Don’t you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.

I started Man Bytes Blog in March of 2005. It has served me well as a platform for my exploration of my passions and has been instrumental in my professional development. More importantly, the community I have developed through my writing here consists of a countless number of people I’m proud to consider friends.

Over the past year, however, my relationship with Man Bytes Blog has become complicated and burdened by its history. I have increasingly found myself tired at the thought of updating it, of repeating the same messages about story and play over and over. My approach to writing here has become more formal and dense, making updating more of a chore than a delight. Coinciding with this fatigue has been the development of the HoneyComb Engine–my math-light and world-agnostic RPG system–and the launching of the (very) rough draft of the initial storyteller handbook online. Now I’m deeply embroiled in a substantial rewrite and redesign, based upon feedback about the inscrutability of the original text.

And next year isn’t going to get any better, schedule-wise. Three follow up handbooks are in the works, plus localizations of the original. There are LifeWheel manufacturing issues to look into and a HoneyComb-Engine-based LARP event to plan for October. Plus, I’ll be taking an AS3 class this winter and hope to finally put together enough information that I feel comfortable releasing some gamelettes based on my theories. And while I’m doing all that, I still need to be seeking out contract work so I can help keep the lights on in the Zakelro Manse.

So I’m lowering the curtain on Man Bytes Blog. It’s been an extraordinary experience, but one I can no longer sustain.

The existing content will all remain available here. I’ve offered the BoRT to another site and I hope we can work out a transfer. I’d hate to see it go away entirely, but I expect any transfer to a new site will change it considerably (and quite possibly for the better).

But while Man Bytes Blog is retiring, I’m not going anywhere! I’ll still be arguing with people about game design on Twitter and Google Wave (feel free to contact me if you want to swap Wave-contact info). I will still be contributing to projects like Well Played 1.0 (in fact, I’m working on a Fable 2 essay for Well Played 2.0).

AND in January if 2010 I’m planning on starting a new blog, with a new name and a new look, right here at http://corvus.zakelro.com. I’m going to return to a rougher format of writing, sharing the crudest snippets of thoughts, and letting my rough edges more obviously show. I’m going to return to the more exploratory nature of my early writing, and share more of my design work as well. I won’t be returning to the same one-post-per-day dictum of the first years of MBB, but I’m going to aim for two posts a week, Tuesday and Friday, even if they’re just sketches.

So have a great December, and a safe Zombie Yule, and I’ll see you again in January.

But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

The Blogs of the Round Table is an open-contribution collection of essays based around a central literary design challenge. Each month a book is assigned and contributors are asked to design a game that reflects the core themes of the book. The challenge is not to merely design a game based on the plot of the book, but to imagine if the author had been a game designer. What sort of game would they produce to communicate their thoughts? Submissions are not limited to video games and may include board games, card games, ARGs, etc. But any video game designs should be intended for real-world systems–no hyper-intelligent AI or full-sensory systems please.

Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley is considered by many to be the first science fiction novel. That makes it the perfect title for our first month of the Literary Design Challenge BoRT. Many attempts to translate Frankenstein to other formats have fixated on the science of bringing the monster to life, but the book itself doesn’t focus on this aspect at all. Instead, it examines what it means to produce life and the impact that has on those who comes are directly and indirectly involved with the process.

Frankenstein is in the public domain and freely available on Project Gutenberg. And if your public library doesn’t have several copies that you can request, I’d be very surprised.

The process of participating in the BoRT has changed a bit, so read the following carefully!

You are welcome, encouraged even, to submit multiple posts to the BoRT. As a possible suggestion–you might write an initial post that examines the themes of the book you’d like to explore, a second about the central mechanic you’re thinking of using, and a third on the design itself. These posts do not need to be lengthy, highly-polished entries but can serve as more of a public design notebook. Please don’t feel you must submit multiple entries–it’s simply an official option now.

Rather than submit each individual post to me as you write it, please use the following tag on all your posts for the month’s BoRT: bort1109. When you’ve written your first post, submit the URI for the tag to me via email or the contact form here on the blog. On WordPress blogs, the tag URI typically looks like this:
http://my.blog.com/tag/bort1109
or this:
http://my.blog.com/?tag=bort1109
Blogspot blogs tag URIs look like this:
http://myblog.blogspot.com/search/label/bort1109.

I will continue to tag individual contributions on Delicious and share them in Google Reader. I encourage participants with Twitter accounts to announce their posts on there with the hashtag #bort1109, as I will no longer tweet individual contributions on Twitter myself.

Sometime before the end of the month, I will be asking a two or three contributors to join me in a podcast to discuss the book and their approaches to the challenge. My goal is to publish the podcast before the month is over, so further contributions can be made based upon the content of the podcast.

Please, please, engage with other contributors throughout the month. One of the primary goals of the BoRT is to foster community and I believe that all of our ideas are strengthened when we engage with one another, supporting and challenging each others’ assumptions about what constitutes good design, asking questions about the role of games in our lives, etc. So please comment on other contributor’s posts when you have the time. I understand that it can be challenging to find the time to comment on individual BoRT entries and I’ve been bad about visiting sites myself. But we can use other mediums for our inter-post chatter as well–we can use and follow the twitter hashtag #bort1109, join the conversation in the IRC channel #GBConfab on Quakenet.org, or visit the BoRT1109 Public Wave (consider the wave to be an experimental option at this point).

So that’s the new BoRT format! Let me know what you think of it in the comments. I’ll be announcing December’s book mid-November. I have several possibilities in mind for December and January, but if this format is successful, we will implement a book-suggestion and poll feature for future months.

[UPDATE]

This month’s contributors are Bergsonian Critique, Alishowkati, and Mind’s Eye, and Ellen Wilde.

My partner, Rachel, and I have an agreement that we don’t buy each other obligatory presents on prescribed holidays. If we do commemorate a birthday by spending money, that money must take a back seat to the time and/or effort that the gift represents. This can be time spent together, time spent with others, the effort of creating the gift, or the effort made possible by the gift. For example, I gave Rachel an embroidery class for herself and a dear friend this year.

So as my birthday rapidly approaches, we got to talking about what she could do for me. And then Deirdra Kiai inadvertently suggested the best idea for a present.

Deirdra Kiai is a developer at Hothead Studios. But on the side, she designs the only dialog-focused video games that I actually enjoy playing. If you haven’t played any of her games, I recommend you make it a priority to do so. My particular favorites are Chivalry is Not Dead and Pigeons in the Park. Most of her recent projects have been quite small of scope and I’ve been eager to see her take on something larger again.

Fortunately for me, she’s evidently been eager to do the same.

Deirdra recently announced that she was fundraising money for her next game, Life Flashes By via Kickstarter. She’s raising a modest $1,000 and contributors can donate as little as $5 towards that goal. Rachel timed it so that our contribution tipped Deirdra over that critical 50% hurdle that many financing campaigns struggle to reach.

Now, I don’t know how much money you spend on video games in a year. This has actually been a heavy year for me, with three planned AAA purchases and a myriad of iPhone games that I’ve picked up for less than $5 apiece. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the AAA titles I’m acquiring, but I don’t enjoy the idea that my individual dollars-spent are having very little impact on corporate strategy when they’re compared to the millions of dollars spent by people buying the games the major advertising campaigns told them to buy.

