![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
playtest session 21 -- scenario M2m5 completes!
3/1/09 -- me GMing for Dan, John and Merlin at Dan's place
Last week, Dan told me that all the phases of my scenarios were fun, the problem was just that we'd have one session of low-drama info-gathering, and then another session of high-drama fighting and rushing. Having things build up and climax during a single session would be more satisfying. This made sense to me, and we both bemoaned the fact that we only get 3 hrs at a time to play, and 6 hrs would fix everything.
Well, yesterday proved that theory correct.
We nailed the "thoughtful planning followed by frantic implementation" formula that has been a source of fun in other games in years past. The players started with a little info, gathered some more, got in trouble, ran away, formed a plan, came back, and executed the plan well enough to win the day. We finished the session with the PCs bringing the monster's head to the center of town, hyping themselves, and then going to relax and wash off in the nearby river (cue arrival of groupies).
Designed Scenario Aspects
Having an idea of the monster's mission and how it went about it was extremely helpful. It allowed me to focus on the fiction in the moment without taxing my brain by simultaneously troubleshooting stuff for consistency.
Having an idea of the keys to victory was also helpful. As with the monster's doings, I drew and interpreted cards from my tarot-ish deck for this.
Having a Clue-Task flow chart of Clue A -> Task B -> Clue C -> Task D and Clue W -> Task X -> Clue Y -> Task Z also allowed me to get by without the more time-consuming prep process of drawing some maps and labeling their contents. The flow chart was constructed largely by referring to the monster's mission, victory keys, and general physical properties of the situation (it's in a cave).
Having two connected tracks on the flow chart, such that Task D led back to Clue W with an extra dose of certainty and urgency, enabled me to "slow play" the hints without worrying that the players would ultimately flounder.
Having the tarot spread ready for the players was a huge help. It was both a springboard for them to try stuff, a reference point for when they got stuck, and a satisfying reinforcement of "we are going the right way" or "yes, we should try that last idea we had." They did the reading early and left the spread on the table for the full session. Maybe some "do readings early!" reminder in the eventual game text would be wise...
Worth noting: the players were inclined to focus on different aspects of the cards depending on tehir positions in the spread. The default seems to be to focus on the human figure, but in the "key to" positions, the players took more note of actions, elements, and objects.
Ad-libbed Scenario Aspects
The reason ad-lib was necessary is that too many of the Clues in my Clue-Task tracks were non-obvious in terms of how they propelled the players from one Task to the next. For pacing reasons, it might be wise for me to make the first Clue in each track very non-obvious, the third Clue very obvious, and the second Clue in-between...
When the players interpreted a Clue in a way other than how I had decided it would work, I ad-libbed how their attempt told them about the correct answer. My ad-libs performed their function well enough, but this was yet another example of mediocre color and non-vetted functionality in Delve magic from my ad-lib.
Example: Fire Glyph
The players used their perception powers to identify the glyph, but they missed my subtle hint about their crystal magnifying sunlight, and sunlight and fire being magical cousins. Instead, they interpreted the Druidess card (in the position of being the "key to" the King / Fire card) as saying they should "bring together" the glyph and their fire-themed herbs. So, they didn't shine the glyph through the crystal; instead, they ground up crimson vine, mixed it with water to make a paste (as they'd done for the Grell Cave), and rubbed it on the glyph.
Now, what I had planned was that the glyph was completely immaterial, as well as being simple and not flexibly interactive. So, tracing your plant-mush-covered finger along it shouldn't really do anything. Based on past experiences with contrived-looking settings, I hesitated. After all, some dead-ends are good, as long as there's another thing to try. However, I simply didn't think they were going to hit on the crystal idea without further hints.
So, I gave them a vision. I don't know what the underlying logic is; whether rubbing the correct herbs on glyphs always gives you visions, or even what constitutes "correct" or "glyph", or whether the visions tell you "how to utilize" or "goes well with" or what. Yikes. Also, between prophetic dreams and perception powers, this game is already long on visions, and I'm risking engendering a "get on with it" ho-hum response.
At least I did a good job with the specific vision. Rather than giving them a vision of the crystal, I gave them a vision a wall with 6 holes in it. Dan was stumped, but John remembered they'd removed 6 crystals from holes in Elericus's basement. Whew!
