Session Log

Listed in reverse order (most recent on top), a brief summary and lessons learned from each session so far.

#6 - Hairy Omen

A quick turnaround from both session 5 and 5.5, this was the first time the system felt close. I still have so much to learn and practice as a facilitator but the tools I’m using feel solid. One such thing was forgetting to pay the late gay tax, as we started almost an hour after the scheduled time. It worked out alright.

I was extremely happy to be facilitating again, with inner monologues constituting the majority of play. I continue to (slowly) endeavour towards a heavier (more helpful) hand.

Started in the situation, though not in the action. I think this approach works well enough to give fresh players time to stretch. A direct instigating event could provide a more effective start, prompting players for character reactions.

Increasing attribute bonuses directly and immediately for taking wounds, along with the specification of this in the introductory materials, was a resounding success! Three of four players ended with only a single unwounded attribute. Two of those players felt this very effectively guided or even forced a character arc. Exactly what I was looking for. Another player got a bit stuck on her last attribute, unsure of how it would lead to any action.

To address this, along with the consideration that certain attributes may become irrelevant or unreflective or a character develops, I’ve introduced a mechanic to rename attributes when certain conditions are met. This aims to provide a potent mechanical reflection of character growth as well as a way out of what might become a common roleplay pitfall.

The remaining player failed to take any wounds, in large part because she wasn’t targetted by the other players. Attempted to address this in the introductory materials specifying wounding the other players as a helpful team objective.

Some confusion was had in exchanging damage tokens, but I also saw a player act quickly to pass damage off on another more than once. That’s exactly what I was hoping for.

Unwanted Attention

One concern I had with granting bonuses for wounds was characters becoming too powerful too quickly. My bandaid solution to this problem was a red index card placed face down in the centre of the table. When a PC attribute reached a +3 bonus, it was revealed. They rolled against 1d6+6 and took damage one less than their threshold (brought to the brink of death). It was also announced this character is now targeted. Not by present entities, but some unknown and powerful force. The intent is to introduce another tier of active threat only relevant to characters above a certain power level.

Was a fun (if unclear) moment in session, but any lasting success will have to be measured on execution in following sessions. I’ve gotta make a concrete mechanic for this.

Lessons

5.5 - Tweezer gets Slimed

(I didn’t run this one, it has lead to significant system changes)

Less than a week after the “reboot” session (#5), one of the players (an experienced GM) ran her own experimental session in a related system she called “Tweezer”. Leaning towards the Fate system, tokens were introduced which could be spent to compel another character’s attribute, invoke one of your own, or introduce a new element to the scene (among other system differences).

Of these, I was primarily interested in the option to compel. By offering a token to a player, you suggest a complication which they must use a designated attribute to handle (if the offer is accepted). A somewhat similar (unused) ruling exists in Twee’s advanced section as interpreted from Sentiment. In addition to being gated by complexity, I tied this ruling to character bonds, which makes it mechanically inaccessible. A readily available tool to pay players to accept roleplay suggestions is compelling.

Facilitator in Focus

Taking the role of a player reminded me of why I started this project in the first place, something I had lost sight of in the months between sessions 4 and 5: an obsessive focus on internal character dynamics. That is what I love about Sentiment and have attempted to focus on with Twee.

The “facilitator” title comes from what I view as an important distinction in the role. A Game Master is a special type of player that manages context, opposition, the supporting cast, and referees mechanical interactions. Ideally, a Facilitator is closer to the audience and an active consultant in roleplay. The core GM question is “what do you do?”, the core facilitator question is “why would you do that?”.

This distinction largely comes down to somewhat nebulous styles of running a game, which makes it difficult to define. An incredibly helpful discussion with the other very smart and cool player from session 5 introduced me to the term Dramaturg: a theatrical consultant for the writing of new plays or the interpretation implicit in producing an established work. Though not reflective of the actual role, the idea of hovering beside a playwright helpfully demanding thorough justifications for their creative decisions while providing historical and cultural context is exactly what I want a facilitator to be.

I attempted to capture some of this in the new “Introduction to Play” document.

Lessons

I don’t plan to change the invoke/compel section of the Twee rules at present, but have noted this style of prompt as a facilitator tool when a heavy-handed approach might help a struggling player.

In addition to a general clarification of names and descriptions for system components, a few more experimental changes were made to the rules:

#5 - Spectrochemicals

After months on the back burner, this session was a way to get back into things, building up momentum and confidence again. This was very successful. I love gaming. Supernatural opposition arose naturally from improvisation with minor character details.

