Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.5a is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Design Issues: That certain something.

Bottom of Page

1 to 5 of 5

  1.  
    • CommentAuthoremilycare
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2009
     
    What gives a game with no mechanical resolution that kick? What makes a scene crackle with energy and tension, or sit there like a limp noodle?

    In the Mothers, there is one "perfect mother" in the new mothers' support group. The other mothers have to be willing to go for the throat to get the game to really click.

    In a game of Happy Ends, we played out an imaginary happy vacation with a family, and forgot ourselves for a moment and were really able to just play out happy times, in an engaged way.

    In Under my Skin, since we know the background of the characters, simple things like making a casserole or picking up a napkin can make all the watching players gasp or burst out laughing, while less informed bystanders might be baffled. The angels/demons bird-in-ear cranks up the tension, but in regular scenes if there isn't this kind of cross-cutting expectations and knowledge the scenes don't feel as powerful.

    What's going on here? What are other examples?
  2.  
    Isn't that the "structure" half of the equation? Or are you trying to get at something else?

    Are these things that can be explained as being part of the core guidelines for playing the game (i.e. "pick one player to be the Perfect Mother...") or are you seeing them more as emergent properties that are harder to ensure, aside from setting up spaces in which they will likely occur (i.e. "inevitably, one or more players will aspire to be the Perfect Mother...")?

    I've been thinking about both of these a great deal when working on the new draft of Geiger Counter, even though it isn't structured freeform. My approach to Geiger has definitely been strongly informed by my thinking about structuring play in general, in the sense that there are a lot of "soft guidelines" and suggestions in the rules that aren't hard-coded into resolution. And there are many other things that are emergent that I'm not even sure whether / how to talk about. I don't think Geiger is different than many other games in this regard actually, which is why -- more recently -- I've found it harder to talk about structured freeform as a separate thing from other styles of play, which I see more and more as heavily intertwined. You know that article on the Forge where Erick Wujcik says "You're playing diceless all the times when you don't roll dice." I think structured freeform is like that too -- it's what you're doing when you're not engaging with formal resolution mechanics.

    Like, to flip your question around, what is it about games WITH mechanical resolution that give them that kick? You know how Dogs in the Vineyard really starts getting teeth when one or more Dogs take a strong stand on an issue that the other Dogs disagree with ("That guy deserves to die. I shoot him." / "What? Are you insane?!! I totally stop you!")? The game doesn't tell you that moral conflicts within the party are awesome, but they are.

    Hopefully that gets at some of what you're talking about here. If not, maybe I'll start a new thread, since this just sorta came outta my head.
    • CommentAuthoremilycare
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2009
     
    That's right on target, Jonathan. I'm thinking both about what the structures do, how they create meaty situations, or ratchet up the tension, and also what in the fiction or experience of it makes a moment shine.

    When we played the jeepform ghost story, the first half was fun and fine, the two pairs of players established their characters, but I felt like we were all just noodling around. It wasn't until the second half of the game, where Danielle and Paula got to bird-in-ear and possess James and I as ghosts that the energy really kicked in. So that's a structuring mechanic doing it's job. But what about the example of Under my Skin from my first post where there is something going on even in the absense of the bird-in-ear?

    I think I'm wondering about those emergent properties. What are we trying to arrange through the structure of our games?

    Posted By: Jonathan WaltonLike, to flip your question around, what is it about games WITH mechanical resolution that give them that kick? You know howDogs in the Vineyardreally starts getting teeth when one or more Dogs take a strong stand on an issue that the other Dogs disagree with ("That guy deserves to die. I shoot him." / "What? Are you insane?!! I totally stop you!")? The game doesn't tell you that moral conflicts within the party are awesome, but they are.

    Right, and similarly in 3:16 part of what the rules do is point the players at one another in pointed conflicts based on the differing agendas of people depending on what their rank is. Player conflict is an integral point of the game, but it's not visible necessarily from looking at the rules.
  4.  
    To me it sounds like the Under My Skin situation is still generated by the structural set-up. If all that information wasn't on the table from the beginning, you wouldn't have the constant double/triple-entendre meanings for making casseroles. But that's also not really something you can set up explicitly in the rules. It would seem a bit overly blunt to have formal guidelines like "Players should endeavor to embed mundane behaviors with loaded meanings." But you can certainly create situations in which those opportunities are easier to take advantage of, while it's still ultimately up to the players to make them happen.

    The question then is how do you encourage or transmit these kinds of "best practices" methods / approaches, if they're not formal rules guidelines? My sense is that the transmission happens 1) in person, demonstrated during play; 2) in person, in informal conversations surrounding the game; and 3) in informal online conversations like these. Yeah?
    • CommentAuthoremilycare
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2009 edited
     
    Yes, informal conversation, and maybe "about playing" type notes in the game seem best. Those overlays of meaning do come from what you set up in play, and it's part of the director's job to see moments that could highlight them and nudge the group toward playing them out. Learning to look for that reminds me of the many small adjustments that occur when you internalize the rule "yes, and" for improvisation. Practice makes perfect. But, if we didn't have the set up to begin with--the structure--it would be so much harder. How do you do it in Geiger Counter, Jonathan?

    The point about games with mechanical resolution is a good one too. 3:16 is a case in point. The rules of the game tell you how to fight aliens, but the goals of the different ranks actually point the players into coming into conflict with one another, which seems to be the heart of the game. But if you're not expecting it, that can make *actual* conflict occur ("why did he make that asshole move?" "it was just what totally made sense from his perspective at that rank!")

1 to 5 of 5

  1.