I just finished initial playtesting on Oscura this weekend, consisting in two sessions being run on thursday and saturday.
The setting for Oscura is somewhat post-medieval, renaissance maybe (but doesn't reall correspond to a specific period in Earth history).

I'll just share what I observed and welcome any comments.

The group on thursday (group 1) consisted in three D&D-heavy male players, plus two D&D experienced female players. The female players are the type that really don't pay too much attention to the rules and basically concentrate on having a good time. (I'm not really sure their sex has anything to with it, I'm just pointing it out in case someone does consider it as something relevant). All of them were good freinds of mine (one of the female players actually being my girlfriend) and ages ranged from 23 (that's me, the youngest), to ~26.

The group on the second day (group 2) consisted in the same female players in the group 1, plus three more female players and one male. This time, three of the players (including the male) were very unexperienced (a newcomer and two that had played D&D exactly one time before). The most experienced player was one of the females that wasn't in group 1.

One interesting thing that happened with group 1, was that I detected some difficulty in absorbing the character model from the more die-hard D&D players. One of them had no trouble at all, the other two seemed to feel very uncomfortable, somewhat dissapointed and, I think, cheated. (you can check out the character model at the following forum post:Skills & Attributes).

The group 1 session didn't go as planned. I was a little nervous, not having GM'ed in a looong time, plus having created a lot of expectation. My plan was to have them start right away in a very tricky situation (plunged in the sea, trying not get drowned), and have them eventually work their way towards an explanation of it (they were being tossed into the sea for political reasons). Unfortunately, I thought it would be a good idea to have them state what they were doing that night so I could narrate to them their kidnapping. Everyone went with setup, not opposing too much to the actual kidnapping. The two players I had trouble with really made a fuss about not being able to defend themselves properly and made very D&D-ish arguments about how some manuevers weren't proper or whatever (I was starting to get a little fed up by then). The thing is, in my negligence to start right away with what I had in mind, we ended up playing a veeery long fight on the raft they were being tossed from. It wasn't exactly boring, and I did get to test the dice mechanics in what should be the most stressing situation to appear, but it was far from what I wanted them to take as a first impression of Oscura.

I think it's sad some players actually start comparing one game to another trying to determine it's "correctness", but the playtesting sessions "failure" was really of my responsability. I shouldn't have let them "play" out what was to be the starting facts (their kidnap). If I wanted them to know a little more info on the actual kidnap I should have just told them what it was like. I think this is fair for a staring point (setting circumstance), I don't plan on using it for railroading the characters once the game has "started".

Regarding the dice mechanics, I really need to come up with some guidelines according to what actually makes the difference between a Combat action and an Agility action (we ended up rolling Agility for many combat-related actions). Most of the players felt the need for an initiative system also, I hadn't provided one mostly becasue I hadn't time to, but I'll work on that soon.
One very positive observation I think I can make, was that the mechanics were very unobtrusive. Perhaps in part because damage was largely qualitative (I haven't come up with a quantitative system yet), but however the game time for the combat was long it was due to a very descriptive, colorful, and creative manuever descriptions. I hope this will happen to all skill performances too.

The second group was much more rewarding. We set the game before the kidnapping (two of the previous characters were present). Nobody double-guessed the character model or rules. The characters created were very solid (a great example of Competence-Ability synchronization arose in a teacher character). The players really dug into the political circumstance I spawned them into, and while I dealt with details with one player, other players were roleplaying their own interactions. Not too many dice rolls were made, and the system proved to be absolutely fluid with this more narrativist gaming.

After a few hours of playing this way, the rythm slowed down a bit and the characters started to focus their attention on getting laid (which was very much in-character, specially for the horny male-prostitute). I'm guessing next session will be a good time to insert a few singluar events that start breaking the equilibrium.


