[Flowers for Mara] Family schisms at Gen Con
GreatWolf:
Quote from: Tobias Wrigstad on August 22, 2008, 08:32:41 PM
What I didn't want was e.g., people talking about the
previous scenes ("man that was a lot of fun!"), talking crap ("is
there a game on tonight?"), etc. I think I should not have said
out-of-character, but "out-of-game-focus" or something like that.
In the end, this is a personal preference thing. The
out-of-character thing should really be tied to how I see most
forge games (or worse, like D&D and Vampire) is being played --
people discussing the game rather than playing their characters.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I think that this is one of the distinctives of Forge-style, which tends to be comfortable with (some of) these points of divergence.
That being said, I've found that the best model for interacting with the fiction actually comes from Polaris, which had more of an influence on A Flower for Mara than I may have originally realized. At the beginning and end of the game, there are opening and closing ritual acts that separate the gamespace from the rest of life. For Polaris, these are the opening and closing key phrases; in A Flower for Mara, these are the Raising and Lowering of the Curtain. In between these markers, the group is playing the game. As such, the expectation is that they will be focused on the game. Sure, there can be some excited babble, but it needs to be audience-oriented (e.g. "Wow, that was a great scene.") and not "out-of-game" oriented (e.g. "Is there a game on tonight?")[*] Sure, you can take care of physical concerns (bathroom breaks, drink of water, and the like), but you need to move with some alacrity. This serves as a point of rest for the group in the middle of the game, generally at seams in between scenes.
There's another level of engagement that's required during a scene. If you're playing a character, you have to engage with that character. You're not audience right now; focus on your role. If you're audience, you need to be paying attention to what's going on. And you don't interrupt this state until the scene is done. So, no, you can't nip off to the bathroom, even if you're in the audience. Wait until the scene break. In Polaris, a scene is delineated by another ritual opening and closing phrase ("And so it was...."); A Flower for Mara doesn't actually have a formal marker to indicate the shift from one state to the other.
And that's the rhythm that I see in most of these games. Out-of-game-->seam-->scene-->seam-->scene--seam-->out-of-game.
So, if I'm understanding you, Tobias, the discussion we're having is about how to handle those seams. Your preference would be to keep those seams as short as possible in order to focus time and energy on the scenes, whereas Forge-style play tends to allow for a more relaxed approach to the seams. Is this a fair statement of what we're saying?
I'm discussing all this, because I'm a strong believer in the power of ritual to assist players in focusing and engaging with fictional material. However, a group will be at different levels of engagement throughout the game, so a designer needs to consider the desired experience and provide tools to the play group to manage both the scenes and the seams.
----
footnote
(*) Is there a game on tonight? OF COURSE THERE IS, AND YOU'RE PLAYING IN IT!
Tobias Wrigstad:
Quote
Ah, I see what you're saying. I think that this is one of the distinctives of Forge-style, which tends to be comfortable with (some of) these points of divergence.
That being said, I've found that the best model for interacting with the fiction actually comes from Polaris, which had more of an influence on A Flower for Mara than I may have originally realized. At the beginning and end of the game, there are opening and closing ritual acts that separate the gamespace from the rest of life. For Polaris, these are the opening and closing key phrases; in A Flower for Mara, these are the Raising and Lowering of the Curtain. In between these markers, the group is playing the game. As such, the expectation is that they will be focused on the game.
I see what you are driving at, but for our session, I don't think
this really worked. To make these rituals work, they must be
carefully instrumented. The way we rushed through these bits, they
felt completely unnecessary and pointless and as far from a ritual
as possible. The GM putting her flower down in the beginning and
Mara in the very end is a better way to frame the game IMHO.
But also, for me, all that Bible stuff felt contrieved, very different
from the way the rest of the game worked, and the words we were
using in the rest of the game. I don't care about Mara when we open
the curtains, because I don't know her yet. When playing with devote
Christians that can perhaps relate to these phrases, it might work
better, for I still feel that you talking about the loss of your mother,
etc. would have made it a much stronger impression and a clearar
signal that we were leaving real life for the game.
Quote
Sure, there can be some excited babble, but it needs to be
audience-oriented (e.g. "Wow, that was a great scene.") and not
"out-of-game" oriented (e.g. "Is there a game on tonight?")
Just to make it clear: I disagree. Both are bad IMHO. You have the
rest of your life to point out that a scene was great after the
game (except when you are playing some other game).
Quote
Sure, you can take care of physical concerns (bathroom breaks,
drink of water, and the like), but you need to move with some
alacrity.
Agreed. Flow is key.
Quote
This serves as a point of rest for the group in the middle of the
game, generally at seams in between scenes.
For Mara, I think the players are allowed to rest enough anyway,
since they are not always on stage. Surely, I preach that
watching is playing, but it is a different kind of playing, and
it is easier to watch and immerse than to be on stage and have to
constantly deliver. Obviously it is not OK to leave just because
you are not on stage just this moment.
