Finally I did get to run the "In the Village" Prisoner-derivative game I\'m also beta-ing, but way earlier in development than CNP. It was rough, on the whole no shocks but definitely a ton of learning for me and that alone was great. There were three players, which is a bit less than I think the game can really work optimally with given that some of the dynamics play out better with more chances for an overt ally. meaning seeking out someone with specifically the same base motivation, given there are 3 motivations spread as evenly as possible among the players. So with 3 players knowing that each one has a different motivation, there\'s even more holding back. But I don\'t blame that, really, I do blame that I need to embed mechanics to better create incentive to reveal details earlier than the end of the game anyway, an outcome well-commented on by Ping.
Anyway, to start at the beginning, the players were Philip as #7, Eldy as #8, and Ping as #5. Immediately, two things handicapped the game, the first being I haven\'t developed the right focus on what to tell players to concentrate on, and the second being that I think my opening scene was, while adequate in forcing the players into a common initial experience, too tough in creating a sense of too-overwhelming odds against them. But that\'s less of an issue than what became quickly apparent and led to a lull for a while in the game, that the players had too little incentive to play the PCs in a revealing way, that there was too much incentive to hold back, remain secretive. So that can be worked on.
So the game developed into a cautious cat-and-mouse sort of shadowboxing among all parties, and one thing I have to say I really think the players did great was deceive the GM on where they stood (this is part of the game they SHOULD be able to do, and these players exploited it well). So as the command of the Village, #2, I couldn\'t quite get a fix on where to load trust or power.
At first I thought Ping had an \"escape\" motivation (one of the three), and she roleplayed well someone with that initial perspective, too, but she also roleplayed well in retreating back from that as anyone naturally would move from an initially-rebellious state to acting as if they want to belong, so I became less and less certain.
Philip and Eldy also managed to obfuscate their positions well enough that it left me in a quandary, and as I tried to search for what they would like, Eldy in particular as #8 reverse-fooled me as I missed exactly what his research in the Village was getting at - simply the happiness of the Villagers, as he looked first for a foundation before trying to satisfy his actual specific self-centered passion (he had an \"enjoy\" motivation).
And Philip as #7 I was tending to think, but wasn\'t sure, wanted to just enjoy the opportunity to continue his scientific research, but he really intended to exploit this organization and move up its ladder, accepting he\'d be in the Village possibly forever and make the best to \"serve\" (the 3rd motivation players can have in the game).
The ending did start to build momentum, however late it was, and the feedback seemed that the ending was generally satisfactory, or maybe for 2 or 3 of us it was, as #5 used an opening as #7 went on a naked power grab and used evidence of incompetence to dismiss #2 and take over (yeah!) to stage her escape. As #8 joined in the escape, she and #8 were able to get out, however they didn\'t "hurt" #5 at all, so he managed to stay in the Village, at least for now, as #2.
For me the ending was cool and as I would want to see, but the way to get there wasn\'t well enough supported mechanically at all, poor pacing on the systemic side. I\'d like to REALLY thank the players for GREAT feedback, and I\'d like to especially thank Ping as she very well organized her points during the game and at the end gave me an excellent debrief from her perspective. We all had a great dialogue after, and this is the kind of quality that\'s hard to get elsewhere, so no matter how well the game itself really went or not, the learning was pure gold and again this is the kind of thing that Go Play NW is SO vital for.
See also index of my various GPNW game commentaries at http://www.story-games.com/forums/?CommentID=147473 ([Go Play NW2008] It's Over! # 26)
Just another thought: right now the system doesn't support, intentionally, enforcing any genre conventions such as how the drama of the Prisoner often escalated with twists of weirdness, akin to how madness can dominate in Don't Rest Your Head. I'm conflicted as to whether to build that in. The abstract weirdness of the Prisoner, while a big part of the art of the show, to me was not essential to its core themes on authority, individuality, and community But it is an attractive, colorful thing. And including it might be a nice counter-punch to the gravity of the game, just as in the TV series it provided a counterweight to the grimness. Hmmm, now that I started typing and this flows out, maybe this does have a value for the game.
