a|state, actual play report, Warpcon 2007
Prior to running my Cold City game at Warpcon, I found myself unexpectedly running a game of a|state. My friend Brian, who had travelled down from Dublin had written the scenario, so I was interested to see what he had come up with. Brian always comes up with interesting ideas and, when there was an extra table of sign-ups by the time the game came round, I was unsurprised to be asked to run the second table (cue one confused punter asking “Which table should I sit at?” and Brian very loudly shouting “Well, he wrote the bloody game!” across the room. I futilly hid behind my dice).
Anyway, think this is a good example of a game that went well despite the mechanics doing precious little to actually support what the game is all about. When I wrote a|state (about, oh, 4 or five years ago now), my interest in the actual mechanical aspects of a game were minimal, to say the least. Times have changed, so it’s very interesting and informative to go back and look at the game again and see how it actually functions in play.
One of the only criticisms I had of the scenario that Brian had produced was the lack of explicit character motivation that could be grasped with a single glance. Now, part of the fault lies with the mechanics of the game: it’s a traditional percentile system with nothing in the way of flags for the characters. Character motivation was transmitted through about a page (per character) of text, half of which was common to all the characters. However, when the mechanics lack anything to actually encourage the players to use this information, it ends up being a very GM-intensive session.
One unusual aspects, for a game of a|state, was that the characters were all from higher echelons of society, rather than from the streets. To wit, they were senior managers and executive types from Sideband, the major media provider in The City. The plot was that large areas of The City were no longer being subjugated by the soothing effects of television, riots were spread and people were spouting views that they should not hold. Thus, the characters were charged with sorting this out and finding out what was going on.
The motivation for the characters was, pretty much, that their boss had ordered them to do it. In order to provide a bit more impetus, I ended up whispering in players’ ears secret instructions from the boss regarding everyone else. This was carried on through the game by handing out (somewhat improvised) scraps of paper with notes on them. These were design to sow discontent and suspicion, but despite my best efforts, the players seemed very intent on actually solving the mystery!
There were, however, some very good (and some very bizarre) moments of play. The youngest player in the group was, I would estimate, 13 or 14, which caused me to moderate my style and language somewhat. We didn’t really have much time to ascertain where boundaries lay before play, but as the game went on it became clear that the young chap was not the least bothers by descriptions of violence. In fact, he seemed to take a gleeful relish in them. Some players were initially flummoxed by being given a fair amount of latitude with their characters. For example, they asked what equipment they had. My response was “Whatever you think would be useful to your character.”
Probably the best moment was a rooftop chase in the slum of Folly Hills, with the characters skipping, staggering and weaving their way along gabled roofs. Only to have said gabled roof blow up underneath them. This actually led to the most bizarre situation in the game. One character was on another roof by this point, so was pretty much free from the effects of the blast. The rest all had warning as one character left in the building shouted “there’s a bloody bomb in here!” (coupled with escaping gas). Three characters leapt three stories into a murky canal, but it was the character played by the young chap who remained on the roof. I had explicitly asked what each of the characters were doing. He elected to stay on the roof. “It’s blowing up you know”. He stayed and offered, despite my best and friendliest efforts, no rational explanation, either in or out of character. The upshot of this was that we had a vote around the table to decide the fate of the character. The majority was in the “Alive, but hideously injured” camp. I then asked the player if he was happy with this and would he prefer to leave the game (I had a suspicion that he might want to, having put his character in an almost certain death situation). No, he was happy to stay in the game because he was enjoying it.
In analysis, I’m not sure that I handled this situation at all well. Perhaps the player was attempting to communicate something that I just didn’t pick up on. Maybe killing the character would have allowed them an ‘out’ without the embarrassment of having to ask to leave the table (something I’d be happy to have happen: if someone isn’t enjoying the game, then they should feel free to leave). Yet, he was happy and involved through the game and seemed to be getting into the spirit of thing. I’m still at a loss. Maybe it was just one of those inexplicable player decisions that baffle you from time to time.
In the end, the group managed to solve the problem and win accolades for themselves. As a GM, I was happy that the game had c=gone well and that they had enjoyed it, but I’d forgotten how much effort it can be to GM a game where almost the entire burden for progression and motivation is placed upon your shoulders.
Then again, it was great to run a game that I’ve not had the chance to in a long while. It helped to highlight many things I’ve learned about games and games design in the years since writing it. Kudos to Brian for wiritng the adventure and allowing me the opportunity to run it.
Cheers
Malcolm
>Anyway, think this is a
Submitted by Andrew Kenrick on Tue, 06/02/2007 - 15:22.
>Anyway, think this is a good example of a game >that went well despite the mechanics doing >precious little to actually support what the game >is all about. When I wrote a|state (about, oh, 4 >or five years ago now), my interest in the actual >mechanical aspects of a game were minimal, to say >the least. Times have changed, so it’s very >interesting and informative to go back and look at >the game again and see how it actually functions >in play.
That's an interesting comment. How do you feel about the game now? When/if you do a 2nd ed, will you change the mechanics to fit in more with your current design goals?
Tea leaves
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Tue, 06/02/2007 - 17:21.
Reading the other way, it sounds like the players were expecting the game to play the way it was originally written. And probably got most enjoyment out of moments where that expectation was fulfilled.
Perhaps the boy on the roof was waiting to see what you were going to do.
A similar thing happened in a game of Conspiracy X I played in once. The GM blew him up, fairly of course since we had damage charts for that kind of thing. It wasn't pretty.
