Session Structure

A number of people have suggested that I put in something about session structure, and this is more or less a sketch of the piece to be inserted. I want to make it clear that I think this is one extreme end of how Shadows in the Fog could be run, with the opposite extreme being a traditional “party” structure. I suspect that most games will run somewhere in between, for the most part, as this structure may get a bit bewildering if applied too formalistically.

A more carefully formulated and theorized version of this structure will eventually be posted as an Article, with explanations of where it comes from and what it’s really all about.

Running Plots
There are likely to be five main types of plot:

• Group plots
• Individual plots
• Secret plots
• Exposition plots
• Background plots


Group plots are your classic RPG party plots. The gang has a goal, or conflict, or whatever, and they deal with it more or less as a group.

Individual plots are plots that center around a single PC. Sometimes such plots will intersect and run in parallel, but the point is that many players’ PCs are not involved. For such plots, every player should have a GMC to play, whether long-term or short, and these GMCs should have a fairly clear purpose in the plot. The goals are those of the individual PC and player, and everyone else’s stuff takes a backseat role.

Secret plots are just individual plots that for some reason the player (with GM approval) thinks should be kept secret from the other players for a while. Obviously the GMCs are going to have to played by the GM. This shouldn’t be overused, but there are times in Shadows in the Fog when cool secrets should be revealed relatively late, rather than have everyone pretend not to know what’s going on when in fact they’ve been in on it from the beginning.

Exposition plots are a way to get setting detail and whatnot on the table. You introduce major GMCs, show the gang around a new section of London, initiate them into a secret society, whatever. This sort of plot is usually pretty railroaded, because that’s the quick way to do the exposition. Consequently, such plots should not dominate play, nor should they necessarily come up every session.

Background plots are generally run entirely by the GM, as cut-scenes or whatever. Here’s where you create suspense in the classic Hitchcock sense. You may recall that he said that if you have a scene with ten people sitting around a table, when suddenly a bomb explodes under the table, you have surprise; if the viewer already knows there’s a bomb, and then you have the people sitting around talking, you have suspense. So background plots are a way for the GM to show everyone that there’s a bomb ticking.

Now here’s the trick: all of these are likely to be running concurrently. Exposition and background plots are thrown in as needed, but every PC has his own plot, and to be sure the Group has a plot. PC plots do not derail the rest of the game, run as mini-campaigns or whatever, but run in parallel with everything else.

Plot Arc
The classic story arc goes something like this: setup, conflict, climax, resolution. At a broad level, every plot here runs that way as well. At the session level, every plot ought to have the same sort of structure, but usually without resolution. In between stages, you cut to the next plot.

Thus in one plot, we start with Sir Danvers Carew walking down the street (setup). Cut to other things. When we get back to it, a loathsome individual comes walking the other way, and Sir Danvers stops to ask him directions; the loathsome individual appears to become filled with rage, for no apparent reason (conflict). Cut to other things. When we get back to it, the loathsome individual suddenly flings himself upon Sir Danvers with his cane, raining down a storm of blows with ape-like fury, until the poor man is left a battered corpse upon the empty street (climax). End of plot for this session.

Now this example is so simplistic that it doesn’t really work like a real RPG plot, but I’m not going to invent a whole back-story and so forth. So here’s a quick schematic:

Setup is the stage in which we remind ourselves of what’s going on (where we left our heroes last session), and indicate what today’s focus is going to be. In individual plots, this may be largely controlled by the single player, depending on what’s going on, or it may be that the GM or another player (via a GMC) wants to introduce some new thing. The point is that as soon as everything is clear, which usually happens quickly, the plot will begin moving toward its apparent end-point. Once you reach the threshold, where it seems like the next thing that will happen is the climactic moment, cut away.

Conflict delays and complicates the climax. Some new factor enters the plot just before it can resolve itself simply, and that factor must be dealt with through integration, elimination, or whatever. This is often the heart of the plot for the session: you have to deal with this problem before you can get the payoff. As soon as the conflict is resolved, so that things can move on to a climax, cut away.

Climax is payoff. Now that the whole situation is clarified, it can be resolved dramatically. This is commonly where combat scenes occur, though that can also be in the Conflict stage. Ideally, the climax should be dramatically satisfying and relatively intense. As soon as the climax itself has been achieved, end the plot for the session. Don’t go into a long denouement, unless actually the climax is located there. This is sort of like a cliffhanger.

An important point here is that the intensity in question is dramatic or emotional, and can really only be judged effectively by the players. For some groups, this may take practice, as they are naturally inclined to want to move on to the climax rather than cutting away. The idea, however, is that each stage has its own intensity and “build,” and the players will get increasingly good at squeezing maximal intensity out of setup and conflict, so that the climax is necessarily very intense and satisfying.

Overlapping Arcs
Every multi-session plot has its own natural arc, and cannot (or should not) be predetermined. This means that during any given session, one plot may be reaching its overall climax at the same time as others are in the setup phase. Ideally, what will happen is that in every session, one plot should be reaching its overall climax; as a rule, the session-setup of that plot should come first, while its session-climax should come last, ending the evening with a bang. Once that plot has finished, it should shift well into the background until it gathers steam again; thus it goes back into the setup stage, actually searching for a new climactic direction.

If all goes well, this means that in every session, something is coming to a head; there is never (or very rarely) an entirely expository or slow session from a plot point of view.

Fun With Trumps

PC Plots and Trumps1
One way to give direction and focus to individual plots is to mark them with Trumps. At any point in the setup or conflict phase of your current running plot, you may lay down a Trump, and explain to what object, idea, goal, or person you wish to apply it; this Trump is now called the Guiding Trump for that plot. Apart from this explanation, however, you may not Interpret the card. This is the only time that you may ever play a Trump without Interpretation. Your entire plot will now develop with this Trump as a guiding principle, to be taken seriously by every player involved (normally all of them, through GMCs). If non-Acting players Trump, to take control of a scene or a Resolution, they must make reference to the Guiding Trump in their Interpretations. When an acting player Trumps indirectly, i.e. instead of taking Concessions, he must again Interpret with reference to the Guiding Trump. When an acting player Trumps directly, i.e. to do magic as a fairly deliberate act on the part of the PC, she does not necessarily need to refer this to the Guiding Trump; the point is that the PCs are not necessarily aware of this Guiding principle. However, the dominant PC for the plot may, depending on circumstances, be aware of this principle; if so, there is no harm in his relating magical actions to the Guiding Trump, and it may be strongly encouraged.

A single Trump may only be Guiding one thing at a time. Once a given Trump is active as a Guide in one plot, it may not be used so in another until the first plot is resolved. Thus it is not unlikely that four or five Trumps may simultaneously be marking different things. As a rule of thumb, it is best not to mark the same thing with two different Trumps in different plots, but this is not absolute; if this does happen, it pretty much ensures that two plots are going to link up very closely, perhaps putting the dominant PCs into strong conflict.

Once a big plot is resolved, the Trump returns to the deck, and is free to be used as a Guide for a new plot. At this point, the dominant player of the plot, i.e. the one who laid down the Trump in the first place, presents a suggestion about a reward: usually a skill increase, but there are other possibilities. The rest of the players must approve this, by brief discussion and vote. As a rule, the player should get what she asks for, but sometimes the group will see that there is a better, more satisfying option, in the sense of one that fits the logic of the plot more smoothly. If this happens, the player should consider carefully whether this is acceptable, perhaps taking extra time to think about it. If the player still disagrees, the GM should simply make a ruling. The point is not an issue of power: one skill increase is more or less equivalent to another, although certainly a player who expects an increase in Shooting People as a reward for a long seduction plot ought to be overruled. But sometimes one becomes so closely involved with a plot that one cannot see the forest for the trees, and may miss some obvious and effective reward that the others can see from their relatively dispassionate stance.