So linked, to me, that means that there should also be some sort of mechanim for conflicts to "suddenly" ramp up in drama, and drama means a revelation. Or not so much for conflicts to escalate but for players perhaps to get some currency (for which I think the power points make sense, those are tokens that add to die rolls basically) if they introduce drama, and another player can perhaps gain benefit by ramping it up via weirdness. That's murky, I know, it's just brainstorming.
Also, now I'm starting to think a poker metaphor might be good for conflict resolution, not dice as it is now, as it is based on Mountain Witch, but you have cards, and you hold the cards back, and you bid power and trust tokens with people not revealing their cards until they're "all in."' And if you fold, you are safe but you don't get anything, whereas if you stay in you have to reveal something but you get something out of the pot if you win. Hey, that might be cool, and that might force revelations well with it being linked to risk-reward. The minuses you get in Mountain Witch can become losing a card or something, so maybe you normally get 6 cards, and it's like 5 card regular poker, so you have a decent shot at something but with a minus you're down to regular poker odds, and with each loss you're obviously in deep trouble. Now people shouldn't have to know how to play poker for real, so maybe it's a simplsitic enough matching cards system that drives the better hand or PTA style "red cards win" sort of thing. Or at least even if keeping poker hand relative win values, just have no redrawing so there's no math-y murkiness, you know the better hand is rarer and that might suffice for this kind of game. But probably PTA/War-style is better.
And the whole round should support narrative, doing stuff. So I'm maybe envisioning such a on a turn, a player either bids a token for their hand or gets out (something like this). If it's te first player of the round and they're in, they frame the scene and play their character. The player narrates until their character interacts with anoither PC or NPC or commands an "I want influence" from another player, at which point the PC of the other player or the GM if an NPC or the player interrupting bids a token or folds unless they've already bid or folded. If they've already bid or folded, they respond, but they can gain no benefit in the round. If theyre now bidding or folding, same idea. If a player is interrupting because they want to influence the narrative at this point, they MUST bid a token. Note how the first player steers initiative, or someone grabs it!
This process continues until the last player bids or folds. The GM has a role here or there needs to e a mechanic to at some point ask other players if they are going to bid or fold before they sit on the sidelines too long, i.e., to give them their turn. Setting that aside at the moment. Once all are in or out in that round, anyone may bid another token to escalate; in so doing, they have to introduce a weird twist, something surreal or drug-related or "psychedelic" or such (this would have to be well explained in the rules). They narrate that. Everyone must narrate a see (response) to it or fold, leaving their token in the pot. This escalation can be repeated, or maybe there's a limit, have to think of economy here. Anyway, such as this.
Now, with all escalations completed and all in or out, those all in make a revelation about thier PC or what their PC is doing that is being hidden from others, something like that. Not sure how the metagame versus in-game player knowledge flow will be managed; it would be sort of neat to let the player announce which other PCs know, and then all such things have a dice roll on a d6 where on a 1-3 the GM (i.e., #2 and the overlords of the Village, and/or relevant NPCs) know, 4-6 not (to give the effect of the constant spying of the Village authority). Then the players and GM could just track what they know, and everyone just react on the honors system of not stepping on storylines and to drive good narrative.
Regardless of how metagame versus in-game knowledge works, after revelations, then the cards are revealed. Either the winner gets the whole pot or there's some system to divvy it up (because winner-take-all might be too much, or the economy has to be really right-sized). Success is narrated somehow accordingly, and I'm not sure now how damage would work; maybe damage is completely unnecessary in this style? Also, this loses some narrative control elements for the players, safeguards, which were embedded via a special token system I had in this, and I want to preserve something along those lines.
Still, I think I'm getting somewhere potentially very strong, maybe. If anyone is reading this, I'd appreciate feedback on these ideas. If you're interested and given the above doesn't tell you much about the rules as they are to compare, I'll be glad to post my as-is rules notes, but as they're a mess I don't want to spend time organizing them for others if I don't have to.