Week 2: Part 2 - Game On!
Ready, Set...Game!
So, the players hit the floor running, each one determined to call dibs on thier own personal piece of Sanctum. Adam slips into the role of "The Communist" aka, Cpt. Sergei Petrokov, while I go peek out in the halls to watch the trainwreck that is surely unfolding...or is it? The players waste no time on bumping into each other and the results are amusing to watch. Tiffiny's character, "Gilda Watson" is a social-climbing gold-digger from the 1920's assumes that she must be hallucinating as she voices her thoughts out loud, wondering just what was in her drinks last night. Chris, who is playing "Ricky Fortunado", (The Bum), just assumes he is still drunk as well...And then there are the painfully sober, and faithfully religious who aren't handling the shock quite so well.
It's fourty Minutes since game start and no one has wondered into "Coffman Union" yet to interact with Adam's SC...and no one has tried to kidnap me either, whether it be for questions or for confusion. I'm tempted to see just how long we could let the game run itself, but throw on my suit jacket and tie instead, walking right into the fray as my SC "Vice-Dealer" Vesper Lauphel. It takes another twenty minutes before someone makes use of me as a Stage-Hand, and that is for a brief question about whether or not there there is a supply store of some sort.
Observation: The play-testers needed so little of us, that we spent the majorty of time playing the Supporting Cast (SC) ...literally. We play out our supporting cast characters no differently than if we were another player, with the exception that we can be subjected to Major Stakes in a conflict without being asked if we accept.
Concern: It's going -Too- smoothly. I'm with Adam in wondering if this is a fluke or if it's really that well-oiled. I'm sure we will find out after a few more games, but I can't help being optimistic.
Stage-Hand Versus Stagehand - Vesper Lauphel versus Cpt. Sergei Petrokov
I knew Vesper was going to be a different sort of bastard than Sergei, and it -was- my intention to make Vesper one of those "Love to Hate" Persona's, and with luck, a nessisary evil. She's Vice-Dealer, which means she's used to having a market; or in this case, she's creating one by trying to get a monopoly on everything. So, naturally, I expected some opposition.
What I wasn't expecting was for Adam's SC to be pitted directly against my own SC so often. The players wasted no time in chosing sides and so they started using Sergei as a way to oppose Vesper.
This happened not just once, but three times.
Observations: I love the fact that players have started to form sides and act on intentions. They are putting alot of planning and internal dialogue into what they are doing and it's really adding a theatric charge to the entire game. The Ends and Means system is working very well with Sanctum, and I'm satisifed with the overall effects.
Concerns: I worry about protagonists becoming too dependent upon SC. Stage-Hands play these to promote role-play and to introduce friction, plot, and dialogue that assist in keeping the game fluid and interesting, but there seems to be an awful lot of focus on our SC. So it's creating some question in my mind as to why.
Is this because players are used to situations in which Storytellers control the game through NPC's?
Is it because we are just interesting SC and people want to interact with us for that reason?
Do the players really understand that we are playing on the same rules as them? If they believe us to be 'powerful', do they realize that they have the ability to do the same things, or promote the same sort of roleplay?
I'm a little worried that our players are used to being re-active rather than pro-active. Some of this worry has been disproven already by the sheer amount of incentive that some players have taken in making thier own mark on Sanctum, but I'm watching for the long-term as well. It bears alot of watching, and if it is there; I'm going to have to focus on why it's happening and what can be done to reduce it.
Sanctum Versus The Players : I finally get use as a Stage-Hand.
Finally....Over an HOUR into the game, someone finally comes to me for Stage-Hand related things. There is a small group of protagonists who have secured the top of the clock-tower and made it into a sort of fortified refuge and watch-tower. They have a telescope, (provided by someone's means) and they want me to tell them what they see, and that they are trying to see over the city and see how big the city is. Can they do it? How big is it? How far can they see?
I am about to tell them, 'Sure, you look out and you see about two miles to five worth of city to any side of you." when I stop myself, realizing this is the perfect chance to use the Opposition Brief, even if I don't have to. Using the opposition ends of Keep them ignorant and my opposition means of enviroment, I then declare my stake of it being too foggy to see to the edge of the city. The players involved choose the stake of "I'm able to see how big the city is."
They win the stake, and I choose to not steal the scene. I do however win narration. I describe how they look over the city with the telescope and they see that on the edge of the city, which is a few miles to any side of the clocktower, there is a desert. There doesn't seem to be a determined end to the desert.
