unforum

[AtionSong]

Live Event Planning Help

[Caz]

the way i see it you can do 3 things

1) let the players solve the puzzles in there own time even if its 4 weeks
2) have two out comes i.e. if the plays solve all 4 in 24 hours then X happens or if the players solve then after that then Y happens
3) bin the live event idea

[Phaedra]

Re: Live Event Planning Help

[konamouse]

*You* may think the puzzles are difficult, but you may underestimate the power of the collective (and the intuitive leaps that occur in chats during a puzzle solving frenzy).

Throughout time (5 years is it?) PMs have believed that the hard puzzles would take days and easy puzzles would be "easy" - and the reverse happens all the time. There are tons of stories in uF about the "hard" vs "easy" puzzles (just ask any PM).

Phaedra had some very good advice about taking out the "red herrings" to avoid the players going off on timewasting tangents.

Good luck!

[Phaedra]

[JohnLockeGuy]

If you're planning a live event during which they have to solve four difficult puzzles, you'd better prepare yourself for the possibility of this live event taking several hours. However, if you want to reduce the time you (or your actors, not sure if you have a team) have to spend online, consider giving them all of the puzzles during your live event, and telling them it's urgent that they solve them all within 48 hours, or whatever. If they do, then one thing happens, and if they don't, then everybody dies.

[[Without knowing anything about your storyline, it's a bit difficult]]

Also, I've fallen into this trap myself several times, throughout the various games I've made. You'll want to make sure there's a REASON for the puzzles... (not to make an example out of anyone, but in the new Studio Cyphers game DESCRY, they had a live event at the very beginning of the ARG, where they had to solve four puzzles that seemed to be there pretty much for puzzles' sake.) I've done the same thing, and it just comes off seeming like you're trying to be ARGish. If there's no real-life reason why there would be a puzzle, then leave it out.

I guess a lot of it depends on your storyline. For example, if you have some people held captive, and their kidnappers are planning to kill them unless the collective power of the rest of the world can solve their devious puzzles, then OK. If they meet the time limit, the captives go free. If not, they die, and the players lose the game. But if you have a teenager trying to get her boyfriend to like her again, and he says he'll only go out with her if she solves these puzzles in the next 12 hours, well, then that'd be a case where you might want to rethink your ending.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

[AtionSong]

Currently here's what I'm planning on doing:

Four people from my team will be talking in chats. There will be two chats set up - one can only be read by players and only PMs can talk in it, and the other is open to both players and PMs.

The event involves the characters in the game going to a secure location (where the puzzles are located). Two of the PMs will be in the private chat as the two characters that went to the location. The other two PMs will be playing the characters that are at home. Like the players, the characters do not know what the puzzles are until the two players at the location discover them.

Thus, the two players in the public chat will communicate what the people in the chat are saying into the private chat room, and the other characters will respond in the private chat for the players to read. Thus, if the characters in the chat do some analysis of the puzzles themselves, it will not seem outside of the storyline.

I understand that this is confusing without knowing the storyline, but I've probably given too much away already.

Anyway, to those who understand it, do you think that this will work?

[konamouse]

Might work for those players who like to hang out in a chat room (or two). Sounds a bit confusing.

[JohnLockeGuy]

It does sound a bit confusing... I'm not exactly sure why two people who are at a location gathering puzzles (?) would be in a chat room... and why can't players talk in that chat? It seems a little repetitive... unless you're not expecting the same people to be in both chats (player-wise.) But, it might work, if you work out some things.

[AtionSong]

Because some people seem to be confused about my chat idea, I'm going to set up the concept in a ficticious situation:

Mark and Andy are going to a secret cave in Peru, where they believe a treasure chest is burried. Annie and Cindy are their friends, but the girls are at home in America.

One chat room is set up where Mark, Andy, Annie, and Cindy only can talk to each other, but anyone can read. There is a second chat room where Annie, Cindy, and anyone else can talk. When a good idea is brought up in the public chat, Annie or Cindy will go to the private chat and tell Mark and Andy.

Thus, the players can't talk directly to Mark or Andy, but they can see their thoughts being told to them.

Does it make more sense now?

[SirQuady]

If that gets too complicated, perhaps you could just have the one chat room with Annie and Cindy and the players, and Annie and Cindy can relate what the two guys are saying...without the players seeing the private chat. Why? Because the players (or at least i am) might wonder why they can see the private chat, but can't post in it.... Well, i don't know the extent of your plot, so if you have a reasonable explanation for it, go for it!

[Phaedra]

Yeah, I'm wondering why have that non-participatory chat channel at all if you're trying to mediate your players' access to those characters.

<opinion>

I once played an ARG that had almost exactly the same setup -- there was a conference of sorts among game characters in one channel, and another channel in which players could talk to some of the characters and it was basically the most boring thing imaginable.

IRC is not a dramatic medium.

Reading IM or IRC transcripts is boring. I have a fairly long attention span, but I tend to wish that if games are going to insist on using them as a medium, the people posting them would include a nice little summary of the whole thing so I don't have to wade through it. Even during LCP, I often hated reading the transcripts, and some of those characters were being voiced by Sean Stewart, one of the best writers working today.

But that boredom and annoyance is exponentially increased when it's something you have to watch in real time. You can't read at your own speed. You have to just sit and watch and wait while other people type things.

IRC is not a dramatic medium. It's not fun to watch. You sacrifice the descriptive prose element of fiction when you write a play or use a similarly dialogue-based medium, but you gain aural and visual components to make up for it.

IRC sacrifices the prose and doesn't gain anything to make up for it. Normally, we enjoy using it because it's interactive -- we're using it to communicate, not just to receive a story. But take that component away and what's left?

Watching text as it scrolls...v e r y s l o w l y.... </rant>

[JohnLockeGuy]

[Nightmare Tony]

Back on th puzzles, one should definitely have a set of clues handy to dribble out to the players if they get stuck. Have at least 3 or 4 clues, IMHO.

And yup, can tell you neat stories about players solving puzzles faster than development time for creating thepuzzle...