Sanctum: The Fallout / Ends and Means

Time for the long-overdue blog post!

Here's the stuff I've been considering in light of recent playtests.

The Simplification Experiment

We made the change this game to have narrators simply number their Ends and Means from one up, and to give everyone a single Plot Point. I liked the one major difference in play I observed: people sharing Plot Points among one another. When Trevor, Aleira and Moira were working to save Sergei's life, they pooled their Plot to ensure that the first Foil -- Aleira, with no Means -- could Steal the Scene from me.

I liked that because it reinforces the collaborative style of this game (as opposed to a competitive style). And I like that I got there by simplifying the pre-game prep.

Continuing along this path will involve making all costs in Potential cheaper; giving one Potential for attendance; numbering down from your Weight Limit instead of numbering up from one; offering the ability to spend Potential at game start for bonus Plot Points (at 2:1 or 3:1); and other changes to balance the new economy.

Scenarios

Perhaps it's too expensive; perhaps the option isn't visible enough; perhaps the benefit isn't compelling enough -- but in four games, nobody has purchased a Scenario yet. That gives me pause. I had pictured a different behavior.

It could be for entirely positive reasons. I designed Scenarios to address common game dysfunctions, after all: you buy one when you're bored, or when your personal plots aren't being addressed, or when the Stagehands are too wrapped up in their own stuff. If our game isn't having any of those problems, well then -- naturally nobody avails of their solution!

Cues

I'm disappointed with Cues so far. They're not doing what I want. I want them to a) help entangle people's stories in unexpected ways, and b) provide an independent-of-Stagehands measure for the important things you've done in the game. It doesn't look to me like that's happening.

I learned an interesting lesson when I accidentally stepped on a Cue Collette had put up; I never even considered that when I'm stirring the pot as a Stagehand, I should take care to avoid fulfilling Cues. Those are obviously meant for players to claim; Collette was disappointed when I took the plot in a direction that curtailed that, stepping in as the Librarian to "answer" for the bludgeoning of her "slave boy."

Tonya provided some heartfelt criticism around b). She feels like Moira is fulfilling her Ends, but she has no way to claim the mechanical awards for doing that, without engaging the Cue system -- which has for her, thus far, been irrelevant. She's done a whole lot of hardcore roleplaying, chasing her goals hard, never even going near the Cue Board. I wish I had a way to reward her for it, but I'm unwilling to step in with a declaration of "Look, I'm a Stagehand!" and bestow blessing.

I want Cues to measure progress toward your goals. I want Stagehands to have nothing to do with that measurement. I want the system to either resist collusion between players, or not be broken by it. How to do that? Design is hard!

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.

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.