Trumps in the Long Term
The meaning of a Trump becomes permanently tinged with whatever it is affixed to as a Guiding Trump, and with the whole circumstances of the plot in question. Over the course of a lengthy campaign, most or all of the Trumps will come to have specific connotations and associations for the group. These connotations become part of the ordinary meaning of the Trump within this campaign. Thus if The Chariot were used to guide a politician’s rise to a Ministry, the Trump will for ever more have a somewhat political connotation; furthermore, if the politician achieved his success through backdoor politics and chicanery, The Chariot is also tainted by this connection.

In future Trump plays, of whatever kind, players may draw upon these associations just as they may draw upon stock interpretations. Given the above example, suppose we now have a scene in which one character wants to gain control of some faction within an occult society. Another player decides to Trump some scene of this, using the Chariot, and Interpreting it in light of the politician’s story. This parallelism strongly encourages the character to use somewhat underhanded means to achieve his goal.

This same effect applies, though to a lesser degree, to every use of any Trump.

Ideally, in a very long campaign, all the Trumps come to have many intertwined but distinctive meanings and stories associated with them. In effect, every time a Trump influences the world, that provides the players with data about what the Trump “really means.” The more this goes on, the more data is provided, and the more subtly and “accurately” the players can manipulate their meanings. In a sense, the little manuals provided with Tarot decks should be read as the “exoteric” meanings of the cards, where the players are trying to discover, through actual use, their “esoteric” meanings.2

Assumption
This is entirely optional, but was a fundamental concept for me in developing this game in the first place. Note that it blurs the analogy between player and PC to a potentially dangerous degree, on which see below.

If you’ve read Tim Powers’s Last Call, you know what I’m talking about; Unknown Armies is a less interesting variant. The idea is that a given person can become the leading representative of an archetype (a Trump) by obeying the rules implicit in that card. This could be done in Shadows in the Fog by laying down a Trump as a Guide, but applying it to one’s own character. All magic performed by that character should be harmonically related to the Guide. At each major stage of the progression, i.e. after the climax of each of that PC’s plots, the other players should decide to what degree the PC has or has not fulfilled the archetype, and award relevant skills. It seems possible here that a PC who is quite far along the road may have skills above Brilliant, if that seems appropriate to the group; just be sure that the total package is in a sense balanced, i.e. that all the skills which seem relevant to the archetype progress relatively evenly. Unless a PC really breaks the archetype strongly, the player should be allowed to re-play the Guiding Trump immediately; no other player should try to Assume that Trump, if at all possible. The ultimate effect of Assumption should be left to the group to figure out, through play; setting it deterministically misses the point.

Note that some Assumptions may function as controls, rather than lifestyles, if you will. For example, to Assume the Tower probably does not mean becoming a walking disaster for yourself and others. Rather, it might mean having catastrophic powers, powers which cannot be used except to cause disaster. How exactly one would go about Assuming such a thing is a matter for creative discovery.

Note that in a game-world where Assumption is possible, the cards have an in-game meaning that may diverge significantly from any traditional reading. There may be a special set of “correct cards” actually existing in the game-world which greatly improve the possibility of Assumption.3 Most importantly, there may be other people out there trying to Assume cards, some of whom may be quite far along the way. In fact, they may already have succeeded! When a PC starts the process of trying to Assume a card, everyone else similarly interested is immediately challenged, and those very knowledgeable about such things (those quite advanced, usually) will detect the challenge.

I said at the top of this that Assumption blurs the line between player and PC greatly. For me personally, this was precisely the point, but I don’t think Shadows in the Fog has to be limited to this Premise — and yes, I mean this in a rather strange version of what I think is Ron’s sense.

The idea, for me, was that the players were bending the universe around them through card play. Over time, they would begin to realize that the more effectively and gracefully they did this, the more successful they were. And then it would start to become clear: the characters were actually doing this. In effect, magic in this particular game-world was the power to shift toward Author/Director Stance in the universe. So the more knowledgeable and smooth you got about faking it, asserting reality, and doing magic, the more your character was in fact determining the universe by willing it so. And as he progressed toward Assuming a card, your character would gain more and more power to do this within the confines of that card.

So there you have it: the underlying notion for Shadows in the Fog. But I really don’t think you have to do it this way; it’s just something I think is pretty cool. From a meta-perspective, it’s a weird (though hardly entirely original) shift for RPGs: instead of the players becoming more like their characters, something that scares the bejeezus out of lots of people (the old idea of turning into a sword-slinging nut job because your character is a fighter or whatever), the characters become increasingly like RPG players. It’s also a sort of reverse of a traditional Sim concept, that ideally no meta-mechanics should be necessary because the “dream” is seamless; here you have the opposite, where the characters are the ones empowered to use meta-mechanics, to introduce cracks in the “dream.” I have no idea how to read this in straight GNS terms, but it seems like fun to me.

Notes
1. This derives partly from Piers Brown’s suggestions, which as it turns out dovetail well with the way I have actually run a version of this game in the past.

2. I use the terms “exoteric” and “esoteric” in the sense usually employed by Victorian occultists. The exoteric meaning of something is more or less what can be learned from reading books and studying with the wrong sorts of people (i.e. people other than Our Group). The esoteric meaning is that Real Truth which is revealed to initiates of Our Group.

3. I had a special set of cards which used images by William Blake for this purpose (not at all the same as Ed Buryn’s deck). They had odd names (The Moon became The Long Night, for example) and creepy imagery. Volume 3 of Shadows in the Fog will include an explanation of this deck and how I used it. An important point here is that these cards actually existed in the game-world, and had a complex history of invention and dispersal; acquiring these cards, and figuring out who had them (and how they'd gotten them) became a significant plot issue.

Bravo.

I especially like the idea of Assuming the Trump. The idea that a character may be on the edge of transcending himself (or herself) is a wonderful thing to add to the atmosphere. And it seems quite easy to do, and yes, more fluidly done than in Unknown Armies (which I am a big fan of, by the way.)

The idea of a Trump guiding subplots is another wonderful idea.

Of course, any samples of play so that we can see this in action would be most welcome.

Oh, er, yes. Samples of play. Hmm. At this point, I'd either have to make them up, or re-imagine things I did in the past using the new system.

What are you looking for? I mean, what is it that would actually help?

Incidentally, does anyone out there think this Session Structure thing is going to work, or not work, and have reasons for it? This is something I'm still working on in the abstract, since the game actually isn't finished quite enough for a playtest. Besides, I don't at the moment have a gaming group around that's likely to give this sort of thing the sort of "college try" that it needs.

So... any comments?

Hey Clehrich,

Real cool stuff here!

First a few content related points:

The "rewards" section doesn't seem to give enough guidance about keeping them in line with the very much 'story structure' intent of the game.

Is there a planned 'notation mechanism' for 'Trump Tinge?' With so many cards to play and in play, it may difficult to keep track of all the associations (which are a cool part of the game).

I think you should make Assumption not optional; it's a great idea. (It really supports the 'Tinge' idea.) I'd suggest making 'Trump attachment' the core feature of the game and have participants 'attach' trumps to any 'recognized' game entities, specific plots, characters, stages, or et cetera.