For example–I don’t enjoy the fact that my purchase of Brutal Legend went more to funding EA’s drive to escalate their profits than it did to ensuring Double Fine gets to publish another game. I have little doubt that EA’s renewal of their, “any game that isn’t a very high profit contributor and high unit seller will be eliminated from this point going forward,” policy is the writing on the wall for future involvement with studios like Double Fine, which historically has had difficulty keeping publishers.

But I know that the money Rachel contributed to Deirdra’s game will have exactly the sort of impact on the industry that I’d like my dollars to have. It will encourage independent development. It will encourage developers who want their work to reflect themselves. It will encourage developers who choose to forge direct and respectful relationships with their audience. It will encourage direct-to-consumer distribution models. It will encourage sites like Kickstarter, who build invaluable support structures for the individual developer.

We paid a AAA price tag for Life Flashes By and if we could have justified it in our budget, I wouldn’t have minded spending more. So next year’s game budget is going to specifically set aside dollars for indie projects like Deirdra’s. Think what a transformative effect we could have on the future of games if we all reserved the cost of even a single AAA video game purchase and spent that money on 5-10 different indie titles instead. Not only would we be helping send a message to the monolithic risk-adverse publishers, but we’d be getting exponentially more gameplay than we would otherwise.

Deirdra’s project has 69 days to go and only $490 to raise. If she doesn’t reach her goal, then those of us who have pledged don’t get charged and our efforts to help change the face of the industry will be for naught. So here’s my challenge to you–to everyone who wishes they could effect the way games are designed, to everyone who wishes games had more meaning, to everyone who believes games are art, to everyone who is tired of paying $60 for derivative gameplay, to everyone who feels like a powerless cog in a consumer machine–help me put our money where our mouths are. Seek out projects like Life Flashes By and Today I Die Again and give them your financial support.

If every single person who subscribes to my RSS feed, follows me on Twitter or Friendfeed, or is my friend on Facebook would rush out and contribute $5 to Life Flashes By, Deirdra would reach (exceed) her goal within the hour. In fact, even if I did the math and ruled out all the duplicate people between the lists, I suspect she’d reach her goal within minutes. So don’t let Rachel and my efforts go to waste. Don’t let EA define what a video game ought to be. Don’t let talent like Deirdra’s go unnoticed. Pledge your support and ask your friends to do the same. Together, you and I and the indie developers, can make an enormous difference in the world of video games.

Make a difference now while you can because I can assure you that the longer you’re here, the more quickly Life Flashes By.

(and if Deirdra’s project is already fully funded when you get to it, there are other worthy projects out there as well)

In RPGs, the Storyteller Prime/GM traditionally sets the stage in 3rd person:

The ninja clambers up the drain pipe and disappears over the edge of the roof.

While the storytellers/players (re)set the stage in 1st:

I follow and try not to lose sight of her.

This evolved for obvious reasons–the Storyteller typically plays as a single character while the Prime is responsible for the script, the supporting cast, the stage, sets, and all of the props. But as the HoneyComb Engine allows–encourages, even–primes to share control of the scene and script, I’ve begun to wonder if this traditional approach of using differing perspectives enforces the more traditional division of control.

Is the use of 1st person perspective a limitation? It certainly encourages Storytellers to view the scene from within it, rather than from above, or outside, of it. This arguably acts as a tool of disempowerment that reinforces traditional, centralized, control in a single authority. An authority which has the greater perspective, or greater distance from the action.

Or is 1st person perspective necessary to the experience? If storytellers also used 3rd person to set the stage, would it remove the reason they enjoy role playing? Is the sense of presence dependent upon the the use of 1st person perspective? I’m not entirely convinced that is is, as I certainly feel very present in the world and story while using the more removed 3rd person perspective (it should be noted that I tend to prefer 3rd person video game RPGs, as I feel more connected to the character/world/story when there’s a character on-screen with whom I can empathize).

I suspect the answer depends on the storyteller and the dynamic of the skein. I can’t imagine my Hopeful storytellers stepping back and using a third person perspective during play. They enjoy being these kids exploring a world that’s becoming increasingly complicated by their discovery of complex adult behaviors. But I can easily imagine other storytellers I’ve gamed with in the past using the third person perspective and feeling quite present.

I think, perhaps, a little experimentation is in order. I’ll be starting a couple of small groups, both IRL and online over the next month and I think it might be interesting to change approaches between stories and talk about how it affects the experience.

How about you? Does your skein already use the third person perspective? If so, what system do you use? Do you use minis for combat? How experienced are your storytellers? Do you consider yourself heavy role players, or do you focus mostly on system and combat?

October ’09
Designer DenouementsHow can the denouement be incorporated into gameplay? In literary forms, it is most often the events that take place after the plot’s climax that form your lasting opinion of the story. A well constructed denouement acts almost as a payoff, where protagonists and antagonists alike realize and adjust to the consequences of their actions. Serial media often ignored the denouement in favor of the cliffhanger, in order to entice viewers to return. Television has further diluted the denouement by turning it into a quick resolution that tidily fits into the time after the final commercial break.

But the denouement is most neglected in video games where it is often relegated to a short congratulatory cut scene, or at most–a slide show of consequences. This month’s topic challenges you to explore how the denouement can be expressed as gameplay.

If you would like to link to this month’s Round Table, please do not link to this post! Instead, please link to this month’s entry on the Round Table page at: http://corvus.zakelro.com/round-table/#1009.

As always, check out the FAQ to find out how to submit your post to the Round Table and if you have questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. Please don’t submit your posts in the comments, but email links to me (if you already have my address) or use the contact form linked above.

If you would like to be alerted to new Round Table entries without revisiting the site, feel free to follow me on Twitter, my shared feeds on Google Reader, or the Delicious Round Table tag. If you’re a Round Table contributor and Facebook user, I encourage you to add your blog to the NetworkedBlogs application. While you’re there, be sure to become a fan of Man Bytes Blog, friend me, and invite me to become a fan of your blog too.

Oct. 12 – Aim for the Head: After the Climax. Jason launches our topic with a brief look at a possible approach.

Oct. 14 – Mind’s Eye: This is the end… my only friend, the end. Josh gives us examples of denouements that aren’t and hints at an idea for one that is.

Oct. 15 – Emily Short: Blogs of the Round Table: Denouement. Emily talks about what makes the denouement work and provides examples from IF.

Oct. 15 – …duck, duck, DIE!!!: Blogs of the Round Table: DenouementCody explores the difficulties of denouement in various genres of video games.

Oct. 19 – Indigo Static: To end or not to end. Diego presents a game design that uses different sets of verbs to make the denouement meaningful.

Oct. 19 – Worldmaker: The Ending Has Not Yet Been Written. Max asks whether games really need a denouement in the first place.

Oct. 20 – The Select Button: Playing the Denouement. Brian takes a look at why more games don’t allow you to play the denouement.

Oct. 21 – The Autumnal City: Interactive Denouement. Travis puts on his dancing shoes and designs an IF denouement.

Oct. 21 – Deirdra Kiai Productions: Once Upon a Time, The End. Deirdra explores her own use, or lack thereof, of denouement in her projects.

Oct. 23 – Mile Zero: What Sharp Teeth. Thomas leads us down The Path‘s denouement.

