Indecision!

[Mr. Teapot]

After a few hours of having no ideas at all, I'm now in a situation where I have too many ideas to make. Most of them are just vague ideas that will quickly fall by the wayside. But the two ideas I'm most likely to actually write and submit both seem to be of equal worth and interest to me. So i'm looking for feedback on the two ideas, to see what people think of each. Maybe I'll choose to work more on the one you guys prefer, or maybe I'll work harder on the other one, but either way someone else responding to my ideas might help me in the writing process.

The first idea is a game using the 4 sessions of 2 hours rule, with Committee, Emotion and something else (not sure which yet). You play a trial sequence, wherein one player is the Accused, one the Victim, one representing the Committee that judges, and one a Witness to the crime. It is clear from the start that the Accused committed the crime he is acused of, but the Committee needs to determine his motives for doing so. So each participant tells his or her version of the crime over the course of a session (Committee going last, as a judgement of what happened). Each version will be similar in broad strokes, but different in details and, importantly, in the motives of the participants. At this point, I'm thinking of some card based mechanic wherein each suit is a particular emotion or motive, and in conflicts you play cards and narrate why you're doing things as well as how. Each session the Trump suit changes, too, so you are portraying your character with different motives than before. 9Think Rashomon or Hero.)

The other idea uses the ten sessions of one hour apiece. One player takes the role of the Actor, who is in a precarious osition that will end very badly for him within an hour and is trying to avoid that fate. The other players are playing NPCs and impartial forces trying to push the Actor toward a given ending, most of which are bad. Each session these roles rotate around, so probably everyone gets to be the Actor. Each session also plays out over the same span of time: the Actor reaches the same crisis, then tries to avoid in in some novel way, and the other oppose this in various ways. So onceagain you have multiple different versions of events, though in this case they're more like alternate realities than alternate viewpoints. I've got the start of a system whereby the hour time limit affects the difficulty of the Actor's actions, whereas the session number increases the other player's actions.(Think Run Lola Run.)

There is, of course, more to both but it's still being worked out. Which of these interests people? Likely problematic issues with either? Which should I do? Maybe I should do both, I dunno. Don't want to split my resources too thin, though.

[Graham Walmsley]

[Lebrante]

In typical, indecision-assisting fashion, I support the second option. It has a Lemony Snicket/Edward Gorrey approach that I find very appealing.

I had thoughts similar to the first idea, but they all ended up too much like to be my own ideas.

[Mr. Teapot]

[Mr. Teapot]

Fleshing out ideas more. This is at least partly a thinking out loud, though it's also to give you a better idea what I'm thinking about right now. I'm using the to help flesh out ideas and figure out what still needs work. This one's for the first game idea mentioned, which needs a title. At the moment, I'm just calling it "Judgement" but that will likely change if I continue the game.

1.) What is your game about?**

This game is about the difficulty of discerning the truth, and the difficulties in judgement when the truth is uncertain. The game's also about human motivations, and what drives people to do what they do.

2.) What do the characters do?**

The three roles that are not the Commitee judging each tell their own version of the criminal act, trying to shift blame around, affirming or denying things the others claimed. The Committee is trying to reach a definitive version of the truth and judge guilt based on this version of the truth.

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

The Victim will describe a crime the Accused perpetrated, and narrate his version of the events. The other can question or interject here, and/or try to shift the flow of the narrative, and the Victim can retaliate similarly. Then the Accused gets to narrate his version, with similar interjections. Then the Witness does so, and finally the Committee, with judging. Each version occupies one session. Each player is trying to establish their motives were positive and the others negative.


4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

The game will be variable setting: there's no default, but I'll outline three or four possible uses of the system for different settings and genres, in varying amounts of detail. in any of these settings, the situation is the same: hard judgements need to be made based on conflicting stories.


5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Character generation consists of two aspects: defining your relation to the crime and assigning relative strengths of motives. All characters fall into one of the four roles, and you need at least one of each role, but once you know your role, the Victim outlines a crime, the Accused explains his background before the crime, the Witness explains the circumstances of the crime and why he was there. The Committee establishes what sort of tribunal it is, exactly. Thus, the character is all about the crime

Then you rank the different Motives (card suits), which affect your narration and how you explain what you did and why, which is the meat of the game.


6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

Conforming to the facts established by previous narrators lends credibility to your story, but likely hurts your case as they probably put you in a bad light.

