[Chronicles of Skin] Help in November

[Mauro]

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]"After a minor character has been introduced into a scene by a Push, Bribe or Omen, that minor characterbecomes invisible. Principal Characters may not interact with minor characters. Interaction in Free Play should always be between Principal Characters. The only way to force an interaction between a minor character and a Principal Character is to use another Push or another Bribe."

I've to try this, by reading it it feels somewhat odd.
I mean: in the scene I spoke about the star wasn't the NPC: she asked about her daughter, but it was like, "So, she's asking about her daughter"; free play among the PCs; "The woman asks to you"; they answered, she went away, the continued free play among them; then I played an Omen to insert the woman finding a ribbon belonging to her daughter.
The interaction was among PCs, but colored with a (supporting) interaction with a NPC.
Doing as you said... I'd have described the woman, than no PCs could have said, "I want to speak to her"? It'd have been possibile only if someone Pushed someone other that way?

And, as for the parents example: what does this mean? I'd be able to find them only if someone pushes me, "And you find them"? Can I search them at all, outside a Push/Bribe (if I look for them, they are not invisible)?

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]"When choosing the theme of the scene, nominate the Glyph of Purpose that was thematically most importantbeforethe atrocity. That is, choose the theme that was represented most appropriately duringfree play."

I'm not sure I've understood: as Omens the Enemy could cause destruction all the scene, so Swords'd be thematically most important; but among the Others the Glyph most appropriately represented could be Heart (this is almost was happened in our game: due to Enemy Omens and attack the destruction was dominant; but among the Others Heart was the most portrayed Glyph. We voted Heart, by the way).

Edit: I forgot to refresh the page... 47-minutes crosspost with Sebastian.

[Sebastian Hickey]

Can I search them at all, outside a Push/Bribe?

No.

To play Chronicles of Skin the way I play it, you should only be referring to minor characters via the principal character. The minor character (in this case, the parents) should be used to highlight an issue, not a task. Like, the issue should be, "what does my family mean to me," not "go find your family." Instead of announcing that your character leaves the scene, announce how he wants to leave the scene, but can't. Or announce why he cannot leave the scene.

Try to think of minor characters as a tool, not a personality. When you introduce another minor character in another game, don't think about what the character wants, but instead, what narrative purpose it will serve. How will it either a) foreshadow the atrocity or b) be used to affect another character in a Push. An NPC should never be a question mark. It should never be a lead.

The scene that you are in, the scene that the Scribe invents, is where the action is. I suggest that you try not to make the action happen somewhere else. If you want the scene to be about family, try Pushing another principal character so that he, "stops you from looking for your parents."

In other words, make the principal character and what he can or cannot do—or what he wants other principal characters to do—the focus. The NPCs are colour used to highlight the principal characters.

as Omens the Enemy could cause destruction all the scene

Basically, ignore the Omens. The Glyph of Purpose should be defined by the actions of the principal characters. Destruction should only be considered when endorsed by a principal character.

[Mauro]

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]to play Chronicles of Skin properly, you should only be referring to the parents (or any minor character)throughthe principal character. That is, you should be saying, "I must leave the war to find my parents." Or something like that

In our game, it was something like that:

Enemy play an Omen (smoke - a fucking lot of smoke, like a hundred meters wide - from the woods).
Due to the Omen, a PC want to find his parents.
My PC (Glyph of Purpose: Heart) says, "Stay here, I'll find them for you".
My PC went looking for the parents.

The scene created by the scribe was in a village, and I searched the parents in the village; I was "somewhere else" with respect to other PCs, but not with respect to the initial scene.
Is this proper Chronicles of Skin?

Edit: And it was the Enemy to decide if I find them or not; but this is not proper Chronicles of Skin, as far as I've understood.

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Basically, ignore the Omens. The Glyph of Purpose should be defined by the actions of the principal characters. Destruction should only be considered when endorsed by a principal character

Great; thanks.

[Sebastian Hickey]

The scene created by the scribe was in a village, and I searched the parents in the village; I was "somewhere else" with respect to other PCs, but not with respect to the initial scene.
Is this proper Chronicles of Skin?

I think it would have worked better if you, as Heart, Pushed the other principal character to stop you from searching for his parents, forcing him to say something like, "I don't want to lose you too," etc.

For the player who wanted to find his parents, the action is directed outside of the scene, which tends to split the group. Scenes work better if the characters are pointed directly at other characters, not at the game world. Just like with In A Wicked Age, I would advise that players look at another PC and target them for their desires. I'm sure the PC would want to protect his family, and, therefore, he'd want to leave the scene to go look for them, but that's not going to make a good scene. You should always be trying to Push for your Glyph of Purpose and you should always be trying to use other people's principal characters to that effect. That's the way we play it, though it's not written that way (yet).

[Mauro]

Understood; next time I'll try that way. Thanks for your replies!

[Sebastian Hickey]

No, no, no. Thank you for your dogged probing (oooh, that sounds kinda sexy). I've got a much clearer direction for the next draft. Grazie mile!

