It took a while, but we finally playtested Misery Bubblegum last weekend. We decided to play the campaign team for a nameless gubernatorial candidate during the last few days before the election. Here is the cast of characters and their personality/role cards which we dealt out randomly:

Ron: Perky Royalty, the campaign manager "Chad".
Maura: Selfless Hustler, the campaign strategist "Helen". Her dream is to groom Chad for greatness but fears rejection; she blames Toya.
Tod: Vain Prodigy, the policy advisor "Conrad". His dream is to have his prowess as strategist recognized by Helen but fears she will destroy him for threatening her job; he blames Helen.
Me: Flamboyant Champion, public relations "Toya".

A note about my role as GM, I chose to have a player character since that is how it worked in the playtest Tony ran at GenCon. It's a lot of work to play a fully realized character and GM for people who are not familiar with the game! I like that there is now an option for special GM personality/role cards. That is a great idea.

On the eve of election from campaign headquarters, a press conference, a rally, and a local coffee shop, the campaign team manages a scandalous misuse of funds, perpetrating misinformation on the campaign blog, an estranged wife and a not so estranged mistress. Helen actively avoids Chad who remains clueless about her behind-the-scenes positioning of him in the public eye. Conrad is constantly slapped down by Helen whenever he confronts her over strategy issues. Meanwhile, Toya takes it upon herself to rectify the candidate's non-existent environmental policy.

When we see that the card pile is down to a couple of cards, we decide that the final scene will be at the election party. Having unsuccessfully impressed Helen with his stratagems, Conrad puts himself in the candidate's sights as promising chief of staff material. Chad finally notices Helen, and she confides her political plans for him. And we end the game with the polls closing and all the pundits pointing to our candidate as the winner.

Here are our questions about the game:

1. The general structure of the cards include a number and an adjective. We had no problems swapping around cards based on the adjectives to express Opinions about other characters during play. We were a little confused on whether it was important for those adjectives to be used during Arguments when the number values are in play. We were pretty loose about this and sometimes used those descriptors as color and sometimes not. Is there a strict limitation on their use? Specifically, can a higher value card be rejected from play if the player is unwilling or unable to utilize the adjective in describing their characters actions?

2. In addition to the number and adjective, some cards have scene directions at the bottom of the cards. Again, is that used in conjunction with the other elements of the cards or should it be used in isolation? We usually played those cards as isolated events where a player puts it down to request the action at the bottom of the card. We did have one instance where in the midst of an Argument, the player with the upper-hand requested a mini-scene which took place before the Argument was resolved. It worked well, but after the fact while thinking about the interaction of the different card components, I'm not sure if it was a legitimate use of that card.

3. Are the "At Stake" cards special in some other way from the other cards? There is no instruction about them in the rules. We took advantage of the scene direction at the bottom of the card, but we did not know what to do about the "At Stake" part. Some guidance would be useful. Also, can these cards be used to express Opinions as well?

4. I do not know how to implement Forcing in the game. I understood it when Tony explained it at GenCon, but a couple months later I lost that understanding and I found the rules text inadequate. We ended up not using any Forcing in the game even though one scene in particular would have benefited from included it in play. I think I need a more explicit play example in the rules to help with that mechanic.

Even with the above questions, the game enabled fast-paced, focused and enjoyable play. I'm looking forward to the final version of Misery Bubblegum!

Tony, send me a personal message to let me know who is next on the list to get the playtest version of the game.

Julie

I'd title our game, "I'd just like to say thanks to my wonderful campaign staff."

What a fantastic physical game design. It's long been one of my dreams, ever since Once Upon a Time, to see an RPG which was basically just a deck of cards, instructions and all. I was excited about Under the Bed for that reason especially, and now this. Tony, your instruction cards and the whole "use this, do this" design of the cards themselves are a real leap forwards.

I wanted to dissect out how our Dream-oriented choices divvied the characters. Chad was the target/subject of Helen's Dream; Helen's Dream was blocked by Toya, and Helen was afraid Chad would find out and laugh at her. Helen was the target (I do mean target of Conrad's Dream; Conrad's Dream was blocked by Helen herself as she was no small target, and furthermore he was afraid she would find out and squash him first.

