Sanctum: The Fallout / Ends and Means

Ends and Means in the setting of Sanctum got off to a dynamite start. There were so many fun moments that I almost don’t trust it! Surely E&M and Sanctum have more problems than came to light in the four hours of fun we experienced.

Here are those few moments that stand out to me in retrospect as details to watch:

1) Sara and I have very different styles of Stagehanding.

I like to resolve conflicts through the use of Ends and Means: one person gets what they want, and one doesn’t. I go about it gently, making sure everyone’s stake is clear, following the procedure carefully.

Sara, on the other hand, prefers to Bribe players into Compromise. She’s downright aggressive, in fact, always going for the hard sell. "Make this bargian! C'mon! It'll be cool, c'mon!!!"

It makes for a crazy dichotomy. Sara uses a hard sell to reach a compromise, making everyone happy. I use a soft sell to see conflict through to its bitter end, winner and loser. And both styles are by-the-book.

QUESTION TO SARA: Sara, is this because you're more comfortable with Bribes and Compromise than with the rest of the system? Do you intentionally try to avoid the rest of it?

2) The first big conflict. Setting good stakes.

Early in the game there was a big Mexican Standoff scene: my 1931 Soviet captain holding a gun to Sara's 2007 Mafiosa, her thugs holding guns to me, the 1917 American infantryman holding a rifle on them, non-combatants in the line of fire: good stuff.

We've got some learning curve yet as far as good stakes-setting goes. The first time around, I was hearing stakes like "I scare the thugs into backing off," and "I seduce this thug away from you." In one-on-one conflict, that sort of thing can work (prosaically), but in this case I told everyone to stop and ask themselves WHY they were taking these specific actions. This resulted in much better Stakes, like "We get the information," and "I protect the captain."

Tonya also commented that it was confusing to Direct that many stakes. I think I need to communicate a clearer procedure for this -- not a rigid structure, but a guide to help when it gets complicated.

3) Sara's gaffe with the penthouse raid.

At one point, Sara's supporting cast character (Vespa, the Mafiosa) was in conversation with a protagonist (Darius, the 2007 film-maker, played by Klaus). Tonya and Sarah B. came up to inform Sara that their protagonists
were going to search Vespa's penthouse.

Sara made a gaffe at this point, in my opinion. She abandoned Klaus mid-conversation to go run a side-scene for Tonya and Sarah B. I don't think that's appropriate Stagehand etiquette. Here are the possible alternatives:

a) Sara sees no immediate conflict. "Go ahead," she says. "Don't do anything remarkable. I'll check in with you when I'm done."

b) Sara sees potential for a minor conflict. "You'll have to wait until I'm done with this scene." The situation at hand with Klaus gets first priority.

c) Sara thinks that this situation could have a major impact: it will require a good deal of her devoted attention. "That's a Scenario," she says. If Tonya and Sarah B. can purchase her time with 10 Potential, she'll make a graceful exit from the scene with Klaus and go to give them a Scenario.

In general, I think a Stagehand should avoid getting deeply involved in any situation: we should always be able to extricate ourselves with a minimum of effort. The situation at hand, however, always takes precedence over the
next one in the queue. The only exception is Scenarios, where Narrators pay their hard-earned Potential for our time.

4) "Extortion."

Sara came up with a Stagehanding strategy I had not foreseen. Some players would approach her to inform her of some action they were taking. She'd tell them, "Ah, but on the way, you get attacked by thugs! Unless you pay
me two Plot Points!"

I'm not sure how I feel like that. It seems a lot like an abuse of power. But is it? All the players have to do is say, forget it; then get into a conflict with her thugs, choosing high Ends and Means; and now all of a sudden, Sara has to pay all *them* Plot Points if she wants to be obstructive.

I guess maybe the thing I don't like is that the players may not realize how much power they really have in this situation. Sara's demeanor as an extortionist echoes certain abusive-GM archetypes I've encountered, when really the system prevents her from having too much of a bite.

5) Conflict can happen with a protagonist who isn’t fictionally present.

This came up three times:

Once, when Aleira (Kat's medieval harem girl) wanted to disarm a thug via her feminine wiles, it was a conflict with Vespa (Sara's supporting character) -- who was across the room.

Again, when Moira and Joy (Tonya and Sarah B.'s protagonists) wanted to raid Vespa's penthouse, it could have been a conflict with Vespa, who would have been elsewhere in the city.