The small group of players have just won thier first 'conflict' against the actual world.
observation: There was palpable excitement when the players won thier stake, and although I didn't to create a conflict against them, doing so really seemed to add flavor to what they were doing. It seemed the players appreciated earning the answer instead of just being given it outright.
conerns: Adam seemed to have a concern with the scenerio, and asked me to validate why it needed to be done in the first place. What was the benifit of them winning or losing the stake, and did the conflict matter?
I admit that don't share the concern, but I understand the logic of questioning the decision. It's important to know WHY it matters, and so this is the explanation I gave.
While I could have just given them the information without a conflict, this was the first time that either one of us used the oppposition brief that I am aware of that wasn't via a supporting character. The opposition brief exists because it's a rather powerful tool used to drive story, plot and to offer a counter-balance to the weight of what players are doing. So, by introducing opposition without actually using a SC, We are using the opposition brief to create situations that further the actual story, regardless of the outcome of the conflict.
So, a question for Adam: Does this explanation make sense? Did you intend for the opposition brief to work this way, or was it to just help create Supporting Cast? I have the belief that players like to feel as if they can make a difference, and that conflict doesn't have to be just when players disagree with Cast to Cast outcomes, but when a Stage-Hand makes use of a possible conflict, I think it gives the players the chance to feel they achieved something, or have something to achieve.
Inventing Extortion
After the watch-tower scene, it occurred to me that just because we don't have to be involved, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. I realize that this is exactly the sort of thing that drives me CRAZY in other L.A.R.P.s, and that it might grate on Adam if I did it, I decided to do it anyways. Don't get me wrong, things were really great as so far as the game, but I was interested in seeing what affect Stage-Hand induced conflict would have. (Besides, It was bound to happen eventually, even if not this game, so why not?) Ironically, it was the players themselves that set my mind rolling to the idea of 'extortion' and it was Adam who named it. I still have reservations of whether or not it is really extortion, or a glorified bribe.
I had in mind that in normal 'LARPs', the Story-teller usually wastes an hour of your time to see if you can get something that should be pretty simple done. For example, They can turn getting some groceries into some epic ordeal in which you get attacked by fifty bad guys and instead of just saying "you get there, or you don't", you have to do some long-winded scenerio that ends up taking two hours...just so you can go to the city. With Ends and Means, you can introduce the same conflicts but without wasting all that time...
So, when a small group of players wanted to get some supplies, I informed them that one of some of Vesper's thugs was going to try and stop them. They got prepared to throw stakes, and I decided if I could take the shortening one step further. I told them that if the group could pay me off with two plot points total, (not per person), then they wouldn't enter into a conflict with the thugs. They could have chosen to conflict, and certainly the advantage was with them, but they instead chose to take the automatic win and pay me off.
The result? They got a conflict to add to thier story and got another reason to form an opinion about what happened without actually having to enter a real conflict.
Exploring this idea a bit more, I'm going to have to say that I think the general concern about this is the usual frustration that normally comes with opposition given by the ST's in a MET style Game and how much time it can consume, sometimes without even given you any sort of answer. Mostly, because there are times when all someone really wants sometimes is the answer to thier question. "Can I do this? Yes, I understand that the building is dangerous, I just want to know if I can do it!" and then spending hours figuring out if you can do that one thing when it might not even be something that important to the character.
So who's to fault? If those running the game didn't give any sort of opposition, then there would be no conflicts, there wouldn't be alot of tension, and I don't think there'd be the thrill of achieving something that comes when there's the chance you could fail; And it isn't that the players don't want this conflict, because many times they do.
The fault lies not with the players or those running the game most times, but in that with many systems, conflict resolution comes at the cost of consuming a generous chunk of time, and reducing the actual roleplay to nothing more than system mechanics that don't reflect the actual story. This gets frustrating for the players, and for those running the game for several reasons, but I think the main one comes from the time demand and consumption that doing non-player to player conflict has, not to mention the timesink of players waiting on the already over-taxed Storytellers just so they can reach the point of conflict resolution.
