So hard to beat:

Josh, Judson and play-tested so hard to beat, a game about teen sex that I wrote based on a song that Graham Walmsley had assigned me in his songs for games challenge. http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=7894

We felt free to change the rules as we tried it. We kept the core of the game – using ‘truth or dare’ and seeing if a combination two characters’ cards allow them to hook up – but altered the procedures and clarified how players narrate. With these changes, the game … worked, better than I had anticipated for a game about the ‘sociology and psychology’ of teen sex - at least as far as one run-through could clarify.

Of course, three players of the same gender who are familiar with one anothers gaming styles may not be the best test subjects for a game about a sensitive topic. As we started, Judson asked if it was a game for teens abut sex or a game for adults about teen sex. The latter – although there is nothing system wise that limits it to teen characters. We never got explicit in narrating – there was usually build up then a couple of lines of post mortem of the encounter that implied how things went. This worked well, at least for us.

In the game players choose what 4 cliques the characters will be members of. We picked mormons, punks, LGBT, and PETA and drew cards to see what clique each of our 3 characters was part of and what their status would be (suit and value of face up card). Because of the LDS clique, Judson had two characters who were brothers and Josh had one of their cousins. The mormon + punk + teen sex tension was a good driver for the game as it led to some sibling rivalry, repressed homosexuality, young marriage proposals, switching cliques to LDS to go straight, etc.

Our set of nine characters then proceeded to ask each other awkward questions (truths) and dare one other to hit on other characters. To hook up, characters need to be:
• same clique
• within 3 status of each other
• opposite gender
• one char needs to have a higher heart card in hand than the other char’s highest club card
• at least spade card (logistical opportunity) between the 2 chars
• a diamond card can overcome one obstacle

Our main rules trouble shooting challenge as we played was better incentives for players to choose truth over dare (or disincentives for dares). As written, dares provided more information about other players’ cards and provided a stronger narrative outcome than did truth scenes. We eventually decided that truth scenes should be the only way to get rid of bad cards (high clubs, basically) and a way to draw a new card (looking for a spade, diamond, or high heart).

To support this change, characters will no longer get a free card after every character has had a turn. I’m also leaning towards three other suggestions that we didn’t have a chance to try: not removing half of the spades and diamond cards before the game; having characters lose diamond cards (and maybe also spade cards) after they are used to successfully hook up with another character; and have diamonds only overcome the first three, visible, obstacles – not the need for spade cards and a heart card greater than opposing club.

Some changes we made early in play were to make all actions based on a specific character rather than a player and to play until every character has hooked up at least once (or 3-4 turns each- like the years of high school). We also decided that the card drawn by each player involved in a successful dare would determine their reaction to the encounter- and therefore color the narration. We figured out that successful dares are narrated in alternating single sentences, started with the player whose character was dared (pursued the other character)- as if being written in a journal or told to a friend. I wish we had recorded some of these exchanges. They flowed naturally and were entertainingly awkward and biting and/or clueless, depending on the tone each player was going for.

Failed dares are narrated by the player whose character was asked out in a single or a few sentences like schoolyard gossip on why their character rejected the asking character.

A couple of options worth trying out next time:
* number of characters. Draft has 3 per player but to avoid too many, maybe 4-6 players could have 2 chars each and 7 plus have one char each. Incidentally Judson suggested that the game could work as a werewolf/ mafia kind of game with a bunch of players standing around, holding their cards so everyone could only see the face card that indicates clique and status.
* ‘slumming.’ A higher status char could ignore the need for a date to be within 3 status – but this would put their reputation at risk so if they hook up, the card they get would automatically become their new status/clique card if is the same suit or same value as their existing face card.
* Encourage uncertain dares. The char who dares two other chars gets a free card if the pairing fails by just one obstacle (an incentive to encourage players not to always go for dares that they are sure will succeed or fail).

Having just played Misery Bubblegum and having been thinking about Escape from Tentacle City, this is sort of hard to disentangle from those two games, in my head. I mean, it sounds fun in a sort of won't-ever-have-to-live-through-it-again way.

I'm especially interested in whether this particular outcome is possible: the two characters genuinely want to hook up, but it doesn't happen despite eminent opportunities and no lack of willingness - they just don't move on it when they should. Not that this reveals anything about that Halloween dance my senior year (punches pillow).

Can you give me a stronger idea of endings or at least personal conclusions?

Best, Ron

Hi Ron,

Yes, it's very possible for two characters to never connect despite one or more attempts. if their cards don't add up, they can't hook up. Players can try to improve the chars' compatability but no guarantees.

That said, as written it's not a game that gives characters (or players controlling chars) lots of agency to explore the subtleties of attraction in a step by step awkward courtship. Instead, with the truth and dare focus, it throws characters togethers, often unexpectedly. Players have to make sense of the pairing after the fact in the back and forth narration of what happened.

(I can imagine giving each character a crush at the start of each year of the game- with some mechanical benefit to connencting with the object of your desire above and beyond the normal outcomes of a succesful dare/hook up. That might cause players to be more intentional in who they try to link up).

There isn't a endgame summing up of each character's status or whether they achieved their desires - probably because during char creation you don't define what they want. I guess because the game has this pseudo-sociological filter followed by narrative explanation, I had chars start sort of as ciphers - as types more than individuals

Some of the individual hook ups generated strong conclusions, like marriage proposals, kids running off together, switching cliques, etc.

By the way, I look forward to a game that does allow a more controlled exploration of the themes you mention. Expecially if it can handle a diversity of adolescent dating situations (or crushes & unrequited/unconsummated relationships regardless of age), like my fav teens in school book, the short novel sweet days of discipline by the swiss writer fleur jaeggy, which has no boys, no sex per se (and none of THAT kind of discipline either...)

mark