Isnt it funny when you have this idea of how things are going to go and then they just implode.  I guess thats what they are talking about when they say any plan only lasts as long as contact with the enemy.

Here is the system

https://sites.google.com/site/zeroprep/files/ingenero.docx?attredirects=0&d=1

This is really a personal system designed to suit me and push the two playgroups that I have been involved with towards a style of play that suits me.  We are talking about oooold school runequest players here.  In theory they are up for trying new ways of roleplaying, but in practice there is a lot of inertia and decades old habits to break.  And I suppose apathy.  'sure, we'll play your game -- it sounds like fun', but that doesnt extend to doing much more than a cursory scan of the rules and actually turning up.  Now skipping to the end of the session briefly, as I am thinking, well that was completely fucked, and a player hands me his character sheet and says 'so again in two weeks?'  (which is our normal game night -- we oscillate between board games of varying sorts and RPGs).  And Im like, "what the,,,?"  They want to keep going?  But why?  It sucked so bad!  didnt it?  And it dawns on me that they got what they expected, its just my own expectations that were dashed.

Anyway, I have to admit that I dont really like GMng -- I dislike  being the focus of attention and having the main responsibility of being an old school GM.  And at the same time, I dont like playing as an old school player and not having any significant say in the situations my character is involved in, nor ways I can resolve those situations except via someone elses overly crunchy reductionist rules.  But if I want to introduce a new game, and I have done so a few times with PTA and IAWA, then the responsibility is with me to understand the rules and then of course thats me GMing, because you cant GM if you dont know the rules.

Hence me designing my own game that is theoretically heavy on all players participating in narration, relatively crunch lite but still allowing for strategising.  Theoretically the payers are getting the fun of participating in narration and the GM isnt overburdened with responsibility, more of just a player with a different role.  Theory is a great thing.  I can see the allure of becoming an academic.

Anyway, so heres what happened:

First of all, there is setting the tone and the setting -- making sure we are all on the same page in terms of CA.  OK, I mean the CA is shot from the start because only 2 of the 6 players were really interested in giving the game a shot on my terms, but even so, agreeing to tone is something.  The tone chosen was 'beer fueled mayhem', and Im like, OK, this is a playtest, lets see where this goes.  flippant tongue and cheek, fair enough.

And then they take 20 minutes to decide on the setting which is Steampunk Pirates.  20 minutes!  We've only got 2.5 hours people!  The starting locale is abord the Clockwork Parrot - a pirate ship on the aether and the current event is an impending raid on a British cruiser carrying some unknown but valuable cargo.

The background and long term goals goes pretty quickly - choose some backgrounds, a neat paragraph on that background.  I was happy with that.  An  example:

Gunter:  gunnery sergeant 4, medical officer 4, initial long term goal of becoming a financier. (player explained he wanted to leverage his booty to set up some kind of business to become independently wealthy)  Cant remember the detailed paragraph of the background.

Selecting techniques - not so easy.  People wanted to select 'skills' really, and I had to keep calling them on it -- 'no, agility is not a technique, a technique is a specific outcome -- agility does not describe an outcome'.  After a while, we agreed that people could hold their technique buying points in reserve if they hadnt spent them all, and they could make up new ones on the fly as required.  Or we would be there all night.

The first challenge phrase was 'A chance to shine'.  Well, with an upcoming raid, thats pretty straight forward.  I narrate that the captain calls a meeting to tell  the crew that an informant has given word that a secret valuable cargo is being transported from the british docks on mars, and gives the route, enabling us to plan an ambush, and that with the  death of the first mate in the last engagement, the position is up for grabs and that performance in the upcoming raid will go a long way towards getting the promotion.