With Ends and Means, you achieve the benifits of conflict without the drawback of compromising huge chunks of time by being able to focus on the roleplay, instead of the mechanical function, - My own style of storytelling focuses on the Story, not mechanics...so this makes Ends and Means uniquely qualified for Sanctum: The Fallout, as a L.A.R.P.
observations: Most of the players seem thrilled with how quickly conflict is resolved. Many of them are used to M.E.T. (Minds Eye Theater) and there was an very tangible suprise from some of them when they realized they had won or lost the stake in a matter of moments. Mechanics decide what the outcome is at the beginning, and how it happens, instead of both. This adds a fluidity to the game that most players aren't expecting. It is that more fluid style of game-play that I want in the game, so I'm rather estatic that it is working as planned.
concerns: I know Adam had some concerns about extortion, and it's really too soon to tell if the mechanic can be abused. I think he has some points, but as he pointed out himself; the system is designed in a way that will curb most of the power the stage-hands holds. The power of plot-points can work for or against the players, just as they can against the stage-hands; and that makes it a rather self-balancing scenerio.
The Atlas and Census
observations and concerns: Adam's had a few concerns about these, and they had a very valid foundation. He worried that players might not want to participate because it required work on thier part. He also felt it would be more work for the stage-hands.
The first concern so far has been proven wrong; the players overwhelmingly created new places and we had nearly fifty new places/locations for the Atlas.
But the second concern is very, very valid and apparent. I've chosen to want them typed up so they are easier to read, and this is going to create a rather large workload. If I decide I do not want them typed, there is almost NO work for the stage-hands. We'll have to wait a few more games before I decide the best way to fix this work-load issue. It might fix itself, or I might have to impose that I prefer the entries to be typed out. It's too soon to tell.
I agree that it's something I'll keep an eye on as well. I don't want the game to coast to a stop if you and I step out of our supporting roles for a couple of hours.
On the other hand, there's a good reason our Supporting Cast is compelling: we're energizing. As the narrators learn the game and the setting, they're playing it safe and cautious. Their protagonists aren't taking big risks yet; they're still getting our bearings. The protagonists like a pool table on an ocean liner, drifting serenely around the table, occasionally clacking lightly against one another.
Compare that to Vesper! Practically the first thing she says is, "This city's mine, and you have to play by my rules." That's like firing a cue ball at high velocity into the midst of it. CRACK! Balls zigzagging everywhere!
I'm playing it a little closer to the vest with Sergei, but that's only because nobody's defied him yet. :) When they do (and I'll give them reason)... CRACK!
Ideally, I hope that our narrators realize that their Protagonists can be those cue balls. They can create that CRACK! They can try outrageous high-energy schemes, secure that when the furor dies, no matter what, their protagonists will still be in the story if that's what their narrator wants.
But every so often, when the balls start drifting to a halt, we will always be needed to mix it up. That'll always a very important part of the job.
On the Opposition Brief:
Yes, Sara, you used the brief correctly: It is for any time that a Stagehand needs to provide opposition when they don't have a specific Supporting Cast Character to do so. (In fact, I could have used the Opposition Brief instead of Vesper's card, that time Aleira was seducing Vespa's thug Jaleel.)
Also, I think your reason for opposing the narrators -- instead of just letting them have what they want -- is actually pretty sound. Narrators *do* like to face challenge and opposition! It creates moments of doubt and suspense, and that's really important. So kudos to you for noticing that!
Where I think you can do better is in defining your stake. Always make failure interesting. Failure and success are *both* means for moving the story to a new place. If you can just sum up failure with "no, you fail," and nothing is really different, then the story has gone nowhere.
"We try to see to the edge of the city."
(You use the Opposition Brief and win the conflict)
"No, you fail."
"Um... okay... guess we have to wait until the weather clears..."
Boring!
You told me that if they failed to see the city's edge from the clock tower, they'd have to find some other way, and *that* could be interesting. And you know, you could have been right! That might have led to interesting stuff. So it's not like you did anything horribly wrong.
But what if you defined a stake so that instead of failure *maybe* being interesting *if* they did this other thing next, you made sure failure *will* be interesting because it changes the situation?
"If you win, you see to the edge of the city. If you fail, not only do you fail to see, but the strong winds put someone in peril of falling to their doom!"
...That's kind of awkward, but that leads into another point: it's difficult to make a failure to get important information interesting. Stories need important information if they are to move forward.
Lastly, on extortion:
At the moment I'm thinking: this technique is unlikely to cause major problems. The narrators have plenty of power to get their way, and plenty of options. So go on and keep using it when you think the moment is fitting. We'll see how narrators handle it! (Comment this)