Who controls each of the plots? Who keeps the secrets?

You gave descriptions for setup, conflict, and climax stages, but not the resolution stage. There isn't a really clear difference between Exposition and Background (expect a vague implication that one is for the characters and the other only for the players). Can you have Group Plots with fragments of the group? (Like Holmes and Watson go do this while Jekyll and Rains go do that and Lestrade and Freud don't do anything.)

Now for some suggestions, take 'em or leave 'em; I'm not going to tell you how to design. ;)

Intensity and Stages might be better as more important than arcs when it comes to plots. I'd suggest making plots like a set-theory grouping that implies rough 'endings.' You assign a plot to an 'overseer,' game elements to that plot (useable in other plots too), and then the plot gets 'picked up' whenever a good scene can be 'Staged' for it. The Stages always run in order based on 'intensity;' Stages can be repeated so long as they don't 'backpedal' (going from a climactic scene 'backwards' to a conflicting scene). Climactic scenes build to a 'crescendo' which solves the original conflict, then follows the Resolution scenes (which can double as introductions to other 'arcs').

This would make having "something [come] to a head" easier than following a script or such. You wouldn't necessarily know how a plot will turn out or which one will be used to make the next scene, but the rising tension level would be well supported. You might even consider setting up rewards for clever arrangement of the order of scenes that aren't related (everything concluding 'just right').

I like what I've seen so far; keep up the good work!

Fang Langford

Fang Langford wrote: The "rewards" section doesn't seem to give enough guidance about keeping them in line with the very much 'story structure' intent of the game.

Is there a planned 'notation mechanism' for 'Trump Tinge?' With so many cards to play and in play, it may difficult to keep track of all the associations (which are a cool part of the game).

I think you should make Assumption not optional; it's a great idea. (It really supports the 'Tinge' idea.) I'd suggest making 'Trump attachment' the core feature of the game and have participants 'attach' trumps to any 'recognized' game entities, specific plots, characters, stages, or et cetera.

Who controls each of the plots? Who keeps the secrets?

You gave descriptions for setup, conflict, and climax stages, but not the resolution stage. There isn't a really clear difference between Exposition and Background (expect a vague implication that one is for the characters and the other only for the players). Can you have Group Plots with fragments of the group? (Like Holmes and Watson go do this while Jekyll and Rains go do that and Lestrade and Freud don't do anything.)

Intensity and Stages might be better as more important than arcs when it comes to plots. I'd suggest making plots like a set-theory grouping that implies rough 'endings.' You assign a plot to an 'overseer,' game elements to that plot (useable in other plots too), and then the plot gets 'picked up' whenever a good scene can be 'Staged' for it. The Stages always run in order based on 'intensity;' Stages can be repeated so long as they don't 'backpedal' (going from a climactic scene 'backwards' to a conflicting scene). Climactic scenes build to a 'crescendo' which solves the original conflict, then follows the Resolution scenes (which can double as introductions to other 'arcs').

This would make having "something [come] to a head" easier than following a script or such. You wouldn't necessarily know how a plot will turn out or which one will be used to make the next scene, but the rising tension level would be well supported. You might even consider setting up rewards for clever arrangement of the order of scenes that aren't related (everything concluding 'just right').

I like what I've seen so far; keep up the good work!

A question about terminology:

As I write up answers to questions, and revise and revise the Session Structure discussion, I'm finding that there are really two essential categories that do not have terms. I think giving them clear, concise terms will greatly assist application.

The categories are:

1. An arc / plot / stage & intensity at the Session level. So, for example, Lestrade's story this week has such an arc (etc.), as does Jekyll's.

This is distinct from

2. An arc / plot / stage & intensity at the multi-Session level. So, for example, Lestrade's current story spends 3 sessions in setup, 4 in conflict, and 2 in climax (randomly chosen numbers, please!).

So in the first case we are talking about Lestrade's XXX, and in the second about Lestrade's YYY.

Ideas? I want something clear, precise, and relatively quick, not something that needs a lengthy definition of its own. Just a shorthand, useful once the basic concepts are already clear.

A question about NPC's held by the non-spotlight-owning players: given the fluid nature of scene generation, won't it be hard to fit established NPC's into the setting without a lot of contrivance? Unless you put them in some sort of box I guess. Or, how do you define suitable characters on the fly? What about the risk that a player might "get into" an NPC characterrather than the original character?

Fang wrote:

Intensity and Stages might be better as more important than arcs when it comes to plots. I'd suggest making plots like a set-theory grouping that implies rough 'endings.' You assign a plot to an 'overseer,' game elements to that plot (useable in other plots too), and then the plot gets 'picked up' whenever a good scene can be 'Staged' for it. The Stages always run in order based on 'intensity;' Stages can be repeated so long as they don't 'backpedal' (going from a climactic scene 'backwards' to a conflicting scene). Climactic scenes build to a 'crescendo' which solves the original conflict, then follows the Resolution scenes (which can double as introductions to other 'arcs').

contracycle wrote: A question about NPC's held by the non-spotlight-owning players: given the fluid nature of scene generation, won't it be hard to fit established NPC's into the setting without a lot of contrivance? Unless you put them in some sort of box I guess. Or, how do you define suitable characters on the fly? What about the risk that a player might "get into" an NPC characterrather than the original character?

Ideas? I want something clear, precise, and relatively quick, not something that needs a lengthy definition of its own. Just a shorthand, useful once the basic concepts are already clear.

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: The "rewards" section doesn't seem to give enough guidance about keeping them in line with the very much 'story structure' intent of the game.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? Which rewards are you referring to, for example, and what sort of guidance would be helpful?

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: Is there a planned 'notation mechanism' for 'Trump Tinge?' With so many cards to play and in play, it may difficult to keep track of all the associations (which are a cool part of the game).

Good question...Any suggestions here?

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: I think you should make Assumption not optional; it's a great idea. (It really supports the 'Tinge' idea.) I'd suggest making 'Trump attachment' the core feature of the game and have participants 'attach' trumps to any 'recognized' game entities, specific plots, characters, stages, or et cetera.

For me, determining that Assumption is a general principle of the game narrows the range of possibilities. In particular, I'm afraid that it would imply that Assuming is the point of the game, rather than one sort of activity that can go on. In addition, it does require that the Tarot cards have a legitimate and important position in Occult London, which I think is hardly necessary. Furthermore, I am a bit concerned about the character-player blur, although it doesn't look like my readers have this concern.

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: Who controls each of the plots? Who keeps the secrets?

I think this is something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: You gave descriptions for setup, conflict, and climax stages, but not the resolution stage. There isn't a really clear difference between Exposition and Background (expect a vague implication that one is for the characters and the other only for the players). Can you have Group Plots with fragments of the group? (Like Holmes and Watson go do this while Jekyll and Rains go do that and Lestrade and Freud don't do anything.)

As to resolution, my conception here is that one resolves a given session-plot by going to the next session; as to the overarching plots, a lot of this is handled by things like skill advancement and the search for a new plot in the next setup. I'm leery of heavy resolution, in some ways, because my experience is that it tends to defuse interest.

clehrich wrote: Exposition and Background needn't be all that clearly differentiated, in my opinion. I conceive of the former as a way for the players to do a classic Sim sort of thing -- Explore the Setting -- without the game being primarily Sim-oriented. I conceive of Background as a way to give additional shape and drive to running stories, i.e. a GM-situated Narrative push (focused on the shape of the story, and encouraging the premise to be foreground-ed). But I think this is a pretty fluid distinction.