Players still struggle to understand what’s going on with the dice, even after playing multiple sessions. The key problem of character motivation is also apparent. Though intuitively falling back on a core narrative backbone of follow-the-freak-to-the-dungeon worked out well enough this time, it would be ideal to bake that into player characters directly. Would also be good to find narrative moments other than killing the NPC introduced that session to guide players to the conflict.

At one point, jellybeans were used along with a placemat to establish a shared sense of space, reminding me of the value of physical game elements, however rudimentary.

Lessons

Clashing rules were also adjusted following this session to be non-optional and require additional narrative justification.

Hook

One player was a groundskeeper raking leaves. A weird old lady showed up talking about how leaving leaves on the ground creates a conductive surface allowing the congealed souls of billions of ancient trees to seep up through the surface as spectral crude oil. Went to greenhouse where this was concentrated. Though I really liked the paranormal opposition that arose from it, the initial narrative structure was extremely weak. Only worked because of my wonderful players.

#4 - Dungeon

A few points of feedback from the previous session focused on the lack of narrative foundation, missing both a concrete plot hook and established sense of place. Overcorrecting, I wanted to try a dungeon. Did not prep a dungeon, just some general ideas. This was extremely stressful but paid off extremely well in that certain parts worked very well and other parts really didn’t.

Gave players disposable characters: Claire and Becky. First two attributes were prompted with “your favourite school subject” and “a sport you played”. Their relationship was provided as: “People think you are best friends from childhood… decide what that means for you”. This worked very well.

A secretive dungeon dweller the PCs just glimpsed as they entered and saw watching them as they left did wonders. A direct combat with 4 feral hogs really didn’t work with the system or vibe. Killing the endearing NPC in an avoidable trap on a failed roll a PC succeeded on was fantastic.

Lessons

Hook

Players started stepping off a yellow school bus into the late November snow of a small local farm for come hands-on experience for one of their mandatory college AG courses. Farmer Joe presents strangely aggressive long-haired piglets, prompts class for an explanation. NPC Hog Man introduced to comment (unplanned).

#3 - Moleman

This session was the first directly in the heart of the school context, without much thought to how that could function as a narrative support. Put some characters in a bottle and shake it. Character interactions snowballed into something wonderful eventually, but took some time to get there.

Lessons

Hook

Mandatory safety course, only players showed up.

#2 - First Day of School

What I was initially planning as the first proper session after the initial test. Tried to go in with as little prep as possible: no hook, unmade characters. This was a test of offloading prep from myself onto players using onboarding materials. Had to take extra time before the game to introduce the system and get characters together but it still worked.

Lessons

Hook (unplanned)

PC working at a coffee shop, checked in on by boss before other PCs show up.

#1 - Pilot

The initial session of this game was an extension of my prior 2+1 session system test. Primary focus on each character’s internal monologue, I would continually prompt and prod players for why they were doing certain actions and how they felt in response. This background role is what led to my use of the term facilitator rather than GM or referee. While I adore this style of play, it has become clear that most players don’t enjoy it as much as I do, especially at an open table with less experienced role-players.

2+1 sessions means 2 group sessions lead with an individual onboarding/tutorial/character building session one-on-one with each player. This initial session can be short, but allows you to introduce a system, germinate a character, and implicate them in a greater narrative. For any long term format, I still think this is the best way to get things started. It is also far too of work to schedule and run one of these with as many players and characters I might have. Just for the first session, I wanted to construct ideal conditions to test the concept.

One key thing to test was my revisions to the core dice rules. Even in the final session, players were at times confused by what to roll. This is, to an extent, unavoidable. Sentiment rolls actions with on a d20 modified by values from one of your d6 attributes with responses totalling all attribute rolls. My main change and attempt to address this was to remove the d20 entirely. You have 3 dice and 2 rolls. Either roll them all and pick one or pick one and roll it. This “demake” is an attempt to simplify the system as much as possible without losing the core identity of character attributes.

Lessons

Hook

The first onboarding session gave me an older student with property looking to rent it out a basement suite to another student. I played an NPC inspecting the unit under false pretences, leasing it twice to both other players.

First player moves in with the key he got in the mail after signing a lease online. Second player moves in using key she got from in-person walkthrough, finding the first. Third player comes downstairs to find two young people in his basement that he didn’t rent his home to.