[Viking Con] A Day in the Life

[Jason Morningstar]

On Friday night at Viking Con, me, Brian, Olle, and Luisa played Mikkel Baekgaard's scenario A Day in the Life, run by Mikkel.  Thanks to my lack of Danish, we played in English, and the sections of the game I needed had been translated as well.  We played in an art classroom, surrounded by half-finished projects in collage and clay, hanging smocks, squeeze tubes of poster paint, and cupboards full of art materials. 

Some background follows, and I hope my interpretation will spark some discussion among people who know better.  A Danish scenario is generally designed to be run at a convention or other gathering, often more than once, by different individual GMs.  Good scenarios develop reputations and can have staying power.  There are competitions, focused more on the writing and craftsmanship than on the game play – Mikkel has a reputation as a particularly good writer with a flair for the poetic.  Some of this came through in the English translation, but obviously in the native language it is much better. 

Mikkel's scenarios, at least, contain no rules component (A Day in the Life does have one "rule", more of a contingency to prevent players having conversations with themselves between characters they control – a minor point).  Conflict is resolved by consensus between the participants or through direct intervention by the GM.  Scenes are agressively framed and edited by the GM for the most part, although this is not a hard and fast rule.  Although the word "systemless" was used a lot, there's clearly a system underlying it all - it just doesn't use any mechanical elements or resolution bits.  It requires pretty much complete trust in the GM and your fellow players.  The GM's authority is central and more or less absolute.

I'd never played anything like this.  My principal concerns were that I would have no idea how to create and play out scenes, no idea how to handle conflicts, and no idea what the expectations and boundaries of the system would be.  There was also some anxiety over the language barrier, although all the participants speak excellent English and two of them are friends of mine.  I was just generally worried about trying something new and, to me, very strange.  I was also seriously, seriously jet-lagged.

A Day in the Life is arranged to emulate a film like Short Cuts or Magnolia, with a cast of disparate characters who intersect and touch each other's lives across a broad, uncoordinated narrative.  It takes place in contemporary London.  Mikkel used the Beatles' song of the same name as inspiration.  There are twelve characters – each player portrays three, connected by a tightly-bound relationship map.  I played the conflicted and dangerous drug dealer Anoub, Audrey, the journalist who fell in love with the devil (a conservative in the House of Lords), and James, a literary agent failing in both career and body.  Each character was very closely tied to another player's character – for example, James is tied to Liv (played by Luisa), his junkie daughter, who is in turn beholden to Anoub as the source of her heroin.  James is also tied to an author he represents, T.P. Anderson (Olle), and the American publisher they are pinning their hopes on (Luisa again) is a good friend of Audrey's.  Liv's boyfriend Darren (Brian), also a junkie, stole Audrey's purse and has her cell phone.  All twelve characters are woven into a pretty tight fabric of situation.

There is a linear story that takes place across a single day, and I won't detail it here.  Suffice it to say that there is direct cause and effect that pushes various combinations of characters into contact and, almost certainly, conflict.  Characters consist of four prose "snapshots" of their lives, and a synopsis of their motivations and relationships – two pages of material (in English, at least).  I understand that this can vary widely – someone referred to a scenario with immensely detailed 30 page characters, but I don't know anything about that. 

Mikkel, as the GM, framed almost all the scenes.  As players, we were free to suggest additional scenes, and on one occasion Brian asked to extend a scene that had been edited, but for the most part the GM is directly in control of pacing and the creation of scenes.  The game began with a brief scene for each of the twelve characters.  These were snapshots – "We see Anoub.  Where is he?  What is he doing?" – followed by probing descriptive questions on occasion – "What is he wearing?  What do people see when they approach him?"  Mikkel occasionally added these details as well.  There is an opening Bang (in the sense of something that the players cannot ignore) that involves three of the characters, and they are quite explicitly arranged, through scene framing, to participate in it.  All the following events revolve in one way or another around that initial Bang. 