Oct. 31 – Breadth-First (Game)Play: Gameplay as Denouement. Yana joins us with a discussion on flow and the denouement.

update

Oct. 31 – Discount Thoughts: Denouement of the rings. As the title suggests, Sparky talks about LotR games and how they fail to provide the same experience as the source text.

Oct. 31 – Jamey Stevenson: Destination Disappointment. Jamey shares several examples of how games deal with endings.

Oct. 31 – The Game Critique: Denouement: The Gameplay Slowdown. Eric also shares examples of games that extend their gameplay beyond the climactic boss battle.

The BoRT is dead! Long live the BoRT! Stay tuned tomorrow for the unveiling of a new BoRT structure.

September ’09
Isn’t That Spatial? Every video game has certain benefits and constraints in the way it represents space. Interaction fiction, arcade titles, 2D side-scrollers, isometric RPGs, and first person shooters all have advantages and disadvantages to how they deal with space–some technical in nature, some design-based. This month’s topic invites you to explore the ways games have represented the spatial nature of their storyworlds and what this does for the audience experience. Is it possible to ignore the constancy of spatial relationships in a graphical game? What would such a game look like? Are there ways of representing spatial relationships that we haven’t explored? Do you have ideas for games that could intentionally twist the player’s perception of space, or do you want to write about a game that already has?

If you would like to link to this month’s Round Table, please do not link to this post! Instead, please link to this month’s entry on the Round Table page at: http://corvus.zakelro.com/round-table/#0909.

As always, check out the FAQ to find out how to submit your post to the Round Table and if you have questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. Please don’t submit your posts in the comments, but email links to me (if you already have my address) or use the contact form linked above.

If you would like to be alerted to new Round Table entries without revisiting the site, feel free to follow me on Twitter, my shared feeds on Google Reader, or the Delicious Round Table tag. If you’re a Round Table contributor and Facebook user, I encourage you to add your blog to the NetworkedBlogs application. While you’re there, be sure to become a fan of Man Bytes Blog, friend me, and invite me to become a fan of your blog too.

Participants:

Sept. 4 – The Artful Gamer: Games We Can Dwell Within – What is Interactive Space?. Chris writes about space, perception and exploration.

Sept. 9 – international hobo: 2D or Not 2D. Chris gets his rant on and balances the depth of his argument on the Z-axis.

Sept. 13 – And Thus Spoke Pi: The Sight and the Fury. Johnny posits that there’s only one game that presents itself well.

Sept. 14 – Write the Game: Isn’t That Spatial?. Keira advocates for simplicity.

Sept. 14 – ProjectPerko: Space. Craig explores, or perhaps even modifies, space.

Sept. 16 – Indigo Static: Isn’t that Vignette Spatial? Diego shares a myriad of game ideas that play with the concept of space.

Sept. 17 – Total Disorder: Here’s a Concept! 3D Arcade Classics. Ted re-envisions classic 2d games in 3d.

Sept. 21 – Mind’s Eye: Poignant pixels and the 5th dimension of storytelling. Josh takes the conversation and moves it along a new dimension.

Sept 26 – Big Apple, 3 AM: The Music Form Synesthaesia of Audiosurf. Michel touches on how Audiosurf connects music and space.

Sept. 28 – Juxtapixel: Through the Looking Glass. Diogo examines how perspective helps define spacial awareness.

Sept. 28 – Worldmaker: Spatio-Temporal Navigation. Max talks about the interconnectivity of time and space in game design.

Sept. 29 – Tiny Subversions: Spelunky’s Procedural Space. Darius discusses… well, Spelunky’s procedural space.

Sept. 30 – Rough Edges: The Cathedral of Your Relationship With Your Mom. Alex explores the idea of defining space with relationships.

Sept. 30 – The Game Critique: What Do Spatial Relationships Mean to Us. Eric examines what we’ve learned about game space.

Sept. 30 – Post Emo Existentiell Gaming: Battlefield 1943 versus Crash Commando: Two Perspectives on Spatiality . Kylie compares the perspectives of two games with similar dynamics, but different perspectives.

Sept. 30 – Life is a playground: 1D – for when 2D isn’t simple enough.. Behrooz explores the possibilities inherent in very simple spaces.

Update

Sept 30. – Peanut Butter and Bacon: Shadowplay in Virtual Cities. Jonathan talks about procedural urban landscape and exploration.

The BIG news is that Zakelro Story Studio has launched the HoneyComb Engine site at honeycombengine.com. At the moment, the site is a bit disjointed and contains pretty much just the rough draft of the HoneyComb Engine Handbook and forums for feedback on said rough draft.

Wait a moment. Let me say that another way.

The HoneyComb Engine has gone public! Yes it’s just a rough draft, but it’s out there. After a long journey of revisions, testing, feedback, and more revisions, the HoneyComb Engine is available for public viewing.

I’m still a bit nervous about that. Also in a bit of awe.

A little over six years ago I decided that I wanted my RPG system to go public. My intent was to refine the system to the point where it could be a foundation for compelling video games. Today–well, yesterday–after so many preparatory steps. I took the first big step towards making that goal a reality.

And I have so many more steps in the active planning stage already–from integrating the system into the HoneyComb site itself, to publishing multiple variants, to writing a storyworld construction handbook, to localization the system for other languages, to providing high-quality LifeWheels, to working with a studio to create middleware, to… to…

Okay. First I have to get the site in better order and start the editing process on the current handbook, which we plan on having available in time for the holidays. But I’m very encouraged by the level of interest thus far. I’ve even been interviewed already by Narrative Designer’s Network and Edge Online in advance of the release. I hope the actuality lives up to people’s expectations.

Thanks for sticking with me up to this point and I can’t wait to see how things develop over the next year!

• Genre: Political Intrigue/Romance (i.e. Romeo & Juliet)
• Era: Ancient Egypt
• World Detail: Information has become so integrated into culture that it’s impossible to lie

A cruel emperor who uses alien technology to ensure everyone has to tell the truth. With no ability to keep secrets, any revolt against his reign is doomed to failure. But now he’s fallen in love with a young woman and was so afraid of revealing his own weaknesses that he’s ordered her killed. She, meanwhile, is working with uninfected foreign agents to destroy the alien technology.

• Genre: 2D Sidescrolling platformer (i.e. Super Mario Brothers).
• Era: 1920′s New York
• World Detail: Religious Insurrection Against Corporate Controlled Monarchy

A group of immigrants rushed to rescue an engineer who could dismantle a new communications technology that was responsible for severe mutations among the lower classes.

• Genre: Crime Comedy
• Era: 1980s Disneyland (how perfect was that pairing?!)
• World Detail: Technology that allows communication with the dead

Two cops and an FBI agent investigate a group of Satanic hair-metal freaks that have turned a theme park into a nightmare of raised spirits in an attempt to appease a dark god.

• Genre: Homeric Epic
• Era: Azuchi-Momoyama Period, Japan
• World Detail: The rapture has already happened and a lot of pissed-off true believers have been left behind.

A priest, a spy, and a samurai conspire to assassinate the Japanese emperor. This is actually the only session that didn’t run to completion, with the protagonists all dying in their first encounter. I consider this a complete failure on my part–I was exhausted and I think I interpreted the themes too seriously to make for a good demo session anyway.

I love taking this approach to showing off (yeah, not merely “showing off the game,” but good old fashioned “showing off”), but they generally require longer sessions to pull off well. There has to be a certain amount of exposition and the storytellers usually want to take their time and explore the storyworld they helped create. So when I sat down for the first demo at PAX this year, I realized I needed a different approach.

I wanted a scenario with a bit of story behind it–something that would be relatively familiar to people with diverse backgrounds, but allow them to layer it with their own interpretation. I also didn’t want it to be a combat-only scenario, while not ruling out a bit of combat if that’s the direction the storytellers wanted to play things. In order to demonstrate movements rates and positioning ideas for conflict, I have a 10×10 hexboard, so a scenario that is limited to a simple space would also work best.

So I created the following scenario:

• Thieves in Training
• In Victorian London a group of ragtag urchins are under the tutelage of Fagin, the ringleader of a gang of notorious pickpockets and thieves. Today’s challenge is to liberate a hip flask, pocket watch, and wallet from Fagin before he is able to walk from one end of a long alley to the other.

This proved to be quite successful and lead to a a variety of approaches to the problem. The first group quickly became quite rough and manhandled Fagin, who pulled out a cudgel and tried to beat them into submission. Another group took a more farcical approach, and Fagin ended up scrambling to pull up his pants as they removed the items one by one.

Then, of course, I also ran the Kiai-Megill Varient, a very different sort of demo.

This got me to thinking about how I can easily demo the robust flexibility of the engine in the future. I’ve decided to pre-create several demos, complete with illustrated hexboards to support each one. This will also make it easier to train other storytellers to run demos should I need the extra hands-on-deck. At the moment, I’m considering the following five options:

• Thieves in Training
• This scenario, set in a Dickensian London, is open to multiple approaches and uses the basic HoneyComb Engine ruleset, including applying profession bonuses and granting Renown.
• Shanghai Showdown
• This West-meets-East scenario is an over-the-top, gun-slinging, martial arts, extravaganza that introduces the use of Heroic Body Influences.
• Death of the Family
• This scenario introduces the Kiai-Megill Varient with an emotionally charged drama in which siblings attempt to uncover each others’ secret shame while protecting their own. This introduces the use of Heroic Spirit Influences for non-magic uses.
• The Turquoise Necklace
• This scenario is a classic whodunnit in the style of Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie where the guilty party is randomly selected from the NPCs when the session begins. This introduces the use of the Heroic Mind Influences for non-psionic uses.
• The Heist
• This open-ended scenario features a team of rough-and-tumble thieves in a swords-and-sorcery world as they attempt to steal a valuable artifact during a high-society gala. This introduces the use of Mind and Spirit Heroic Influences for psionic and magic use.

These scenarios are listed in order of complexity, with The Heist likely requiring at least 90 minutes to demonstrate well. I’m hoping to get Thieves in Training down to 20 to 30 minutes with a bit of practice, but I suspect 45 minutes will be the actual sweet spot.

Clearly I’m also going to need some short (10 to 15 minute) scripted presentations if I want to reach people who don’t want to make the time commitment to sit down and play a session.

Another option would be to host a gaming room and assemble a skein (my preferred collective noun for storytellers) who want to sit and play an extended session in public (with drop in opportunities available) all con long, but I don’t think we’ll realistically be able to pull that off over the next year. We’ll see, though–something miraculous might happen and allow us to build our mini-honeycombed empire more quickly than expected.

Stay tuned for the launch of the HoneyComb Engine rough draft on Friday the 18th!

Could you use the HoneyComb Engine to play something like Hills Like White Elephants? [1]

That’s the question that opened up my second playtest of the HoneyComb Engine at PAX last weekend. It was posed by one of the storytellers, Travis Megill, who had never played a traditional pen and paper RPG before this moment. It is, I suspect, the sort of question only someone that has zero experience with RPGs would ask. It is also very much the reason I love gaming with people who have never gamed before.

Deirdra Kiai, who was sitting in the seat next to Travis [2], chimed in to say her intent with the HoneyComb Engine ran exactly along those lines. In fact, Thursday evening Deirdra has asked if the HoneyComb Engine could be used for more romantic stories, such as a Pride & Prejudice (without the zombies) RPG. I had told her then what I told Travis now, “There’s no reason is couldn’t be.”

And then I realized–I had two storytellers sitting at the table with a particular storytelling need right now. And since the whole point of the HoneyComb Engine is to help storytellers create and share storyworlds that meet their own particular needs at the time, I would be horribly remiss if I didn’t demonstrate that in action. Also at the session were Joe Tortuga and Max Battcher, both of whom I believed could handle a bit of experimental improvisation.

So I asked them to give me a second and quickly created the Kiai-Megill Variant (KMV) and a scenario with which to test it.

For the purposes of the test, I outlined a scenario–four adult siblings were gathered together for their father’s funeral. They had not all four been together since their mother’s death in a car accident 18 months prior. An accident which also sent their father into the coma from which he never returned. Each sibling had a shame they were eager to keep hidden and a suspicion about another sibling. Here are the specifics:

• Carl, the youngest and a student, was supposed to have been taking his parents’ car in for regular service, but was pocking the money instead.
• Carl suspects that Larry never visited his father in the hospital.
• Judy, the third child and a waitress, had been borrowing money from her mother for her boyfriend’s drug rehab.
• Judy suspects Carl somehow caused the accident that resulted in their parents’ deaths.
• Larry, the second child with an undefined job, had the hospital pull the plug on his father.
• Larry suspects Ben has been working for the mob.
• Ben, the oldest and a lawyer, hadn’t worked for a year.
• Ben suspect Judy had been stealing jewelry to pay for her drug habit.

You’ll notice that there are a lot of gaps in this scenario. Had Ben saved up enough money that his period of unemployment didn’t matter? Since he’s ashamed of that fact, it’s unlikely (although still possible). What choices lead up to Larry having the hospital pull the plug? Why hadn’t the siblings spent much time together in the last year? The list of potential plot holes is pretty huge, given how little material I provided. This is intentional and a crucial detail to my approach to participatory storytelling. Leaving gaping holes in the fabric of your narrative allows the other storytellers involved to substantially add their own warp and woof, based upon their perspectives and life experiences. It’s a technique I’ll discuss in more depth here on the blog as I work on the second HoneyComb manual.

The system itself, in all modesty, didn’t require much changing. Each Influence on the Lifewheel incorporates a mental or spiritual attribute, so they all have applicable uses to dialog-driven storyplay. What I did change right off the bat was the definition of Ego, what usually correlates to hit points. In the KMV, Ego is associated with the secret shame each character harbors and as they are forced to reveal it, their Ego is reduced. This is quite in keeping with the way Ego is normally treated, excepting KMV characters don’t pass out when their Ego is eventually depleted. Characters with more Ego, give up their secrets in small ways during the course of play. Characters with very little Ego tend to blurt out their shame when provoked. We called will “curiosity” during play, but I’ve since decided that it’s not necessary to change the terms for either Ego or Will–just the means by which Ego is lost.