Some info on Oscura in the forums:
player vs game defined characteristics

Oscura on the web (spanish):
http://oscura.simple.cl (rules under update)

Current Character Sheet (spanish):
here

This is another part of the playtesting conculsions I think I can safely draw from group 2's experience, and also refers in part to the discussion of whether it is usually desirable to have beginning players that aren't familiar with the story background to start off as "insiders" or "outsiders" to the "powers-at-be" sphere. This discussion is recheable through this link.

On preparing the Oscura setting, I began with a single province (actually just it's capital). General economic aspects of the province recieved just a few general brushstrokes, leaving the more detailed filling-in for later. I concentrated on the NPC's, and made an early decision on having the player-characters start off as "insiders" to the political intrigue of the city of Coia.

My experience is that as soon as you start with one NPC, you rapidly need to create other NPCs that justify, support or oppose this character's ambitions, faults, previous history and dilemmas. A rather elaborate and usually solid net of influences, relationships, sexual and blood ties results. I guess Ron would call this an "Extended Relationship Map", I cannot make much use of a less detailed map, but that's probably just a characteristic of my GMing style. I ended up with two major families and many sparse related NPCs. It also helped me figure out exactly what was the role of the Church in the city, the province, and the whole kingdom!

Of course, my immediate problem was spawning the PCs into this Map. I had told them they would all be either influential, or very near influential positions. Only one of the characters ended up being truly influential. The others where either less influential bussines owners, or younger members of an influential family.

I think my first idea (which I'm glad I didn't follow through), was to create a few more families (other than those of the Map) for these PCs to fill in. But after telling the characters a little about the setting, many of them fixiated right away on the most powerful family: the Khudas. It was a snap to insert at least two characters into the Khuda family; one even plays as the Khuda patriarch's daughter. After recieving the rest of the group's character concepts, most of them fitted perfectly into already Mapped NPCs. So I basically removed those NPCs from the map, and inserted the PCs in their place.

What I ended up with, was a very tight and fleshed out Map, with the PCs immersed into it right from the start. Plus, many of the character concepts they supplied me with, enriched even more the already elaborate Map.

This really shined with group 2. Upon handing them a short description of where they sat on the Map, they provided me with so much info I had a hard time keeping up with my annotations to the Map.

I'm not sure this could be succesfully repeated as may times as I'd like, but it serves as an example of how "insider" PCs can start out really well even though the players have NO previous knowledge as to what the setting is like. With the added benefit of helping my job as the GM in providing a credible, attractive context to develop the story in.

Don Lag wrote:

This is another part of the playtesting conclusions I think I can safely draw from group 2's experience, and also refers in part to the discussion of whether it is usually desirable to have beginning players that aren't familiar with the story background to start off as "insiders" or "outsiders" to the "powers-at-be" sphere. This discussion is reachable through this link.

[Snip.]
I concentrated on the NPC's, and made an early decision on having the player-characters start off as "insiders" to the political intrigue of the city of Coia.

My experience is that as soon as you start with one NPC, you rapidly need to create other NPCs that justify, support or oppose this character's ambitions, faults, previous history and dilemmas. A rather elaborate and usually solid net of influences, relationships, sexual and blood ties results. I guess Ron would call this an "Extended Relationship Map", I cannot make much use of a less detailed map, but that's probably just a characteristic of my GMing style.
[Snip.]

Of course, my immediate problem was spawning the PCs into this Map.
[Snip.]

I think my first idea (which I'm glad I didn't follow through), was to create a few more families (other than those of the Map) for these PCs to fill in. But after telling the characters a little about the setting, many of them fixated right away on the most powerful family:
[Snip.]

What I ended up with was a very tight and fleshed out [Extended Relationship] Map, with the PCs immersed into it right from the start. Plus, many of the character concepts they supplied me with, enriched even more the already elaborate Map.

This really shined with group 2. Upon handing them a short description of where they sat on the Map, they provided me with so much info I had a hard time keeping up with my annotations to the Map.