Maybe the problem was that to get from the initial situation to the challenge scenario was in this case too straight forward.  Was there anything else to narrate?  Nobody had anything to say really.  One player asked me how long did it take to get to the ambush point.  'um, as long as required for something you want to narrate to happen?"  Players kept looking to me to say what happens next.  People had these long term goals, but nobody had anything to say about them -- nothing to mix in to the story about their characters doing anything to achieve those long term goals or external event occurring that was related to a long term goal.  Short term goals were easy to understand -- we were going to embark on a pirate ship to perform a raid in space.  Things you might want to do on a raid were to impress the captain by leading a boarding party successfully, killing the opposing captain, or by coordinating the gun team s to fire effectively.  One character devised a new type of harpoon gun and the aim was to successfully attach to the victim ship with it.  Once you know the nature of the upcoming challenge, the short term goals arent a problem.

understanding long term goals...  Goals are supposed to be there to help fuel ideas for the story phase.  long term goals are supposed to direct the ongoing story more - As players are allowed to take the story in whatever directions they want, the existence of long term goals is supposed to make them want to take the story in directions that will enable them to elaborate on and achieve those long term goals in order to get the big reward points.  But it didnt happen.

So without throwing much else into the mix, we move on to the challenge phase, although a fair amount of realtime has passed - 1.5 hours!!!  I guess i just wanted more participation and it didnt happen.  A combination of more effective long term goals and simply cutting to the chase when there was nothing more to add would have done the trick. 

Challenge phase went OKish.  I had to keep prompting if people wanted to throw body or soul into intended actions.  They wernt used to doing stuff like that.  Nobody employed an advantage technique.  The gun guy achieved his STG of effectively  running the gun crew such that they took down a main sail, and the engineers new harpoon gun was also used effectively, enabling a few short term goals to be achieved.  One martial-oriented player got into a two onto one fight in the initial boarding party which turned out to a fairly boring affair of the 'I smack you, you smack me, I smack you' endurance fests until the mooks went down, but failed in his goal of killing the captain because someone got there first. 

This was my problem I think -- mooks are there to be struck down mercilessly -- Nobody had a goal of 'kill namelss mooks', so I broke my own rule of 'pointless rolls'.  What I should have done is narrate him -- a trained assassin by all accounts -- hacking his way through the hapless mooks, and then have break out the dice for the confrontation with the captain.  Ah, lightbulb - the short term goals are there also to help the GM simple narration from dramatic conflict.  So I also fell for the old school sim trap of rolling for every fucking tedious thing that might occur. 

Another non-martial player had the STG of riflng their own captains cabin using the fighting as a diversion to see if there was any kind of personal information she could use.  the background was that she was a gypsy type of character and the captain was partial to the occult, and armed with some personal info, she could increase her prestige in his eyes by feeding him that personal info at a latter date under the guise of fortune telling.

To be honest this stumped me.  A STG cant be just handed to a player, they have to be tested and win to achieve it.  But how?  Not one of those smelly 'observation rolls' I really dont like.  I decided that there was a locked drawer on the captains desk, so if she wanted to break into it, she could get the info she required, but she didnt want to, so I said tough luck basically.  I threw a bone that there were initials carved on the captains pipe -B.A, when the crew only knew the captain by his surname.  But she didnt get a goal reward -- could I have handled that better?

And that was about all we got up to.  everything took much longer than I expected, and nothing engaging really happened.

Personally, I achieved no long no short term goals :(

Hi Steffen,

I'd like to focus most of my comments in your first thread, but there's one thing I can provide as a personal take on your playtesting situation.

You stated that you were designing to push this group into different forms of play. I have never, to date, seen any successful attempt to do this. As far as I can tell, the only way to enjoy a particular form of play is to play with people who do, or will, like it as much as you do.

That goal is already broken even if one is using some published, functional game like Primetime Adventures or My Life with Master. If one is trying to playtest at the same time, then it's like spinning two dials at once - whatever happens, you won't be able to tell which moving component was responsible.

I specified that this is a personal take and can only point to years of observation and discussion; there is no fixed absolute in what I'm saying. Nor am I claiming that any group which enjoys, or is used to, playing one way cannot also enjoy playing another way. But if a group enjoys and is used to playing one way and is being pushed to play another way, for which there is little indication or a priori interest, then I hold little hope in the outcome.

