Fringe Review: Spark from ZDL's blog
This is an experiment. I'd like to start reviewing little-known RPGs, past and present, as a way of introducing concepts and ideas that are not known at all in the mainstream of our hobby and are often barely known even among the more … shall we say "obsessive"? … elements.
(Yes, I include myself among the obsessives.)
The first game I'd like to review is a came by a small-press Canadian publisher called Spark
Spark is a decidedly non-traditional role-playing game. Because of this I cannot work from assumptions that most would share. Instead I will be using a form of critique I first saw in Goethe's writings when critiquing theatre. In brief, I will be answering three questions:
1. What was Jason Pitre, the author of Spark, trying to accomplish?
2. How well does he accomplish this?
3. Was this a goal worth accomplishing?
Taking a look at the back blurb we see three things in bold:
- Challenge your beliefs
- Make choices that matter
- Build and discover worlds
Inside, in the introduction, we get some more interesting insights into the intent of the designer:
- ...most important characters in a fictional world.
- Explore the themes and issues that matter to you.
- Make meaningful choices...
There is a consistent theme in all of this: meaning and choice. And note that second item where you explore themes/issues that matter to you.
How does Spark do this?
Spark is almost unique in how it approaches everything. From the setting to the characters to the actual game play, Spark is a very different game and those differences are focused on the actual goals in the design.
Setting
To enable this challenging voyage of discovery, the game involves, chiefly, the joint creation of a fictional world. Although the game comes with three sample settings (NeoNihon, Quiet Revolution, and Elemental Kingdom), the game is really intended to be played by people who've made their own settings jointly. The idea here is that having a custom-made setting makes the game context evocative and meaningful to the players, thus making exploration of its themes more personally satisfying.
Settings are created by cooperatively listing favourite media; gathering inspirations; describing some kind of genre from this (NeoNihon, for example, is "Shogonate Science Fiction"); establishing "Facts" (concrete, evocative places, peoples, etc. based on inpirations); providing a title; establishing the setting's "Beliefs" to help guide the themes and thoughts the group wants to explore; establish the GM's attributes (the GM attributes are used in playing the setting out): Body, Heart, Mind, and Spark; creating the setting's chief "Factions" and their mandates; creating the "Faces" (the most important NPCs story-wise for each faction), and create the ties between the factions. Once all this is completed, agendas are set--short term goals aimed at realizing faction mandates. Players are given "influence" at this point and the setting creation is complete.
This sounds like it's difficult, but the system is very regulated, very clearly explained and has very thorough examples to inspect to see how it all fits together. As a result even on a first run-through setting creation will take up 2-3 hours of your first session. Not bad at all for creating a whole world, is it?
Character
Once you've made the setting, the players and GM then cooperatively (yes, everybody gets involved) create their "Protagonist Characters" (PCs). The process here, as with the setting above, follows a simple, cooperative procedure. You start with a concept based on an agenda, and give the character a name. You then work on individual beliefs (which may or may not support or contradict or supplement the setting beliefs). You set attribute levels (same as the GM attributes above). You name talents (skills and abilities). You then answer personal history questions to help establish relationships among PCs and to factions. Each answered question gets an influence marker (which is the currency of the game play). Finally you narrate a prelude for your character.
Game play
To be honest, your first session of Spark will likely be just creating the setting and the characters. Once this is complete however, you start play. As with setting and character creation above, this is very formulaic and procedural. And this is where the game takes a hard swerve into unfamiliar territory for most role-playing gamers.
Overall a game session has three steps: Advancing, Scening, Reflecting. Advancing is the phase where the factions move forward on agendas and goals. Players work together to decide which factions complete their agendas, how the world changes as a result, and any new agendas that come out as a result. Play then advances into a series of scenes. When there is no more scening to be done, the players reflect on the events and use this opportunity to inspire each other, to confirm or change beliefs, or other such things.
