Playtesting, and Designing for Every Table

I tried out a new travel/encounters system in Inkwarren this week. 

More to the point: my partner did too. 

When I first pitched a campaign for Inkwarren, many (7) of my dear friends were interested in playing, but 2-3 initially couldn't due to the scheduling pressures of being an adult. Schedules worked out, however, and because I'm full of love, I eventually was running for 7 people every week in a system that didn't fully exist. I almost died. 

So! My partner Beck took half of the players (plus one or two people we had in 'reserves') and formed his own group taking place within the campaign world. Now, each Friday, each of us runs in separate rooms for our friends in two separate, but connected campaigns. It's really fun. 

For context on the travel system: the Voice draws two cards from the Major Arcana, and lays them on the table as 'paths'. Each has an associated travel event: anywhere from a quiet moment to roleplay to the Fool, which leads to a fateful encounter that ties directly into the current threat the party faces.

Now for the point: after finishing up the session this week, I walked over to the other room to say hi to Beck's table. Beck asked me how my table thought exploration went. I said 'great!', and one of my players concurred as well. The new system had worked really well for us; my players had fun sometimes choosing harder paths in exchange for rewards or information, and using the quieter paths as a chance to roleplay and learn more about each other. They had ended the session after drawing the Fool and following a suspicious acolyte directly to the Bad Guy's Lair for this part of the game. 

Beck's table did not have this experience. One of them said that 'they felt they had too much choice and not enough at the same time'. I broke it down with Beck after the session to find out what had happened and why the experiences of the two tables were so different from each other. 

To sum up:

• Beck, endeavoring to give the players immersive, informed choices, gave a detailed look at the encounters down each path. Seeking to preserve this immersion and mystery, he did not inform the player of meta-rewards like extra Memories (XP) or Courage (meta-currency) for tackling harder encounters. On the other hand: when presenting the two paths I gave a vague hint ('you hear yelling down this path', 'you get a dark feeling as you look down this path'), along with a summary of the meta-mechanics ('this path leads to an undiscovered location, this path has a dangerous encounter that awards a Memory if resolved'). 
• Beck's table had a combined issue: they are a naturally cautious play group and wanted to avoid conflict/danger, and the Major Arcana was particularly forgiving with paths, which led to them getting the exact same prompt ('describe something beautiful and move on') several times in a row. 

I want to make something clear here before I get into the meat of my point: Beck did not run the encounter system wrong, nor did his players play it wrong. Assuming that players engaged with the material you present them in the wrong way is the death of feedback, and entirely unhelpful towards creating anything that is good. Beck used the rules that I set up for him how he had interpreted them, and it led to a less-than-great experience for his table. 

The lesson here? The rules need to communicate better how they are supposed to be used. 

I often quote the Information, Choice, Impact article by Chris McDowall as having an outsized effect on my GMing, and I talk about this with Beck when I give him advice for the game. To sum up the article (although, please go read it): interesting gameplay comes from players having the Information needed to make informed Choices, and for those Choices to have Impact on the game afterwards. Beck and I's table did not have a difference in Choice or Impact, but rather a difference in Information. 

Beck gave solely diegetic information to his players on the paths, and gave a fairly full summary of the encounters so that they would know what they were up against. I gave vaguer hints on the nature of the encounters, as well as a meta-summary of what the encounter meant within the rules. 

What this meant is that my table had a knowledge of the rewards they were seeking, and an air of mystery to the encounters that they were choosing. This led to a mentality that encouraged exploration-- branching paths, seeking out moments of conflict or drama, and building themselves up to that final encounter at the end of the session. 

My table worked because I knew how I wanted these rules to work. Beck's table didn't because he can't read my mind, especially not during the game.  

What needs to change? Let's take a look at the rules that Beck had to work with:

These rules do not communicate several things about their intended function at the table:

1. They do not communicate that the Voice can give hints on meta-textual rewards for choosing harder paths. 
2. They imply a diegetic, closed view into the encounters down each path: you wouldn't communicate 'there is a new opportunity down this path', only perhaps 'you can see a busy market square down this path, and a woodlander with a staff meandering through it'. 
3. They place the onus of information on the woodlanders, rather than the Voice to describe, making the game about the woodlanders asking the right questions rather than making informed choices. 

 If I want every table to have the same experience as mine (or, being generous, most tables), I need to communicate this meta-gameplay stuff that I have in my head. This is my shit. I spend a lot of time reading about different ways to play games and communicate information or to be an immersive GM. A lot of GMs won't, and that's not a bad thing at all-- in fact, it gives the Inkwarren rulebook an opportunity to be that for them. 

I'm gonna let the rules breathe another session. I've asked Beck to try some of my strategies at his table, and we'll see how they work in play! 

But to end on one final note: rules are, foremostly, communication. You must communicate the intended usage if you intend for them to be used in a specific way. Otherwise, GMs and players will be forced to come up with their own intention, which may not always create the experience you were going for. Beck's table had a bad experience. This is why we playtest.