So clearly Helen was the central character as she was wrapped up in both Dreams, and therefore it's especially funny to note that as soon as Maura looked over her Personality and Role cards, she said, "Oooohh, I'm fucking evil!"

The story's spine was her duel with Conrad over the content of the campaign. She won, hence stifling Conrad's Dream, and achieved her Dream in the end. Also, a great deal of comedy centered around Chad, as it ensued that, rather blithely and without malice, he maintained affairs with Jessica, the candidate's mistress, and Margie, the candidate's wife, to keep the campaign running smoothly.

Toya was a tiny bit under-played, I think, mainly because Julie was also doing GM-duty in a variety of ways. On the other hand, she did do a fine job of screwing up Helen's strategy with her sudden inspiration about environmentalizing the campaign. I think all of us shared a considerable amount of visceral sarcasm regarding how politicians go Green before the cameras while truckling to industrial abuse of waste-disposal and similar regulations. I'd like to try a round of play when the GM only used the meta-oriented cards and didn't play a character involved in the Dreams.

I noted a certain blurring between Role and Personality in terms of recognizing when either was eligible to receive a card. By about halfway through, people would remind one another when something seemed right for Personality, and a player would say openly "I'm angling for a [Role] card" to see if others agreed. This isn't so much a criticism as an observation, that card play onto those cards was treated by our group more as a cooperative fabric than a strategy issue.

One thing I'll have to keep in mind if I GM the game is that external crises are just environment. The whole drama with Jessica and Margie was easily and amusingly solved by Chad patching things up scene by scene, because as in Zombie Cinema, the system and consequenceds are reserved for conflicts among player-characters. In fact, the key issue is always "who gets the last word." I like that construction because it's only peripherally about which player gets to talk; it's really about which character gets his or her way. But it takes a little getting used to in both games.

Best, Ron

Cool!  I appreciate both the feedback and the questions.  For a start here (since I've grievously missed this thread during an "away from internet" sort of week) I'll answer the questions ... but my main emphasis going forward is that I'm going to try to figure out how to modify the rules text so that the questions are answered by the text itself ... that's a harder job, and I'll probably impose upon you to the extent of asking whether new rules text makes things clear.

And, of course, as I digest what happened in your game I'm likely to ask questions about that, 'cuz it sounds like a lot of fun.  I love the notion that your candidate wasn't even a vaguely important character in the cast ... the center, but not the focus.

(1) Yes, the intention is that you should be forced to roleplay out the characteristic in order to use the card.  That's part of the fun of handing someone (for instance) a "Cunning" card valued at 46 while opining "God, you are such an uncaring manipulator, I sometimes think you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself."  Yes, to use that card later they have to do something cunning ... does it have to be uncaring manipulation?  Not as such, but my hope is that it's hard to get away from the associations.

(2) You do discard the card (instead of using it in some other way) to get the special effect.  I should probably use two different words in the text:  "Spend" and "Discard", perhaps.

(3) The "At Stake" cards were meant to give some sense that this is what the character is aiming for ... they're being rewritten to be "Need For: ...", which I hope will make it more clear that it's an attribute of the character (as with other cards).  And yeah, you could totally hand them over as opinions ("I think you need to win, even if it means destroying everyone around you...")

(4) Okay, I'm going to try to work up a (short!) example of that play, and I'll get back to you.

Tony,

Thanks for the answers!

On (1), we definitely did this incorrectly in our game. We did not press on the character to achieve the state described on each card. There were time when we used it solely as a resolution mechanic and not necessarily descriptive of game content.

(2) OK. Then we did have an illegal use of a special effect during an argument. Maybe you can describe that a card is played in a number of defined ways, i.e., added to a role card, used in an argument, used for scene control, used to express an opinion.

(3) I'm still confused by the "At Stake" cards. Is it more than a scene control mechanic?

(4) Yay!

Julie