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: Intensity and Stages might be better as more important than arcs when it comes to plots. I'd suggest making plots like a set-theory grouping that implies rough 'endings.' You assign a plot to an 'overseer,' game elements to that plot (useable in other plots too), and then the plot gets 'picked up' whenever a good scene can be 'Staged' for it. The Stages always run in order based on 'intensity;' Stages can be repeated so long as they don't 'backpedal' (going from a climactic scene 'backwards' to a conflicting scene). Climactic scenes build to a 'crescendo' which solves the original conflict, then follows the Resolution scenes (which can double as introductions to other 'arcs').

Terminologically, I'll have to think about it. More broadly, I think we're on the same page, except that I'd like to make sure that each plot gets some screen time each session; I'm not sure whether you are saying this or not, but I thought I'd mention it.

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote: Intensity and Stages might be better as more important than arcs when it comes to plots. I'd suggest making plots like a set-theory grouping that implies rough 'endings.' You assign a plot to an 'overseer,' game elements to that plot (useable in other plots too), and then the plot gets 'picked up' whenever a good scene can be 'Staged' for it. The Stages always run in order based on 'intensity;' Stages can be repeated so long as they don't 'backpedal' (going from a climactic scene 'backwards' to a conflicting scene). Climactic scenes build to a 'crescendo' which solves the original conflict, then follows the Resolution scenes (which can double as introductions to other 'arcs').

In 'picking up', do you mean saying "now we will do a scene for plot X", or, "I am claiming this happening-right-now scene as contributing to and escalating plot X"?

Fang, you're what an old pal of mine would call a weird potato -- that's a good thing, by the way. I read your post, and when I got to the thing about index cards in a tableau, I thought, "No, he's missing the point." When I got to the part about Illuminati, I thought, "Okay, he's a nutball." Then I went and did the dishes, and now I'm not so sure.

Help me think this through, okay? (You too, Spooky, Piers, and anyone lurking -- this is all weird to me.)

Materials

You should have a big stack of 3x5 cards, preferably in two colors; three wouldn’t hurt. When you write on them, please write clearly: neatness counts. Everybody also needs a penny or two.

Part 1: GMCs

There are a lot of different kinds of GMCs, of course, but the easy ones are the ones you already want to pay attention to: criminal masterminds (Fu Manchu), famous fictional characters you're inserting (Holmes), famous people (Sir Richard F. Burton), and so on. The most important, though, are really the "bit parts," the walk-ons. The reason for this is that the GM is going to play most of the big guns. In traditionally-structured campaigns (where there is a "designated GM"), this is how the GM gets a lot of her play-fun, after all -- she gets to play these extraordinary gentlemen (to coin a phrase). But the "bit parts" will be played, almost always, by other players. So each one needs a little write-up.

Now what you do, for every stock character, is write him or her up on a 3x5 card. For the stereotypical characters, just print a stock "type" at the top in big letters; if you have a nice, short Holmesian description to add, do so. Anyone playing one of these stock characters can add a few words if it seems helpful at the time. Eventually you will have a clear "type" defined.

For regular GMCs, i.e. ones who may recur as particular people but may be played by people other than the GM, repeat the procedure, but give a name as well as the stock type and the description. On the back, write the name of each player who runs this GMC.

For PCs, just write your name and your Holmes description (the one for public consumption).

Now here's the trick: every time someone trumps to take over a GMC, you write the player's name as usual, but on the front you also write the numeral of the Trump used. If it's a stock character, you still write the Trump on there: you are creating associations between particular Trumps and particular types of people.

When a GMC is "in play" in a session, the card should lie face-up on the table in front of the current player. That way everybody can see who's in play, and also what Trumps are associated with those people (if any).

Part 2: Arcs

First, a bit of terminology (with assistance from Walt). When we’re talking about a story-arc within a given play session, it’s an Episode; when we mean a long-term affair, it’s a Plot. Every Episode and Plot goes setup - conflict - climax; resolution is an end, as in no more to be said.

Every Plot gets three cards: Setup, Conflict, and Climax. Ideally, the Plot cards should not be the same color as the GMC cards, just to keep things clear. On the back, write your name and the name of the stage (setup, etc.). Everybody always has three of these things going. The GM may have more, depending, but at a minimum she has the Group Plot cards. When anybody starts a new Setup card, she should write on the front a brief but clear note about what the point is. This gives some direction as things go along, but should not be taken as absolutely binding.

These three cards are laid in front of the owning player at the start of play, and a penny is placed on the Setup card. This is a way of keeping track of the Episode Stages. Every time an Episode Stage is complete, in whatever circumstances, the penny moves along one Stage. Thus, the first time Fred’s Plot gets screen-time, that is the Episode Setup; once the Setup is complete, the penny moves along to Conflict.

As the group plays along, these cards may change hands. The identity on the back doesn’t change - - it’s still Dave’s plot - - but Dave may not currently be involved directly. The way it works is through Links. When you are playing a character, including a GMC, you should keep an eye out for legitimate and deep connections to other Plots than the one you’re in now. Bear in mind the Stage as well. Don’t just link because there is a character overlap, or a vague idea; if you claim a Link, you’re saying you think the group should have multiple Episode Stages going at once. And if you Trump that Link (see below), you’re saying that you know how to make it happen in a specific Trump framework.

Whenever someone playing any character claims a Link to an open Plot card (to where the penny is), she is in effect bidding 0 to have them run simultaneously. If she wants to Trump, she is willing to run this double-header. If 0 was bid and the controlling player wishes to bid it back, he may do so by paying for the privilege with an ordinary card. If any other player (or the GM) wishes to get in on the action, however, or the original bidder wants to beat the controlling player’s card, she must Trump. The first Trump, at whatever point, wins, unless the controlling player chooses to re-Trump, in which case he wins. If the controlling player wins, the Link is not forged, and the Stages run independently. If the Link is forged, the card of the character who made the Link is placed on the Plot card as well.

When a Linked Stage is complete, the card reverts to its owner, and the penny moves along. Once a Stage has been Linked, it may not be re-Linked, although a third Stage may be added in to the mix (providing a real train-wreck o’ fun).

Part 3: Trumps

Plots may be Marked by the dominant player, i.e. the one whose name appears on the back. This is a way of indicating that the Plot in question now has a shape consistent with the Trump in question. You should interpret as usual, but only in a very general sense (you'd like to be better at X, or acquire Y, or whatever, and that fits the Trump). These Marking Trumps do not revert to the pack at the end of the session, but stay with the Plot; furthermore, they move along with the penny. Every Trump played on the card must take into account the Marking Trump, as a harmonic. Using the same Trump, however, can be interpreted as being rather more effective (this isn’t mechanical, just a “feel” thing).

Every other time a Trump is played, it must be interpreted, and then laid down on the appropriate card. As soon as you have a minute, you should also write a few words of description of what the interpretation was, and indicate the Trump in question.

Links should also be marked on Plot cards, at the correct Stage, along with an indication of the Trump interpretation, if any.

You should also have 22 index cards (of a third color, ideally), one for each Trump. Every time a Trump is used, the same information that goes on the Plot or Character card also goes onto the Trump card. These cards should be out and available at all times, for everyone’s reference. They provide a continuous and expanding file of everything a given Trump has been used for.

Notes

This seems rather clunky to me, and potentially tedious. Sort of like Cards & Catalogs or something. I’m sure there’s a more elegant way to do it.