Puzzle-Solving as Major Play Activity
Sometimes adventuring and seeing wierd new stuff just hands you a series of obvious pieces and shows you clearly how they fit together. Cumulative understanding becomes a fun augmentation to whatever else is going on in play, much like the way curiosity augments missions.
Other times, you need to wrack your memory, scour your notes, read the cards, form theories, draw connections, debate, and run experiments to correctly put together a puzzle that cannot be ignored.
It's a weird feature of Delve that a game not primarily concerned with win/lose nevertheless provides some real challenges. You can, of course, opt out and just charge ignorantly into danger... but that is more likely to get you killed. What I need to strengthen here is the option to engage with the fiction (go somewhere, talk to soemone) to get more information in a way that choosing that option is non-trivial (costs, obstacles, time pressure, etc.). Something like burning a gold piece to get a hint from god, except not lame.
Last week, Dan told me that all the phases of my scenarios were fun, the problem was just that we'd have one session of low-drama info-gathering, and then another session of high-drama fighting and rushing. Having things build up and climax during a single session would be more satisfying. This made sense to me, and we both bemoaned the fact that we only get 3 hrs at a time to play, and 6 hrs would fix everything.
Well, yesterday proved that theory correct.
We nailed the "thoughtful planning followed by frantic implementation" formula that has been a source of fun in other games in years past. The players started with a little info, gathered some more, got in trouble, ran away, formed a plan, came back, and executed the plan well enough to win the day. We finished the session with the PCs bringing the monster's head to the center of town, hyping themselves, and then going to relax and wash off in the nearby river (cue arrival of groupies).
Designed Scenario Aspects
Having an idea of the monster's mission and how it went about it was extremely helpful. It allowed me to focus on the fiction in the moment without taxing my brain by simultaneously troubleshooting stuff for consistency.
Having an idea of the keys to victory was also helpful. As with the monster's doings, I drew and interpreted cards from my tarot-ish deck for this.
Having a Clue-Task flow chart of Clue A -> Task B -> Clue C -> Task D and Clue W -> Task X -> Clue Y -> Task Z also allowed me to get by without the more time-consuming prep process of drawing some maps and labeling their contents. The flow chart was constructed largely by referring to the monster's mission, victory keys, and general physical properties of the situation (it's in a cave).
Having two connected tracks on the flow chart, such that Task D led back to Clue W with an extra dose of certainty and urgency, enabled me to "slow play" the hints without worrying that the players would ultimately flounder.
Having the tarot spread ready for the players was a huge help. It was both a springboard for them to try stuff, a reference point for when they got stuck, and a satisfying reinforcement of "we are going the right way" or "yes, we should try that last idea we had." They did the reading early and left the spread on the table for the full session. Maybe some "do readings early!" reminder in the eventual game text would be wise...
Worth noting: the players were inclined to focus on different aspects of the cards depending on tehir positions in the spread. The default seems to be to focus on the human figure, but in the "key to" positions, the players took more note of actions, elements, and objects.
Ad-libbed Scenario Aspects
The reason ad-lib was necessary is that too many of the Clues in my Clue-Task tracks were non-obvious in terms of how they propelled the players from one Task to the next. For pacing reasons, it might be wise for me to make the first Clue in each track very non-obvious, the third Clue very obvious, and the second Clue in-between...
When the players interpreted a Clue in a way other than how I had decided it would work, I ad-libbed how their attempt told them about the correct answer. My ad-libs performed their function well enough, but this was yet another example of mediocre color and non-vetted functionality in Delve magic from my ad-lib.
Example: Fire Glyph
The players used their perception powers to identify the glyph, but they missed my subtle hint about their crystal magnifying sunlight, and sunlight and fire being magical cousins. Instead, they interpreted the Druidess card (in the position of being the "key to" the King / Fire card) as saying they should "bring together" the glyph and their fire-themed herbs. So, they didn't shine the glyph through the crystal; instead, they ground up crimson vine, mixed it with water to make a paste (as they'd done for the Grell Cave), and rubbed it on the glyph.
Now, what I had planned was that the glyph was completely immaterial, as well as being simple and not flexibly interactive. So, tracing your plant-mush-covered finger along it shouldn't really do anything. Based on past experiences with contrived-looking settings, I hesitated. After all, some dead-ends are good, as long as there's another thing to try. However, I simply didn't think they were going to hit on the crystal idea without further hints.
