« Prometheus stole my robot! | Main | The Secret Cause of Flame Wars »

February 12, 2006

The Court of the Empress: Playtest Report

Posted by Neel Krishnaswami on February 12, 2006 at 11:15 PM

Last night we were missing one of Nine Worlds players, so we playtested The Court of the Empress.

Short version: The sucker works, pretty much exactly the way I hoped it would.

Longer version:

We ran the game three times, with three different players playing the Empress. Each game ran for three rounds, with three (one time, four) players playing courtiers.

At the start of the session, I wrote all of the key phrases on a blackboard, so that we could easily have them all in one place. This was Alex's idea, and it was very good.

The first time through, I played the Empress, and the other three players played the courtiers. We were feeling our way a little, and I deliberately limited myself to one death per cycle (the minimum pace) to ensure that I could hit all of the mechanical bits. Laura joined for the last round of my my turn playing the Empress. I asked the players what their favorite play was, and Alex managed a fantastic save against Laura after she totally proved he was unfit to live -- he pointed out that her condemnation of him revealed a familiarity with a banned play (which had gotten Nick's courtier killed).

The second run was with Alex. He has a tendency to undercut himself in conversation, so he had to stretch himself a bit in order to be properly imperious and demanding. And he did get better as we played more rounds. He was also responsible for my funniest death; I played a strongman visiting the court, and I tried to impress him by lifting men on my shoulders. He ordered imperial guardsmen leap onto my back until I couldn't bear any more weight, and then had me killed for lying when I boasted I could bear the whole court on my shoulders. My gasping, gurgling death was a hit.

There was another neat round when Alex started executing courtiers for saying inadvertently sexist things. Laura then picked up on it, and they had a wonderful back-and-forth before Alex had her PC executed too. I was very happy to see that come up, because I made the Empress female and the courtiers male on purpose. Basically, the setting evokes a decadent, antique past, and that makes it really easy and tempting for your narration -- which has to fit that flavor -- to fall into using sexist tropes. That is likely to piss off the Empress, who then kills your character. So the courtier players are put just a little more off-balance.

Alex thought that he thought that the point total for a successful favor might be a bit too high. I don't know if I agree, but there's surely no harm in knocking the reward down to 4.

On the last run, Laura ran. She was a wicked awesome Empress; she was heartless, fickle and unpredictable, and gleefully killed off her courtiers -- her first act was to kill us all on the first round, just to let us know she meant business. At the same time, she still showed off enough consistency that you were sure that if you hit just the right mix of mature self-respect and sycophantic flattery you could live. I died immediately in the first round, lasted a second cycle into the second ("that makes sense, but I just don't like you!"), and just barely won the third -- in the last one, she demanded that I convince her why she shouldn't reward me in order to receive a reward, which is just a wonderfully cruel demand. I was successful, so she decided that I receive nothing!

Nick also had a hilarious run as the representative of the island nation of Canada, which he reported had been defeated by the Imperial Armada in under two minutes of battle. He had all of the players cracking up, including both Canadians at the table.

Each a round of play tended to take somewhere between five and fifteen minutes of play, with 3 or 4 players. Laura observed that the rounds took longer each time through each time, because the players got noticeably better at figuring out what kinds of sycophantic flattery worked.

We did have a rules mix-up in the last round of play. Laura couldn't decide whether to kill my character or Alex's, and had us compete. She had forgotten she could kill us both, and the competition between Alex and me meant that Nick didn't get to talk as much. Moral: turn taking works, and messing with it can sideline a player for too long. Another thing I liked was the rule against table talk during a round. This had two big benefits. First, the rounds went by much more quickly, and second, the fact that one person had the stage at a time meant that they could go further without interruption, which meant that they were usually much funnier.

The whole thing -- 3 Empresses running 3 rounds each -- took two and a half hours, with around 90 minutes spent actually in the round structure. The rest of it was spent in table talk and general social chatg works, and messing with it can sideline a player for too long. Another thing I liked was the rule against table talk during a round. This had two big benefits. First, the rounds went by much more quickly, and second, the fact that one person had the stage at a time meant that they could go further without interruption, which meant that they were usually much funnier.

The whole thing -- 3 Empresses running 3 rounds each -- took two and a half hours, with around 90 minutes spent actually in the round structure. The rest of it was spent in table talk and general social chat.

Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4249037

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Court of the Empress: Playtest Report:

Comments

I'm so jealous! I have people who want to play, we just haven't been able to schedule a game yet.

Posted by: peaseblossom at Feb 13, 2006 8:23:57 AM

I will now admit I was wrong. Sounds like a game. Not perhaps a game I'd find engaging, but the determinism that looks like it ought to be there apparently isn't. Is that because there's some informal agreement not to "go there", or is it codified in some way that I've missed in the rules?

Posted by: Mark W at Feb 13, 2006 10:34:10 AM

I guess I don't understand what determinism you think ought to be there. Could you explain, please?

Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Feb 13, 2006 11:51:49 AM

I found my self in play not creating favors to ask the empress until I had some idea if I would get the chance to ask the favor or not. In the rules as written, the courtiers determine their goals at the beginning of a round, but most don't get to ask them. A couple of times, I didn't have a favor ready to ask by the time I got to ask the Empress and had to improvise.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.


The being from Canada was Alex's suggestion. I just ran with it because it was funny. It worked to, until I was torched alive.