I'm not sure this could be successfully repeated as may times as I'd like, but it serves as an example of how "insider" PCs can start out really well even though the players have NO previous knowledge as to what the setting is like. With the added benefit of helping my job as the GM in providing a credible, attractive context to develop the story in.

Fascinating thread. Sorry about the emptiness of the post, but it really is interesting.

Best,
Ron
who believes in plain old positive reinforcement

P.S. (edited this in just to be substantive)
Sebastian (Don Lag), tell us more about Oscura. What is its distinctive feature during play? Did your players spot that? Or even if they didn't, did they enjoy it?

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-11-05 19:21 ]

Joueur: I'll need to read the whole Dynamic Status Quo thing again, I've been missing something from it's description apparently.

Ron:
Well there's two parts to what (I hope) will "make Oscura special".

On the one hand, something that relates especifically to my group's track record. Everyone in the group has played more than 90% of the tiem D&D. Most of them a very hack-n-slashy D&D at that. I've always tried my best to enrich as much as I could my D&D GMing, but I finally reached a point in which I was making so many modifications to the rules to make things interesting that I realised that what I needed was a new game with a set of rules that didn't keep pulling my players into a video-game playing style. So my first motivation was coming up with a new set of rules that would better support my GMing intentions. Since I'm a computer-physics-math freak, I started out analyzing different types of dice mechanics and what not until I arrived to something that I later found out was 90% unoriginal :sad:. Many will irk at not basing the system directly off the Premise of the game, but to be honest the Premise wasn't very clear then and is still in mutation.

That brings me to the other thing I hope makes Oscura stick in the memories of my players. Oscura is all about the decadence of what had been a thriving culture. I aim to communicate a feeling of melancholy, a sense that everything is rather pointless at the time being. I know it seems like shit for a Premise (how can you get someone motiviated about playing a de-motivated character!?). The truth is I'm still fooling around with what will turn out to be the character's driving motives. So far, retaining what little they have left is coming in first. The possibility of rapid ascension to power (amidst the global fall of the empire) would also seem somewhat attractive.

At this moment, I've set the initial sessions at a time previous to the explicit decadence. The economy and the culture, is coming to a grinding halt (not exactly evident yet). And a specific event will herald the rapid destruction of their splendor.

I expect to make magic a VERY powerful and decisive element in the game. As well as making armed combat highly lethal. As of now, there is no known or recognized magic that the characters know of. And although the empire is in fact a theocracy, the myths and dogmas of the Church aren't taken seriously even by the own priests. The Church has become a bureaucracy (did I spell that right?) rather than a spiritual guide.

One of the oncoming changes will be the reappearence of magic and the discovery of certain religious truths.

But what I really want to base the action on are conflicting personal relationships and difficult strategic or moral decisions.

Since none of these "things" have been really offered to the players yet, I'm not sure how well they'll "get them". Right now I'm concentrating on letting them get comfortable with the system and playing in a manner somewhat different than the usual D&D. Also, I want them to get really attached to the current status quo, to heighten the impact of the Change to come.

Hi Sebastian! I apologize for taking so long to get back to this. (I don't read Spanish FAST, unfortunately, and I wanted to spend some time at the site.)

"… what I needed was a new game with a set of rules that didn't keep pulling my players into a video-game playing style. So my first motivation was coming up with a new set of rules that would better support my GMing intentions. Since I'm a computer-physics-math freak, I started out analyzing different types of dice mechanics and what not until I arrived to something that I later found out was 90% unoriginal . Many will irk at not basing the system directly off the Premise of the game, but to be honest the Premise wasn't very clear then and is still in mutation."

I tend to think that Premise-first is the best way to go, but then again, I often find that when I work on dice mechanics, some part of my mind that DOES deal with Premise is busy too … and I discover later that a lot of the "point" of the new dice system has become clear to me after all.

