."
B: I'll take the second one. "Lyra! *gurgle* what are you doing?"

yrs--
--Ben

Ooooh, that an official ruling then? We have had debates over whether one can invoke conflict statements on the scene setting. I guess I was on the wrong side of that debate then with my group.

My argument for not using conflict statements there was it called attention to the scene setting narration, making it "important" If someone "undermines" my character concept during scene formation by making my character do something the character would "never do" I can kinda just ignore it, making it less important. If I try to invoke a conflict mechanic, I'll be at a disadvantage if I try to nullify the statement (either I have to use ask far too much and hope I have the theme and aspect (and have to burn the theme), or take a risk, or do a nuclear but only if and hope for a it was not meant to be) have to pay a cost). If it's really truly horrifically bad, I think I would have just stopped the game and ask for the scene framer to try again. So my view was you should either just let it slide, or halt the game. Trying to negotiate just puts you at a disadvantage.  At least one other player disagreed with me.

To be clear, if in normal play, the mistaken tries to do something like:

H: blah blah
M: but only if <the protagonist does something totally unacceptably out of character>
H: It was not meant to be.

It is of course illegal for the mistaken to start in free play with <the protagonist does something totally unacceptably out of character>

But if the mistaken sets the scene with  <the protagonist does something totally unacceptably out of character>, then the Heart has no sure-fire way to negate the unacceptable action.

Hendrik wrote:

Troels wrote:
Also, on a bit of a tangent, you say that Hendrik, as Mistaken, framed the scene describing the feelings of Capella, Tanja's protagonist? That would be a major no-no for me. I've done that to PCs, as GM, a number of times, and it's a great way to reduce players' emotional investment in their characters. I can sort of see it not sucking in that group storytelling mode, but generally, yipe!

<Snippetysnipsnip>

Fourth and most important:
Tanja and I talked about the scene in advance, even before me framing it. We talked about where the scene should lead, what should happen and what kind of mood should be transported in the scene. So I had some pretty good hints about how the protagonist felt ;-)