In another area, the game mechanics allow you to accomplish most acts with most suits, but change your narration based on _why_ your doing it, not what you're doing.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

Conforming to previous narration gives you bonus cards, increasing your chance of winning a conflict.

Using different motivations allows you to make a given suit/Motive Trump, which lets you win a conflict.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

The Accuser establishes a crime. Other than situation establishment, most traditional GM functions are split between the Committee (incidental NPCs and rules arbitration) and the Witness (establishing setting). Primary narration rotates, but others can interject and force other details into the narration when not their session for priary narration.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

It raises questions about our experience, the nature of truth judgement, blame and justice. Too high faluting? At least some of the players can Win or Lose this game, which diverges slightly from traditional rpgs. hopefully the situation will grab people.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

Card based, with each suit being an emotion or motivation. Each role is strongly tied to one suit/motivation (Accused=Clubs=Anger, Victim=Spades=Fear, Witness=Hearts=Love/Joy/Kindness, Committee=Diamonds=Justice). Winning a hand lets you establish facts in your favor, but you need to incorporate your motivations according to the suit you played. Each role can make their suit Trump other suits some of the time.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

The suits are motivations, and they are about establishing facts in the narration, which are the two things the game's about.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Not directly, but each session there will be more established continuity than previous sessions, giving bonus cards to those who incorporate them. The characters will be progressively losing their ability to assign Trump, because it's a limited resource.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

It's about trying to establish truth, so as the game goes on maybe there are more confirmed facts to rely on, or maybe there are a horde of conflicting theories.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

considering multiple viewpoints, wondering how much we really know, and competing against your friends to estalbish your version of events as the real one.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Basically the motives of the characters, though in the various alternate settings, there'll be details on different systems of sin/guilt/law/justice/etc.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

Rashomon-like competing narratives. Postmodernism in practice, sorta. Each player has their own version of events they want to have happen, and are arguing over which will happen. Just like in an rpg session, really, but this time made explicit. And just like an rpg session, the result won't be what any individual wanted, but some conglomeration of each, which is hopefully cooler than the sum of its parts.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

Se the last question for one. Plus, you could do courtroom drama in other systems, but I'm not aware of any focusing on judgement (except the notably different Dogs in the Vineyard), especially judgement when dealing with inconstant narratives.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

At the moment, win Game Chef and get it in the book for Child's Play. After the contest? Who knows. Maybe a PDF for sale or for free distribution.

19.) Who is your target audience?

I just want a game I wat to play with people I know. Second to that would be other people on the internet, like Game Chef participants, who are interested in weird and narrow rpgs. A very distant third would be a vague hope to interest people into rpgs via an rpg without sicence fiction or fantasy elements (necessarily): people who watch Law and Order or Court TV. But I have no idea how to reach those people.




Hopefully later this evening I'll post something similar about the other game.

[Mr. Teapot]

The second (10x1) game is also as yet title-less. I think I need the game more written before I entitle it.

Once again, I'm designing out loud and trying to put my thoughts in order, using the Power 19 to do so.



1.) What is your game about?**

A person in crisis, trying to fight against the world at large and their own shortcomings.


2.) What do the characters do?**

The Actor (single PC style character) in trying to escape their crisis: a horrible situation that is spinning out of control and could go wrong in a variety of interesting ways.

The other characters are each there to highlight how an impersonal Force affects the Actor, typically keeping said Actor from reaching their goal. A police officer may represent how the Law causes a jewel heist to go wrong, but a know-it-all scholar may represent how the hero's own stupidity foils his own plans (by highlighting the disparity in intelligence).


3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

Each session, one player will control the Actor and the others will embody the Forces stopping the Actor. These roles rotate around over the course of the game. The Actor is very traditional PC declare what you want, then roll to attempt. The Forces, however, construct Laws the gameworld works on: if-then statements that determine the effect of whatever actions the Actor undertakes. The Forces are competing to push the Actor in different directions, toward specific Endings, all opposed to the Actor's own goal.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

It's a setting-less, or setting-variable game. Once again, I'll leave the game open, but give variable amounts of detail how to use the game for everything for Heist movies to Greek tragedy to mock-Victorian black humor. Possibly even into other genres, like romantic comedies.


5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

The Actor is collaboratively created: everyone has a hand in creating the Actor and the crisis the Actor is in. This engages all the players, and focuses their attention of the crisis and the Actor's situation.

