unWritten Continuum

In my last post I mentioned that I was struggling with instructing people how to create and push conflicts. Either I’m explaining it poorly, or I don’t have a grasp on what it is that I do when I play with my regular group. I’m not sure how to approach this topic…

In unWritten there is a Setting Player (like a GM but not) that frames a scene then using elements from the story index.

The story index is like a character sheet that also has all of the setting details that is used to frame scenes, these things also provide mechanical benefits to the players if they choose to use them. However, the players maybe forced to alter the elements on the story index if they succeed or fail at certain rolls. Additionally, there is a tool on the story index called the story pattern, modeled after the hero’s journey that is used to guide the setting player to focus on certain types of conflicts.

So, based on the story index the setting player pushes conflicts based on the story’s premies and the story elements that are present on the story index. once a conflict is dealt with and resolved the players the scene ends and the player to the right of the previous setting player becomes the new setting player.

So, because you only have one conflict before your role as the Setting Player transfers to another player you need to make sure that the conflict counts, that it’s pertinent to the story being told, and that it’s interesting.

But, I’m struggling to keep people aware of the requirements for what makes an interesting and pertinent conflict. How does one express that? I feel like I have all of the key ingredients, but something just isn’t there…

Today I went to the UCI RPG club and ran my game for three people that have never been exposed to a story game, and in one case, never exposed to a table top RPG. However, the experience went very well.

There are two issues that I have with my game, 1) that it takes too long to create the setting, which is fine for people that have played it before and know what to expect, but it’s tough in situation in which I need a demo. And 2) creating and pressing conflicts isn’t expressed well. Perhaps it’s because I explain it poorly, or maybe that I just don’t have a grasp on what it is that I do when I play with my group.

Let me unpack the first issue, and the second in another thread.

1) Setting creation is pretty straight forward. You follow these steps and your done:

Brainstorm a series of ideas that based on books, TV shows, and movies that everyone would like to explore. As you do that begin to whittle the idea down to something managable that everyone buys into.

Now that you have an idea of the elements that you want to approach or explore in a story you need to define the story’s genre and the Narrative Focus.
Genre is defined as the mood and texture that the group wants to invoke during play.
Narrative Focus is the type of conflicts that the players want to focus on during play, they are: Dramatic, Cinematic, and Fantastic. The first two are pretty self explanatory, but a Fantastic NF is one that focuses on the elements that make the story Fantastic.

Next you answer a series of questions that helps the group refine the setting. These questions are organized in a way that leads you from the macro level of world creation to the micro level of defining those things that motivate characters. This question section is only used in games where the players intend to play for more then 2 sessions. but this isn’t mandatory.
When you’re answering the questions you need to make sure you answer them in a way that reflects the genre and the Narrative Focus.

Finally, you create the games Premise. In unWritten Premise is defined as something that is explicetly states or subtley implies the stories central conflict. This will guide the players through play when they are acting ast the Setting Player and they frame scenes.

That’s setting creation, but now you create the characters, which is considered part of the same process. So now you answer a series of questions that determines what the group of characters overall goal is, who oppose them and what obstacles they face. Then personal questions are answered that determine why they want to resolve the central conflict. and finally you define the characters traits, there are 4, and their behaviours there are 2…

In the end you have a setting that all of the players have built and bought into, you have characters that all of the players are excited about and that have a clear relationship to the setting. Now your ready to play.

This process usually take about an hour and half. It’s always been successful and quite rewarding, but when i tried it today it seems a bit forced, and I’m not sure how to do this in a demo. The key thing about the game is that you collaboratively create the setting and characters. But then it takes so long…

So, I’m kinda done with uW until I playtest it again… But I feel compelled to mess with something, so I’ve been thinking about rewriting TSoY, much the same way I’ve reworked Otherkind. Though, TSoY is much more complete then OK was… Perhaps I’ll make a TSoY: Vairing Tree edition.

I think that my skill list is much more interesting then the TSoY skill list.

Connections, Lore, Mental, Physical, Resources, Sensory, Social, Will
vs
Innate, Artistic, Craftsman, Warrior, Illicit, Outdoor, Priestly, Social, Cultural

The rub is that TSoY actually has 31 specific skills, with the above actually being categories. My interpretation of TSoY would have my skills also be categories, but the actual skills will be made up by the individual players…

The other thing is, could it be made GMless? unWritten is GMless, but I don’t think TSoY needs to be, I’m just thinking about it.

I’ve uploaded the latest changes to unWritten. You can download the playtest copies by pressing the text to the right that says… latest playtest.

Gor for it, and tell me what you think.

