Posted By: ValamirAs a player, I've essentially been creatively emasculated.

Getting kind of melodramatic, don't you think?

Ralph, I feel like you're interpreting everything in the most negative possible light, reducing any subtleties into absolutes. I think that's limiting the usefulness of this discussion.

I don't know Ben, isn't the rule an absolute? Isn't the rule that you _can't_ pass or veto? That's the absolute. If the rule was instead "you normally don't pass and you should try to avoid veto"...then you have room for subtleties. Unless the rule has been misexplained to me.

And its not a trust thing. I've had this discussion a ton of times and typically it initially gets dismissed as "you need to trust your players" or "don't play with dicks" or what have you. But that's really not the issue.

I can totally trust you...I can totally respect your creative abilities...I can totally enjoy playing with you...and I can still absolutely totally hate to a game breaking degree the idea you just contributed...and vice versa. And that's not you being a dick or me being a dick. Its just two creative people having a completely reasonable creative difference. A difference that IMO a well designed game will provide a vehicle for resolving. If the game does not provide a vehicle for resolving it...if my only option is to suck it up and deal or quit playing...if my creative input on the issue is not factored in at all...then is it really melodramatic to say I've been creatively emasculated? That's issue #1 above.

Let's put it out there. We're playing. You just played the "Earth Explodes" event. Let's take on faith, that for some completely legitimate non dickish reason such an event just totally deflates my enjoyment and ability to engage productively with the game. If I indicate that to you...would you be willing to alter your event to something that doesn't totally derail me? Or would you be all "screw you Ralph, I get to say whatever event I want"

If the latter...then yeah...emasculated...and totally not interested in playing. If the former...and I suspect, just because we're both decent human beings, that it would probably be the former...then what's REALLY going on in the game is a degree of give and take and group buy-in to creative contributions. And if that's the case...then that really should be formalized in the rules instead of pretending in the text that it doesn't happen that way. That's issue #2 above.

As for issue #3, there are times when even creative people draw a blank and the game is just better if they punt, let someone else take the lead. Yes, my three points included a good bit of hyperbole, but the fact of the matter is if you shine the spotlight on someone and force them to create on demand...with some degree of regularity what you are going to get is not that person's best efforts but merely the best they could come up with at the time. If the game does not provide a mechanism for filtering such contributions so that you draw out people's best...but instead enshrines even their sub par efforts as canon...then you have a game built on a whole lot of sub par efforts.

Even the people who love the game stress how exhausting it is to play...don't play when tired...don't play while drinking...Is that really a feature? Perhaps that is a symptom that you've created a play structure that puts an unnecessary burden on players. A burden that ultimately can be alleviated by tapping into the synergies of the group rather than trying to force everyone to stand alone.

I suspect that what REALLY goes on around the table in a game of Microscope is a whole lot of informal unspoken consensus building. Consensus building by body language and by people catering to the preferences of players they already know. I suspect that the "no consensus building" "no passing" "no veto" stance that you've taken sounds better on paper than in practice. I suspect that in practice passing occurs regularly...in the form of someone drawing a blank, someone else offering an idea, and then the first someone adopting that idea as their own (which is essentially creatively the same as passing). I suspect that in practice vetoing occurs periodically...in the form of someone self editing something they know the other players will hate or changing their minds after interpreting body language "oohh wait, no...this is even better..."

Those are my suspicions. Maybe they're completely wrong and off base. But if they're not completely wrong and off base, then I submit that you may want to reevaluate your rules to make them more reflective of what is actually going on at the table that is producing functional play. My money is on some form of group buy-in to individual creative contributions being a critical component of success. And if that's true...then THAT should be your rules.

Posted By: ValamirSo to summarize: If we're playing the game and you put out an Event Card that says "The Earth Explodes" then the group better be able to look you square in the eye and say "What the Fuck is up with That?" and expect you to justify that event in a way that demonstrates that its a meaningful and compelling addition to what's being created and not some half ass bullshit you just thought up because its your turn and you couldn't think of anything good. And if it is just half assed bullshit then the game had better give the group a way to say "The hell with that, do something else". And even if it IS something that is meaningful and compelling to you, if its a direction that no one else wants to go in and you can't persuade them to try it, then the group should still be able to say "Uhhh, we're not feeling that, do something else".

Otherwise the entire group is held creative hostage to your whim...and that's not something I find fun.

I think I understand you entirely! :) IMO there are two issues here.

The first is directly related to "don't play Microscope tired". In its current incarnation, there is no way within the rules text to deal with a player who makes up half-ass bullshit because she can't think of anything good. Presumably players won't do this on purpose (if they do, that's a different issue altogether), so the problem is that thinking up something good consistently is hard work. There is at least one way I can see without thinking much that gives a player an out if she can't think of something - asking a non-tricky question about an existing event (i.e. "why did the Persians lose?" rather than "which Persian chose to make the Persians lose?"). That's a scene. Now everyone else can chime in with their awesome thoughts. I don't think there's any problem here for anyone besides the obvious "can we make the hard work easier", correct me if I'm wrong.