Therefore I suggest that you review whether your phrasing about pushing is important, in this case. You know the people and I do not. Are you working with people who definitely show interest in playing the way we're talking about? Or are they merely being your pals and playing because you want them to?

Best, Ron

Hi Ron

Maybe guide more than push.  There are 5 regular players, of those:  one knows where Im coming from and actively wants to work with me, one doesnt really know where Im coming from but wants a change and is encouraging, two more are really  apathethic about change but willing to see if it might be fun, as long as they dont have to work at it, and the last is just along for the ride. 

My experiences with PTA was just : way too threatening.  The whole bit where in rotation, one players has to setup the next scene and/or narrate an outcome.  PTA was just to far away fro where the group is right now.

stefoid wrote:
Another non-martial player had the STG of riflng their own captains cabin using the fighting as a diversion to see if there was any kind of personal information she could use.  the background was that she was a gypsy type of character and the captain was partial to the occult, and armed with some personal info, she could increase her prestige in his eyes by feeding him that personal info at a latter date under the guise of fortune telling.

To be honest this stumped me.  A STG cant be just handed to a player, they have to be tested and win to achieve it.  But how?  Not one of those smelly 'observation rolls' I really dont like.  I decided that there was a locked drawer on the captains desk, so if she wanted to break into it, she could get the info she required, but she didnt want to, so I said tough luck basically.  I threw a bone that there were initials carved on the captains pipe -B.A, when the crew only knew the captain by his surname.  But she didnt get a goal reward -- could I have handled that better?

Hi Steffen,

Have you done a write up of how you imagine an idealised session of play would go?

Asking if there's a way of handling it better seems to be asking us like we know the right way to play your game?

but she didnt want to

Callan wrote:
Hi Steffen,

Have you done a write up of how you imagine an idealised session of play would go?

Asking if there's a way of handling it better seems to be asking us like we know the right way to play your game?

but she didnt want to

Why didn't she want to?

One thing I'd observe here is if she busts the lock and reads the info, things change. But if she says nah, then...nothing changes at all.

Perhaps when you decided to create a situation, as you did when you made up the locked draw, you need to ensure both yes and no choices result in a change, not just the yes choice. Even if the no result is something as clumsy as "Well, you ignore the draw, but as you look around you bump an oil lamp over and a fire starts in the captains quarters". As long as both "Yes I do it" or "No, I don't do it" result in some sort of change.

She didnt want to create signs of entry -- so I figured rather than just create an arbitrary roll, Id let the player decide how badly she wanted the info.  Unsatisfying because she backed out, which effectively neutered the situation for creating further plot down the track.

It seems that I cant follow my own advice -- this was a 'only one outcome is viable' situation -- that she finds interesting info.  I just didnt recognize it as such at the time.  According to my doco, in that situation I accept the only viable solution and instead roll for how it is achieved.  i.e. at what cost.

"suuure, you can rifle the captains stuff and get this juicy info" -- make a roll for getting in and out undetected.  If its good, then its good, if it isnt, then sometime later the cabin boy drops by sand says ' gee, the capn sure would be interested in why you were poking around his cabin the other day...  anyway I need a favour...'

win-win

Having had time to debrief, we've come to the conclusion that zero-prep -- as in no preparation at all -- was too ambitious for a first time playtest, and probably even if the game was well familiar.  Nailing down the details of setting, initial situation, backgrounds and LTG is very important and we just didnt have time to do that properly on the night.  Trying to construct something  on dodgy foundations.  Next time, all that happens via email before hand, and everybody sits down to play with that info at hand.

And the other thing was I screwed up half the scenes we did manage to play with dud GMing, so that didnt help either.

I guess zero-prep isnt such a good name afterall. 

