Within My Clutches (old; still revising current version)

Oops. 

This game operates on a structure of pursuing your protagonist's goals, and there are some strategic decisions you make that impact your success at that.  Overall, though, it's supposed to be a character exploration game, where the point of the struggle is to examine, experience, celebrate and expand upon the classic flawed super-villain.  You go after Goals, getting gradually more taxed by the cost of maintaining the ones you've achieved, until we see what this character does with desire and success and juggling and failure and disappointment, and then the story's over.

That was the intent, anyway.

When I was pitching the game in an attempt to get friends to come playtest it, I said this:

"Can you be the first supervillain to achieve all your goals, or will the burdens you've saddled yourself with drag you down and out of the race?"

And then in my in-person introduction, I described how, when you get all your Goals, you get to declare "Time to wrap it up.  Final scenes, everyone."

Like I said, oops.

No one really got into the character psychology of the decisions being made, they just chose according to the aim of achieving the 3 Goals on their sheet.

My intent had simply been to forecast where would be a good place to stop, and to communicate that character success and character failure were both reasonable to expect.  "If you lose two Achievements, you crash and burn, and you get an epilogue where you describe how you go out in an epic meltdown," was supposed to be seen as a fun thing to do with your character, but in light of my earlier statements, people just took it as a description of the consolation prize for not winning.

Simply re-setting the endgame to what it originally was -- "play until you feel you've done all you can with this character; if you win all your Goals, keep playing under the burdens that come with those Achievements" -- should do wonders to fix the expectations.  I'll highlight that next time: completing your character's stated objectives does not mean you've won the game.

Design issues remain, regarding the interface between in-character decisions and system-manipulating ones, but I think I'll instantly be a lot closer by establishing the proper expectations on this particular front.

(This may seem obvious.  All I can say in my defense is that one of my objectives was to test out the math, and playing to win was good for testing that.  Required successes are going up from 5 to 6 and starting Moxy is going down from 6 to 3.)

That's all I have to say for now.  I hope the title observation is useful to someone out there.  I'll be back to discuss the game more once I have an updated document.

Feel free to ask questions or share experiences regarding unintended playing to win in RPGs.  Just because I have a plan doesn't mean the issue's conclusively resolved.

Hi,

Did they define the three goals on their sheet?

Could you give an example of the pursuit of those goals the players made in their narration or such?

I'm not really sure you can have characters doing stuff and not have gotten into the characters psycology? It'd be right there. Unless the players simply weren't interested in it - but it's still right there to be picked up on. It doesn't sound like the game is removing that element?

How did your different (competing?) villains cooperate to tell a single narrative?
Were they ever at odds with one another's evil plots? Is this game run as a campaign, or during a single session?

What are some examples of the goals these villains are trying to accomplish, and what are some drawbacks?
I'm curious to see how you systemize psychological burden.

In my experience, character development is best when it happens naturally, over time. Trying to squeeze major psyche development (like call of cthulhu's sanity loss) into a single game session makes it feel forced. IE. the character develops when game events have weight, and they only get weight by having a player invested in them.

Hi Callan,

You might be right, I'm not sure.

Much was warped by trying to squeeze 3 hrs of testing into what turned out to be 90 minutes of actual time.  So we were in fast-forward mode almost the whole time.  We did slow down a bit for Melanie and Dustin.  Melanie seemed pretty into her character concept, and did some cool roleplaying, but then when it came time to resolve the scene and choose he path, an extremely lucky dice roll kind of made it no contest.  Dustin's turn was a more interesting case.

Dustin was playing Frenzy, a wealthy scientist who gets super-strength from injecting himself with an experimental compound.  Kind of the Hulk crossed with Bane.  Frenzy's family life was a bit of a disaster, with a cheating wife and a rebellious daughter.  His first Goal was to make it in good with the old money, to become respected rather than viewed as an uncouth upstart.  We rolled his Attempt dice and he got 2 successes, meaning he'd need to Commit for 3 in order to achieve this Goal.  This would in turn saddle him with a 3-point Expectation in future turns; not the greatest way to start off.

I'd been hoping that this moment would be Frenzy's decision about how desperate he really was for respect vs how afraid he was of an entanglement sapping his ability to pursue his family goals.  Either some agonizing or a strong statement of priority, or long- vs short-sighted character portrayal.  Instead, Dustin simply looked over his resources, looked over the options (1 - don't Commit, wait for next round, hoping for a better die roll, but taking a hit to his Moxy for not pursuing what he's desperate for, or 2 - Commit now and have to deal with a 3-point Expectation eating his dice pool for the rest of the game), calculated that Committing now gave him the best odds of being the first player to achieve all 3 Goals, and thus chose that.

I'd hoped that, rather than being a "best" strategy, there would simply be different strategies invoking different probabilities of different outcomes, to be discovered in play.  Some risks would be inevitable, but which risk you take when would be largely a matter of "what would this character do here?"  I don't know for sure what sabotaged that -- the hurried circumstances of play, my setting the wrong expectations, or the rules themselves.