After creating an NPC-free storyworld and modifying the core mechanic on the fly, I needed some time to stand and drool a bit. My brain was racing to simulate problems we’d run into during play and I didn’t have a lot of focus/energy left to get the four storytellers moving. So Rachel jumped in and acted as storyteller prime for the session. She helped the storytellers set the scene and got the ball rolling. She was awesome and I can’t wait to see her run more sessions. Max, having just run a more-traditional session with me, decided to bow out and once I was done staring moon-eyed at the wall, I stepped into his role.

We used the conflict timing mechanic to help regulate the flow of conversation. It was a bit clumsy at first, but as we got the hang of it, I felt it flowed better and better until conversation was happening quite smoothly, but leaving some time to think ahead. The big change we needed to make is in how successful conversational gambits were handled. Normally when you succeed at an action, you get to describe the action and the effect of the action on the other character. This works fine in combat scenarios, but not so much in conversation. So we declared that if you had a successful conversation move, the target had to respond appropriately on their next available opportunity. This allowed each storyteller to maintain character integrity based upon the unexpressed choices they’d made for them.

Now, we were doing this at a public table in the hallway where people could stop and watch us (and they did). None of us had gamed together before and none of us had gamed a session quite like this. Plus, we were busy assimilating new rules (even those of us well familiar with the HoneyComb Engine). Plus, we were stepping into brand new characters in a scenario that required the storytellers to feel safe in order to express the sort of emotional issues that might come up.

In other words–we had the perfect recipe for a complete disaster.

But the disaster never came. In fact, from my perspective, it seemed that we all became emotionally involved in these characters. Had we more time, we might have even been overtly emotional in our defense of them. From a system perspective, we even started using the Heroic Influences and Joe managed to divert a successful attempt to uncover his secret onto another storyteller–providing more nuance to the mechanics as we played. Some of the storytellers decided that revealing their shame willingly was a stronger narrative choice than keeping it hidden and cooperated fully with their accusers. This led to a short discussion about the goals of a HoneyComb Engine storytelling experience–namely to create a rich and rewarding storyworld that everyone could enjoy and that contributing successfully to the narrative overall made for a more rewarding storyplay experience than selfishly pursuing your own goals or agenda.

I feel that the HoneyComb Engine tests overall were a great success, but this session in particular showed me that what I’ve created really can be easily (and quickly) adapted to suit a wide variety of storyplay styles. In fact, I have a scenario plan for future gameplay demos that will highlight the variety of approaches to the system. If the people tempting me to attend PAX East get their way, you may get to see them in action there (and purchase a copy of the manual of course).

In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing the thoughts of Travis, Deirdra, Joe, Max, Randy, and anyone else who played over the weekend. We wrapped up each session pretty quickly and went our separate ways (oh, the challenges of cons), so I didn’t get a full post mortem with anyone at the time. How about it, storytellers? Have some thoughts you’d be willing to share in the comments or via trackbacks?

[1] For those of you who aren’t instantly familiar with this surprisingly sensitive work from Ernest Hemingway, it’s a conversation between two people that holds surprising depth and difficult emotional content. [return]

[2] Are you jealous of me yet? Well, keep reading. There’s nothing like getting creative people with a variety of backgrounds together for a game. [return]

Okay, on with the post. Today I am supposed to be resting and recovering from PAX. Fortunately, I’m so keyed up over the success of the weekend that the task list I’m plowing through isn’t bothering me at all.

Friday consisted of breakfast with Darius Kazemi, Nels Anderson and Deirdra Kiai. Darius and I have spent time together at past GDCs, but we got to spend a lot of quality one-on-one time together on Friday and I feel we got to know each other quite a bit better. This, if you can’t tell, pleases me. Nels and I met briefly at a massive dinner earlier this year, but it felt like meeting him for the first time because I wasn’t a) tipsy and b) overwhelmed by the number of people that showed up (the GDC dinner had nearly 30 or so people at it). Nels is a powerhouse. To quote some other people meeting him for the first time, “Those are some eyes, aren’t they?”

Deirdra… well, perhaps Deirdra deserves her own post at some point. Suffice to day that as awesome as I thought Deirdra was before–she now heads her very own pantheon in my personal mythology. One of these days Deirdra is going to be someone about whom the industry-at-large wonders why it didn’t notice her sooner. And if there’s anything I can do to help her on her path to highly-visible-ossumosity, I plan on doing it. Long story short–I enjoyed spending a lot of time with her this weekend.

Max Battcher featured quite prominently and positively into the weekend as well. We talked about Python, the HoneyComb Engine, and our problems with over-committing to projects. I’ll let you build your own conversation out of those three details. I got to spend more time with Damon Brown as well and that’s something I hope to be able to say much more often in the future. Damon is one of those peaceful-but-forceful intellects that manage to calm the waters while simultaneously stirring them up.

Then on Saturday, not only did Rachel and I meet Joe, Randy, and Travis for breakfast, but got to spend quite a bit of time with them outside the confines of the #GBConfab. Plus, they all got to kick the tyres of the the HoneyComb Engine as well.

The list of amazing people goes on and on (and on). I reunited with GDC CAs and other industry friends, Twitter friends, local friends, and people who recognized me from the blog. I met new people, was far too busy to meet others (Darius, I’m going to poke you for virtual introductions here soon). If I sound like I’ve just come back from a brainwashing camp where I was told to gush enthusiastically over everybody–it’s because PAX has an intoxicating effect. So many intelligent, open, engaged geeks in a single place for three days is a high from which I don’t wish to come down.

The HoneyComb tests went very well. I got feedback from strangers and friends, had a film crew watch us for a minute or so on Sunday, watched as Rachel pitched in and helped run a session, and created the first rules variant called the Kiai-Megill Variant. I think I’ll break the HoneyComb test posts out into two posts of their own–one of the standard gameplay sessions, and one focusing on the Kiai-Megill Variant session that began with Travis asking, “So could you use the engine to do something like Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants?” My answer was, “Yes, it should be” and we went on to prove it. My spine tingled for the rest of the day.

Saturday also saw me staying up until three o’clock Sunday morning (about 6 hours past my normal bedtime) so that I could watch all three of Jonathan Coulton’s encores. Also, thanks to my tradition of switching on the Cartoon Network when I stay in hotels, I saw television commercials for the first time in a looong time. Suffice to say, for the moment, that I am glad to not have the television machine hooked to any signal other than my consoles at the moment.

All of which (horrible, mind-scarring televised pandering, and late hours) put me in a slightly manic state of mind Sunday, which I resolved by… um… expending a lot of energy, I guess. I ran a final HoneyComb Engine test, moderated the Murder Sex & Drugs panel, took a final spin through the expo hall, and drove home (it was nice to get a nap (I kid! I kid!)).

The MS&D panel was… The panel… I… Hrm. Words fail.

Okay, I understand that recordings of all the PAX panels will be made available soon. I’ll fore go trying to cram all me awe of N’Gai, Deirdra, Max, Nels, and Damon and let you experience the incredible power that supported my first panel for yourselves. Hopefully it inspired some other people to write about it and when/if I see posts, I’ll share them on Google Reader. I’m already planning next year’s follow up and formulating ideas for a second proposed panel as well.

So in short, I’ve come away from a weekend at PAX reinfected with an excitement for games (video and otherwise) and a slightly renewed hope for the industry. My deepest thanks to everyone who was a part of that!

