Thanks to Graham for this, of course. It is very much appreciated.

And I'm glad I got to chat to Graham and talk through some of my thoughts on how to run the game before he set off to his table. It can be a bit daunting to start with nothing to be honest.

I also forgot to give him a book when I first spoke to him (though I did hadn over some Friendchips), which was an oversight on my part. And as I'd been off the net the night before I hadn't realised he was short of character sheets too (or I could have helped out there also). Anyway, I got him the book afterwards and the game probably makes more sense in the context of having run it/played it. I also find the bound book easier to read than a PDF print out.

I think the key things that Graham did well were to focus on what effect these in game decisions have on the characters. External adversity has its place, but the choices in game that resonate most are when they affect your Best Friends. Otherwise it can be a very strange experience of individuals pushing against the world, which is meaningless (since the world can't push back).

Things that I might have done differently? I'm coming round to the way of thinking that is doesn't have to be all Bang-Bang-Bang with conflict after conflict after conflict. A slower burn where we actually get along for the most part means that when we do conflict there is more to it. It also allows the characters to devleop and for players to establish where the all relate to each other in the fiction. It probably also allows for the story to make more sense -- since there is no drive to keep ratcheting up the conflicts.

When and how players choose to push against, and for, their friends is key. From that stories appear and fun is had, or that's the plan.