Mikkel, as GM, watched each scene carefully and ruthlessly edited when the tension or pacing started to slow, or focus began to wane.  This took me by surprise with its decisiveness and directness.  He essentially kept the various threads moving forward, juggling multiple storylines.  All the players were thoughtful about participating fully and reincorporating elements others had introduced.  When I off-handedly created a bar/club for Anoub to sell drugs out of called Concrete, that became the place that Gail Andrews, the American publisher, randomly stopped by for a drink – Luisa was just paying attention and kept the story tight.

We were definitely working together toward interesting outcomes in each scene.  My concerns over conflict resolution were pretty much unfounded – in all but one occasion, as I recall, the two (or more) participants found satisfying outcomes without any metagame discussion – completely in character.  I found myself switching stance a bit when the material became a little uncomfortable (shifting out of character to describe a seduction and later a really horrific drug-related scene).  This didn't impact the flow of the game at all.  There was some metagame discussion as well, but only about 10% of what you'd expect in a game of, say, Prime Time Adventures.  We never stopped to discuss the direction a scene was going, for example. 

I don't think I "immersed"(whatever that means – I have an incomplete understanding of the concept), because I was constantly on my toes reviewing my three characters and where I wanted them to go in upcoming scenes.  Mikkel switched focus quite often, editing to create short, punchy scenes.  He also used music to set the mood, and gave us occasional evocative descriptions of the city environment – poetic renderings, really.  I was surprised how powerful the music, in particular, was at setting the mood and tone of the game. 

We all had a good time.  The game lasted about four hours, and went some unexpected directions.  Some of the characters were more well-realized than others by the end, but each of us had at least one that was prominent in a story thread.  Mine was Anoub, who I played as an aggressive young man enraged at his own failure, driven by love for a woman he's already destroyed.  All the pieces were there, but he's been played in many different ways, with different outcomes, in previous runnings of A Day in the Life.  The variations don't come from differences in plot, which is essentially fixed, but in player choices along the way in portrayal and interaction with other players. 

A Day in the Life was moving and enormously entertaining.  It was a real eye-opening experience for me – it exemplified an approach to roleplaying that I'd never experienced and need to explore more.  I'd really, really like to have a dialogue about the Danish scenario tradition as it relates to differences in actual play, with people who have played more than a single game! 

[Jason Morningstar]

Some photos of my fellow players, the table during play and the school room in which we played:

[1] [2] [3]

[Per Fischer]

Thanks for posting this, Jason (I've listened to the recording of the debate you had with the wroter Mikkel as well).

As an exiled Dane I have been exposed to the above since the early 90s, and I have written a number of "acclaimed" and award-winning scenarios myself, albeit before Mikkel entered the scene. I have played in these convention scenarios as a player, but mostly as the GM.

I'm really (REALLY) struggling with imagining that you've never ever experienced something like this before - you really haven't experienced GM-controlled, consensus-driven roleplay before? Wow.

The reason I left this kind of roleplaying behind a handful of years ago is that I am more interested in the collaborative, creative effort a group may come up with than primarily a single author's vision. When I want the latter, I read a book or go see a movie.

We did write these kinds of scenarios (in Denmark) before the first edition of Vampire (my first official one is from 1992, I think), but the 'literary' ambitions behind Vampire really kicked it off - Rein*Hagen was guest of honour at Fastaval 1994 and was a huge inspiration for the auteur/GM-scenario writer. Personally I think Vampire's "how to write an adventure" is very much in line with the Danish tradition. Is Illusionism at best, at if you like that sort of thing, great!

I don't. Not anymore. In fact it nearly killed of my interest in roleplaying. Weird.