Protagonist vs Protagonist conflicts cannot have results that are mutually exclusive of the opponents success. That is to say one protagonists success doesn’t interfere with the other protagonists success. For example, two protagonists are dukking it out their results can be to knock the other out, that would simply mean there is a tie if neither succeeds or both succeeds. Success isn’t mutually exclusive of each other. (appreciated from Shock:)

(Biggest Change!) The hero’s journey needs to be simpler. What I’m doing now is having a box per “HJ’s chapter on the front of the character sheet. Each box will have a 1 word description (what was the chapter titles) and the reducing core dice. I believe (thanks Brendon) that simply reducing the core dice will naturally draw tension to the game. Then single words describing the boxes will “guide” the players. If they should be so curious as to look them up in the book they can get further guidance. (I believe it was Greg that originally suggested an “advanced” play section… well here it is.)

Scene framing needs better explaining, with an algebraic rule for creating scenes in those cases where the a player is stuck for a scene, i.e. (any cue) + (last cue invoked by player) threatens or is threatened by (a cue that a protagonist cares about.)

Premise needs a better explanation.

Clarity in describing what it means to cause/push a conflict. (Basically what I just said about scene framing.) Force Protagonists to make a choice between 1 or 2 things… Perhaps scene framing includes the choice that the Protagonist will have to make. You come up with that ahead of time?
Chapter 9 must specifically answer the 1st Protagonist Question.

Whenever an Acting Player invokes a Cue that Cue must be incorporated into the following scene by the next Setting Player. This, however, doesn’t allow the player who just invoked the cue to uncheck its box yet.

As I said, the con was great and I had 3 opportunities to playtest the game.

Brendon will be posting 2 AP’s, so I won’t go into the games too much other then to say they were great, give a breif description, and provide the premise.

‘Winter Gulch’ -
Was about a group of settlers in the old west that were trapped in a perpetual winter for “offending” the land in someway.

Premise: “Winter Gulch cursed by the land for settling it. Can they find peace?”

(Ender’s Game meets the Matrix) - this game didn’t actually get played.
The second game was a bizzare story that kind of melded enders game with the matrix.

Premise: “They were trained to survive the enemy, but can they survive themselves?” (In an engineered environment without the emotional or intellectual maturity to do so.)

(The EU vs China) -
The third game we almost played (just Brendon and I) was an espionage game that took place in the near future were the US is falling and the EU are struggling for power. We were each going to play characters that opposed each other.

Premise: “America has stumbled. The EU and China are fighting for dominance over it”

(A medeival society vs itself and aliens!) -
this story focused on the ambitions of two characters that were attempting to secure their place.

Premise: “A trouble noble house confronts strangers from the stars in need.”

I just got back from gateway. I had a great time, as always. I was able to playtest unWritten 3 times and learned several new games.

Aside from unWritten I played;

Star Wars Saga Edition! It was very disapointing. I thought it would have made some improvements over standard D20 3.5e… nope, it was the same exact game. Oh well.

Burning Wheel, the gift. As expected the scenario created by Luke Crane and presented by Colin J. was a great show. We had a lot of fun, there was fighting, banishment, and treachery! but the game itself just doesn’t sit well with me. though, I can see its value for people that enjoy games with a higher level of complexity.

It Was A Mutual Desicion. This game was facilitated by Jesse B. I had a lot of fun, but there was some miscommunication among the players and it turned out not to be what everyone anticipated. There were some minor issues with the game, but besides that I think its a great con game and I’ll play it again next year.

Shock:, facilitated by Judson L. which was the last game I played. The first time I played this was one of the worst game experiences I’ve had, and it wasn’t the company, because the other players are great! But after Sunday nights game with Judson I found out we played it sooo wrong the first time. Its a great game, too bad we didn’t play for 2 more hours so we could have wrapped it up. Judson did a bang up job showing us the ropes, we created a very intrigueing setting with many compelling characters. You should get it when version 1.3 comes out…

Thanks to all of the GMs and facilitators! You did a spectacular job! And thank you to all of the people who playtested unWritten! I was able to define many refinements that need to happen and there is one major rules change that I’ll definitly be working on.

Anyway, the con was great and I can’t wait until next year?

My faux pas moment was loosing my wallet and forgetting to get reinbursed for GMing at the con during “normal business” hours… oops, I got trapped there and had to beg Paul T. on bended knee for some cash so I could leave the parking structure. Sorry Paul. I’m an ass.

I discovered something very interesting about myself during this con. I don’t like the process of learning new games. I just want to know them. I want to walk in and you (the GM or Facilitator) to give me a magic pill… OK, that was stupid, but I do struggle with learning and I blame the game for me not knowing how to play. Realizing this about myself will definitely change how I approach con games!

Anyway, the con was great and I can’t wait until next year!