What I have in mind here is that the whole “screen-time” issue becomes everybody’s job. Furthermore every Plot and significant character rapidly becomes “tinged” with a given Trump. Thus if someone starts thinking about Assumption, he’s got a good record of where he already stands: if the same Trump keeps coming up, that’s a good indicator. In addition, that business of using the Marking Trump for extra effect will tend to attract that Trump like a magnet, promoting the Assumption process.

What do you all think?

clehrich wrote: Fang, you're what an old pal of mine would call a weird potato

clehrich wrote: Materials

You should have a big stack of 3x5 cards, preferably in two colors; three wouldn't hurt. When you write on them, please write clearly: neatness counts. Everybody also needs a penny or two.

clehrich wrote: Part 1: GMCs

...For regular GMCs, i.e. ones who may recur as particular people but may be played by people other than the GM, repeat the procedure, but give a name as well as the stock type and the description. On the back, write the name of each player who runs this GMC.

clehrich wrote: Part 2: Arcs

...Every Plot gets three cards: Setup, Conflict, and Climax. Ideally, the Plot cards should not be the same color as the GMC cards, just to keep things clear. On the back, write your name and the name of the stage (setup, etc.). Everybody always has three of these things going. The GM may have more, depending, but at a minimum she has the Group Plot cards. When anybody starts a new Setup card, she should write on the front a brief but clear note about what the point is. This gives some direction as things go along, but should not be taken as absolutely binding.

clehrich wrote: These three cards are laid in front of the owning player at the start of play, and a penny is placed on the Setup card. This is a way of keeping track of the Episode Stages. Every time an Episode Stage is complete, in whatever circumstances, the penny moves along one Stage. Thus, the first time Fred's Plot gets screen-time, that is the Episode Setup; once the Setup is complete, the penny moves along to Conflict.

clehrich wrote: As the group plays along, these cards may change hands. The identity on the back doesn't change - - it's still Dave's plot - - but Dave may not currently be involved directly. The way it works is through Links. When you are playing a character, including a GMC, you should keep an eye out for legitimate and deep connections to other Plots than the one you're in now. Bear in mind the Stage as well. Don't just link because there is a character overlap, or a vague idea; if you claim a Link, you're saying you think the group should have multiple Episode Stages going at once. And if you Trump that Link (see below), you're saying that you know how to make it happen in a specific Trump framework.

clehrich wrote: Whenever someone playing any character claims a Link to an open Plot card (to where the penny is), she is in effect bidding 0 to have them run simultaneously. If she wants to Trump, she is willing to run this double-header. If 0 was bid and the controlling player wishes to bid it back, he may do so by paying for the privilege with an ordinary card. If any other player (or the GM) wishes to get in on the action, however, or the original bidder wants to beat the controlling player's card, she must Trump. The first Trump, at whatever point, wins, unless the controlling player chooses to re-Trump, in which case he wins. If the controlling player wins, the Link is not forged, and the Stages run independently. If the Link is forged, the card of the character who made the Link is placed on the Plot card as well.

clehrich wrote: When a Linked Stage is complete, the card reverts to its owner, and the penny moves along. Once a Stage has been Linked, it may not be re-Linked, although a third Stage may be added in to the mix (providing a real train-wreck o' fun).

clehrich wrote: Part 3: Trumps

...Every other time a Trump is played, it must be interpreted, and then laid down on the appropriate card. As soon as you have a minute, you should also write a few words of description of what the interpretation was, and indicate the Trump in question.

clehrich wrote: Links should also be marked on Plot cards, at the correct Stage, along with an indication of the Trump interpretation, if any.

clehrich wrote: You should also have 22 index cards (of a third color, ideally), one for each Trump. Every time a Trump is used, the same information that goes on the Plot or Character card also goes onto the Trump card. These cards should be out and available at all times, for everyone's reference. They provide a continuous and expanding file of everything a given Trump has been used for.

clehrich wrote: Notes

This seems rather clunky to me, and potentially tedious. Sort of like Cards & Catalogs or something. I'm sure there's a more elegant way to do it.

What I have in mind here is that the whole "screen-time" issue becomes everybody's job. Furthermore every Plot and significant character rapidly becomes "tinged" with a given Trump. Thus if someone starts thinking about Assumption, he's got a good record of where he already stands: if the same Trump keeps coming up, that's a good indicator. In addition, that business of using the Marking Trump for extra effect will tend to attract that Trump like a magnet, promoting the Assumption process.

What do you all think?

I think it sounds good. As long as physical recordkeeping is for good purpose, it can itself spur play. I can see all the plot cards making for wonderfully intertwined plots, for example. Deserves to at least be playtested to see what happens with it.


On the subject of the Assumption...


SPOLIER ALERT


In Over the Edge, this is one of the meta-plots that's proposed. First, the characters just have odd things occur to them like meeting people who seem to know them, but they don't recognize. Things get weirder and weirder lke that. At some point, the characters are supposed to run into a D&D character who refers to things in terms of levels and hit points. Then maybe they meet one of their characters from another game. Then at some point the characters are supposed to find a copy of the OTE rulebook. At some point they are supposed to, like the characters of Heinlein's Number of the Beast, realize that they are characters in an RPG. And then what?

END SPOILERS

But that's my point. And then what do the characters do once they realize that they're characters? Doesn't this kinda end the game, like it ends Number of the Beast (the characters go off to fight against some group called the Timelords, hehe). Sure, this asks some metaphysical questions that are interesting to ponder. But does it kill the game? Is it fun to actually play? I've never got to that point, myself.

Anyone actually gotten to this place in an RPG? Can you relate what it was like?

Mike

I really like Fangs idea about structuring the plot in some visible, connected format. I've thought about literal maps before, but the INWO analogy makes sense. Finding some sort of mechanical way to express story, such that even those who are not perticulalrly interested in story per se, or who would prefer to approach it only from an OOC appreciation, can do so. I want to exploit that sort of thing essentially for sim purposes, as a kinda "scene generator" or similar.

Could an explicit "tension meter" be built? Can a plot be "mapped" and tokens moved on that map? Getting a bit off topic I fear, but I just wanted to endorse the idea of the explicit layout in some form.

I want to start by addressing Mike's comments about Assumption. My version, in Shadows, doesn't have a punch-line. To recap, Mike wondered, once you've Assumed, game over, right? Well, in Shadows as I see it, yes and no.

If you really Become the card, yes, game over. You're not a person any more. You have no control over your own self, but are at the whim and will of the universe (plus the bending effects caused by magicians). You're just a force of nature, as it were. NPC time. In one game I ran, Jack the Ripper was in fact this sort of being, a Trump (XV: The Beast).¹ Was he a person before? I don't know; never figured it out. But the Power that is in that card manifested (for a lot of complicated reasons) in the East End as a vicious killer. If there was a real, physical person in there, he was long since not in control of his actions. He just enacted The Beast. If you caught him and talked to him, you'd just say he was totally crazy, delusional, with illusions of grandeur (read: very severe schizophrenic). But the truth was that he was The Beast.

If you Assume the role a whole lot, you're basically an addict with a really vicious dependency. You NEED to be that role. Unfortunately, lots of other people want it, too, whether they know it or not. The Trumps that are open to challenge in any given universe are probably limited, because some roles have a really powerful current avatar --- who will soon be entirely absorbed and throw the whole thing open again (see above). But if you're vying to Assume the Emperor, well, so are a lot of people. The Prince of Wales, for one, though he doesn't know it. And if you go really far down that path, my friend, you're liable to end up trying to assassinate the Prince of Wales. On the other hand, of course, you're also extremely likely to succeed. Is it any wonder that the Fenians keep trying to do stuff like this? The more you succeed at eliminating competition, the more you succeed at Assuming the Trump, and so the more you will succeed at eliminating competition (and so on). So if you're an Irish radical, striving to Assume the Emperor will help you bump off the royals and get what you want (control over at least some aspects of English sovereignty). And of course, if you really pull it off, you're going to find yourself trying to crush those stupid Irish who keep challenging what is now YOUR role.

Beginning to get the picture? This isn't nice, it isn't happy, and it's kind of warped. It's not sick for the sake of sick, where (as in Unknown Armies) you have to be a nutball to get involved in the first place. No, this is insidious. Try it --- it's just a little. You can give it up any time you want. There. Didn't that feel good? Didn't you get a little power? Well hell, it's a long way to Assumption and all that. Have a little more.

In all this talk about mechanics, I hope nobody will lose sight of what for me is #1 in this game: atmosphere. That's color, and characters, and plots, and everything. Basically it's a lot of fog, and a lot of pain, and a lot of really really grimy things. In real life that stuff is just absurd, meaningless, intractable; we make up stories to tell ourselves that it's not meaningless, that there must be some reason for it all. And in my own spin on the Shadows universe (which I'm not forcing), what is created out of that need for order is the Trumps. And then people start wanting to really impose order, through those channels --- that's magic. Unfortunately, it's all basically wrong: the universe is uncaring, meaningless, and brutal, and none of what you're doing now is really going to change that.

To put it very succinctly. You've heard of Jack the Ripper, right? And you know he was never caught, right? Okay, so ask yourself: why don't you know offhand the names of his five victims? What kind of sick, twisted world is this, that we all have heard of the murderer, but nobody gives a damn about the murdered? Anybody out there know the names of Zodiac's victims? Or Bundy's? Or Dahmer's?

So as I think about the whole Assumption thing, I need to be keeping in mind that Victorian England was a place that, even more than our own society, needed to imagine that there was a consistent, rational, intelligible order to things. So they made up order where it didn't exist, and swept the chaos under the rug. Assumption is capitalizing on the myth of order, but in the process it causes chaos.

Hope that helps. :)

1. Traditionally XV is The Devil, but this was the weird William Blake cards, and the image was his "Great Red Dragon."

Hmm. A lot of really interesting ideas here, but frankly I think it's going a bit overboard. What's getting lost in this explicit tabletop methodology, is the clear analogy of player to character. I see Shadows in the Fog as being fairly immersion-heavy, leading towards that warped reversal: the characters start to become increasingly like the players are.

When I get a chance (probably late tonight), I'm going to walk through all of Fang's & contracycle's suggestions, and try to break them down into dicsrete units. I think a distinction can be made, you see, between the basic How To Play stuff and a series of additional fun mechanics and structures, which can be more or less added on as a group chooses. The problems with such things, as a rule, are numerous:

1. You may imply a "leveling-up" process, where X rules are the core, then Y rules are for pretty serious gamers, and Z rules are the real thing. We don't want that here, I think.

2. You may imply that the add-ons are "frills," things that really don't do much but are kind of cool to kick around. I see these add-ons as having radical effects on game-play, not being "a little more peanuts in my chocolate."

Basically I take my tip from my conception of Assumption in the context of Shadows. It's not necessary for this to exist in the universe. Even if it does, it really may not be a particularly desirable thing for anyone actually to do. [see previous post on Assumption]

I would like these various add-on systems to have similar in-game realities and meanings. What I think makes Assumption attractive is that it's a character thing that sounds a lot like extremist role-playing, but with seemingly nifty rewards, which is the point. If I'm going to add a whole lot of special things about linking up multiple cards, or swapping roles around by bidding, or whatever, they need not only to be mechanically elegant, but to have some meaning, some purpose, some analogue, within the universe.

I could really see a kind of stack of these in Volume 3, with some explicit commentaries about what's going to happen if you use them, and why this is potentially good and bad. If the universe includes Tarot cards and Assumption, that's a different universe. What sort? What will be emphasized? Similarly, if the universe is such that people's lives are hopelessly intertwined, that every time they turn around they bump into the same five guys (because you keep Linking the plots), that's also a different universe. It's not any less occult --- it's just that the emphasis is different. And if you combine that with Assumption, you're going to start implying that there are really only so many actual people out there --- that we're all already Assumed avatars but don't know it, and that thus Assumption is not acquiring anything, but rather discovering something that's already true about you. Who are you, really?

But if this is required, then that's the punch-line. Ta-da! No need to play the game. I say let's keep it open. Consider adding one of these things, or maybe two. See what happens. You're determining a Premise with a mechanic built to support it. But you do not need to do this in order to make the game worth playing, because all of these are specific variants on the central premise: the slide from being Englishmen in London into being Occultists in Shadow-London, and the fact that this is largely caused by you being aware of and actively opposed to such occultists -- you have seen the enemy, and it is what you will be soon, and if you try to prevent that from happening you will definitely make it happen.

Anyway, I'll work on some specific responses.

Hmm. That seems to have affected discussion sort of like Jacky affected those five ... ugh. Vile analogy. Forget that. You're probably all just waiting with bated breath for my responses to your suggestions, so here goes. Sorry it's rather long, but I have to deal with three posts, one of them very detailed.

Fang Langford wrote: That may be a bit confusing, constantly flipping cards. How would 'titling the cards' be confusing; for plot cards "Jack the Ripper Turns Out to be a Vampyre!" by Fang Langford and then the regular information, for GMC cards, how about Jack the Ripper as portrayed by Fang Langford?

I wrote: ...Every Plot gets three cards: Setup, Conflict, and Climax. Ideally, the Plot cards should not be the same color as the GMC cards, just to keep things clear. On the back, write your name and the name of the stage (setup, etc.). Everybody always has three of these things going. The GM may have more, depending, but at a minimum she has the Group Plot cards. When anybody starts a new Setup card, she should write on the front a brief but clear note about what the point is. This gives some direction as things go along, but should not be taken as absolutely binding.

I think "Every Plot gets three cards: Setup, Conflict, and Climax," is a bad idea; the arcs alone should clearly have more than three scenes. (Much less other plots - or am I misunderstanding?) I think you should be able to play as many scenes as necessary for that plot to 'make the jump' to the next Stage.

Fang wrote: I'd suggest bagging the pennies and only revealing past or present Stages. (Let the future remain a mystery....) Trouble tracking = overlapping; top card is present, undercard reveals (the past) only as much as GMCs in play might know (good mnemonic).

Fang wrote: Like the Climax may be "Jack is not a rabid Vampyre, he has a musket ball in his brain pan; remove it and end the Ripper, not Jack." This kind of surprise will make for an interesting 'turn over.' Such could be 'forced' by story movement, making for an interesting mystery. (Can I force you to reveal your Climax?)

Fang wrote: Why does it seem necessary to move these [plot cards] around? It sounds like it'll only invite confusion. If it's still "Dave's plot" and he's only involved indirectly, it sounds like he's the 'gamemaster' for it. Since he won't have any 'links' in play, this will be obvious even if the cards remain before him.

Fang wrote: Why not use 'bit player' cards for this bidding? Remember, if you win, you must play all those 'bit players!'

I wrote: Links should also be marked on Plot cards, at the correct Stage, along with an indication of the Trump interpretation, if any.

Could be confusing; I'll have to think about it.

Fang wrote: Nah, package these with the game (as a .pdf, Trumps could printed on and cut from cardstock).

Fang wrote: Throw in a conflict resolution system (just to keep the 'shared conception' of the game on track) that gives 'muscle' to the player with the most 'bit players' bid in the Stage regardless of whether such work for his goals, or against.

Fang wrote: Perhaps you could incorporate "Stage" as in 'stagecraft' into your terminology. The theatre was not unpopular and burlesque came into its own. Instead of Episodes and Plots, how about calling them Scenes and Acts? Then the whole terminology of 'Stages' can be pulled in as 'Productions' with 'Directors,' 'Actors,' and 'Bit Players.' You could call Expositions things like Debuts or Introductions. And et cetera.

Fang wrote: Heck, I might go as far as suggesting merging pregenerated GMCs with the trumps. Used one way, they are a trump; used another they are GMC cards. (With .pdf format, the consumer can print out a new set for every 'play.') If you want to tailor to form, have 56 archetype 'bit player' card with 22 major arcana Trump GMCs would make a tarot. (But I don't suggest that - too many people are trying to make 'tarot games;' why not be original?) Hey, most of the 'bit players' are pretty predictable, why not 'card them?' A little notespace on each makes them great one-use props and differentiates them from plot cards (plackards?).

Mike Holmes wrote: But that's my point. And then what do the characters do once they realize that they're characters? Doesn't this kinda end the game, like it ends Number of the Beast (the characters go off to fight against some group called the Timelords, hehe). Sure, this asks some metaphysical questions that are interesting to ponder. But does it kill the game? Is it fun to actually play? I've never got to that point, myself.

contracycle wrote: I really like Fang's idea about structuring the plot in some visible, connected format. I've thought about literal maps before, but the INWO analogy makes sense. Finding some sort of mechanical way to express story, such that even those who are not particularly interested in story per se, or who would prefer to approach it only from an OOC appreciation, can do so. I want to exploit that sort of thing essentially for sim purposes, as a kinda "scene generator" or similar.
Could an explicit "tension meter" be built? Can a plot be "mapped" and tokens moved on that map? Getting a bit off topic I fear, but I just wanted to endorse the idea of the explicit layout in some form.

clehrich wrote: I want to start by addressing Mike's comments about Assumption. My version, in Shadows, doesn't have a punch-line. To recap, Mike wondered, once you've Assumed, game over, right? Well, in Shadows as I see it, yes and no.

Yes, a character who reaches his ultimate goal will become an NPC. No, play is all about characters trying to reach that goal, so play will not end.

Interesting. Can a player whose character becomes an NPC in such a manner claim a victory of sorts? Does this ending provide closure? Will players be satisfied with the idea of losing their characters? Or is the fact that this will occur meant to spur actor stance play that will balance the player forcing progress? An incentive to the player to put tribulations before the character so he does not end too soon?

No, actually I think you've just made them too fun.

Let's say we had a game of UA going, and to start I told the players that they could either have magic, or just be normies. But that the magic stuff would mess them up.

Or a game of Sorcerer, where I can be either a Sorcerer, or just a normie.

The point is that, Freaky, and whatnot are character problems. From a player POV, hand me the Malkavian. Just because something is a problem for a character does not mean that it is, in any way an incentive to refrain from playing that sort of character.

Christoffer had a similat problem with his game. He had wizbangs in his game who could use demonic powers, but only at the risk of becoming all twisted. Well, that's not a disincentive to play this sort of character. It's interesting, and incentivized, therefore. The only players who are put off by this sort of thing are the Gamists who see it as a tactical disadvantage (something the GM can use to hose them). I assume this is not a Gamist design.

So the question becomes not, "How do we make these characters less interesting to play?" because it's a cool idea, and I want to play it. But rather we need to ask, "Are the other character types as interesting to play, and if not, how do we make them so?"

Otherwise I'd just make it a game about characters on the road to Assumption.

Mike

Mike,

Glad to hear that we're on the same page about this. Insofar as there are Gamist elements in Shadows in the Fog, they kind of fall by the wayside if you bring in the Assumption thing.

I do think other kinds of characters can be lots of fun as well. You see, the thing about Assumption is that it's based on a set of cards within the game-world (one of the reasons I'm not forcing this on anyone). So every time I play The Beast, I'm manipulating that force, right? But if my buddy Phil over there is becoming the Beast, I'm also manipulating him. That's a dangerous thing to do, but that's what real power is about. One argument would be that real power is about NOT Assuming, but being able to control cards at will. In a very Assumption-oriented game, however, you'd set up a kind of slippery slope, where you get better at manipulating a card the more you do it, and the more "in tune" with it you are in your own life. Of course, this tends to encourage specialization, and also encourages you to live the card. And this does indeed make you more powerful -- and push you into the Assumption race, exactly where you didn't want to be.

I see the really powerful magician as a sort of perfect dilettante, constantly skirting the edges of serious danger but never quite falling into the trap of Assumption. He'll never attain the kind of power that his pal who's into Assuming does, but on the other hand nobody will ever be able to constrain his will.

Of course, if you really work out all the details (and I have not as yet), there is the danger of Assuming the Magician (#I)....

OK, so falling into Assumption is a player choice in play, really? Then it's all good. Just like the temptation to summon and bind yet another demon in Sorcerer. Assumption is zero Humanity. Very cool. Sounds like fun to me.

Mike

clehrich wrote:

Fang Langford wrote: That may be a bit confusing, constantly flipping cards. How would 'titling the cards' be confusing; for plot cards "Jack the Ripper Turns Out to be a Vampyre!" by Fang Langford and then the regular information, for GMC cards, how about Jack the Ripper as portrayed by Fang Langford?

Seems reasonable enough, if a little more cinematic than I'd prefer. I'd rather not insert color at variance with the basic atmosphere of the Shadows in the Fog universe.

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: I'd suggest bagging the pennies and only revealing past or present Stages. (Let the future remain a mystery....) Trouble tracking = overlapping; top card is present, undercard reveals (the past) only as much as GMCs in play might know (good mnemonic).

Certainly keeping a top card showing is probably the simplest way to do things, although I thought it might be helpful to have people able to refer to the whole arc of the Plot in question simultaneously. I somehow don't think it's going to make a lot of difference which way you go about this, since the effect is going to be very similar however you slice it. The issue is to make sure that it can be explained clearly, which right now I'm not succeeding at.

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Like the Climax may be "Jack is not a rabid Vampyre, he has a musket ball in his brain pan; remove it and end the Ripper, not Jack." This kind of surprise will make for an interesting 'turn over.' Such could be 'forced' by story movement, making for an interesting mystery. (Can I force you to reveal your Climax?)

On this I'm really quite confused. Do you mean that someone will have written this Climax before it occurs, then reveal it under certain circumstances? I have nothing against having some notes and ideas for where things may go, but this sounds a lot like it's going to lead to everyone trying simultaneously to railroad (not so much GM-full as railroad-track-full, leading to a train-wreck). But that sounds so out of character for you, Fang, that I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding.

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Why does it seem necessary to move these [plot cards] around? It sounds like it'll only invite confusion. If it's still "Dave's plot" and he's only involved indirectly, it sounds like he's the 'gamemaster' for it. Since he won't have any 'links' in play, this will be obvious even if the cards remain before him.