The second is when someone creates something she finds meaningful and compelling but the group does not. Phrased that way it sounds simple - the group wins. In reality, of course, "the group" doesn't fail to find something compelling. Individuals do. Perhaps, in the extreme case, every individual but the creator thinks the creation is half-assed bullshit. What do we do in that case? Majority vote? Throw out all ideas that aren't found compelling by every individual at the table? Designate one person as ultimate gatekeeper? All of those are possible solutions with their own merits. Microscope's solution is that the creator is the final authority. As long as the creator really does find the creation meaningful and compelling, it's a fine solution with its upsides and downsides just like the others. One advantage that e.g. only-universally-compelling-contributions has is that you're guaranteed everyone finds every given contribution meaningful - one advantage that Microscope has is that you're guaranteed not to be locked out of certain ways of having fun due to e.g. someone else in the group not caring about Tom Bombadil.

In sum,
a) Microscope fails faster to social problems than most games will.
b) Given a healthy social dynamic, Microscope gives you a wider range of acceptable creative contributions than most games will at the cost of a greater possibility you will find someone else's legitimate creative contribution uncompelling or gamebreaking.

ETA: just saw your idea about informal, unspoken consensus building - very interesting, obviously at least partly true. I'd much rather introduce something I find awesome and I suspect most or all of the rest of the people I'm playing with would find awesome than something I'm not so sure they'd like, even if I love it just as much. That's the way social interaction works. :) But really, I have no idea how *much* we changed our behaviors based on body language, etc. I don't recall anyone *ever* doing the faux-passing thing you suggest in our AP, though it happens plenty in other games. Or the faux-vetoing. Except kind of, once, during the initial Setup, when one player created a Period "the aliens land at Atlantis" and the other two players faux-vetoing it as being an Event, so it was changed to "the aliens' contact with Earth at Atlantis" (or something), referring to a longer stretch of time.

Guy, yes. Total concurrance.

Pardon any typos, but I'm writing from a mobile.

Oddly enough, all the railing against this idea of absolute creative control being passed around the table in a serial fashion has made me realize that I'm not so opposed to it, after all. There are a lot of good points on both sides, here, but for me it kind of boils down to the spirit of the game, which seems to be something like "take this idea and run with it!" Or away from it. That's cool to, because you're still reacting. It's a game like a relay race. Pass the fiat.

I think somebody else already put this more eloquently, but how is having my world-ending event voted down by the group any less satisfying for me than having it enforced would be for someone who didn't want it? Or having dice decide in either case? Again, the spirit of Microscope says to me that, for this game, I am going to accept what other people put in, and see what I can do with it. We make similar commitments to randomizers...so why not people? When we play SotC next wek, i can suggest ways to bolster another player's uninspired narrative. Or when we play 4e, I can explain to the GM how gave me no recourse when he unleashed the horde of undead upon us, because what *I* really wanted was for it to be a whorde of hot lesbian elf priestesses of an unholy sex cult.

Yeah.

I compiled the links to the actual play reports I've seen online, both here at Story Games and elsewhere:

Many Shades of History: Microscope Actual Play

This list only includes game reports that actually talk about the history made, not just rules analysis etc.

Did I miss any?

Posted By: ThreadbarePlaying Microscope is like building a rollercoaster at the same time you're riding it, so what's the problem with building in a few loop-de-loops?

That's pretty much it. Heck, if there weren't any loop-de-loops, why bother riding? We have _streets_ for that.

Microscope Playtest Update #3 has been sent out, so if you're a playtester you should have gotten it already.

Legacies have been revamped, and in our games so far they've worked much better: Legacies emerge from play instead of being created as ad hoc solutions during scenes. Between Lenses you have spotlight moments, exploring particular Legacies and how they influence the history.

I also need to get busy and write up some actual play of our latest games. One is rebuilding after the apocalypse, the other is feudal knights with mecha but no other high tech.

Everything seems to be clicking into place, so I'm wrapping up this phase of the playtest in the next few weeks -- this should be the last rules update. If you have any more feedback, send or post it before the end of September.

This phase of the playtest is wrapping up in the next week or so, but if you get a chance to play it I'd love to get your feedback Michael. Be warned the rules may look a little confusing at this point because the updates that came out during the playtest trump some of the original text. Where possible I've marked those sections so you can see what rules are affected.

I'd actually like to thank Ralph for the whole debate -- as you said Michael, we clearly disagree but it was a very insightful discussion to have.