So I'm running on about 4 hours of sleep at work today (coffee!... oh, beautiful coffee!). The first actual draft, v. 1.1 came in at ~550 words. I wrote in Notepad so I didn't have the word count showing as my editor is far too ready to stomp on my creative brain. That was a good thing. Then the editing process began.
I edited. Then I edited some more. I spent all day on my day off doing this, and still, down to the wire, I was at 220 words. In flew SuperWife to leap tall paragraphs, and punch out word count in a single bound. We shouted, we kvetched, I explained game design vocabulary, she complained, we collaborated, and here is the very brief version! (NOTE: this game would not have happened, at least on time as a contest submission, without her. Thanks B!)
I will post the original later for comparison.
Several things were ingredients in the final stew. While I have been a fan of Call of Cthulhu for decades, Polaris was the first game I ever read in which the mechanics fed into the narrative and the PCs are assured death in the end, rather than just very likely. Becoming, is a game that comes close, with the mechanics feeding the narrative of how the PC is changed and what they sacrifice along the way, but the idea of a story about actual character death it turns out, can be just as interesting as a book or movie of the same idea. It is the Kobayshi Maru principle; how we face death is at least as important as how we face life. The notion of making a story about that is compelling.
Another idea that I wanted to play with, was the idea of what is under the face of a story. I love stories with strong face characters, and I won't deny the need for a strong face either in fiction or fact to a movement. The army that defeated Rommel may not have been nearly so effective had it not had George Patton as the face. We remember Patton because he led a victorious army... who was it that Rommel beat first? Unless you are a WW II history buff, you probably don't know. But the army, the men who crewed the tanks did the fighting, and sweating, and bleeding. They were the ones who died. They mattered. That was the second ingredient in the stew. What kind of story can a game tell about the henchmen that follow the face?
Then the other ingredients are the seasonings. While the first two elements form the core of the narrative idea side of the game, the other elements compose the mechanics that have to be married to the narrative. Good design marries mechanics that directly encourage the kind of play that you want the narrative to be about. So I thought about how to do that. I wanted it to be a collaborative game, because the henchmen are the people that back up the face, or they all fail. I also wanted there to be some uncertainty about the outcome to bring the fun and interest of tension to the game. And I wanted there to be some competitive element to push the players to excel as well. Castle Panic is a game that very effectively brings elements of cooperation and competition with uncertainty of outcome. I also thought about game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which tension comes of rational people trying to weigh self-interest and altruism and failure for everybody all at once. All of this fed into the otherwise simple mechanics for task resolution.
The final ingredient, was trying to find a very simple way of structuring it. I wanted to use a finer grained Hero's Journey a la Joseph Campbell, but settled on a basic three act structure.
Here it is!
Another idea that I wanted to play with, was the idea of what is under the face of a story. I love stories with strong face characters, and I won't deny the need for a strong face either in fiction or fact to a movement. The army that defeated Rommel may not have been nearly so effective had it not had George Patton as the face. We remember Patton because he led a victorious army... who was it that Rommel beat first? Unless you are a WW II history buff, you probably don't know. But the army, the men who crewed the tanks did the fighting, and sweating, and bleeding. They were the ones who died. They mattered. That was the second ingredient in the stew. What kind of story can a game tell about the henchmen that follow the face?
Then the other ingredients are the seasonings. While the first two elements form the core of the narrative idea side of the game, the other elements compose the mechanics that have to be married to the narrative. Good design marries mechanics that directly encourage the kind of play that you want the narrative to be about. So I thought about how to do that. I wanted it to be a collaborative game, because the henchmen are the people that back up the face, or they all fail. I also wanted there to be some uncertainty about the outcome to bring the fun and interest of tension to the game. And I wanted there to be some competitive element to push the players to excel as well. Castle Panic is a game that very effectively brings elements of cooperation and competition with uncertainty of outcome. I also thought about game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which tension comes of rational people trying to weigh self-interest and altruism and failure for everybody all at once. All of this fed into the otherwise simple mechanics for task resolution.
The final ingredient, was trying to find a very simple way of structuring it. I wanted to use a finer grained Hero's Journey a la Joseph Campbell, but settled on a basic three act structure.
Here it is!
HENCHMEN: The Game of the Daring Band that Follows (v 1.5)
Requirements: 4 Henchmen, 1 NP Hero, 4 index cards; 16 Light tokens, 20 Dark tokens, Crucible for Tokens, pencil.
Write name and how you serve the Hero.
ACT1: Four Scenes
Framer vividly describes scene and foreshadows the Dark (Omen, Rumor, Victim, Minion), annotating card. Everyone receives one Dark Token, including Hero.
Narrator then shares meaningful Bond with Hero; annotating card. Hero receives one Light Token. Other players may contribute up to two times during ACT1. One Light Token per share. Repeat until all Henchmen Frame, and Narrate.
ACT2: Four Scenes
1ST Framer ties foreshadowing from ACT1 and reveals Dark force and fateful Risk to overcome.
Everyone secretly puts 1-3 Tokens into the Crucible. Narrator pulls tokens one at at a time and narrates confronting Risk. Light Tokens aid victory, Dark Tokens - defeat.
If Dark Tokens outnumber Light, either sacrifice life and keep Dark Tokens as Glory, or retreat, passing Risk to another. If Light outnumbers Dark; defeat the risk. Can use Light Tokens in personal pile. Any Light Tokens gained pass to Hero. Repeat.
ACT3
Place Hero’s Tokens in Crucible. Take turns drawing one Token, and describe the Hero’s Glorious final confrontation. More Light = Heroic Victory. More Dark = Glorious Sacrifice.
Requirements: 4 Henchmen, 1 NP Hero, 4 index cards; 16 Light tokens, 20 Dark tokens, Crucible for Tokens, pencil.
Write name and how you serve the Hero.
ACT1: Four Scenes
Framer vividly describes scene and foreshadows the Dark (Omen, Rumor, Victim, Minion), annotating card. Everyone receives one Dark Token, including Hero.
Narrator then shares meaningful Bond with Hero; annotating card. Hero receives one Light Token. Other players may contribute up to two times during ACT1. One Light Token per share. Repeat until all Henchmen Frame, and Narrate.
ACT2: Four Scenes
1ST Framer ties foreshadowing from ACT1 and reveals Dark force and fateful Risk to overcome.
Everyone secretly puts 1-3 Tokens into the Crucible. Narrator pulls tokens one at at a time and narrates confronting Risk. Light Tokens aid victory, Dark Tokens - defeat.
If Dark Tokens outnumber Light, either sacrifice life and keep Dark Tokens as Glory, or retreat, passing Risk to another. If Light outnumbers Dark; defeat the risk. Can use Light Tokens in personal pile. Any Light Tokens gained pass to Hero. Repeat.
ACT3
Place Hero’s Tokens in Crucible. Take turns drawing one Token, and describe the Hero’s Glorious final confrontation. More Light = Heroic Victory. More Dark = Glorious Sacrifice.
No comments:
Post a Comment