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.

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?

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.

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.

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

I went back to explaining the character concepts.  We had touched a bit on it when testers were just arriving but we hadn’t really dove into it fully yet.   I started with the basic concept of our beta test and that our goal was to keep it simple.  No superheroes, no super mystical powers or famous historical figures.  Everyone was an ordinary human being, who was living an ordinary life for the most part.

It was then explained that by ordinary, it was meant that players were not going to have super-powers or be famous historical figures.   They could be from any period in time, from any place in the world, but they had to follow the guide-lines of historical probability.   We started to get alot of questions right away, but there wasn’t alot of confusion about expectations at this point.   Some of the questions asked, I already had an answer for and was ready for it, but some of them definiately made me think for a moment  because I hadn’t actually considered my answer to them. 

• “How about different languages and dialects?” 

I had already established that characters would be able to understand each other, even if they spoke different languages, so this one didn’t pose much of a hesitation.  It was one of the first things I had thought about when I chose to have characters from different places in the world and from different time periods. 

• “What about Written Languages?  What about Sign Language?”

 I don’t know if this one threw Adam for a loop but it caught me completely off-guard; I hadn’t even thought about it.  We discussed it with the players, although I had formed an opinion just a few seconds after my brain caught up to the suprise of realizing I hadn’t considered that question yet.  My immediate thought was of how neat I thought it would be if No, written languages couldn’t be understood in the same way verbal languages were.   Lucky for me, the testers seemed to agree with that opinion, and we all agreed that Verbal and Sign Language could be understood by everyone, but written language was an exception to the rule and if you didn’t know that language, or how to read, you were just out of luck.  I was pretty pleased with this unexpected twist, but more pleased at how interested the testers actually seemed to be in the question in the first place.

Observation: The testers have started to assume ownership of the game and forming attatchments to thier ideas; this is exactly the sort of attitude I was hoping to get.  If they have already started to make attatchments and making active changes in the enviroment this early on, that’s the first step to caring enough about the game to actually PLAY the game.   Considering that actually caring about the game itself is one of the most important things to making something work?  I’m thrilled to see it happening with the playtest.

Creating the Protagonists

I gave everyone a sheet of paper and Adam explained to our testers that someone didn’t need to know the game mechanics in order to create a character/protagonist.   I really just let Adam take control of the floor at this point and I think I had finally become alot more comfortable with the flow of everything in general.  Adam guided them along the creation process and kept them focused on not the history of their protagonist, but of what drives that protagonist.  It is an important part of Sanctum as well as ends and Means, and it really covered both the game and the system so I thought it was fitting we both were involved in this part of the night as far as explaining it all the our testers.  He dug out the idea of what they were and what values/motivation they had while I prodded them to not just pick a who or what, but a when and where.  What year were they born?  Where were they from?  

Adam charted the characters on the whiteboard as they came into existance and by the end of the brainstorming we had the core of the protagonist coupled with what drives them.  ie, The Bum - Alcholism.  (I think Adam is going to cover it more specifically in his entry, but if not, I’ll come back and get more detailed) 

Ends and Means Character Sheets

Once everyone had a character concept on the white-board, we took a we busted out the Ends and Means Character Sheets, passed them out to everyone and started explaining that.  We didn’t get very far when we had to pause so I could explain a quirk that Sanctum created in the character creation process.   It is an optional modifier but it is still a modifier and so I explained the following.

Personality Type: “Skeptic, Realist, Questioner” and Extremity: barely, mildly, greatly, extremely -

 I gave a very basic run-down of each personality type and then explained how aspect is just giving definition to a mind-set that most protagonists are already going to have.  It’s more of a reminder than it is an absolute and it can be changed at any time.  There is no reason why a skeptic couldn’t turn into a questioner, and there’s nothing to say that a questioner couldn’t turn into a realist.  It’s just part of character development and there is no technical advantage or disadvantage to taking this feature.  

From the Testers: It seemed like everoyne had a question, but most of them had to do with wanting examples.  They seemed really confused at the start of this segment, and I ended up getting confused myself for a moment.

Concerns: Personality types seemed like a good idea when I created them but as I tried to explain it, it created so much confusion that I was ready to remove it from the beta testing right then and there.  I was ready to conclude that the the feature was a failure and that Adam was right in suggesting that it wasn’t needed, when I considered that it wasn’t nessisarily the feature that was the problem but that my oral explanation of it failed to do its job.   As I continued to answer questions that the testers had, and continued to give examples, it dawned on me that I might have jumped to conclusions about personality types being a failed modifier; in fact the idea seemed to grow on the testers once they understood it and I do have interest on if it actually adds anything to the game-play.  It stays, for now…but I’m not entirely sure I’ll feel that way at the end of the testing.

Ends and Means - Defining them in a character

Once we got past the Personality Types, It was Adam’s turn again, since who best to explain Ends and Means than the person who created it?  He went through the mechanics of his system,  (see his posts for details) and instructed our testers on just what Ends and Means were and how they are both tied into who their protagonists are and what makes them tick. 

concerns: They caught on to the concept fast enough but some of our testers had a hard time trying to establish what sort of means they might have, or what ends could be considered worth writing down.  I don’t really remember this being an issue in the last play-test involving Ends and Means so I’m wondering if it is because our testers are used to having supernatural abilities or features to explain how things get done that it is harder to find a mundane way of doing the same thing?   I couldn’t help but notice that it was those who were new to Larping that finished their ends and means first, and didn’t seem to have the same hesitation in determining what they were.   Eventually, everyone was able to figure out thier ands and means and I don’t think we hit any major snags along the way.

observation: At some point during the brainstorming for ends and means, we took a small break to order Pizza.  It was 6PM already and we were pretty hungry.  Everyone had finished their Ends and Means character sheet and Adam was talking more about the actual system and how it was used when the pizza finally arrived.  We took a break to eat and I was glad to see that people were pretty excited about their characters. There was alot of buzz going on as people started fleshing out thier protagonists enough that we actually started putting them in the Census. There was even one tester who created an NPC and included that NPC as one of his means. 

Concerns: I’m not sure about Adam, but I didn’t expect this part of the game to take so long; (there were a few individuals who came to game knowing exactly what they wanted to play and were a bit ahead of everyone else since they had read the rules, treatment, ect, so I don’t think we can really blame the treatment, the system or any other lack of preperation on our part) Everyone seemed to take it well, but teaching 15 players how to play a brand new game in a world they know nothing about with a system they have never seen before just took longer than I expected.   I’ll have to look at ways to ways to streamline my explanations and if it’s even possible.  It could just be that we had alot of material to cover and were starting with a blank slate.

 Ends and Means: Conflict Resolution!  (see Adam’s Entries for more details)

 

observation: Me and Adam seem to be working well together and that’s pretty encouraging as far as I’m concerned, because it indicates that we understand enough about each other’s project that we’ll be able to trouble-shoot any complications or glitches that we run into as the testing continues.  I think it’s important to remember that there are not one, but two different play-tests going on at the same time, and that can really affect how the players are affected or affecting the entire game.   To be really discriminating, I’m really running two beta-tests at the same time, which means there are technically three beta-tets all at the same time.

(Sanctum: The Fallout, itself is Core-Setting RPG that is created with adaption in mind; namely to different systems without losing the integrity of the concept.  This beta test is an adaptation of  Sanctum to the Ends and Means system.  The Treatment for this beta-test is not a limit of Sanctum but an example of what can be created through the adaptation.  This means I am not only testing Sanctum: the Fallout, but the modification of it.  I have to keep in mind that not only could my adaptation fail, but it could be my core idea itself that caused it- hopefully, that isn’t going to happen though!)

I am really thankful to Adam for his time and his patience in this testing phase.  My project has been called ambitious by some developers and I’m really hoping to prove that it can indeed work!   I also am really happy to help support the testing of Ends and Means; I think it’s a ingenius system that isn’t getting nearly the credit it deserves.   Maybe I’m being optimistic, but who knows, maybe this beta-test will be just what our two projects need to draw attention.

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.

In the previous weeks we had created a yahoo group, inviting play-testers and uploaded the following materials.  (in PDF format)

• Sanctum: The Fallout/Ends and Means Phamplet - A brochure that gives a vague overview of the character creation process and the world setting for this particular game.   It explains via narration, the overall idea fueling the game and system and how they work together.
• Ends and Means: Playtest Revision - The current revision of Ends and Means.
• Ends and Means: Conflict Resolution Flow Chart - A graphic and text based flow-chart that guides you through the conflict resolution system; step by step.
• Treatment - Sanctum: The Fallout for Ends and Means - A document that gives a straight-forward explanation of how this particular play-test will run, what style and atmosphere the game will have, and what can be expected from playing Sanctum: The Fallout with the Ends and Means system. 

 We had twenty beta testers join before game, and several inform us that they intended to play, but they hadn’t joined the yahoo group yet.   There were several players who did indeed show but were not a part of the yahoo group, and there were part of the yahoo group who were unable to make it to this first game.  I’m hoping for a higher turn out next game.  (games are on the 2nd and 4th Saturday)   

Armed with nothing but our prized projects, dedication and hours and hours of pre-meditated preperation, Week One was finally upon us.    We were either ready or we weren’t…and it was time to put our material through the ultimate test; Live players who would actually be playing the game.

Me and Adam arrived an hour ahead of everyone else to ensure that we could be set up and ready to go when our play-testers arrived.   I was a little worried about turn out because our intended location was closed for the holidays and we were forced to change our time and location with barely a two week’s notice.  Instead of gaming at 7PM-Midnight in Minneapolis, we had to run the game from 3PM-8PM in Chanhassen. (About 15 minutes or so further south than intended)  While it did affect our numbers, it was not as distasterous as I feared, as we still managed a fairly decent turn-out at fifteen people.  We have confirmation of at least four more, with a possible fifth, so we’ll have to see how that turns out.

Our play-testers started arriving at about 2:30PM; a half hour earlier than expected;  everyone was seated and ready to go by 3:15.  Me and Adam had discussed our game-plan before our play-testers arrived and came to the conclusion that we should start with me explaining my world and the setting before he got into the rules and system.   I had estimated that we’d be doing alot of sitting down and even more talking this first night, so brought bribery of snacks and drinks to prevent too many interuptions.  (It turns out to have been a good idea because it took much longer than I anticipated it to, but I’ll explain that later)

 Phase One:  Explain the world and Setting to the players.

I started off with introductions and then promptly started explaining the theory behind Sanctum as far as it concerned the Beta-Test.  I hadn’t ever play-tested my own game, or even run a game before so it was completely new water for me; luckily, Adam was there to prod me in the right direction if I started to drift ahead of myself and he was a big help in giving suggestions on what order I should cover things in.  It helped in keeping me from getting too far ahead or from glossing over something that really did need more explanation.  I started out with the basic concept of ordinary people living ordinary lives, but then I started getting too much into making the actual character.  Adam suggested we explain setting first, and so I took his cue and dropped character development for now.

One of the first things I wanted to explain was the Atlas and Census, but it was really not going to make that much sense until I explained more about the places already in the world and I didn’t want to confuse eeryone.  (I had started to explain it a little bit and then backed off; when Adam pointed out that I could explain it later)

While the city itself was going to be mostly created by the players themselves as they role-played, there were going to be objects and places that would already be a part of the setting; existing from day 1, regardless of the player-base.  I then proceeded to describe and define those places and give a general feel to what they added to the city, or what atmosphere they helped create.  I then told them that these places were going to be described further in the Atlas, which I’d get back to after I explained a bit more.  

The objects/places were:

• Coffman Student Union - One of the Largest buildings in the city, it looks like a normal building from the outside.  There is a marble plaza with a working fountain by the entrance with a maypole where one might expect a flagpole.   Inside of the building, a prison from the early 19th century replaces where the parking garage should be and in the basement, there was a overflowing garden with tangled trees, a dark black lake and glowing rocks.  

(note:  I had meant to inform them that the cafe was now a grocery store, but it completely slipped my mind; I’ll have to make sure I make that clear before we start play next week)

From The Testers: Alot of questions were asked about the individual rooms of coffman and if they were normal or not.  I explained that only the features mentioned were absolutes and that anything else was really up to the players, as long as it was within the setting limitations.  (Which were pretty generous, considering the theme of Sanctum)  The testers got pretty excited at this point, and I heard alot of really good ideas being thrown around. 

Concerns: Nothing in particular right now.  The testers spent alot of time discussing all the possibilities and none of them seemed very outrageous and they seem to understand the concept pretty well.

• A Giant Clock Tower - A gigantic brick clock tower looms over the city, roman numeral hands keeping time.  I purposefully did not add many details to this tower, other than it operated on a pulley system of weights and chains, that it was a stone structure.   The Clockface was plain and the hands were of steel. 