So, I gave them a vision. I don't know what the underlying logic is; whether rubbing the correct herbs on glyphs always gives you visions, or even what constitutes "correct" or "glyph", or whether the visions tell you "how to utilize" or "goes well with" or what. Yikes. Also, between prophetic dreams and perception powers, this game is already long on visions, and I'm risking engendering a "get on with it" ho-hum response.
At least I did a good job with the specific vision. Rather than giving them a vision of the crystal, I gave them a vision a wall with 6 holes in it. Dan was stumped, but John remembered they'd removed 6 crystals from holes in Elericus's basement. Whew!
Puzzle-Solving as Major Play Activity
Sometimes adventuring and seeing wierd new stuff just hands you a series of obvious pieces and shows you clearly how they fit together. Cumulative understanding becomes a fun augmentation to whatever else is going on in play, much like the way curiosity augments missions.
Other times, you need to wrack your memory, scour your notes, read the cards, form theories, draw connections, debate, and run experiments to correctly put together a puzzle that cannot be ignored.
It's a weird feature of Delve that a game not primarily concerned with win/lose nevertheless provides some real challenges. You can, of course, opt out and just charge ignorantly into danger... but that is more likely to get you killed. What I need to strengthen here is the option to engage with the fiction (go somewhere, talk to soemone) to get more information in a way that choosing that option is non-trivial (costs, obstacles, time pressure, etc.). Something like burning a gold piece to get a hint from god, except not lame.
Hey David,
This reminds me of an idea I came up with not too long ago.
You notice how, in investigative fiction (or at least the stuff I've read, which is mostly Chandler), the investigators play hunches? And often the hunches are wrong. But they lead to something right.
I've thought, "what about a game where your guy has Hunch Points, and you can spend them to play a hunch, and whether it's correct or not (as determined by the GM), it leads you to something?"
And then I thought, "Hell, do we even need points for that?"
I feel like, as a GM, it's easy enough to litter the fiction with hints at every stage. Depending on how the hints are presented, the player experience varies from "I have a brilliant idea of something we could try! Go me!" to "We're obviously supposed to go this way."
The latter tends to work well as a minor part of a larger venture, and fits well in the middle of action-packed situations.
The former can provide a huge opportunity for players to make their mark on the shape of play. Non-obvious hints present important choices and can be viewed as challenges. One player may want to cautiously gather more info, another may want to charge in and find out more that way, and a third may want to sit and contemplate the available facts for a while, puzzling out a hidden pattern.
My experience seems to indicate that the most fun is had by all if the non-obvious stuff occurs early in a scenario, and the more obvious stuff occurs late. Concoct a plan, but don't stop in the middle of executing it to re-think. I think this parallels a lot of adventure fiction as well, especially heist/caper stuff.
I think the foundation for providing this is scenario design. On top of that, though, there might be some benefit to be found in point-spending or some other method of adapting to the disposition of the players at any given moment.
I think it would be really cool if a system of Hunch Points could allow GMs to responsively create scenarios, but I can't envision how to do that while maintaining the contrivance-invisibility I'm going for with Delve.
That all came out rather abstract. I'll embellish the initial post, maybe then this'll make more sense...
I dropped meta-game, social hints immediately that this wasn't the case, and Steven picked up on them, and suggested that they go check out Gil Cutter's house instead, which was the correct answer.
I totally goofed! I should have let them play out the cockamamie orchard scheme. And then, no matter how that played out, it should have led them to another clue or two about the correct answer.
This technique is like -- well, it's correction, and it's "GM says, so it is," but it's gentle. It does it without blocking or bullying, and it keeps the player's input consequential.
My parallel clue-task trails are a partial solution, but obviously says nothing about when the players do something the GM completely didn't anticipate.
So, how do we ensure that storming the orchard is fun? And how do we write the clue that orchard-storming yields (pointing to Gil Cutter) into the fiction without requiring GMs to be ad-lib geniuses?
(Reading what I just wrote makes wonder that much harder WHY THE HELL I ever shot the idea down)
As for the ad-lib issue: talking about this is my Achilles' heel. I'm good at ad-lib. I've trained myself to think from the bones and go on instinct (I did this for music, but it turns out to be good for gaming too). Problem is, this non-verbal sort of thought is extremely hard to verbalize, so I don't know how to talk about it.