To that end, I recently invited Coray Seifert, Darius Kazemi, Jay Barnson, and Scott Macmillan. Our topics of discussion revolve around the relationship between the IGDA and the indie developer. We cover a lot of grounds in this podcast and touch on some important topics. I hope you enjoy listening to my guests as much as I did.

I am very interested in continuing this series on the IGDA–bringing in more perspective and grappling with some tough questions. If you’re an IGDA member, or an indie developer, or both, and you’d like to appear in a future episode, please let me know. I’ll be putting together groups of three to four people as often as once a month, should there be interest.

To subscribe to this and future podcasts, you can add us on iTunes, or a podcast-specific RSS feed.

And stay tuned later today for the return of the monthly Blogs of the Round Table topics!

[EDIT: If you were confused to hear people who were obviously not Scott, Jay, Darius, or Coray--give it another listen. We had a technical glitch that's now been resolved.]

[EDIT: In the interest of complete transparency, "We had a technical glitch that's now been resolved," actually means, "I'm an idiot who shouldn't be trusted with auto-fill features in web browsers."]

But we have our 10% and the board has been informed. I have personally emailed Joshua Caulfield, the Executive Direct of the IGDA, and Bob Bates, the chair of the board of directors, the results in a verifiable format that does not link member names to their choice of YES/NO.

And while this is excellent news and cause for a small celebration, the real movement is just beginning.

The board must now agree to call the special meeting. The membership, as a whole, must vote. This is going to take time, patience, and a lot more work to get the word out and make sure people are voting from an informed position.

And regardless of how this specific issue turns out, there’s a lot of work yet to do.

The IGDA is a volunteer-run organization and the general perception of our membership is that we are, by and large, uninvolved and uninterested in the working of the organization. This has led to some unfortunate attitudes and actions at all levels within the IGDA. As a result, it seems that many of us expect the Board to run things as they see fit and feel we don’t have a voice in the day-to-day operations of the organization.

As the amount of activity surrounding this petition proves–nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is, as paying members of a volunteer-driven professional organization, we run the IGDA. And while we elect the board members, ostensibly to take actions based upon our interests, the more involved we become, the more our ability to steer the organization will become.

So I put forth this call to action.

The membership must become more involved with the board’s election process. We must vet our candidates. We must invite them to round table debates on the topics we feel are important. We must look into their backgrounds. We must discern their opinions on topics important to us by engaging them in conversation, both private and public.

The membership must contribute meaningfully to the operations of the IGDA. Collectively, we represent a vast amount of knowledge and experience that can only strengthen the community should we choose to share it openly and freely. The IGDA can be an advocate, informational resource, local networking opportunity, international networking opportunity, and so much more.

The Board of Directors must recognize that they serve at the behest of the membership. They must take seriously all concerns of the membership and work to empower the membership to make their voice heard within and without the organization.

The Board of Directors must continue their transparency efforts so that members and non-members alike can see, directly, what benefit the IGDA is providing.

All of us must remain respectfully engaged with one another on the topics we’re passionate about–whether that’s simply Game Design, or Quality of Life, Trademarks and Patents, Diversity, Censorship, Independent Development, Credit Standards, Storytelling, Art, Writing, Education, or any of the myriad of topics that flow through our industry.

So, take courage that our voices have been heard and that Joshua Caulfield, the new Executive Director of the IGDA, is taking the petition very seriously, while remaining respectful of my promises of your privacy and security.

Using only song names from ONE ARTIST answer these questions. Repost as “my life according to (artist’s name)”

Artist: Tom Waits

Male or Female: Ice Cream Man

Describe Yourself: The One That Got Away

How Do You Feel: Drunk on the Moon

Describe Where You Currently Live: In the Neighborhood

If You Could Go Anywhere, Where Would It Be: I Wish I Was in New Orleans

Your Favorite Form of Transportation: Walking Spanish

Your Best Friend Is: Such a Scream

You and Your Best Friends Are: All the Time

What’s the Weather Like: You Can Never Hold Back Spring

Favorite time of Day: All The Time

If your Life was a TV show, what would it be called: Buzz Fledderjohn

What is Life to you: World Keeps Turning

Your relationship: Little Trip to Heaven

Your Fear: The Ghosts of Saturday Night

What is the best advice you have to give: Don’t Go Into that Barn

Thought for the Day: You Can’t Un-Ring a Bell

How I Would Like to Die: 16 Shells from a Thirty-Ought Six

My Soul’s Present Condition: New Coat of Paint

My Motto: I Don’t Wanna Grow Up

In the interest of full transparency– I am an independent contractor who provides narrative design consulting. My primary source of income at this point is from EA/Pogo who merely skims the surface of my skills to write monthly copy for a jigsaw puzzle games. I am working on an IP of my own called the HoneyComb Engine, which is a participatory storytelling system that I plan on expanding into a series of video games at some point. I am also on the executive board of the IGDA Writing SIG.

Tim Langell is the inspiration for this post, but he is not the point of it. The point of this post is far larger than Tim Langdell. The point of the post is you, me, every single other registered member of the IGDA, and every developer who does, or wishes to, work in the industry.

Whether you agree with the views I’m about to put forth or not, I hope you feel inspired to talk, or even argue, about the topics I’m going to brush against with everyone you work with, socialize with, attend IGDA meetings with, etc. Not because I’m making them, but because they are vital to the future of the IGDA.

My feelings about Tim Langdell are of little consequence here, but I do feel like emphasizing that I feel calling his actions “trademark protection” is rather like claiming the aristocracy went on fox hunts to protect the hen house. It may be legal, but to base the financial success of your studio on predatory IP manipulation is ass-hattery of the worst degree. The fact that Langdell’s studio is surviving in this economy without having released a game in well over a decade is astounding. That it can even afford to litagate over the use of the word ‘EDGE’ when the big publishers are closing entire studios rather than suffer thinner-than-average profit margins is a danger to every single developer-independent or affiliated.

And the fact that the IGDA Board released a “well, it’s legal,” statement in response to the call for Tim Langdell’s removal from the board makes them look like clumsy stooges at best, and sinister ass-hats in their own right at worst. I say this and I like, or at least respect, a great many people on the IGDA board. They are volunteers who genuinely try and work in the best interest of the organization as they see it. In fact, and I state this with absolute certainty, the outcry over Langdell has been heard by the board and the IGDA’s new Executive Directory, Joshua Caulfield. And I mean we’ve been heard in a meaningful way, not a “slam the window to shut out the noise way.”

Okay. What can we do? The forum threads and public petitions haven’t done any good. We feel, perhaps, marginalized, not taken seriously, and more than a little angry.

I went to the board, and all the SIG leaders, and expressed my concern that the handling of this issue would result in a massive defection of the membership. Many studios that once paid large sums to cover memberships for all their employees have trimmed those dues from their budgets. Membership dues, less than $50 per year per member, are mostly what we have left. We have to do something, I claimed, to recognize the importance of the concerns of the membership. We have realize that the membership are, in effect, our bosses. I also specifically asked how to go about initiating an official call for the removal of a board member.

And I got my answer from a board member–there really isn’t a process for doing this.

Hrm. Really? Reading the Bylaws, I saw that this is a patent falsehood, or perhaps just an inability to connect A to B to C. Because the bylaws specifically and directly provide us, the membership, with the ability to vote to remove any board member from office:

Section 8. Removal. Any director may be removed from such office, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the voting members of the Corporation at any regular or special meeting of the members called expressly for that purpose. In addition, the Board of Directors may declare vacant the office of any Director who fails or ceases to meet any required qualification that was in effect at the beginning of that Director’s current term of office.