Per

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi Per,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I don't think I've ever experienced anything like this, honestly.  I approached it knowing that I wouldn't have any control over the structure of the story we'd be telling together, and that my contribution would take a different form.  Since I'm attracted to games with more-or-less structural constraint (my games, hugely influenced by MLWM and The Mountain Witch, obviously), this didn't seem at all problematic - it was just placing that authority in the hands of another player (the GM, in this case) rather than in the system.  It worked well for me and I felt like I made a unique contribution.

[FredGarber]

This sounds to me very close to improvisational theater, as much as playing a game.

The quality of the experience also seems to depend very strongly on the GM having a firm vision of the text, and the players sharing that vision.

I've never played in a "Danish Scenario" (sounds like something I could find illegally down in Tijuana, though ), but I have done theater games like this, which fell apart when the GM/Director wanted to play certain storylines as tragedy, while the actors/players tended towards comedy. Do you think one player pushing for a Blood Opera for Anoub might marginalize the parts of the story around, say  Audrey's relationship with the politician?  Or someone who wanted deal with Aubrey's love might marginalize Anoub's conflict, making him into less of a conflicted man and more into a 2D "bad guy"?

[fjj]

Per, could you please state if you have a) read A Day in the Life, and b) played A Day in the Life.

[Per Fischer]

I've read it, not played it. Why?

Per

[Jason Morningstar]

Do you think one player pushing for a Blood Opera for Anoub might marginalize the parts of the story around, say  Audrey's relationship with the politician?  Or someone who wanted deal with Aubrey's love might marginalize Anoub's conflict, making him into less of a conflicted man and more into a 2D "bad guy"?

Sure, these techniques were familiar to me from improv and traditional theater.  I should note that it was challenging to play three fully realized characters - I'm very comfortable playing one central character with a constellation of less well-drawn characters around them, but giving equal weight to all three was hard, and I don't think any of us achieved it.  What happened in play is that some stories gathered momentum and others, less so - in our game, the Anoub/Liv/Darren triangle became extremely compelling, for example, and occupied a bit more time than the James/T.P./Gail triangle. 

[Jason Morningstar]

Fred, to answer your other question, yes, it absolutely depends on a strong GM vision.  Brian and Mikkel compared notes on two different games of A Day in the Life with different GMs, and the style of GM moderation varied enormously.  This would obviously impact the experience of play, because the GM is so important - players can't set the pacing, they can't frame appropriate scenes (at least during the first third of the game).  A game with a weak, ambivalent, or talentless GM would definitely fall apart - I pointed this out as a big difference with more highly procedural games.  That said, I don't think having the expectation of a strong, engaged, and skilled facilitator is necessarily a bad thing.

[Jonas Ferry]

Hello Jason,

If my post sounds negative, please know it's not directed towards you, but to the form of scenario you're describing. They're a big part of Swedish convention culture as well, and represent a kind of play I don't want to involve myself in any more. I'm happy to talk about them, though, if you like.

It was interesting to read about your experience. Your conclusion that since the plot is essentially fixed player contributions takes the form of differences in interpretation of their characters is spot-on. If you play these scenarios with that in mind you'll have a lot more fun.

As you say, the scenarios require complete trust in the game master and their ability to entertain the cast of players. The scenario writer is very important, as they lay the foundation through character and scene descriptions, but the game master is the person who handles everything at runtime. A bad game master is someone who either doesn't control the story and let the players run it off track, or who controls it in such a way it disables the players' abilities to contribute anything. A good game master keeps the story moving from one interesting scene to the next, cuts when necessary, and reveals the secrets of the scenario at the right points. Preferably you want the scenario write to be the game master, as they know what parts of the scenario would be fun for the particular group to explore.

In Swedish convention tradition these scenarios are called "freeform scenarios", with all resolution power in the hands of the game master. I see no real difference between the game master role of these scenarios and the game master of a traditional dice-based game that rolls dice secretly behind the game master screen and guide the players from one planned scene to the next. The later kind is how you're "supposed" to role-play, with open dice rolls being strange and direct player control over the story something really weird.