OK, have made the following additions to the doco, in order to underline important discoveries during playtesting:

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

CHARACTER CREATION:

Players now create a character that fits into the initial situation somehow.  The summary is:

1.      Choose the backgrounds of your character.

2.      Select one or two Motivations for your character

3.      Choose a long term goal for your character

4.      Select your characters stats – Body & Soul

5.      Choose your character’s techniques

Backgrounds:  these are broad descriptions of experience that the character has had in the past, that define how good the character is at doing anything remotely related to that experience. -- the major ‘occupation’ of the character for the period the background covers.

examples might be : Pirate, Nobleman, Prostitute, Street Urchin, Hunter, Thief, Policeman, Nurse, etc...

Players have 8 points which they allocate between 2 and 4 backgrounds.  They must allocate at least two dice to any background they select.

i.e.  Pirate 5, Nobleman 3

Almost every time the character wishes to do something that the GM feels should be tested -- something for which there is a significant consequence of success or failure -- they roll a number of D10s for the background that best suits that undertaking and pick the highest value rolled.  i.e.  Could use Pirate or Nobleman to fight (in different styles), but probably only Pirate could be used for nautical flavored challenges, whilst only Nobleman could be used for courtly discourse.  In the event that the character has no applicable background experience to draw on, a default of 1 dice is used.

Along with each background, provide a paragraph or two describing the character’s personal history associated with that background – consider answering the following questions for each background:

·        How did the character come to be involved in that background?

·        Under what circumstances did they leave it?

·        Biggest achievement during that time?

·        Worst disaster during that time?

·        Most significant relationship/interraction with another character during that time?

Motivations:

Just a sentence or so explaining a deep-seated issue, motivation, belief or desire that has a significant impact on your character’s behavior.  You can have several of these if you wish.

Long term goal:

How goals are used mechanically will be described later, but for now, give you character a single long term goal.  It may be specifically related to the initial setting that has been established, or the information in the characters background, a motivation, or something new.  Give the goal a short summary and an accompanying brief description.  The goal should  be quite specific – ‘kill the 6 fingered man who murdered your father’, rather than general ‘strike it rich!’ –general/vague goals are more suited to being motivations – i.e.  vague goals are hard to work towards and its also hard to define when they have been accomplished.  Long term goals could easilly derrive from a Motivation – If the character had the Motivation ‘Strike it rich!’, then one specifc plan to make a lot of money would be a natural long term goal -- "rob the first national bank".

Take account of why that is a goal of your character in the brief description.  Make sure the goal is practically achievable, given the setting, but it shouldn’t be too easy, or it wont cant be classified as a long term goal.  Make a note that you have 5 reward points (explained later) to spend during any Story phase except the first.

At this point, before going on to techniques, players describe their characters to the other players – their backgrounds motivations and their long term goal.  This is a collaborative story game, so even private character information is in the public player domain.

ADVICE ABOUT GOALS:

LTGs should be specific, so that the character can make a series of concrete steps towards them, and ultimately  achieve them during play.  These steps could be either LTG participation during Story phase, or a specific challenge phase STG – it depends on the nature of the step being taken.  Some things will be more suited to one phase than the other.  Some examples are shown below, but these are not hard rules, just generalizations:

Steps usually more suited to Story Phase:

·        Searching or researching for information

·        Recovering, training or learning

·        Building or inventing

·        Travelling from one place to another

·        Planning

·        Exploring and investigating – it depends on situation.  This kind of activity could be Story phase activity (exposition) or a  Challenge phase activity if the Exploration or investigation resulted in a confrontation or other dramatic circumstance.  It could be both – the exposition part is narrated during story phase and switches to challenge phase at the point where dramatic conflict occurs.



Steps usually more suited to Challenge Phase activity & STGs

·        Executing plans:  STG – successful execution of a plan, or specific part of a plan

·        Confrontations: STG – a specific desired outcome from the confrontation

·        Arguments – STG – Convincing, persuading or defeating opponents

·        Contests: STG – wining the contest





ADVICE FOR PLAYERS DURING STORY  PHASE

Players are encouraged to add new elements to the story, when outlining or elaborating on goals, or just in general, to move the story in a direction they would like it to go:

·        Bring in a new character from ‘the past’ or out of left-field.

