unforum

[Mos]

AWARE Reflections and Commentary

[StercusMaximus]

So does anyone have a copy of the post-game chat transcript? I've been waiting for a copy to show up at IM, but once the game ended, the board seems rather dead....

SM

[Mos]

I should note that this is the result of both my experience in AWARE and Fimbulwinter.

Group Structure

AWARE was different from most ARGs in a lot of ways. But it was also different in a way many people would be unable to detect. Rather than the entire game being a collaborative effort, much of it was developed by Nash before the new PMs were drafted. This was the cause of some anxiety. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Before I go into them, we must ask ourselves - what are our goals?

1. To keep development moving.
2. To maintain an environment conducive to a collaborative effort.

A group with a single, indisputable leader will always keep moving, if said leader is skilled. This is extremely important. Development can never be completely stalled at any point - not even a break. The problem is, once the momentum is lost, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to restore from your last point. Even when the ARG is live, one can not assume that someone who may have gone on vacation will remember his or her obligation, and thus it is the responsibility of the leader to make sure that person returns and is up to date on current game-related events.

There are drawbacks to this approach, however. While a single leader can keep things moving and generally be more efficent, there are sometimes problems. Friction between the leader and a group member can trigger a total collapse of the entire system. Even a simple disagreement can turn into disaster if the group member chooses to be immature and use the disagreement as an excuse to discredit the leader among the rest of the team - this is especially deadly if the leader happens to be financing the entire thing. This is what I call a "PM Rebellion."

The only way to deal with rebellions is to squash them as quickly as possible. This requires work on both the part of the players and the leader. to come up with a solution the moment a problem comes up. If neither side can compromise, things will break very quickly. This happened once in AWARE, and almost again later. I can not stress how important speed is, as PMs who have lost confidence in their leader tend to go nuts and stop listening to directives. The machine breaks and the project stops.

In cases where the PMs are drafted after most content is completed, friction may arise. Do not be surprised to see people getting "good ideas" and changing the original plot to something entirely different and unforseen. This can break a plot overtime, even if it seems like a minor change at the time. It's important to stick with the original plot. It's also a good idea to keep your team informed about what the said plot is. One frustrating part of AWARE for me was Nash's secrecy regarding the plot - in his defense, not because he was being greedy or egotistical, but rather because he was afraid parts of the plot could be leaked accidently. Most PMs didn't have a problem with this, as they agreed, but it had potential to cause plot holes unintentionally. This is another symptom of drafting PMs after the game has started. On one hand, you can reveal it, but risk people not understanding the importance is certain parts and have hints or answers leaked before you intended them to be used, and on the other hand you may have pieces that do not quite fit the puzzle entirely. If everyone helped develop the plot and understand/like all decisions made, you will have maximum efficency.

There is another method. In a more "communal" structure, all development is done with almost total consensus of the group. This requires a fairly tight, self-motivated group of PMs. A democracy tends not to work as well, because people become disinterested when some plot idea they don't like at all is used. A consensus means that everyone should be happy with the decision - and as development moves on, it will become more exciting for the PMs working on it. This still has problems. Friction between two prominent members can cause things to collapse, but that's less likely when everyone has equal power. I can not at this time poll anyone, but I'd say this is probably how most ARGs were created. Everyone is, after all, a volunteer. It's harder to keep the ARG moving in this form, so it's important that all people involved are very interested in the project and self-motivated, and most important of all have a shitload of free time.

A proposal I once made for Fimbulwinter was to create a UN Security Council kind of thing. You had rotating members with veto power on any idea. The idea was to try and reconcile these two so everyone can have the power at some point. I can not imagine how this would work, as it was rejected on the grounds of being too complicated - and perhaps it was. But one day, perhaps.

Thanks for reading this. If anyone has any suggestions, I wouldn't mind reading them.