Furthermore, in Section 3, where our rights as members are listed:

Section 3. Voting Rights. Each entitled member shall have one vote. No member shall be entitled to cumulate votes. The members shall be entitled to vote on the following matters:

1. The election of directors;
2. The disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Corporation; and
3. The merger or dissolution of the Corporation.

Only individual members in good standing shall have the right to vote on these, and any such other issues as the Board may choose to bring before the members.

And it Section 4 it states:

Special meetings of the members may be called by the Chair of the Board or upon the request of ten (10) percent of the voting members.

So, if we want to vote Tim Langdell off the board, we need to collect 1,400 yes votes in this petition: Click Here to Sign the Petition. This will compel them to call a special vote of the membership for the removal of Tim Langdell. It is vitally important that everyone take this preliminary vote seriously–members and non-members alike. Every single record must contain a valid membership number and you must not vote more than once.

You’ll notice, I’ve included a “no” vote. I know members who do not wish to vote Tim Langdell off the board. If 10% of the IGDA membership is dead against this, it’s only fair they have a voice too.

So what do we do if we’re not heard? Or, if we’re outvoted? Derek Yu would have us quit the IGDA and focus on local community. While I think focusing on local indie communities is an excellent idea, not everyone has local community. And, in my personal experience, the IGDA can be a remarkably powerful and transformative organization. My own career has been greatly aided by my involvement with the IGDA.

That isn’t to say I don’t have my frustrations, I do. And some days I just have to walk away. But by and large, professional organizations are what you put into them. Sit back and expect them to move the world for you, but volunteer none of your own time to its governance, and you’ll find I have little patience for your perspective on Tim Langdell’s removal–pro or con.

So, I suggest, we need to get more involved. We need to work to turn the IGDA into something we’re proud to be a part of. Something more than the host of an annual GDC party, or a means of getting $50 off our GDC admission.

And we need to reform the election process. We currently vote on candidates with very little knowledge about them. I will be working to launch an initiative within the Writing SIG to research and interview the candidates. But again, we can’t rely on one initiative to uncover it all. We’ll need your help. We need to ensure that we don’t vote for people who don’t actually represent our ideals, or goals, or our needs.

But if you don’t feel it’s worth it–that the IGDA has not and will not ever truly represent you–I do honestly understand. But I also believe that this doesn’t need to be true. So next month, August, I will be hosting at least one virtual round table with Darius Kazemi and a handful of indie developers. I will make it available as a podcast here on my blog. If any of them will talk to me after today, I may try and get a current member of the IGDA Board of Directors to join us as well. The topic will be a question Darius asked me to answer a few weeks ago–What Can the IGDA Do For Indies?

I’ll be putting out a call for questions in advance of recording that podcast, so keep an eye on the blog…

My partner in life and creativity, Rachel, is walking in the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer 3 Day in Seattle in September. The walk is 60 miles across three days and the net proceeds, as you would expect, go to support breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment. According to Susan G. Komen For the Cure, more than 200,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and nearly 40,000 will die from the disease.

It’s quite likely that you know a breast cancer survivor. It’s not too much of a stretch to think you know someone who didn’t survive.

Not only has Rachel been in training, building her walking stamina well beyond my own (and I consider myself quite the walker), but she’s working hard raising the entry fee in ways that return value to her community. Asking for money is not something either of us are very comfortable with, so it’s been a big learning experience to find ourselves in this position.

First off, she’s made an arrangement with the Laurelwood Pizza Company and they are generously donating 15% of the proceeds from their NE 40th Avenue location in Portland, OR on Monday the 20th. She’ll be there in the evening from 5-close, but if you live in the area, please stop by and have at least a pint. Their beer is excellent and their food is pretty amazing.

Secondly, she’s put together a Wii bowling tournament at Guardian Games on Saturday, August 1st from 1-5p. I speak from experience when I say Guardian Games is a great spot to hang out and that the staff and clientele are very welcoming. The entry fee for the Wii bowling tournament is $15 and there will be prizes for the winners.

Seeing her efforts, both in fund raising and in walking, I found myself wondering what I could do to help. When we hit the fast-track to publishing The HoneyComb Engine participatory storytelling manual, I realized what I, what we, can do for her. The online version of the manual will go live on September 9th. We’re committed to having the print-on-demand version (most likely through Lulu) available by the holidays. Current estimates suggest it’ll probably cost between $15 and $20.

But you might not have to pay that much for your copy.

I’m giving away the first 5 HoneyComb Engine manuals ever to be printed. They’ll be personally transcribed with a thank you and signed by both Rachel and myself. We’ll even toss in a copy of the PDF manual, which we’ll be selling online as well.

All you need to do to be eligible for the drawing is follow this link to Rachel’s Breast Cancer 3 Day profile, LINK!, click the button labeled Click to donate to Rachel!, and donate $5.

That’s it. Just $5.

Every $5 dollars donated will count as an entry in the giveaway. So donate $10 and you’ll get two entries in the drawing. Donate $15 and you’ll get three entries, and so on. Just be sure to put “HoneyComb Engine” in the Personal Note field so we know to add your name to the drawing.

I know the gaming community is amazing when it marshals its forces to support a good cause. One in eight women in their lifetime will be diagnosed with breast cancer and Susan G. Komen is pretty much the source of funding for breast cancer research. Your donation is not only tax deductible, but you could be one of the first people to own a copy of our brand new role-playing system.

Thanks for reading.

I’m hard at it, shackled to my keyboard, banging out a rough draft of the manual. Not one, but TWO editors eagerly snatch the digital pages from my feverish grasp and pour their red pixels into the mix.

We’re having weekly meetings to discuss publishing avenues, prototyping the Life Wheels, and exploring manufacturing options so that we can deliver quality, sustainable, fair trade, merchandise.

I’m working on a site to support the free online distribution of the system, act as a storefront for people who wish to purchase the book in hardcover, paperback, or PDF format, and eventually play host to the digital conversion of the HoneyComb Engine.

I’ve got a follow-up book planned that will share specific tools and tips for building non-linear plots and provide skill training exercises for sharing the story creation process. It’s quite likely that I will be publish world-books at some point–sharing the world I’ve built that supports multiple play styles, limitless genres, and a participatory storytelling approach.

The Renown game will be revamped to use assets compatible with the Rev03 LifeWheel and together the games will provide a design tool for creating your own games or randomly generating your own plots and story experiences for Rev03.

I don’t expect to become an enormous publishing empire–just a very tiny one. But it is clear to everyone involved–my wife, my testers, myself–that this is it. This is the culmination of my theory and the platform that will support its future growth and development. There’s a near-palpable buzz around the Zakelro Manse these days and it’s exciting.

Over the next month, I’m running public tests of The HoneyComb Engine Rev03 ruleset at a wonderful local gaming shop, Guardian Games. The sessions, if you’re local and interested in checking it out, are:

• Thursday the 9th of July from 6-8p
• Saturday the 18th of July from 6-8p and 8-10p
• Thursday the 23th of July from 6-8p
• Saturday the 1st of August from 6-8p and 8-10p

Each session will support 3-4 players and cover the basics of the system while providing a very simple plot to unravel. I will also be creating a unique storyworld based upon independent player input for each session, just to keep things interesting.