And if someone goes to the bathroom for too long, it doesn't matter
when it happens, it will break the flow anyway, perhaps more, as
we will all be idle, waiting to continue...
Quote
In Polaris, a scene is delineated by another ritual opening and
closing phrase ("And so it was...."); A Flower for Mara doesn't
actually have a formal marker to indicate the shift from one state
to the other.
And that's the rhythm that I see in most of these
games. Out-of-game-->seam-->scene-->seam-->scene--seam-->out-of-game.
Yeah, this is what I would call old school freeform game
structure. Many freeform and jeepform games have a clear scene
structure, much like in most movies, and unlike most books. For a
long while (from say 1995 and 6-7 years on), it was fashionable in
Sweden to begin and end every scene with the GM reading some kind
of text, which I guess is very much like Polaris' opening and
closing phrases. I am certainly guilty of writing such games.
Later freeform games do away with these phrases, much like how you
did in Mara. Today, I would say that that is the right way to go
most of the time, but see e.g., "Doubt" where scenes are strung
together by player and Gm monologues.
In any case, this is a hard strucutre to break free of. At least I think
so, and I generally fail when I try. And in some sense, we need this
part to some extent not to turn into larpers.
Quote
So, if I'm understanding you, Tobias, the discussion we're having
is about how to handle those seams. Your preference would be to
keep those seams as short as possible in order to focus time and
energy on the scenes, whereas Forge-style play tends to allow for
a more relaxed approach to the seams. Is this a fair statement of
what we're saying?
Darn, I need to reply "yes and no" here. My main concern is the
flow and premise of the game. My "Doubt" example from my preious
post may perhaps illustrate this---"I" had gotten the players to
talk about the things that the game was about, so it felt right to
let them continue with that discussion for a while even though it
clearly broke the flow of the story told in the scenes of the
game.
But yes, my experience of Forge-style play, especially american
Forge-style play, is that flow is not important. That is another
reason why I feel many Forge games are board games in disguise.
For our Mara session, I would have preferred to have zero-time
seams. I consider the time spent between the scenes in our session
effectively as time wasted. We never discussed anything that made
the game better and that couldn't have come out in play as far as I
can remember.
Also, we are/shoud be discussing structure of games here. Can we
do without the seams, can we create an uninterrupted flow that feels
like just a single scene? And if we have seams, how to handle them,
definitely. And here I'd like to say that this is quesion must be asked
and answered for every game---there is no single true answer.
Quote
I'm discussing all this, because I'm a strong believer in the
power of ritual to assist players in focusing and engaging with
fictional material.
I don't think we had rituals. And definitely not between scenes as
you say.
I think that even more important than rituals is clear
communication of what is expected of the players, what the game is
about and where the story is going. I believe that it is important
to put people in the right frame of mind and that rituals is just
one way to do it.
I agree that opening phrases is a good way of shaking off any
unimportant stuff discussed in the breaks (that was one reason
for the "Doubt" monologes), but they are still a bit contrieved and
it would be so much better, IMHO, not to have anything that
needs shaking off.
Quote
However, a group will be at different levels of engagement
throughout the game, so a designer needs to consider the desired
experience and provide tools to the play group to manage both the
scenes and the seams.
This is definitely true. As soon as the game has started (which is
a point in time that's hard to describe, but let's say as soon as
all the players are gathered in the same room for simplicity), it
does not end until it is, by some means, officiall declared
over. And we need to think about everything that happens inbetween
those moments, and, as we continue to explore games that provoke
thoughts and mess with peoples' minds, probably what will happen
as players process the game for days or weeks after.
Tobias Wrigstad:
Seth, and who else might be reading:
I can't find the edit button. When I re-read my post, I didn't just see
the spelling errors, but I felt it had a harsh tone at times. That was
not the intention. I like your deconstruction of what we are talking
about, and that made me think about even more things that I perhaps
didn't realise I was thinking of before.
So thanks!
Emily Care:
I enjoyed the opening and closing speeches. I was actually going to ask you about that, Seth. I am pagan, so have thought about using a less denominational text when I run the game. Have you had other people talk about modifying that? The words used could well have a strong in-game effect. Hellfire and damnation (which are most decidely *not* in your text) could cause the family to react in a certain way, versus a more crunchy, new-agey version. But then, the primary function of them seems to be to demarcate the fictional (and emotional) space of the game.
It's very interesting, in my book, to see what comes of the hybrid of the Jeep Tradition, focussed-narrativist story-type-games and improv techniques that will likely come from these games being written in America. Diversity of technique is good.
Tobias Wrigstad:
Quote
I enjoyed the opening and closing speeches
That's not so strange, no? I mean, who would not like to attend her own funeral? :-)
Good that you disagree.
Quote
It's very interesting, in my book, to see what comes of the hybrid of the Jeep Tradition, focussed-narrativist story-type-games and improv techniques that will likely come from these games being written in America. Diversity of technique is good.
I totally agree! I am very much looking forward to the games to come!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page