From the Testers: I hadn’t even finished describing the tower yet when hands started going up.  They wanted to know more details and they wanted to know specifics that I hadn’t defined.  When all the questions were through, the clocktower had some new modifications.  It was agreed that there was lots of pigeons living in there, that there was a staircase going up to the top of the tower and that it did indeed run on manual gears and pullies, not electricty.   The idea to have the clock face read 13 numbers instead of 12 was denied.  The question came up on if someone could go in and kill all of the pigeons, and if they did so, would they just re-appear or were they gone, gone?  COULD someone do that?  Wouldn’t someone know?  Then we had a player actually ask if we could keep track of locations and buildings, or maybe write them down somewhere.  There was some general murmuring and someone asked if we planned on at least making a map.

At this point, I stopped with some of the descriptions to go back and discuss the Atlas some more, because that’s really hitting on why I created it in the first place.

The Atlas: Nothing more than a notebook binder used to keep track of all the buildings, places and objects within the city.  While players do not have to write down the places they create, anything that is NOT written down can be altered by another player at whim.  (If it wasn’t important enough to be recorded, then is it really that important?)  Some locations will be created by the stage-hands, (me and Adam), while other places will be created by players.   Each location/place has a single number/page assigned to it, regardless of how many sheets of paper are used to describe or define it.   The name of the location/place is copied to the index of the binder, along with the number, and the owner’s name to make it easy to find.  The owner is the person who wrote it down and no one can make changes to that structure/location without first notifying the owner.  (Because the owner would be aware if something is happening or has happened to a place familiar or owned by themselves and it also gives the player a chance to act upon it, including if they wish to use conflict resolution to do so)  If someone creates a place but has no interest in if something happens to it, they can place ownership as “None”   This means anyone can alter the description freely through roleplay, and they just have to document the changes and sign off that they made the changes.

From the Testers: They really seemed to dig the idea, and we had alot of questions about what was allowed and what wasn’t.  Adam had to jump in here, because part of the question related to his system and it really was answered best by understanding the rule that creates the limitations. (I’ll leave this part of the explanation to adam)  The basic rule however reminded them that the biggest question was if it was “setting appropriate” to create on a whim.   If something was overly convienent, (ie, a key to a locked gate that just happens to be under a rock near that gate), you really shouldn’t be creating it without a stage-hand.   The same goes if it it were not an object or place that was appropriate to the setting. 

observation: At this point, I think both Adam and I realized at about the same time that what Sanctum considers ’setting appropriate’ was pretty vast.  I could be mistaken, but I’m not sure if Adam considered that a game like Sanctum might stretch the boundries set by Ends and Means further than originally planned.  (I don’t see this as a bad thing personally.  Ends and Means isn’t broken by Sanctum and it still offers explanation for what IS limited by the power of narration, even if the example given in his book is contradicted by Sanctum itself)  I reserve the right to be completely wrong about my observation; after all, I’m no mind-reader.

concerns: I had reservations about the atlas and census when I first made them but became convinced it was nessisary.  Adam expressed a strong reluctance to introducing them to our beta-test but I felt that the work it would create would be worth the effort and would help keep the game consistant, maybe even promote role-play and interaction.   The testers seemed daunted at first but I noticed alot of interest as I went on with the explanation.  They started asking questions immediately about what kind of things they could add and what limitations there were on creating them and the further we got into the night, I felt a relieved to see that some of the players just seemed to expect that we would have some sort of system to keep track of everything.  I’m going to maintain for now that with the way we are playing, the Atlas and Census are indeed nessisary tools.

 I moved on to The Census after the Atlas, since it was the same concept but with people instead of places.  (I had no sooner finished talking about the altas when someone brought up NPC’s so I figured it was as good a time as any.)

The Census: Our setting has a pre-established and finite number of people in our city.  (500) The play-testers are included in this number, as are NPC’s.  The numbering system works the same as the atlas, with the numbers referring to each person, rather than how many pages it takes to define that person; each person is one number out of that 500.  Because each and every person counts, it was explained that if any person were to die, whether NPC or PC, a stage-hand MUST be notified.   One of the reasons is because even faceless NPC’s matter in Sanctum, and the long-term affect has to be documented as it affects the game as a whole.  I didn’t get into all of the details because we had described it in the treatment, and we had already established that anyone could create an NPC and put them in the Census Book.   (And just like the Atlas, if one person didn’t do it, someone else has the right to)  Also like the Atlas, if a player wishes to alter an NPC listed the atlas, they must let the owner of the NPC know, so they can be aware of the change and possibly have a stake in it)  Also like the Atlas, if an NPC is not owned by someone, (they must be on the character sheet to be owned), they only have to roleplay out the scene and then document the changes on that NPC’s sheet.  Just like the atlas, if something is not documented, then it is no one’s fault but your own if other people do not roleplay those changes. (because how would they know?)