"Oscura is all about the decadence of what had been a thriving culture. I aim to communicate a feeling of melancholy, a sense that everything is rather pointless at the time being. I know it seems like shit for a Premise (how can you get someone motiviated about playing a de-motivated character!?). The truth is I'm still fooling around with what will turn out to be the character's driving motives. So far, retaining what little they have left is coming in first. The possibility of rapid ascension to power (amidst the global fall of the empire) would also seem somewhat attractive."

You're nuts to worry about this. It's a great setting idea, and places the Premise question - what has Value in a decaying world - squarely on the shoulders of the player-characters.

"At this moment, I've set the initial sessions at a time previous to the explicit decadence. The economy and the culture, is coming to a grinding halt (not exactly evident yet). And a specific event will herald the rapid destruction of their splendor."

Speaking as a potential player, my vote would be to begin after that event. I've played in a lot of games in which the GM insisted that the "story would begin" eventually, after we got to his big planned event. Unfortunately, in real play, we'd spend a lot of time doing things that were frankly not very interesting while he daydreamed about how it would all link up and make a great prologue to his planned material.

Anyway, I don't suspect you of doing that. It's simply a risk of making that decision, I think, that's good to be aware of.

"I expect to make magic a VERY powerful and decisive element in the game. As well as making armed combat highly lethal. As of now, there is no known or recognized magic that the characters know of."
…
"One of the oncoming changes will be the reappearence of magic and the discovery of certain religious truths."

Now that's pretty interesting. I like the idea of there being "no magic" and then magic coming into play in a big way. Do you plan for the player-characters to have access to and use of the New Magic?

I like the fiction of Gene Wolfe a lot, and his Book of the New Sun tetralogy sounds like it would be an influence … or a good inspiration, if you haven't read it.

"But what I really want to base the action on are conflicting personal relationships and difficult strategic or moral decisions."

That's a whole set of difficult topics right there. I can see why you would choose to concentrate on that first.

Have you had a chance to play some more? If so, give us an update.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I think "Oscura" is an EXCELLENT title, by the way.

Hey Sebastian,

I wish I could read Spanish...

:(

First off, thanks for the feedback.

We haven't been able to play again yet, personally I'm thick in pending assignments and final exams so I suspect Oscura won't be seeing any action until a few more weeks.

I'm aware that it's rather dangerous to put the "cool stuff" too ahead. The fact that both of you mention it makes me think that I should double-check my plans, just in case :smile:

I haven't read the books you mention Ron (actually I've been reading very little these last few years.. I gotta work on that).

As of present, the Premise of the game isn't present in the mechanics. The main design objective of the mechanics is having that, ina sense, the characters define the rules that apply to them (by definign their own abilities and competences and how they link), rather than the rules defining the characters (in the way that a pre-defined set of abilities would).

As I said, more than a proper Premise, there's some kind of leit-motif at present. I'm still working on various possiblities for what would be an ad-hoc Premise. Once something more tangible emerges, I might modify the mechanics a little to reflect the Premise if it seems natural.

About magic, the idea I'm working on is basically this: the Church is beggining to split into two factions, reformist and non-reformist (I'm taking a few hints from history, but it has it's differences from what happened with catholicism). The reformist group does not acknowledge the more supernatural aspects of the faith, while the non-reformist does. I plan on having a set of sacred scriptures be discovered. It is this object which will herald magic. However the magic is not necessarily meant to be clerical as traditionally understood. Anyway, the scriptures will conflict with the accepted mythology the non-reformist defend. Parallel to this is another source of supernatural power, probably wielded by an incoming conquering force.

Adding this to economic/political coflicts promises many strings of tension among characters (PC and NPC). I think the trickiest part is timing things so that they don't hapen all at once, becoming just too confusing for any fun, but also having them overlap just enough so that things don't quite have a chance to settle.

In my spare time I'm also working on a webpage that,I hope, helps me get the players more involved with their characters. At this page are an electronic replica of their charatcer sheet. Heavily hyperlinked to online information about places, events, characters, stories, rules references, etc. You can check it out HERE, but it's still in early development.