[Rafu]

We played CoS last Saturday evening at ArCONate in Arconate. General impression: it doesn't quite work as a three-players game, I believe. We managed to play it to the end, mechanically speaking, but it was awkward — I'll gladly discuss this in greater detail, though I can't immediately. But doodling little pictures is fun.

[Sebastian Hickey]

Thanks for playing, Rafu. Can you help me to figure out what went wrong for you, specifically? I've played and enjoyed three player sessions. I'd like your help in figuring out when and how the game failed for you. Perhaps there is a discrepancy between what I play at the table and what is written in the rules.

What was the first instance of failure at the table?

[Rafu]

Sebastian, with three players you only have two-character scenes. Given that the principal characters also don't have much of a depth because of how short-lived they are, and that secondary characters are silent window dressing or mere tools, we were hard-pressed to make anything at all happen in the scenes (except for Omens and the final inevitable massacre, of course). Basically we felt that the game was demanding us to make the randomly drawn character cards, on the spot, into people who'd make for an interesting scene just by having a conversation between the two of them. We felt like we had to look for things to Push for because it's what you do in these scenes, the result often being somewhat forced. Even when the character cards made for characters who were very strongly at odds with each other (we had this scene where the Scribe had a Q Spades and I had a J Spades, thus Pushing came quite natural for once) the end result was a little shallow.

Also, we noticed that the way you vote for a Glyph of Purpose... I won't say it completely breaks with only three players, but it automatically turns into "the Enemy player chooses who gets 4 Votes, everybody else gets 1".

[Sebastian Hickey]

Basically we felt that the game was demanding us to make the randomly drawn character cards, on the spot, into people who'd make for an interesting scene just by having a conversation between the two of them.

I'm interested to find out if you limited the actions of your characters to conversations. Did your characters do anything or was it all talk?

Even when the character cards made for characters who were very strongly at odds with each other (we had this scene where the Scribe had a Q Spades and I had a J Spades, thus Pushing came quite natural for once) the end result was a little shallow.

Did you understand from the text that the characters had to oppose one another? Did you understand that Pushes had to be character versus character?

Also, we noticed that the way you vote for a Glyph of Purpose... I won't say it completely breaks with only three players, but it automatically turns into "the Enemy player chooses who gets 4 Votes, everybody else gets 1".

Yeah, that's totally broken.

[Sebastian Hickey]

I've added some new text to the wiki. I'm trying to explain what Pushes are for. Your post highlighted some ambiguity in the text.

Does this text support or compete with what you experienced at the table?

What is a Push for?
Push for your theme. A Push is not between your character and another character. It is between you and another player. It is your chance to manipulate the scene so that your Glyph of Purpose gets the limelight.

For example, you have the Crown as your Glyph of Purpose, so you want to push for a power struggle in the scene.

Me: The prince says, "Don't worry brother, this family will make it through the war!"
You: I want to Push! I want your character, the prince, to continue, saying, "But we cannot afford any more rivalry." Then I want him to take out a knife and stab me in the back. "Sorry brother. This was the only way."

In this example, you have harmed your own character. It is not important for your character to "win." Instead, focus on representing your Glyph of Purpose.

What if two principal characters want to fight?
Wow. Are you sure you want such a brutal conflict? Seriously?

Pushes are supposed to further your Glyph of Purpose. Rarely will you want a fight, unless one of you has the Swords. Even then, only one of you will be served by continuing to battle. Really, really think about what Pushes are for. If you still want to have a fight, though...

One player should Push the other. [Etc.]

[Mauro]

I think that text is quite useful: in my game I played trying to pursue both my Glyph and my character's interest, so I didn't make Pushes against the latter.

[Rafu]

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Does this text support or compete with what you experienced at the table?

Yeah, now it's beginning to make sense! This is pretty radically different from whatever I've experienced in rpgs to date, so I'm not surprised that I overlooked it. So it's about pushing the events toward your OOC "dramatic goal", rather than pushing another character into what you want her to do IC!

[Rafu]

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]Did you understand from the text that the characters had to oppose one another? Did you understand that Pushes had to be character versus character?

I guess I just assumed that. Thus, the way we concretely acted toward our chosen Glyph of Purpose as players was chiefly the way we interpreted our character cards, trying to "seed" the appropriate kind of conflict; but afterwards we just "let our characters go" and portrayed them as pursuing their own interests, while assuming that Pushes were a fancy Conflict Resolution mechanic.

[cite]Autore: Sebastian Hickey[/cite]I'm interested to find out if you limited the actions of your characters to conversations. Did your characters do anything or was it all talk?

Of course, we played it wrong. Anyway, it was mostly conversation, because we felt like we had to establish the principal characters, the conflicts between them, and that any non-talky action had to develop naturally from the conversation. A whole lot of assumptions I carried in wholesale from other games. :/

[Sebastian Hickey]

Hi Raffaele,

This is all incredibly useful stuff. The assumptions that you made about the game are born from a lack of supportive text. That's my fault. I'm going to have to address these assumptions carefully and with extended examples in the next version.

Really, you have been very helpful.

Thanks a million!