Concerns: I still worry about if I’m overdoing the details but the testers seemed to like the idea that they could reference something and have a way to keep everything straight as far as people and places are concerned.  They also seemed to really like the fact that they could have control over their own enviroment and that they didn’t have to be baby-sat by a storyteller to do everything.   I feel like I created a monster, but then again I really can see the benifit of having this way to allow development of not just PC’s but NPC’s, and players seem to approve of the fact that they can turn a faceless NPC into more of an actual person, who could impact the game or other players in some manner.   I think I understand completely what Adam was worried about when he expressed his reservations, but I’m still on the mind-set that the atlas and census is going to be important to the game.

Going back to that clocktower and pigeons…I  answered the question about the pigeons and the clock-tower, and the players seemed to approve of the answer.  We could establish that if someone wanted to kill all the pigeons, they could do so, because while the clock-tower belonged to the stage-hands, we did not object to the alteration as long as it got documented so that someone had the chance to react to those dead pigeons.

-more setting structures-

•  A Giant Plaque - set at the foot of the clocktower, reading the letter D and carved in stone, this plaque was described as being overgrown with plant-life but still clearly visable, the letter not obscured at all.  The original height was about eight feet by twelve, but I adjusted it to be about twenty Feet by thirty feet with a smaller plaque set beneath that one that had the original sizing, sort of like a mini-version of the larger plaque.

From the Testers:  They didn’t really have alot to say about the plaque, but seemed to have alot of interest in it.  We established that the font of the D was Garamond. (why?  because a tester wanted it specified, and so we obliged.)

• The Weather - It was explained that while the weather appeared to go in a seasonal sort of climate, it was not area effect in nature.  If it rained one place, it rained over the entire city.  If it snowed, it snowed all over.

Concerns: I haven’t really worked out the weather too much, and I’m not sure how big a factor it will play into the game.  I’ll have to look for it as we keep testing.

• Animals and Wildlife -  This explaination was simple and to the point.  Wildlife existed…any and all of it, whatever the players felt like creating, and yes, they could be in the city.  

From the Testers: I got alot of grins at this one and alot of laughter.  They seemed to think the idea was great but there wasn’t really alot of commentary other than the general approval of ‘anything goes’.

Concerns: I’m not sure yet.  I haven’t really dug this far into the game and it could burn me later.   We established later in the night that yes, you could in theory train an animal (like a badger) to open a door, but no, they aren’t going to start talking.  I’ll have to keep an eye on this…It could get messy, or it could be irrelevent.

• The Desert - Surrounding the city, is a desert.   It doesn’t go anywhere, although it give the appearance of such.  In the desert are sparse trees and shrugs, sand and the occasional oasis.  It never leads anywhere but more desert, even if you traveled for days and days; but if you turn back, you can see the city after only a few minutes of trying to return.

From the Testers: I didn’t even get to this feature before players started asking what was outside of the city. I remembered I had forgotten to describe the desert and I had no sooner than gotten the words out of my mouth to describe it than they pounced on the idea.   Did it not go anywhere and did it look like it was going nowhere and not any further than the city, or did it actually lead somewhere if you walked in it long enough?  Could you get lost in the desert?  What was out there?  Was it dangerous?  

Concerns: I actually forgot about this feature until a tester brought it up, literally asking what was outside of the city and joking about if it led anywhere of if it was just some desert or ocean.  I don’t think I have any actual concerns just yet.  Players seemed content with the explanation and seemed to like the overall idea of it.  I was trying to keep from jumping ahead of myself with content and explanations but this group really just charged forward and kept leaping for me.  I’m satisfied that alot of the questions they asked, I had already had explanations for and just hadn’t gotten to them yet.   The desert has potential to cause alot of trouble in game, so I’m going to be watchful for complications, but I don’t think it’s going to come up right away.  The focus seems to be on the city, not the desert.

•  Stars, Moon, Sky - The sun and moon are a transparent, shadowy red.  The stars look normal but they are not in any recognizable constelations or positions. 

From the Testers: Again, one step ahead of me, I no sooner mentioned the moon then they leaped ahead to asking about the moon, sky and stars.  It just goes to show that they really do want the small details just as much as the big ones.  I really have Adam to thank for reminding me that some things are really better pre-defined ahead of time.

Concerns:  None at this time