Later, Moira (Tonya's medieval baker) was trying to seduce Cpt. Petrokov (my 1931 Soviet policeman supporting character). But Aliera had already been attempting the same earlier that evening. I suggested a conflict between Moira and Aliera (who was elsewhere at the time) to determine Petrokov's affections.

I think this is worth mentioning in the book -- it's a useful technique. But I'll need to urge players to take care not to interrupt others' scenes to make it happen.

6) Investing in your own failure.

Note to players: when you lose a conflict, embrace it! Fail like you mean it! You have control enough to make it dramatically appropriate: don't throw away that chance.

At one point, I defeated Father Alphonso (Lawrence's conquistador priest) in his attempt to kindle faith in Petrokov. When we began to act out the result, I needed him to give me an opening to distrust him. He didn't realize that I needed that, not until I prompted him.

Hopefully I'll have more chances to fail in front of players, showing them how to really ham up their own defeats. I did it once, portraying a minor thug seduced by Aleira. She wanted him to give up his gun -- and it was a fun moment, playing out how he gave her the weapon so she'd be able to protect herself!

7) Establishing hand signals.

I can think of two hand signals we need, to cut down on intrusive patter:

a) a "Where are you?" signal, to ask whether a group of players have established themselves in some other fictional location than is obvious;

b) a "See me when you're done" signal, to get the attention of someone in a scene without interrupting.

8) Downtime activities.

I can't dodge this bullet forever.

I don't want to do extra paperwork between games. But in a LARP, where significant time can pass between Acts, players instinctively look for a way to communicate what their protagonists do during that interim time.

Maybe the key is to see that downtimes only need to be communicated, not approved by a Stagehand. It's just an extension of the player's usual narrative powers.

This means that during downtimes, of course, nobody can initiate or resolve a meaningful conflict -- but that's what actual play is for anyway, isn't it?

8) The link between Weight and Effectiveness.

The decisions you make at the beginning of the game, assigning Weights to your Ends and Means, have a decisive effect for the rest of the game. But is that effect graspable? Does anyone "get" it? I'll have to check later, once a few
more games are under our belts; but I have a fear that it's just not intuitive enough, that it feels too disconnected and random.

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.

Week 2 - Coffman Student Union 7PM-Midnight.   "Day 1" in Sanctum. 

Real-Life problems plaqued the play-test size in week 2.   Two of our players were MIA due to a sick kidlet, and several more could not make it due to Real Life obligations, Work or Illness.  In short, our second training session was not needed, but proved useful in letting our early arrivals prepare for costuming, talk about thier motivations for playing and get to know each other.   Our overall count was the same, with three additional spectators who haven't decided yet if they are prepared to take the jump from table-top to LARP yet.

There was some initial worry; Would this play-test end up like so many other play-tests?  Would we have a good first game and then fizzle out before we even got going?  It happens alot in even pre-established games, so being optimistic was the only thing I could really do; People would either want to play, or they wouldn't.   Optimistic or not, I continued to worry until people started showing up, finding relief as I realized, not only were they showing up, but showing up in costume and talking about thier characters while we waited for game to start.   I'll post a seperate entry with a gallery of our play-testers and the costumes they sported.

As Stage-Hands, Me and Adam opted for a white T-Shirt with Black Pants. Our Supporting Casts characters would be identified by an assessory.  Adam sported a shoulder harness with holster and black leather hat for his "Communist", and a white sheet for his "Librarian", while I had a tie and jacket for my "Vice Dealer.", A Skirt for my "Match-Maker", and stole Adam's sheet for my "Oracle"

concerns: My main one was attendence.  It seems to be a false worry for now, but Adam has warned against assuming it won't change.  So far, so good; we'll see if it continues to be that way. 

The Pre-Game Huddle: 

We called everyone's attention at about 7:10, only a few minutes behind our slotted schedule.  We had full attendence, not counting those who let us know ahead of time that they'd be missing this game but would be at next. 

We started out by handing out character sheets, which were no bigger than a index card...in fact, they WERE index cards.   We had the testers assign thier Ends and Means and Adam  handed out the tokens that would represent plot points.  (Adam had typed the Opposition Brief up, along with our supporting cast characters on a single sheet of paper, which was to be our own character sheets.)

observation: It never ceases to amaze me how fast people will lower thier numbers when they realize that they get more plot points that way.  The look on people's faces were priceless...absolutely priceless.

Ready, Set...

We then determined that Coffman University would be the main rooms, the garage would still be the prison and the cafe would be the grocery store.   I had meant to establish an OOC room, but I don't think we did.  This could have been bad, but it turns out no one really seemed to need one, as anyone who wanted a break, went and sat at the registration table...which worked just fine.