The first BIG unveiling of the system will be at PAX this year. As I said yesterday I’ll be moderating a panel on Sunday, but the rest of the weekend I hope to run numerous public play sessions. If you’re going to be at PAX and want to give it a shot, let me know. If you’re local but won’t be at PAX, I’ll have a hotel room right next to the convention center and will happily set up private showings as well.

And then,

On September 9, 2009,

the HoneyComb Engine website will go live. The system rules and high-quality printable PDFs of the assets needed to run the game will be available, for free, to the public. Shortly thereafter the HoneyComb Engine system manual will be made available for purchase in both PDF and physical book formats. At some point within the following year, Life Wheels will be made available for purchase as well.

This is it–”money where my mouth is” time. I’m excited and can’t wait to see where this is going to lead us over the coming year!

I am moderating a panel titled at PAX this year. Here’s the official blurb:

Murder, Sex, & Drugs
Do video games have a cultural imperative to present serious topics seriously? That is the question the panelists will explore as they invite the audience to a discussion of video games, their focus on violent interaction, and their handling of sex, gender identity, and drug use.

I have five wonderful panelists lined up (alphabetically in this case):

• Nels Anderson, programmer with Hothead Games
• Max Battcher, developer with Enlark
• Damon Brown, journalist and author of Porn & Pong
• N’Gai Croal, consultant with Hit Detection, LLC
• Deirdra Kiai, programmer with Hothead Games

Each panelist will briefly introduce themselves and talk a bit about their perspective on the topic and the rest of the panel will be spent taking questions from the audience. We’re currently scheduled for Sunday afternoon in the Serpent Room (how very apt).

If you’ll be at PAX this year, we hope to see you there!

The interaction mechanic for Rev03 is pretty simple and designed to share the storytelling power. I’m going to use combat terminology to describe how it works, because it most effectively allows me to explain all three elements of the Challenge Track.

The center track is an indicator of time. ‘Tellers place a token on this track on the number that matches the maximum value of their Poise influence. This gives ‘tellers with a higher Poise, a greater initiative. If the narrative dictates a surprise attack, or one ‘teller clearly has an edge, then adjustments should be made for this. The ‘teller prime then calls out Ticks and ‘tellers slide their tokens up the track, one hex per tick. When a ‘teller hits the top hex, numbered 9, they either call out, “Ready,” or, “Hold.” They also move any exerted will that lies on an Influence into the expended will hex, and an amount of expended will (as determined by the value of their Life/Control) back into their Source.

If they hold, each subsequent tick allows them to repeat the preparatory actions of hitting the ready hex, meaning they can reclaim more Will with each hold. They may also use holds to time their actions to correspond with the other ‘tellers. If they call out, “Ready,” they take an action.

First, the ‘teller declares which Influence they intend to use–Mastery, Persistence, Design, Poise, Sleight, or Charm. The Body Mind and Spirit Influences are special-case interpretations of the six core influences and come into play with the specialties wheels (which is new take on the handling of Professional specialties since I Iast posted and includes a Body Wheel, as well as a Mind (Psionics) and Spirit (Magic) wheel).

Next the ‘teller determines, with the help of the ‘teller prime if need be, what the difficulty level of the action is. This uses the left-most table of the Challenge Track, which presents the four challenge levels in descending order from safest (yellow) to most dangerous (red) and numbered 0 through 3–Uncontested Mundane, Contested Mundane, Uncontested Extra-Normal, Contested Extra-normal. Mundane actions are anything we can picture a human doing. Extra-normal is other than that, whether it’s casting a fireball, probing a mind, or picking up a van. The challenge level number, the small number on the left, is the amount of will you must exert to meet the challenge level before rolling a d10 to determine your success. The larger number is the amount of will you must exert if you want to buy an automatic success (a 6 on the result table). The d6 and d10 indicators are there to show what sort of die they’ll be rolling against if applicable.

Uncontested actions are any actions that don’t involve another character potentially working against you. Contested actions are any actions taken against another character, even if they aren’t in a position to immediately defend themselves.

It should be noted that uncontested actions aren’t without difficulty. Picking a lock is a mundane contested action, but the lock will have a difficulty rating of 1 through 6 (which might be set by the ‘teller prime, or just determined by the roll of a d6). It should also be noted that buying a success on a contested action (such as in combat) won’t always guarantee you a success if your opponent is able to defend and rolls a natural 7, 8, or 9. They can even buys their own automatic success, and force a standard resolution (keep reading).

This makes the automatic-success buyout a powerful but unwieldy tool. Will, once spent, is regained at a rate determined by the Life element, which has a maximum value of three. This makes it pretty easy to overextend yourself, which is quite dangerous because without available Will, you’re not able to do much other than run and hide. I have found that ‘tellers are eager to use those automatic successes at first, but quickly discover that it’s often better to trust the results of their favorite die.

The ‘teller moves the number of needed Will tokens from their source to the chosen influence, referred to as exerting their influence, and if they haven’t decided to automatically succeed, rolls a d10–allowing Fate to have an effect on their action. They compare the result of their die roll to the result table on the right side of the track. This gives the ‘tellers a suggestion as to how many hits (damage or effect) their action might have, and how it might effect movement–either of their own character or their opponent. Movement modifiers are applied to the tokens of the participating characters on their respective movement tracks. Red results are bad for the ‘teller’s character. Yellow results have some effect, but don’t modify movements rates and green results are very good for the ‘teller–having a greater potential for effect and allowing them to position themselves well for their next action. Taking this into account, the ‘teller describes their action and the effect it has on their opponent.

If the ‘teller receiving the action is also Ready, they may decide to defend, completing the same process, up to the die roll. Then the ‘teller with the highest roll gets to control the action, describing the success or failure of it and declaring any damages or movement penalties based on the difference between the die rolls. This is the case, even if they fail their defense by only rolling 1, 2, or 3 higher than their attacker.

It is fully expected that the ‘teller in charge of the action will try and give themselves the advantage in some way, setting up their next planned move. And while the ‘teller prime should help them come up with descriptions that are in keeping with the style of the narrative and guide them in setting appropriate damage levels and move bonuses/hindrances, they should also encourage them to find creative ways of turning failures to their advantage.

Both a natural 9 and a natural 0 are considered automatic criticals. 9 is a critical success. 0 is a critical failure. Both have a firm movement value of 6, meaning one of the combatants will move their token to 0, or the other will be placed on 6 and get an action the very next Tick. If your token is on 0, you must wait for every other character in combat to either hit ready, or land on 0 themselves before you can begin moving your token up the track again.

Once the ‘teller has finished describing their action, and the appropriate damage has been assessed, they reset their counter on the challenge track to the maximum possible value of the influence they just used, as modified by any movement penalties or bonuses. The will they exerted remains on the influence until they next hit the final hex on the track.

This is obviously a hasty overview of the system, which will receive a much more in-depth treatment in the manual. For example, there are ways to stack actions, modifying the effect or movement rates for subsequent actions. There are also combat effects that wear off, represented by tokens of course, and ways of calculating weapon damage maximums, movement maximums related to using complicated weapons, etc.