I'll post the ruleset shortly, and I'd certainly welcome your analysis!

Hi Spam (or whatever you'd like to be called?),

It's intended for 2-3 sessions.  The villains' stories stay separate, but they interact with the same supporting characters, so the "universe" of the story is tied together somewhat.  But as far as spotlight on protagonists, it's a turn-taking game.

I'm with you on investment and weight building over time.  I generally prefer to gradually build into that stuff too.  That said, I have had successful short games of various systems where people got very into their characters' heads very quickly, so it is at least possible.

I hope my reply to Callan addressed your other questions.

calculated that Committing now gave him the best odds of being the first player to achieve all 3 Goals, and thus chose that.

I'd hoped that, rather than being a "best" strategy, there would simply be different strategies invoking different probabilities of different outcomes, to be discovered in play.  Some risks would be inevitable, but which risk you take when would be largely a matter of "what would this character do here?"  I don't know for sure what sabotaged that -- the hurried circumstances of play, my setting the wrong expectations, or the rules themselves.

Callan wrote: Verbalise your genuine reactions to character portrayal via mechanics use and players realise they can't do something without defining their character!

Here's the version we played, finally written up.

I read the pdf, and I gotta say, there's nothing in there that seems to be encouraging a "play to win" mentality.  My guess is, your player just wanted to win, because that's how he plays games.  I don't think you should have to change your game in any way solely to make it more effective in pulling gamist gamers over to the narrativist dark side.  Perhaps just rephrase a few things?

It’s all about what you want and what happens when you go after it and get it.

For this playtest, I felt like that would have biased the results, to assert my own tastes and expectations.

I think a potential factor is the player/character disconnect between the mental process of choosing.  The same factors apply to the choice (now/later, risk/reward), but as Dustin looked over his resources and did the math, it was as if the fiction was put on hold.  Then when he reached his decision, we rolled and flipped dice until the outcome was determined, and only then was it back to the fiction for a "what happens?" that was more about product than process.

Joe,

The main thing I'm worried about in the latest version of the text is "IX. Ending the Game" on page 10.  I'm planning to change it back to the version linked in my first post.  While the endings listed are nice options to have, I think the idea that by achieving all your Goals you will end the game makes it feel more like "I won", whereas the earlier version says "play until your character exploration is complete".

I'm not sure how much of an issue "agreeing on a good place to stop" is.  I don't want to be overly constraining -- e.g., timing it with the end of a session is probably a good option to have -- but something to look forward to, a la Sorcerer's kicker resolution, seems like a good idea.

In superhero comics, the end of a villain's story is always a defeat.  But the end of a given issue might well be a villain's triumph, or worsening threat.  Hmm...

Rubbermancer wrote:

It’s all about what you want and what happens when you go after it and get it.

Players could take this to mean "Make your Goals, and then achieve them".  Perhaps some re-wording will help, something that makes the game's goals more explicit from the outset.  For example, "It’s an exploration of what your character wants, and of the changes he goes through in pursuing those desires."

Callan wrote: Perhaps it's worth trying to describe the genuine responce to player system use (as if it were character thought process) in the text, with a prompt to try and think that way as often as possible. And see if a player or two engage that. It might even be worth writing in the text it's not just a side thing - that unless atleast one person at the table reacts this way, it just doesn't work out.

Callan wrote: Maybe the various options are given names and the rules prompt people to verbalise the names of options they consider, as they consider them - to stop this 'player dissapears inside themselves for awhile' thing. Though I wouldn't make that a hard rule as I think people would often forget to name options as they consider, but more like an urging in the text and a GM duty to urge, so they atleast mumble a few option names and other players/the GM can get an inside glimpse, a little bit, to the thinking process.

Separately, I've been thinking that perhaps the player/character disconnect has been fostered by extensive procedures.  Like, there are too many required steps.  Rather than needing to go through a checklist in order, it might be better to give players rewards for performing a small number of tasks apiece.

If the SC player gets a point for the Protagonist achieving their Goal, and the owners of Achievements get points for the Protagonists spending dice to defend their Achievements, and I rule about when you can Commit and spend Moxy, the rest might take care of itself.

I'm not sure what the above points would be for, though.  I'm not sure what's the ideal way to reward "you've helped the other players really explore their protagonists by giving them compelling situations".  In another game, I'd be tempted to say, "best GM gets to GM the most," but I don't think that sort of competition is appropriate here.

There's already a "fan" mechanic to see who winds up on the issue cover (page 10, item 11 -- I should repeat that in "Ending the Game").  Maybe something in that direction would make sense.  Or maybe you can spend 5 points to narrate an interlude scene?

What I was hoping for was, "As I give my speech to the league, I can't get my daughter's disappointed glare out of my head, and the league members see me take a moment to compose myself."

That quote represented what I want the player to be thinking.  If they do, I'm happy, and however they choose to express it is fine by me.  Personally, I'd probably just do it with facial expressions -- pensive/fuming to suddenly self-conscious, followed by a deep breath.

The point is the thought process as the resolution is played out.  Thinking fictionally, as the character, rather than just mechanically, as a player.