The Forces are all about what keeps the Actor from achieving their goal, and are detailed only a small amount: the Force, the Ending they desire, and a secondary character that highlights the role of their Force.


6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

I want the game to reward creating interesting situations and consequences for the Actor. People could just kill the Actor outright, but doing so would be boring compared with, say torturing the Actor over the course of an hour and then killing the Actor elaborately.

I'm trying to figure out how to reward the players such that the Actor fails for most of the early sessions, then eventually comes to succeed in the final sessions. I don't have a reward system for that yet, though.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

I think that there's going to need to be a currency system whereby players reward each other for cool or entertaining plot twists. Perhaps also introduce in a system whereby I declare "I want to see this in the game" and every time another player introduces it into play, I must give them some of said currency (like inverse Keys), encouraging others to put in things I want to see happen in game.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

GM duties are split between most of the players, with Forces able to compete against one another to establish facts about the game world in the form of conditional sentences.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

Ideally, the collaboratively created actor will engage every player. Which is good, because I want the playersto care about the Actor even as the engineer his repeated downfall. Also, seeing his repeated failure and going over what went right or wrong and how things might have gone different.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

At this point, I think the Actor needs to roll a die (d10? if so, exploding die) to beat the current number the minute hand on an analog clock is pointing at (so, 3 at 4:15, or 8 at 4:40) to succeed on an action. The Forces, however, need to beat the current session number to establish a fact about the world. In opposed checks, both try to beat the appropriate difficulty, and the one that beat it by more wins (if neither beats it, no success for anyone).

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

The Actor is in a crisis, which is rapidly getting worse. Hence the clock based difficulty. By the end of an hour, any action is basically impossible. The Forces, however, are establishing constant facts about the world, which carry over from session to session, so these accumulate but it is harder and harder to introduce new information later in the game.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Just the accumulation of the facts, as above. Each session resets to the beginning of the hour for the Actor, or perhaps a few minutes later (right before things went wrong), so the Actor doesn't really learn anything, except perhaps that the previous plan wouldn't work.

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

It's about the Forces that put a person in crisis, so all that increases from scenario to scenario is awareness of the situation.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

Black humor, for one thing. Consideration of the forces acting on our lives that put us in the situations we find ourselves in. surpise at the interesting plot twists the other players introduce.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Extra attention goes to detailing the Actor and the Crisis. Each player gets to add details about the Actor and Crisis, to guarantee a sufficiently complex and interesting situation to sustain the game for ten hours (nine after character creation).

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

Repetition of the events, providing insight into why things happen like they do. Lots of questions about the nature of history and free will exist because we only have one history that we can see, leaving us wondering "what would life be like if I'd done something differently?". In this game, you can explore the alternate possibilities of if you had done something differently. How inevitable was his death? Lofty goals, perhaps.

Not exactly time travel: sort of exploration of alternate realities for the same fictional character.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

That bit above, about the exploring how things would be different if you'd done them differently? That there.

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

Win Game Chef, get it in the book. Possibly revise it, playtest it and publish it as a PDF or POD after the contest. We'll get there after game Chef itself is past.

19.) Who is your target audience?

I'm leaning toward writing this game because my wife expressed more interest in this game than the other one. So she's my primary audience, partly because of favoritism but also beause her support vastly increases the chances of me actually play(test)ing the game. So her, then the rest of my gamer friends into weird things, then folks online into odd games.

[Chanticrow]

I'm definately leaning toward the second idea. I'm with Zach in that when I first saw "Law" as an ingredient my mind went to Phoenix Wright. The first game concept would probably attract more people due to the familiar subject matter, and might go over very well particularly if the mechanics are good and facilitate play.

On the other hand, I like the concept of the second game. I like the idea that all of the players have input on what makes this character tick, and alternate determining what he does, why he does it, and what those outcomes will be. Plus, putting the player controlling the character in a really tight spot near the beginning could make things more difficult when it's your turn later.

At The Forge there's a game called Under the Bed where everyone plays toys trying to help out the child that owns them and vie for favorite toy status. All of the players end up having input about the child, and everyone sort of controls the child at different times. It works really well, and I'd love to see another game where all the players have input in shaping the main character, particularly if they're trying to lead him into temptation.

The clock/session mechanic is very creative. I'd like to fiddle with that in other game settings outside of Game Chef.