Scening itself is similarly structured. Each scene begins with framing, proceeds into multiple series of collaboration or conflict events, and then ends with closing. Collaboration is cooperative in nature where players make "bold statements" to progress the scene. If all players agree with said bold statement, it is writ and becomes the truth. If, however, any player disagrees with the statement, conflict occurs, dice are pulled out, alternative statements are provided, sides are drawn, and dice are rolled to see which statement becomes the truth.
This will be the part where most traditional role-players balk. I've seen people recoil from this with a loud "that's stupid!" because, unlike most RPGs, Spark does not descend from competitive wargaming in its routes. It seems to descend more from improvisational theatre. The goal in Spark is not to compete against the world, against the GM, or against fellow players. The goal in Spark is to work together to tell a good, challenging story. Conflict happens when people have different visions for where the story should go, and resolution of it shifts that direction. It is not for everyone, but those for whom it is will find it compelling. (Like me.)
In the closing of a scene, the usual stuff like healing, etc. occurs, but too, influence points are awarded for people challenging their beliefs in the scene. Since influence points are how you win conflicts (partially) there is benefit to tackling the very themes you chose for setting and character both head-on in play.
There is a whole lot more to the game (obviously) than what I've outlined above, but what you get above gives you the flavour: you create characters who are important at a fundamental level to the setting. In the process of telling the story of that setting, you challenge beliefs collaboratively or in conflict. When enough beliefs change, so does the setting: changed characters change the world (so to speak). This is a very different notion of role-playing and it is one that needs to be tried -- even if in the end it is not to your taste, it broadens horizons and it gives you, perhaps, ideas you can use in other games.
But is it any good?
Here's where we get to question 2: how well does Spark accomplish what it sets out to do? And the truth is that while it is my favourite game currently, it is flawed. The author thinks one of the flaws is that he didn't provide a setting so the game had no appeal. To this I say "poppycock!". The fact that you make a bespoke setting tailored to your group is part of what makes the game so compelling in my view. Having a default setting would make this just another role-playing game with oddball mechanics.
Where the game does fall down, in my opinion, is where it pays homage to more normal role-playing games. Look above at how settings and characters are defined: Body, Heart, Mind, Spark. Characters are further defined with talents. We're not that far from the bog-standard "attributes and skills" model, and this model is not what Spark should be about, IMO.
Apparently the author agrees.
A setting published for this game--SIG: The City Between--makes several changes to the rules for that setting, but recommends that three of them be retrofitted into all Spark games. The first of these is the condensing of the attributes into "Spark" and "Smoke": the first being your ability to impact the setting, and the second to govern how the setting reacts to you. This is a far simpler model than the one in Spark proper, and to me it reflects better on the core concepts of the game. (Other changes modify the procedures for game play slightly, but do not make as major a change as this core one.)
So, in terms of whether the game accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish, the answer is an unqualified "yes ... but". It is not perfect, and the author himself recognizes these weaknesses. He also does a good job of refocusing on the actual goal in a supplement. That being said, "perfect" is the enemy of "good enough" and even straight out of the package Spark is more than "good enough". It is superb and it accomplishes its main goal--telling challenging stories about conflicting beliefs--very well.
But is it worth doing?
That is, naturally, completely a subjective call. I've made no secret of my admiration for this game and thus the answer for me is "well, duh!" So the more interesting question for this review is "is this game worth you trying?"
And to this I also give a "yes ... but".
Anybody who is tired of the wargaming roots of role-playing games who wants to try something different on for size, just to broaden horizons, should give Spark a try.
Anybody who has a friend or SO who is actively turned off by the wargames-informed nature of most RPGs might want to give this game a try with them to show them the joys of RP.
Anybody who likes the idea of a game focused on real-world beliefs being explored in a safe, bespoke way will probably do well with this game.
If, however, you're perfectly satisfied with normal role-playing games--and I stress that there is nothing wrong with this!--and especially if you don't understand why someone might even look for something else, you will probably not enjoy Spark and I would give it a miss in your shoes.