Posted by: Nick Wedig at Feb 13, 2006 12:07:31 PM

Regarding determinism - Nick's comment somewhat touches on it. The rules as I read them seem to lead toward the inevitable conclusion that no courtier will survive, nor receive favor, except through repeated iterations of play during which the player learns the "rules" of pleasing the Empress. However, the Empress is completely free and even encouraged to change the rules at will. There seems no way to reach any conclusion to play other than repeated executions without deliberate collusion.

Posted by: Mark W at Feb 13, 2006 12:12:57 PM

Of course, the Empress is a person, rather than an algorithim, and therefore her responses can never be predicted with 100% accuracy. I feel your comments are sliding past my head, rather than connecting square-on with my ears. What do you mean by collusion? That everyone is playing the same game?

Posted by: Jeff at Feb 13, 2006 1:17:19 PM

The "game", as I understand it, is for the non-Empress players to (individually or collectively) discover a means to reach the goal of (a) a living courtier and (b) a granted favor. They do this by engaging in a series of experiments - probing the Empress and attempting to discern her preferences. However, the Empress is allowed and encouraged to be inconsistent and deliberately deceptive in expressing those preferences. It seems that a determined Empress could simply choose to kill randomly - the Empress player must choose to be persuaded. Thus, any ultimately successful conclusion to the game is entirely in the hands of one player's choices.

Posted by: Mark W at Feb 13, 2006 2:04:59 PM

Nick: I did the same thing sometimes. We played fast enough that sometimes I found myself having just enough time to pick a name. I don't think it matters a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

Mark: observe that there is no scoring mechanism for the Empress's player. The Empress doesn't win by killing the courtiers, and doesn't lose by killing them slowly. The fun of playing the Empress arises from having the other players play characters who bow and scrape to you. And being effectively flattered is fun!

Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Feb 13, 2006 2:05:43 PM

I feel dense. That's probably a fairly effective reward system to keep play working - as long as you're not me, who HATES being flattered and kowtowed to. Thus, with the not noticing it.

Posted by: Mark W at Feb 13, 2006 4:14:26 PM

Hm.

I may be transgressing some unwritten rule by expressing it here, but am I alone in finding this game to be of little interest?

On the one hand, the Courtier player is encouraged to probe and test to find out what will please the Empress, and on the other hand the Empress is encouraged to be inconsistent and arbitrary in order to foil the probing.

I guess I'm with Mark, in that I wouldn't much like to play the Empress and be flattered; in addition I don't see a lot of attraction to playing a Courtier, and be a flatterer. That whole energy smacks of social games that I left behind twenty-odd years ago and have absolutely no plans to revisit.

Then again, it's probably premature of me to dismiss a game without actually trying it. I've surprised myself before.

I'd be curious to see a game (or series of games) recorded in some fashion, because I'm almost certainly coming to mistaken conclusions.

Posted by: Vaxalon at Feb 13, 2006 4:30:31 PM

Fred: there's no shame in not liking a game. I'll let you in on my Super Secret Master Plan, though.

I think that in a lot of games create a strong relationship between character status and player status. Matt Snyder designed Nine Worlds, for example, precisely to emphasize the connection between player success and creative power. This is a powerful design technique precisely because people are social animals and we care about status.

I'm also interested in seeing what happens when we do the exact opposite -- if we completely sever the link between player and character status. If we can realize that, then the space of relationships we can confidently and safely play out grows immensely. In Empress, for example, the status gap between a courtier and the Empress is absolute, extreme and unbridgeable. As a result, it becomes ludicrous to suppose that this has anything to do with the status relationship between the players. But Empress is really just a first step. It features one power dynamic, which can never change or be altered, and is deliberately hyper-stylized and extreme.

There are strange games out there, which we haven't even dreamed of yet, and which will call for skills we haven't learned yet.

Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Feb 13, 2006 10:03:15 PM

You are correct that many games create a correlation between character status and player status. Who doesn't roll their eyes when (I'll be charitable) a social-skill-impaired person says, "Let me tell you about my character!" The RPG community has a history of being formed from the low-status "nerds" in high school, and as a result the games reflect a need for status.

Do you really think that Empress severs it, though?

I guess I won't be able to see that it does without witnessing a game in play.

Posted by: Vaxalon at Feb 15, 2006 8:46:46 AM

I'm not talking about "nerds"; I'm talking about everyone. Maintaining good status relationships is something every human community must do. For example, it's just as critical to egalitarian, collaborative teams -- to maintain an effective collaboration, you need to manage the status relationships so that all the team members feel confident enough to be willing to speak out and to ask questions.

Being able to deliberately mess with the status you play is a learned skill; and in fact it's one of the hardest skills of an actor. Think about how we admire actors who have a wide range -- a good part of that skill is a mastery of portraying different levels of status and transitions between them. That's where the "roleplaying exercise" part of Empress comes from. I'm trying to isolate a particular status relationship to make it something we can deliberately practice. I think it works, though probably Nick or some other player would be the best person to ask.

Posted by: Neel Krishnaswami at Feb 15, 2006 2:32:43 PM

"There are strange games out there, which we haven't even dreamed of yet, and which will call for skills we haven't learned yet."

I love that statement.

Also...

Not sure if the design decision is intentional or not Neel, but your statement:

"to maintain an effective collaboration, you need to manage the status relationships so that all the team members feel confident enough to be willing to speak out and to ask questions."

...lightbulbs a thought. Empress might have a side benefit. A game that challenges the players to do this should also, subtextually encourage the players to do this in the framework of the game, devising more deliberate socially managed statuses in the social contract and play environment.

Very cool indeed.

Posted by: Mo at Feb 15, 2006 9:11:32 PM

Post a comment