It's true; swapping the cards around may well not help much. My thought was that the Plot cards would sort of gravitate toward each other into an Illuminati-like structure, but it does sound rather confusing.

clehrich wrote: I do not think, though, that Dave needs to GM the plot; that's something that anyone should be able to do.

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Why not use 'bit player' cards for this bidding? Remember, if you win, you must play all those 'bit players!'

Because to take over a GMC from someone else requires its own bid. If you want to take over a scene as GM, you should be discouraged from also taking over a lot of the characters involved; this creates "The Phil Show" rather than Phil runs a scene in which everybody else does stuff.

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Nah, package these with the game (as a .pdf, Trumps could printed on and cut from cardstock).

The list of 22? Fair enough. The Trumps? No way. I'm not constructing a Tarot deck of my own, at great expense and trouble

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Throw in a conflict resolution system (just to keep the 'shared conception' of the game on track) that gives 'muscle' to the player with the most 'bit players' bid in the Stage regardless of whether such work for his goals, or against.

Not sure what you mean by this. There is a conflict resolution system already, but you seem to mean something quite specific. Could you elaborate?

clehrich wrote:

Fang wrote: Perhaps you could incorporate "Stage" as in 'stagecraft' into your terminology. The theatre was not unpopular and burlesque came into its own. Instead of Episodes and Plots, how about calling them Scenes and Acts? Then the whole terminology of 'Stages' can be pulled in as 'Productions' with 'Directors,' 'Actors,' and 'Bit Players.' You could call Expositions things like Debuts or Introductions. And et cetera.

Hmm. Could rapidly slip into Theatrix, though, terminologically.

clehrich wrote: [Description cut]

I like your basic vision of how the play would go, although I don't know that a bidding round is really necessary every time. I would think most of the time it's going to be pretty obvious how things cut, and that the shifts will be effected without a lot of trouble.

clehrich wrote:

contracycle wrote: I really like Fang's idea about structuring the plot in some visible, connected format. I've thought about literal maps before, but the INWO analogy makes sense. Finding some sort of mechanical way to express story, such that even those who are not particularly interested in story per se, or who would prefer to approach it only from an OOC appreciation, can do so. I want to exploit that sort of thing essentially for sim purposes, as a kinda "scene generator" or similar.

Could an explicit "tension meter" be built? Can a plot be "mapped" and tokens moved on that map? Getting a bit off topic I fear, but I just wanted to endorse the idea of the explicit layout in some form.

See, while I like this idea very much, I don't think it's 100% compatible with what I understand Fang to be proposing.

clehrich wrote: Coming Soon to a Fog-Bound London Near You (in a week or so): GMC Stock Characters

Any responses, refinements, criticisms, or new suggestions?

I like the way you're going with the marking Trumps thing, particularly the addition of Assumption. The issue of how to structure things is important, though I think it sort of handles itself most of the time. The most important thing is to get the players to start seeing the world around them through the lens of the Tarot--the occult mindset is all about re-reading the world in terms of signs and portents, and the way that assumption takes over. And that's what I really see you pushing for in the game.

I think that structure won't be too much of an issue so long as there is some fairly informal limit on how many Trumps a player can have active at a particular time--five-ish sounds about right to me. Ten or so might be too much to keep track of, and we want the players defining events not creating an incoherent mass of plot strands.

How about this as a way of structuring the Trumps currently marking things:

A sheet with a standard Tarot reading layout, either a (fairly simple) one for each player or a (much more elaborate) one for the campaign as a whole. Maybe a combination of both. When the player marks with a Trump the player chooses where to put it in the spread. Essentially, it would order the active trumps into a sort ''relationship map," but one that is in and of itself up for interpretation.

It'd be kind of nice to include some of the other non-Trump cards in the mix too, as all Trump readings are a bit odd. Maybe draw one from the deck every time a Trump is played.

I really don't know my Tarot too well, so what sort of spreads might be appropriate is something you'd have to think about.

And maybe rearrange things (redraws non-trumps?) every time a Trump is resolved.

Anyways, a reading would also put a finite limit on the number of Trumps out in the campaign, and act as a focus for interpretation. It might be a bit too tight a framework, but it might work. You'd probably have to playtest to tell.

Or--as a sort of halfway house, how about a reading from the deck at the start of even session/plot-arc or something (another reason to argue about that sort of definition). Lay it out and record it so everyone can see it and refer to it. Once a reasonable percentage of the Trumps are assigned it might be a useful catalyst for stories.

Oh, and what about adding a Trump or two to character creation as well--to give characters something to start from. (May or may not be appropriate depending on how the starting characters relate to the occult world.)

Piers

Before Spooky pops up and smacks me in the head, here's what's doing on Shadows in the Fog. I'm not going to give a whole lot of updates and such for a bit, and for those of you who seemed fascinated by the game, here's why and so on.

1. I suddenly have a whole lot of actual job crap to do, without warning, and it's not going to clear up for a bit.

2. I'm trying to get somewhere on the Sourcebook (Volume 2).

3. I think this thing really very badly needs a playtest at this point; I'm starting to spin my wheels.

SO....

A. Please feel free to go playtest this, making any and all changes you feel like making. I'd love to hear about it. I gather that Simon has done a bit of this, although I don't know quite what happened. Don't wait for a finished product: you'll turn blue and die if you hold your breath that long.

B. I will post update notes when I think there's enough material to warrant an additional PDF file. The next thing should be the big-ass GMC stock character list, which is nearing completion, then the London Poverty and Poor Law thing, which needs serious trimming. I will make sure that there is always a complete single PDF version available, so you don't have to keep downloading bits and pieces if you don't want to.

C. I don't expect I'll get a real playtest until July or later, I'm afraid. By that time I might have a working draft of Volume 2, but it's pretty unlikely; chances are that the volume won't be done until next Christmas. Sorry! I landed an academic book contract, and now I actually have to get off my ass and finish the damn MS -- oy. If I get a playtest, I would hope to have a complete working copy of the rules book (Volume 1) by September.

One last note: Because of a mistaken click in the top right a couple weeks back, I missed all the posts after my last one (i.e. Mike, Fang, and Piers). I'm not going to restart the threads, unless you guys want to do so. Many thanks -- please don't think I was ignoring you (actually I was feeling a bit unloved, oops).

Thanks again. Hope to have this thing coming together one of these days!

Before Spooky pops up and smacks me in the head,

1. I suddenly have a whole lot of actual job crap to do, without warning, and it's not going to clear up for a bit.

2. I'm trying to get somewhere on the Sourcebook (Volume 2).

3. I think this thing really very badly needs a playtest at this point; I'm starting to spin my wheels.

SO....

A. Please feel free to go playtest this, making any and all changes you feel like making. I'd love to hear about it. I gather that Simon has done a bit of this, although I don't know quite what happened. Don't wait for a finished product: you'll turn blue and die if you hold your breath that long.

C. I don't expect I'll get a real playtest until July or later, I'm afraid. By that time I might have a working draft of Volume 2, but it's pretty unlikely; chances are that the volume won't be done until next Christmas. Sorry! I landed an academic book contract, and now I actually have to get off my ass and finish the damn MS -- oy.

clehrich wrote: C. I don't expect I'll get a real playtest until July or later, I'm afraid. By that time I might have a working draft of Volume 2, but it's pretty unlikely; chances are that the volume won't be done until next Christmas. Sorry! I landed an academic book contract, and now I actually have to get off my ass and finish the damn MS -- oy. If I get a playtest, I would hope to have a complete working copy of the rules book (Volume 1) by September.