(But you'll be missing something sublime!)
(Yes, I include myself among the obsessives.)
The first game I'd like to review is a came by a small-press Canadian publisher called Spark
Spark is a decidedly non-traditional role-playing game. Because of this I cannot work from assumptions that most would share. Instead I will be using a form of critique I first saw in Goethe's writings when critiquing theatre. In brief, I will be answering three questions:
1. What was Jason Pitre, the author of Spark, trying to accomplish?
2. How well does he accomplish this?
3. Was this a goal worth accomplishing?
What is Spark about?
Taking a look at the back blurb we see three things in bold:
- Challenge your beliefs
- Make choices that matter
- Build and discover worlds
Inside, in the introduction, we get some more interesting insights into the intent of the designer:
- ...most important characters in a fictional world.
- Explore the themes and issues that matter to you.
- Make meaningful choices...
There is a consistent theme in all of this: meaning and choice. And note that second item where you explore themes/issues that matter to you.
How does Spark do this?
Spark is almost unique in how it approaches everything. From the setting to the characters to the actual game play, Spark is a very different game and those differences are focused on the actual goals in the design.
Setting
To enable this challenging voyage of discovery, the game involves, chiefly, the joint creation of a fictional world. Although the game comes with three sample settings (NeoNihon, Quiet Revolution, and Elemental Kingdom), the game is really intended to be played by people who've made their own settings jointly. The idea here is that having a custom-made setting makes the game context evocative and meaningful to the players, thus making exploration of its themes more personally satisfying.
Settings are created by cooperatively listing favourite media; gathering inspirations; describing some kind of genre from this (NeoNihon, for example, is "Shogonate Science Fiction"); establishing "Facts" (concrete, evocative places, peoples, etc. based on inpirations); providing a title; establishing the setting's "Beliefs" to help guide the themes and thoughts the group wants to explore; establish the GM's attributes (the GM attributes are used in playing the setting out): Body, Heart, Mind, and Spark; creating the setting's chief "Factions" and their mandates; creating the "Faces" (the most important NPCs story-wise for each faction), and create the ties between the factions. Once all this is completed, agendas are set--short term goals aimed at realizing faction mandates. Players are given "influence" at this point and the setting creation is complete.
This sounds like it's difficult, but the system is very regulated, very clearly explained and has very thorough examples to inspect to see how it all fits together. As a result even on a first run-through setting creation will take up 2-3 hours of your first session. Not bad at all for creating a whole world, is it?
Character
Once you've made the setting, the players and GM then cooperatively (yes, everybody gets involved) create their "Protagonist Characters" (PCs). The process here, as with the setting above, follows a simple, cooperative procedure. You start with a concept based on an agenda, and give the character a name. You then work on individual beliefs (which may or may not support or contradict or supplement the setting beliefs). You set attribute levels (same as the GM attributes above). You name talents (skills and abilities). You then answer personal history questions to help establish relationships among PCs and to factions. Each answered question gets an influence marker (which is the currency of the game play). Finally you narrate a prelude for your character.
Game play
To be honest, your first session of Spark will likely be just creating the setting and the characters. Once this is complete however, you start play. As with setting and character creation above, this is very formulaic and procedural. And this is where the game takes a hard swerve into unfamiliar territory for most role-playing gamers.
Overall a game session has three steps: Advancing, Scening, Reflecting. Advancing is the phase where the factions move forward on agendas and goals. Players work together to decide which factions complete their agendas, how the world changes as a result, and any new agendas that come out as a result. Play then advances into a series of scenes. When there is no more scening to be done, the players reflect on the events and use this opportunity to inspire each other, to confirm or change beliefs, or other such things.