Adam ran the floor with an Explanation of Cues - See Adam's Post for more information -  and then after he went through a few more details, he turned the floor over to me to set the floor for game to begin.

I re-stated the conditions of Sanctum, and what people would be waking up to, ran through what was inside of Coffman and what things could be expected from the world...and answered a few questions. 

concerns: There was some hesitation on my part when the question was raised on if the protagonists would ever find out what put them in Sanctum.  Adam has been prodding at me for awhile for this question and I have been reluctant to say one way or another.  Sanctum itself has any number of possibilities and I was hoping to reserve having to decide one way or another until I saw where the players seemed to want to go.   Since this is a beta game and is unlikely of branching out into other games, I chose "Fate/Time" was the abductor and that the conclusions characters would draw would never be a lack of information, just a possible 'not what they expected to get for an answer' instead.  They seemed fine with this, but it's going to take some considerations on my part on why it was so hard for me to just pick one.

Game!

Having gone through everything we could think of, we then called "Game on" and told people to go find where they would be waking up, because they'd be doing so in 1....2.....3.....4....

I've never seen people run so fast.   

concerns: When I first started talking about how and where they would be waking up, I found myself feeling as if I had repeated myself so many times that I was being redundant.   I stumbled over the introduction and it seemed awkward, although players didn't seem to mind that much;  I need to work on the execution of what is in my head into actual explanation!

Monday, January 15th - Preparation.

With the Ends and Means system, the supporting cast (NPCS) are determined by the Ends that players have chosen for themselves.  So, Adam and I got together for dinner and to familiar ourselves with just what kind of world the players have created. (After creating the Opposition Brief, I have to agree with Adam, that Sanctum is a cold, cruel world!....AWESOME :)

We started by posting each and every Ends that was created by someone on a post-it note; one ends per post-it.  It just so happened that the mini post-its that I had brought with me were mulit-colored.  Adam ended up with blue and I ended up with pink and that's when Adam had yet another devious idea.  "Let's sort them by gender" He comments, grinning at me.  I start laughing and agree; sorted by gender it is!   Adam takes the guys, I take the girls and both of us note that there is almost an even ratio of guy and girl in our beta-test.  Once we're finished, we start sorting them into piles that suggest a theme, clumping similar Ends together until we feel it is about as organized as it is going to get.  At this point, We grab a different colored post-it note and start giving each one a title that might best explain what the mean could be and when we are finished with that, we go about labeling it with the exact opposite as well.   ie: Loved ones : Isolation.   Create something of worth: Destroy things of value.   The first title is what the players are attempting to achieve, the second title is the opposition.

 When we finish, we then write down each of the opposition values on a sheet of paper, which are now "our"  Ends and then we brainstorming for possible Means.  ie, men of violence, disease,  The list is almost a full page long, with two columns when we are finished, and so we start picking from among them.  We want to match the number of Ends pretty closely, but do end up with a few more Means than Ends.  It turns out this is okay for now; we may be creating more as we go, or changing the ones we have.  

 We now have a list of Stage-Hand's Ends and Means for use in making our supporting cast.

Keeping this list in mind, we begin to make some protagonists of our own, and end up with the following.

Sara - Vice Dealer, Prophet.  -And coming later, The Match-Maker.  (I reserve the right to change these before Friday)

Adam - The Librarian, The Dictator

And so we wrap up the night, Our Opposition Brief complete.

----Goals before Saturday----

Type up Character sheets, Census Descriptions and Atlas Descriptions.

Create and Type up Supporting Cast.

Here are some links that may be useful.

Ends and Means - www.grapevinelarp.com/EndsAndMeans

Sara's is a hard act to follow. I won't give quite the blow-by-blow report, instead simply calling out the notable points as I see them.

Beginning an Act

I began by explaining how to assign Weight at the start of an Act; how that earns you Plot Points; how Plot Points turn into Potential; and what Potential is good for.

Concern: As usual, I stumbled over describing the difference between assigning a high weight and a low weight to an End or Means. I need a short, punchy sell for this, something viscerally clear, that matches the experience of play. It’s hard because a thing with high Weight isn’t “powerful” – it’s easy to defeat if you expect it. Low Weight is more reliable, but costly.

Part of the problem is that the numbers have nothing to do with any fictional characteristics of the End or Means. They refer explicitly to how the author wants to use those elements in the story. I called the number “weight” to draw parallels to dramatic “weight” in a story, but I’m not sure those parallels will hold true in play.