·        Detail a new event or situation that occurs

·        Describe their characters thought processes and reactions

·        Describe the actions of NPCs that are observed by their characters

·        Offer  suggestions for other player characters

ADVICE ON CONFLICTSs:

Knowing when to call a roll a conflict and when to simply narrate is probably the most significant skill for a GM.  In general, the GM only wants to break out the dice when there is a significant consequence riding on an intended action.  Fortunately, player set STGs are like red markers for the GM as they show what is most important to player characters in the upcoming challenge.  Try to centre rolled conflicts around parts of the challenge that directly result in a player STG being achieved or not.  Other parts of the challenge may involve rolled conflicts, but the GM should think hard about it before picking up the dice – sure, someone or something may be opposing the characters intended action, but is the potential conflict an example of a pointless test or a sitauation with only one viable outcome?



Example:  Pirates attack!  A player’s pirate character has the stated STG of killing the opposition captain during a raid.  To do so, he first has the intended actions of boarding the opposition ship and fighting his way to confront the captain.  Obviously the battle with the captain should be a dramatic rolled conflict scenario, but what about the other intended actions?  Roll or narrate?  Generally, theese would be examples of pointless tests – where is the fun in the character being put out of the contest by hordes of nameless mooks before having a chance to confront the captain?  (and having to roll for battle with those mooks).  It would be a disapointing result, achieved by a repetitive and tedious process – the opposite of a fast-paced, dramatic action sequence.  Far better to either narrate the character chopping through hordes of mooks to reach his target, or maybe classify the situation as a rolled conflict with only one viable outcome – that the character does manage to cut through the mooks -- but roll to determine  how the viable outcome occurred (at what cost).  i.e. does he do it in fine swashbuckling style, or is his progress delayed in such a way as to give his ultiamte opponent some kind of advantage, or perhaps he sustains an injury, etc…



Example: Another player’s character decides to use the raid as cover to rifle through the pirate captains quarters in order to obtain some significant inforamtion about his past.  In general, this type of situation could be best covered during the story phase, but in this case, lets assume there is a good reason for it to occur during a challenge, and that the player has an STG riding on the outcome.  Does the GM make an ‘observation roll’ to determine if any such information can be found?  No, this is another case of a test where there is only one viable outcome for the story: that juicy significant information be found!  But does that mean the player is simlpy handed their STG on a platter?  Again, when there is only one viable option, but a roll is still requried, then make the roll about how/at what cost the desired outcome is obtained – without incident, or perhaps the character is confronted sometime later by a secret observer who threatens blackmail?  Much better than ‘sorry, you don’t spot anything…’

Interesting, I was just reading through some of the essays in the article section and I came across Zero to the bone  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/zero_at_the_bone.pdf  by Ron

This also divides the game into two phases of play (same concept as my story and challenge phases), although you only play each phase once and then the game is over.

So Im wondering, what other games out there use a similar method that I could hit up for ideas?

Two thoughts, not sure how useful they are in your situation:

First, have you tried bringing on board a completely new player? Perhaps someone with no roleplaying experience?

I've started a group recently, where I was the only one with any roleplaying experience. Because the others had less baggage (specifically, D&D) they were able to pick up things like shared narration very easily.

Perhaps bringing in somebody new - someone who doesn't have a kneejerk "ask the GM" impulse - will shake up your players as well.

Second, is it worth the effort? Some people just like different things. I've had some pretty awful nights with my group, trying to promote certain game styles that they're just not interested in. Kinda wish I could get that time back.

YMMV

Hey.
The main problem was my expectations were too high for an initial playtest.  'zero-prep' was unrealistic.  I didnt have enough info in the doc to guide the players with in terms of character creation and selection of good goals from bad goals, and in any case I didnt know a good goal from a bad goal myself.  My own learning curve as a GM of this type of game was also a large issue.