The thing is that many players enjoy this kind of play, especially in conventions. If you play a scenario you're guaranteed to have something between an OK and great time. If you like acting you get to act like another person for a couple of hours without any real responsibilities. If you don't find your character interesting you can enjoy the intricate plot the game master presents to you.

In fact many players enjoy this kind of play so much they come to expect them at conventions. When I've run Dogs in the Vineyard, InSpectres and My Life with Master people have been very surprised you start the session with character creation ("What, no pre-gens?"), use dice and that the actual content of the story is up to them. Since they expect the game master to entertain them and that all their choices will be without consequences it takes half the session before they realize they are actually supposed to contribute something else than usual.

I know of groups that play convention scenarios just to try to get the story off rails. They glance at their characters and play some trait to the extreme, or they make an effort not to do anything the game master wants them to. Imagine what happens when you give them Dogs, and just follow their lead, and their surprise when they realize you're not fighting them, but actually listen to what they have to say.

I would say almost all Swedish convention scenarios are written in this fashion, even scenarios for traditional games. They're supposed to be run by a game master who doesn't know the rules of the particular game, who've skimmed the characters and whose preparation is to memorize the different points of the plot they have to move the group between. This makes it hard to write a Dogs town and expect people to run it for you.

Same thing with My Life with Master. At one convention a game master told me after his session that his group liked the game so much, and had been so into it, that they threw out the rules and freeformed the second part of the session, including killing the Master and selecting what epilogues they liked. It wasn't that they disliked MLwM, they did enjoy it, but they treated the game like one of these freeform scenarios as that's what they expected.

When some groups sign up for a slot of a game their interested in (say My Life with Master, or a Swedish game like Mutant or Drakar och demoner), but the game master doesn't use any of the rules from the game, they feel cheated. They pay to get to see a certain game, but get one of these system-less freeform scenarios instead.

But you're not talking about traditional games being played like freeform scenarios, you're talking about scenarios written especially for this. The Danes have a reputation for being serious about these scenarios, and I hear they're very good at what they do. I haven't played a Danish scenario myself, but from what I've read it seems like Swedish scenarios are similar.

If I should mention one last thing about Swedish convention scenarios it's that they're almost expected to have a clever twist of some kind. Maybe it turns out you're all playing different sides of someone's personality, or you play two different sets of characters and it turns out the first group is chasing and trying to kill the second group. The game master will cut between scenes and at some point the players hopefully "get it", and realize how cool and clever the scenario is. The players usually won't have to do anything special, the coolness is already hard coded in the characters and the scenes.

Do you feel my description contradicts what you experienced in the convention scenario? Maybe I'm talking about something different from what you played, but then at least you got a snapshot of Swedish convention traditions.

- Jonas

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for that thoughtful description.  I hope we can examine the similarities and differences of different traditions together - this is all pretty new to me.

...Same thing with My Life with Master. At one convention a game master told me after his session that his group liked the game so much, and had been so into it, that they threw out the rules and freeformed the second part of the session, including killing the Master and selecting what epilogues they liked. It wasn't that they disliked MLwM, they did enjoy it, but they treated the game like one of these freeform scenarios as that's what they expected.

I heard an identical story at Viking Con about a group who did this with Dogs in the Vineyard.  I think this is, in reverse, the same impulse that makes me immediately look for conflict in every scene - it's my tradition, it's what I play every week, so I come to expect it even when it doesn't need to be there. 

I've played games with strong GMs and linear plots (Heck, I've been the guy running it more often than not) and I think there's a solid difference between that and what I experienced.  I don't think any of the players in A Day in the Life had any illusions about the boundaries of our creative input, and we all trusted Mikkel to do his part - there wasn't any deception.  I knew from the beginning, based on the R-map and the initial bang, where things were probably going to go.

I can easily see how this set-up can go really wrong, and maybe I was fortunate to be playing with really clever people and the scenario's designer.    Overall my experience was positive and enlightening and I want to take some of the good things from it.