Scening itself is similarly structured. Each scene begins with framing, proceeds into multiple series of collaboration or conflict events, and then ends with closing. Collaboration is cooperative in nature where players make "bold statements" to progress the scene. If all players agree with said bold statement, it is writ and becomes the truth. If, however, any player disagrees with the statement, conflict occurs, dice are pulled out, alternative statements are provided, sides are drawn, and dice are rolled to see which statement becomes the truth.
This will be the part where most traditional role-players balk. I've seen people recoil from this with a loud "that's stupid!" because, unlike most RPGs, Spark does not descend from competitive wargaming in its routes. It seems to descend more from improvisational theatre. The goal in Spark is not to compete against the world, against the GM, or against fellow players. The goal in Spark is to work together to tell a good, challenging story. Conflict happens when people have different visions for where the story should go, and resolution of it shifts that direction. It is not for everyone, but those for whom it is will find it compelling. (Like me.)
In the closing of a scene, the usual stuff like healing, etc. occurs, but too, influence points are awarded for people challenging their beliefs in the scene. Since influence points are how you win conflicts (partially) there is benefit to tackling the very themes you chose for setting and character both head-on in play.
There is a whole lot more to the game (obviously) than what I've outlined above, but what you get above gives you the flavour: you create characters who are important at a fundamental level to the setting. In the process of telling the story of that setting, you challenge beliefs collaboratively or in conflict. When enough beliefs change, so does the setting: changed characters change the world (so to speak). This is a very different notion of role-playing and it is one that needs to be tried -- even if in the end it is not to your taste, it broadens horizons and it gives you, perhaps, ideas you can use in other games.
But is it any good?
Here's where we get to question 2: how well does Spark accomplish what it sets out to do? And the truth is that while it is my favourite game currently, it is flawed. The author thinks one of the flaws is that he didn't provide a setting so the game had no appeal. To this I say "poppycock!". The fact that you make a bespoke setting tailored to your group is part of what makes the game so compelling in my view. Having a default setting would make this just another role-playing game with oddball mechanics.
Where the game does fall down, in my opinion, is where it pays homage to more normal role-playing games. Look above at how settings and characters are defined: Body, Heart, Mind, Spark. Characters are further defined with talents. We're not that far from the bog-standard "attributes and skills" model, and this model is not what Spark should be about, IMO.
Apparently the author agrees.
A setting published for this game--SIG: The City Between--makes several changes to the rules for that setting, but recommends that three of them be retrofitted into all Spark games. The first of these is the condensing of the attributes into "Spark" and "Smoke": the first being your ability to impact the setting, and the second to govern how the setting reacts to you. This is a far simpler model than the one in Spark proper, and to me it reflects better on the core concepts of the game. (Other changes modify the procedures for game play slightly, but do not make as major a change as this core one.)
So, in terms of whether the game accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish, the answer is an unqualified "yes ... but". It is not perfect, and the author himself recognizes these weaknesses. He also does a good job of refocusing on the actual goal in a supplement. That being said, "perfect" is the enemy of "good enough" and even straight out of the package Spark is more than "good enough". It is superb and it accomplishes its main goal--telling challenging stories about conflicting beliefs--very well.
But is it worth doing?
That is, naturally, completely a subjective call. I've made no secret of my admiration for this game and thus the answer for me is "well, duh!" So the more interesting question for this review is "is this game worth you trying?"
And to this I also give a "yes ... but".
Anybody who is tired of the wargaming roots of role-playing games who wants to try something different on for size, just to broaden horizons, should give Spark a try.
Anybody who has a friend or SO who is actively turned off by the wargames-informed nature of most RPGs might want to give this game a try with them to show them the joys of RP.
Anybody who likes the idea of a game focused on real-world beliefs being explored in a safe, bespoke way will probably do well with this game.
If, however, you're perfectly satisfied with normal role-playing games--and I stress that there is nothing wrong with this!--and especially if you don't understand why someone might even look for something else, you will probably not enjoy Spark and I would give it a miss in your shoes.
(But you'll be missing something sublime!)
Links
Groups
The Wall