Thurs. May 2, 2013

Players: Marc, Caroline, Jerome

We played Downfall, a game where a society's flaw eventually causes its collapse.

Our flaw was Wrath. Caroline noted that this was the first time she'd played with an actual "negative" flaw.

In our world (sort of an alt-Earth), a floating city/university called Academia Mortem was home to the ghosts of all the greatest thinkers of time. Imagine sort of an elite academy where Earth's best and brightest are invited to do any research they desire--forever. After death, the geniuses just continue on as ghosts. Our city had a strict meritocratic caste system, whereby if your work became outdated, you were pushed further down the rungs of the ladder. The city was ruled by a council, which by the nature of the system included some of the oldest and most esteemed members of the group.

Our protagonist was Lars, a physicist who broke cold fusion. He was young for Academia--only 40--and still alive to boot. He was antagonized by Yvette, a French economist who invented theories of economic subjugation. She was a 2000-year-old ghost and had grown quite tired of the system in Academia. Lars' Foil was Gustav, a 200-year-old composer who tried to keep things calm.

At first everything was as it should've been (and isn't it always?). Lars, Yvette, and Gustav spent lots of time in The Symposium, a grand hall where debate and discussion occurred 24/7. But when the threat of World War 4 loomed on the surface of the planet below, Yvette spearheaded a movement among the city to intervene and either prevent the war or, failing thus, end it quickly by causing one side to win. Tensions rose higher and higher, resulting in actual violence and protest among the previously peaceful halls of Academia. The game ended when, after learning that his initially-peaceful technology had been used to create weapons of supermassive destruction, Lars flung himself off the floating city to his death.

I love Downfall. I think it captures the essence of a tragic story arc.

The creation of the world seemed a bit short to me, but I'm the sort of player who likes a long world-building portion (as in Shock).

I actually found using a "real" flaw to be very difficult. It was hard to think of non-stereotypical things to connect with it, which I felt stifled my gameplay. But I was kind of on my B game anyway, so that might've been it.

I think having an external threat to our way of life was the impetus for change that we needed. The change ultimately came from within, but it needed a catalyst. So that was a good move on Jerome's part to introduce that element.

Good game!

I found it very interesting that players rotate characters in Downfall, giving everyone a chance to play the narrative from multiple perspectives. I have mixed feelings about this mechanic.

On the one hand, down with character monogamy! I love being able to play a variety of roles. It keeps things fresh, and prompts a holistic view of the narrative. I also like seeing how other people interpret characters, and how they choose to play them.

On the other hand, having characters change hands from scene to scene can lead to meandering or inconsistent characterization. Because each player will play the same character differently, that character may make self-contradictory choices, which weaken their story arc. This is a little taste of the 'too many chefs ruin the soup' problem.

Overall, I like the rotating character mechanic. Personally, I think the positives far outweigh the drawbacks. I'm curious what people think on this topic. Does anyone have some ideas on how to make characters more internally consistent when being played by multiple players?

Ahh! I've been reworking character rotation THIS VERY DAY.

Really I think the key is making traits about the characters a little more well known before delving into play or writing things down throughout play. Being explicit saves. It's the question of how much prep for how long a game... Still trying to find the balance.

I think in any game where multiple people are trying to play the same character, doing that well is a core part of play. What I mean is it's not a side thing: thinking how do I play this character consistently becomes a central challenge of the play, no matter what. It kind of trumps all other challenges of a game because if we can't agree on who the characters are everything else falls apart.