[Jonas Ferry]

I can easily see how this set-up can go really wrong, and maybe I was fortunate to be playing with really clever people and the scenario's designer. Overall my experience was positive and enlightening and I want to take some of the good things from it.

I agree we should keep this discussion constructive. There are features of this style of play that are really interesting, and maybe not immediately obvious. Leaving the plot to the scenario writer and game master can liberate the players to examine their characters and their interactions. Since the plot is planned you get to experience a story that's, well, connected, in a way that's hard to do on-the-fly. Some of my friends think experiencing this is the reason to role-play in the first place.

If you haven't already you could check out a series of articles I wrote on my blog in 2005. I was preparing to run a typical pre-written con scenario for some friends in a non-convention setting. The story was "Prometheus' Mistake" (written in Swedish) from a published freeform scenario collection called Från Atlatis to Blekinge, "From Atlantis to Bleking." It was fun to run because, as you can guess, I'm usually not that into this kind of role-playing. I was helped by Tobias Wrigstad, so you get some Jeepform wisdom as well.

In order:
1. ASF freeform and Jeepform
2. Planning to GM freeform
3. Thoughts on FAtB

- Jonas

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks for the links, Jonas - I'll check them out ASAP. 

[Sanne Harder Flamant]

Hullo Jason,

Now you made me sign up for the Forge
Thank you very much for your description of 'A Day in the Life'. It's always great to experience your own tradition from the outside! I've played the same scenario with Mikkel Bækgaard as a GM too, and also enjoyed it. I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity to meet you at Viking-Con - I get the impression from my husband (Sebastian) that you're a great guy

Jonas, I'd like to comment on some of your perceptions of 'the Danish tradition':

As you say, the scenarios require complete trust in the game master and their ability to entertain the cast of players. The scenario writer is very important, as they lay the foundation through character and scene descriptions, but the game master is the person who handles everything at runtime. A bad game master is someone who either doesn't control the story and let the players run it off track, or who controls it in such a way it disables the players' abilities to contribute anything. A good game master keeps the story moving from one interesting scene to the next, cuts when necessary, and reveals the secrets of the scenario at the right points. Preferably you want the scenario write to be the game master, as they know what parts of the scenario would be fun for the particular group to explore.

In my experience it's definitely not always a plus to have the writer as GM. Actually it seems to me that writers are very often good at - hm - writing, whereas good game-mastering is basically about direction, and then some very important social skills that are somehow hard to pin down. I think Robin D. Laws' gamemastering laws elaborate well on them.
I agree with Fred Garber that Danish scenarios owe a lot to improvisational theatre. However, I've never encountered improvisations that could manage an entire evolving plot, and I usually find with scenarios that when they cross a certain line and become too similar to impro, the story loses its focus. There has to be some kind of framework for reference.

In Swedish convention tradition these scenarios are called "freeform scenarios", with all resolution power in the hands of the game master. I see no real difference between the game master role of these scenarios and the game master of a traditional dice-based game that rolls dice secretly behind the game master screen and guide the players from one planned scene to the next. The later kind is how you're "supposed" to role-play, with open dice rolls being strange and direct player control over the story something really weird.

We certainly have that kind of scenarios in Denmark, but I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about the Danish tradition. It's like Jason says. There's nothing deceptive about the fact that the GM is there as a representative of the story. In fact, I think you put it much more precisely when you said that you'll have a lot more fun playing this type of scenario, while keeping in mind that the plot is essentially fixed.
Actually I don't see that as a problem. For me it's just a particular way of playing. A genre, or form, within RPG, you might say.
The same goes for games such as Dogs in the Vineyard (which I have to admit I've never had the pleasure of playing), and Primetime Adventures. They're ways of playing, and if they're not what you're into, it's either because they're just not really up your alley, or because you're kind of narrow-minded
What I mean to say is this: Obviously you'll get disappointed players, if the players have completely different expectations. It's a bit like giving die-hard science fiction fans romance novels to read. Ok, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but hopefully you catch my drift Like Fred says, it's really important that the players and the GM are on the same page. Doesn't that count for all RPGs?