The group is keen to give it another try, so although I was dismayed at how it went, they obviously see enough potential to continue on with -- either that or they are humoring me, but either way Ill run with it :)

I am a game designer, cant help myself, but Ive always done board games and computer games and they turn out how I think they should right from the start.  I guess I have a good grasp of the way mechanics work and fit together but RPGs necessarily revolve around social interaction and elements of drama/fiction and pacing that I am still coming to grips with.

One thing I have learned is that the challenge/conflict res/rolling part of the game should concentrate around achieving character goals.  Kind of obvious, but the old school sim player inside me has to be squashed so that only the right things are actually roll-tested and in the right way. 

Ive been reading a bit about kickers and bangs and so forth, and It gave me some insight

A new example from the doco below:
"STGs should not come too easy.  It may be the case that an STG could easily be resolved one way or the other with a single roll, which can be a little anti-climactic.  When this possibility arises, the GM should consider introducing a complication – something that ratchets up the tension by presenting the character with a detour/obstacle on the way to their shot at goal resolution.  The complication should not, however, result in failure to have that shot at goal resolution, although it could put the character at an advantage or disadvantage going into the deciding contest.

The best kind of complication forces the character to make a choice that will have consequences beyond the immediate challenge phase.

Example: Another player’s character has the STG of successfully overseeing the pirate’s gun batteries such that they fire in perfect synchronization.  This could be a simple test of the character’s relevant background – they do!  Or they don’t…  riding on a single roll.  Either way, its hardly dramatic.    A solution is to mix in a complication:  one of the gun crews is hit by an explosion of splinters, seriously injuring one man and leaving them short-handed.  Without an extra person manning that gun -- which the PC could easily do -- it will be much harder to achieve the performance the STG rides on (-4 disadvantage applied to the resolution roll), however the injured man desperately requires someone’s assistance…  How the character reacts affects not only his chance at achieving his goal, but also his ongoing relationship with fellow crew members. "

So I guess this is like a mini-bang - it shares the characteristics of a bang, on more immediate scale, even though the consequences carry on past the scope of the immediate situation.

How would you handle this situation? (came up in playtest) - player has an STG of demonstrating that their invented harpoon gun works successfully in battle, with the aim of impressing the captain and possibly earn a promotion.  The idea is to prevent the other ship from being able to escape.    I just ended up applying a single test of the anti-climactic 'yes it works/ no it doesnt' type.  I realize now that some kind of complication is the way to go, but honestly, I cant think of a good one.

Just adding this last fleshing out of Motivations, and will try the new improved version in the next playtest.  Hopefully once the problem of rushed, vaguely conceived and poorly motivated characters is dealt with, the goal setting and story phase will just flow (in time).

Motivations:  Next, select a couple of motivations.  These are strong aspects of your character's background or personality that shape their behavior and goals.  They are not goals themselves, in fact they may never be resolved during play, although they certainly may help with deriving the character's goals.  Examples of types of motivations are:

beliefs:  ideas and concepts that the character has is prone to act on:  religious tenets, prejudices, principles, morals etc...

desires: an urge characters are likely to go out of their way to satisfy -- sex, fame, food, riches, thrills, respect, drugs, material items, power, etc...

issues: something that emotionally troubles the character such that, in certain situations, they may be driven to irrational plans or inexplicable behavior:  a hatred, a fear, a loss, self-esteem, guilt, trust, envy, despair, etc...

influences:  a relationship or situation having such a hold on the character that they could be compelled to act contrary to their natural inclination:  duty, debt, love, threat, obligation, promise , etc...

The  terms: prone, likely, may and could are highlighted because it is not 100% set in stone that behavior will follow motivation.  It is up to the player to decide what circumstances could push the character to break their motivations, temporally or permanently. (exploring character).  High drama should occur around those situations that test the character's motivations, especially when goals are at stake.

Callan wrote:
Hi Steffen,

Have you done a write up of how you imagine an idealised session of play would go?

Asking if there's a way of handling it better seems to be asking us like we know the right way to play your game?