Nova-Larp Day was Saturday, January 24. And it was pretty great. Rachael Storey Burke hosted, and Melissa S Cohen did a lot of organization.
First game was Top Secret Admirer, a Golden Cobra game and I facilitated. This game is by Sam Zeitlin and +daniel eison, neither of which can I +1 into a conversation.
Its about folks with top secret security clearances going to speed dating. It worked really well, and some parts were fantastic. Gender, in the game, is not a thing. Everybody can date everybody, and be attracted to anyone. So, everyone goes on a quick date with everyone else.
What makes it work, really, is the secret roles. Some of you are not what you claim, which leads to fantastic endings. We had arrests, orgies, and damn near a shoot out.
I think the player handouts could be more conductive, and I've put a bit of time into it while I'm thinking about it.
For the second game, we split up. Upstairs, we did Jason Morningstar 's JUGGERNAUT while downstairs they played the early alpha of Rachael Storey Burke 's top secret game.
Last game was At What Cost, by Christopher Amherst . For us, it didn't quite work. I had hopes it would be about how far would we -- the PC spies -- go to get information or figure out who a mole was in our midst. Instead, it became more torture porn than i was really into.
Some great games, with some great people. Davey Cruz co-facilitated Top Secret Admirer, Rachael Storey Burke wrote one game, and made sure JUGGERNAUT went off without a hitch. And thanks to Melissa S Cohen , Sean Leventhal and Misha Polonsky for playing evil Russians in At What Cost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't wait to get up there to play with you all. One of these days. It is exciting to see your scene thriving.
ReplyDeleteMy game-in-development is JUGGERNAUT, by the way! COLOSSUS was taken...
Jason Morningstar Thanks - I'm not sure why The Forbin Project came to mind.
ReplyDeleteWe'll keep inviting ya, Jason. :)
ReplyDeleteJUGGERNAUT went really well overall, despite some minor technical difficulties with getting the machine sound onto my phone (ultimately I said "Screw it" and we had someone manually hit the button on my computer every time we wanted it to play). I had one suggestion: the first (and, prior to last weekend, only) time I played, you were facilitating, and you gave a one-or-two-word job description for each character (mathematician, mechanical engineer, military investigator, etc) so we could choose who we wanted to play. I looked through all the materials I had and could not identify anything containing a set of short character synopses, so I simply had everyone choose what name they wanted.
Was there an intern job previously? I remember someone playing that and it not being there this time.
Oh, also, I did see the alternate card sets! We ended up using the base set anyway because nobody else there had played before, but if I do it again I'll swap in an alternate set. I specifically refrained from reading the alternate cards for that purpose. :)
Rachael Storey Burke yes, originally it was built for up to eight including two interns. I feel like that is too many. Six is perfect.
ReplyDeleteThe characters are transparent so there's no harm done in poring over the sheets if people want. No secrets there.
Jason Morningstar I had Simms, and wasn't sure if the others should know that I'm a spook. Rachael's right -- we experienced some discomfort in not knowing what others should know about us.
ReplyDeleteCool, I will amend.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Eison
ReplyDeleteSam Zeitlin
I agree with William Nichols on all counts.
ReplyDeleteFor Top Secret Admirer, having one sheet would definitely make things a lot better (William and I have been talking about this). I had the character handout and the ranking sheet but realized toward the end that I never got a dossier by accident, so I was mildly confused about my mission throughout the game. The only other two dossiers left were Reporter and Lonely Heart, so I basically played a Lonely Heart and it still worked out.
It was definitely a fun game! Juggernaut was great too! At What Cost still needs work I feel. There was a lot of confusion throughout, both for the players and the facilitators.
Yeah... I think At What Cost has some interesting stuff in it, but maybe William's G+ page isn't the place for an in-depth discussion thereof. I know Melissa's been talking to Chris, and I think she'll try to put something together for us all to give some input.
ReplyDeleteAnd, because negative remarks on the internet are often taken as "You are evil, and this is horrible", let me add: At What Cost has some really good material in it, and by all accounts Christopher Amherst is a good guy.
ReplyDeletealso, Misha Polonsky , Rachael has provided some excellent additional ideas for TSA. The prime sheet is really coming along!
ReplyDeleteAye, and I didn't mean anything negative as in it was a bad game; it certainly does have good things going for it! I was just offering some honest feedback for why I felt it didn't work for us. Rachael Storey Burke is right though about having another place to offer input.
ReplyDeleteMy plan is to write up what I remember us talking about, and pass that on to you guys to add stuff before handing it over to Chris.
ReplyDeleteThis was s great day. I'm hoping to facilitate something at the next one.
ReplyDeleteThat would be excellent!
ReplyDeleteSean Leventhal yes please!
ReplyDelete