The thing is that many players enjoy this kind of play, especially in conventions. If you play a scenario you're guaranteed to have something between an OK and great time. If you like acting you get to act like another person for a couple of hours without any real responsibilities. If you don't find your character interesting you can enjoy the intricate plot the game master presents to you.

If you were to come to a Danish scenario with that kind of attitude, you would be severely disappointed, 'cause it's actually really hard work
A player who is only there at the gaming session to entertain himself will soon become pretty unpopular with the rest of her group. You have a responsibility towards your fellow players to 'deliver'. Jason mentions keeping on your toes and being able to pick up on other players' input. In addition to that, you are the GM's accomplice in getting the story told. Hopefully you will also develop some kind of ownership over the story during that proces.

I know of groups that play convention scenarios just to try to get the story off rails. They glance at their characters and play some trait to the extreme, or they make an effort not to do anything the game master wants them to. Imagine what happens when you give them Dogs, and just follow their lead, and their surprise when they realize you're not fighting them, but actually listen to what they have to say.

I know this kind of players. I call them bad players. It's like reading the aforementioned romance novel, and insisting on interpreting it as science fiction. In my experience, it ruins the experience and makes no sense. But I think exactly the same thing can be said of the players you mentioned that tried to turn My Life with Master into what you call a free-form scenario. You just have to accept the terms that go with the particular style of role-playing, or it will get you nowhere.

If I should mention one last thing about Swedish convention scenarios it's that they're almost expected to have a clever twist of some kind. Maybe it turns out you're all playing different sides of someone's personality, or you play two different sets of characters and it turns out the first group is chasing and trying to kill the second group. The game master will cut between scenes and at some point the players hopefully "get it", and realize how cool and clever the scenario is. The players usually won't have to do anything special, the coolness is already hard coded in the characters and the scenes.

Heh. That sounds like a fad. We've had fads in our scenario tradition as well. Like the time when incest was suddenly a really popular topic - yech!

What I like about the Danish scenario tradition might be exactly what Per v. Fischer dislikes. I like it that there is an 'auteur'. As a matter of fact, I think this makes the stories really focussed and heartfelt. They have some kind of artistic depth that I enjoy very much.

[Per Fischer]

In my experience it's definitely not always a plus to have the writer as GM. Actually it seems to me that writers are very often good at - hm - writing, whereas good game-mastering is basically about direction, and then some very important social skills that are somehow hard to pin down.

I agree with Sanne - to me, the quality of the scenario also lies in the writer being able to describe how to play it. Playing a scenario you have written yourself is the easiest thing in the world - making sure it's playable but someone else without the writer's presence, that's bloody hard.

What I like about the Danish scenario tradition might be exactly what Per v. Fischer dislikes. I like it that there is an 'auteur'. As a matter of fact, I think this makes the stories really focussed and heartfelt. They have some kind of artistic depth that I enjoy very much.

I'm merely critical - I don't 'dislike' the Danish tradition at all, which btw is not only Danish, as Jonas also mentions. I think it's great, and it's been great for roleplaying in Denmark, and I'm a part of it.

I have been told that a similar tradition exists in Ireland, and it certainly does in Sweden. I still own "Ett Eko Från det Forflutna" (An Echo From the Past), a Kult scenario by the game's authors Michael Petersen and Gunilla Jonsson for the Swedish Lincon 1991, professionally laid out and printed. In 1991 most Danish scenarios I know of were photocopied and often even just a pile of handwritten notes.

As a matter of fact, I think this makes the stories really focussed and heartfelt. They have some kind of artistic depth that I enjoy very much.

Oddly enough, that's what I get with the weird hippie shit I play nowadays

Per