Insight: Perhaps I'm working this out even as I type. High weight on an End or Means establishes your protagonist in the act. These come out early in the story, demonstrating what your protagonist is "about." When they work, they work easily and without a hitch; when they fail, it's an injustice that must be answered.

Low weight on an End or Means reveals your protagonist. These come out later in the story, showing what your protagonist is truly made of. When they fail, they demonstrate the character's flaws. When they work, it's a hard-won triumph. Rely on these too long and the costs eventually drag you down.

A median Weight on an End or Means doesn't have a known place in the drama yet. Maybe in later Acts it will become an establishing trait or a revealing one, but for now, we're waiting to learn more.

I will try to answer this again later by asking people after the fact: “What did it feel like to use your high-Weight Ends and Means? What about the low ones? Are you planning to do the numbers differently next time? How?”

Cues

Next I explained Cues – the first brand-new part of the system I hadn’t explained before. I think the pieces began falling into place in people’s heads at this point. For the first time, I was telling them how stuff they did in game could loop back and affect their character sheet. That’s what GNS Theory calls a “Reward System,” and I have a hopeful feeling that it will end up driving the game like an engine, without the Stagehands having to initiate a thing.

Conflict Resolution

Last, I tackled Conflict Resolution. First I explained the difference between “Task Resolution” and “Conflict Resolution” systems (without using theory jargon, of course). I lightly sketched the idea of Stakes, mentioning that sometimes they lead to Compromise. Then I described choosing Ends and Means, comparing Weight, and how the Lead wins. I explained how the Director is established and what she does. Voila! Conflict at its most basic.

To help with an example, I used two players' new characters: one, a medieval baker with delusions of grandeur, who was holding a grand party; the other, a modern gold-digger looking to schmooze with the elite. The conflict was over whether the gold-digger would get an invitation to the party.

Next I described the exception, Stealing the Scene, and its counter, Commanding the Scene. Sara piped in with the very important and true warning that having the Scene stolen from you hurts!

About then we broke for dinner.

Matt reminded me about ties, and so during dinner I explained tie-breaker orders of comparison, and Auctions.

After dinner I explained what made an acceptable Stake, which included a brief discussion of the Treatment’s Scope. Then I described the difference between Minor Stakes and Major Stakes.

Last, a Conflict with three or more participants. Eight people jumped on the example of a young man who needed to have his life turn around. Whose philosophy will he adopt? The resulting fray showed how the principles of a basic conflict extended into a group.

Observation: I was surprised by how easily people accepted the rules I was laying out. I was expecting more people to balk at the idea of resolving a whole conflict with one exchange, or with Major Stakes requiring player consent, or with Scope being an artificially limiting factor.

Once they start playing, I'm sure the real hard questions will start coming up.

There's been a few concerns in general that I have with Sanctum: The Fallout.  Some of them I'm dreading the answer to while it's just too soon to say for the others.

•  Ready to Play

As is, Sanctum: The Fallout, is NOT a ready-to-play product.   To make it a ready-to-play Product is stepping into a brand new world and inviting so much work and cardboard cut-out that I'm pretty worried in general.   I'm going to have to decide what is more important.  The sheer adaptability, or a ready-to-play product?

Will I be creating 'versions' of Sanctum by creating some "Ready-to-Play" Versions?  In a way, this is really what I was trying to avoid when I re-created my world from thirteen years ago.   The very first version of Sanctum, was really alot like D&D, but set in a different world and with different characters and concepts for magic, fighting, herorics and villians.   On one hand, this creates tons of books and endless genre if done right; but that's not what I was going for this time.

 Adaptability, Undefined Elements that are left to the Story-Teller's Imagination with no 'rule' to tell you that you couldn't have certain elements within a game.   I was creating the world, the core-rules for that world's existance in order to still be Sanctum, but I wasn't actually creating the THINGS within the world.  I thought it was great...A "Make it your own way" World to do whatever you wanted with and then run with it...

But is this a bad thing?

Everyone really seems to just expect that Sanctum is "Ready-to-Play" and honestly, that isn't going to be true; unless I create little versions of Sanctum for people to pick from.

Does this mean my idea in general is flawed?

Phase Three: Ends and Means: Conflict Resolution! 

(see Adam's Entries for more details)

(commentary about how the overall beta-testing to come)

Phase Two: Character Creation

After months of planning, plotting and tweaking our material, it was finally time test our projects with live players.  It's the moment of truth as far as I'm concerned.