Players, they're an odd
Submitted by JoE PrincE on Wed, 07/02/2007 - 12:08.
Players, they're an odd bunch aren't they? ;-)
I think this thread shows how GMing traditional style games is a lot of work, even when someone else has provided the scenario.
Also Malc, why did you decide to go for table consensus rather than the explosive damage rules and letting the dice decide?
+++
JoE
+++
Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....
I'll try to address all the
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Wed, 07/02/2007 - 12:41.
I'll try to address all the great points people have made and answer the questions posed, all of which give great food for though.
Andrew: How do I feel about a|state now? I still love it and believe that it is a very solid RPG. Its strongest point is the setting: it is detailed, rich, mysterious but there are still huge open areas where the GM and group can bring in their own ideas. Indeed, the central mysteries of the game are one big open area that the GM can embroider to their needs. The mechanics work well as a basic percentile system, although they are not without their flaws. But they do serve their purpose. Would I change things writing it now? Yes. I'd probably change the following:
Give the game mechanics that really support what I see the game as being about: hope, despair, struggle, change.
Give more, solid GM and player advice on the setting, how to use it, how to run games, how to create involving characters. I don't think the game, as it stands, quite does enough of this.
Make the game structurally different in terms of the way information is presented.
Gregor: I'm entirely unsure what they were expecting. Certainly, I ran the game in the way that I've always runs games of a|state: in a fairly open, freewheeling manner with not too much emphasis on rolling the dice for every little thing. I can only see the 'on the roof situation' as a failure on my part to understand what the player wanted or to ellicit that information from the player.
The game as run was a fairly GM-centric (in terms of having access to the information), traditional style game in the investigative mould. The 'moments of most enjoyment' were,as I saw them, the interactions between characters and NPCs and the moments of unintended comedy when their actions backfired on them. Example:
They decided to go by aerostat to Folly Hills. They awere asked: "Are you sure?" and were all totally behind the idea. I, as the GM, knew that the only open area big enough to land the thing in Folly Hills was the dog racing track (ok, there may be other areas, but I'd decided this was the case). So they get out of the aerostat in the middle of the dog track, with a race going on and grounds steward huffing and puffing towards them in a state of high dudgeon. A simple bit of bribery sorted that one out.
Joe: To be honest, I cannot accurately recall why I made that decision in game. In retrospect, maybe rigidly sticking to the letter of the rules and blowing the character the hell up would have been a more 'accurate' rendition of what was going on. I mean, simulationistically (now there's a word for you!), he was on a roof getting blown up by dynamite and and gas leak. Three floor up. Chances of survival were pretty slim. Did I fudge the situation? Probably yes. Did the player enjoy the rest of the game? Actually yes and his ultimate demise provided more enjoyment for the player than simply being blown up (being used as a 'mine canary' and wheeled into a room where the players all knew violent deathwas waiting).
Did I mishandle the situation? Difficult to say. Possibly yes, possibly no (in the Kenny Dalgleish style). At the time it probably seemed like a ore equitable thing to do. In retrospect, perhaps a stronger GM line would have served better. 20/20 hindsight would be a wonderful thing!
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
What I read into it
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Wed, 07/02/2007 - 20:01.
Just to say the points I picked up on were the following. Maybe I'm reading too much into it?!
"Some players were initially flummoxed by being given a fair amount of latitude with their characters. For example, they asked what equipment they had. My response was “Whatever you think would be useful to your character.”"
It seems that this was not an answer they expected. A lot of players are happier being given less character information if they have all the "stuff" they need for a scenario (especially a con one). Character information is viewed as "answers" or "prompts" to puzzles in game rather than theatrical direction for character play.
While, in contrast "[your secret instructions] were design[ed] to sow discontent and suspicion, but despite my best efforts, the players seemed very intent on actually solving the mystery!"
Which shows what their intent was I think, i.e. to solve the scenario.
I guess you are now very big on people playing characters with conflicts between them, whereas the players seem to have seen the scenario as something to be solved. Getting blown up along the way was at moments amusing and flashy, but ultimately they had their eyes on winning?
John Wilson plays his con games this way, and I saw another nice example of it in the WFRP game write up about Conception.
I'd judge that as a pretty
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Wed, 07/02/2007 - 21:32.
I'd judge that as a pretty good reading of the situation.
The equipment situation was a funny one. There was none listed on the character sheets and, being high ranking individuals within their corporate hierarchy, I took it as read that they would have access to pretty much anything they [reasonably] wanted.
Yep, I think the key for the players was to solve what was going on in the scenario. And they did figure it out and engage in a resolution to it. Having read the characters, I think there is a fair bit of character and inter-departmental conflcit intrinsic in the character descriptions. However, that's maybe not what the players were looking for in the game.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
SPAM
Submitted by young773HK on Sun, 24/06/2007 - 16:14.
SPAM REMOVED
Oh. Well, I might have been
Submitted by Tim Gray on Sun, 24/06/2007 - 16:35.
Oh. Well, I might have been drawn in here by horrible spam, but I have a question anyway. Are you likely to do a second edition (I'm guessing not anytime soon cos of the Big Trip); and if you did, what system would you use?
Tim Gray
Silver Branch Games
www.silverbranch.co.uk
A second edition of a|state
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Tue, 26/06/2007 - 11:46.
A second edition of a|state was something I was previously considering. However, the short answer must now be 'no'. Any ideas I might have for a second edition would probably prove unsatisfying for existing fans of the game and in all honesty, it's not a project I have the time or energy for.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios