100412 Plotline--Distillation of Key Plot Points

Hi, time travelers,

Last Monday we hashed out some last niggling elements of the plot.

• See the last few pages of the attached document for this ultimate distillation of plot.

• We agreed that since we want all the teams to complete the puzzles/tasks that move the plot along, that these puzzles don't necessarily have to be the most difficult of the game.

• We nicknamed the early puzzle in the game that the players will first solve and later reconstruct and send to themselves, the "Jiffy Pop Puzzle" because it's as much fun to make as it is to solve.

• Initially the idea was that the Jiffy Pop puzzle would show up right in the middle of Doctor When's introductory lecture. But instead we now think that the puzzle should show up just after the Doctor first uses the time machine and it malfunctions. In fact, what should happen is that the Jiffy Pop puzzles (one for each team) should show up in the time machine *instead* of Doctor When reappearing, which is one of the key ways the players will know the machine malfunctioned.

• We considered the possibility that the Jiffy Pop puzzle will solve to one message in Part 1 ("Doctor When is lost bouncing around the streams of time and you have to help get him back")...and in the beginning of Part 3 the players should receive the same puzzle again, but be able to unlock a deeper message ("you're causing a time loop...do something different this time"). Perhaps this will be because they have the perspective/information of Parts 1 & 2...or maybe they even acquired key decoding equipment along the way of solving Parts 1 & 2.

• It's an open issue of how many times the players should have to re-assemble the Jiffy Pop puzzle and send it back to themselves. At the end of each Part? Just Parts 1 & 3? Or only Part 3. Similarly how many times do they receive the puzzle? Almost certainly in Parts 1 & 3, but *maybe* not in Part 2. If we want to enforce parallel construction, they should receive and send it in both Parts 1 & 3 (at least), but that may get repetitive.

• A big discussion revolved around how do we end each of the Parts, especially Parts 1 & 2. In particular, do the players need to be all together (a la Hogwart's) for a big cathartic group success each time (presumably seeing the replayed high school incident with new results this time through some sort of high tech time-view-o-scope).

The group leaned away from having them all together at the lab for the final solution because then we'll have to find some excuse to get all the players out of the lab (so we can change the set) and then get them all back at the same time for the start of the next Part.

But this raises the question of how do we let the players know that they've succeeded in that Part's goal? Perhaps we could require all the players to have internet-enabled laptops and then tell them that we've hooked up the time-view-o-scope through the internet (i.e., we've uploaded a video to a server) and then they get to watch the funny video of the revised high school incident upon completing the Part's last puzzle/task. At the same time they could receive a message from Doctor When or Prof. Chronus that "the time vortex will allow me to rematerialize at 8 PM; please return to the lab by then." Of course, when they return to the lab, things won't be quite the same...

• We might even decide to make reassembling and sending the Jiffy Pop puzzle the final thing the players have to do to succeed at the ends of each Parts 1 & 3.

• Although I thought it would be super funny to have cheerleader Buffy show up at the end of Part 3 as a lab assistant in the new timeline, others thought that might be over the top.

• There was significant enthusiasm for Erik's idea that we should require each applicant team to include some sort of faux science fair project as part of their application...and then use these as set dressing in our science fair set.

• There was some discussion of whether in the final timeline at the end of Part 3 Doctor When and Prof. Chronus would even have created a time machine because neither would have the high school trauma to motivate them. But I argued strongly that they should still create a time machine in this timeline because their shared love of science is enough to motivate them, except this time it will actually work properly because they are combining their talents (which is a metaphor for how good they are as a couple).

• An alternate way to control each team's perception of time passing (if they're willing to suspend disbelief) is to give them a custom chronometer that's not really a watch, but rather GC controls the progress of the time/date readout.

I'm sure I've forgotten some key stuff. Everyone please review/revise/pile on.

Allen

NOTES FROM ERIK

A couple of notes:

- There are still a few different ways to take the "Jiffy Pop" puzzle: 1) Solves two different ways - one to kick-start the game in Act I, and one to tell them that they need to "break the loop" in Act III. Presumably, they have an additional piece of info, or the puzzle is somehow subtly different, in Act III. Interesting, but perhaps the hardest to design. 2) Simply solves one way at the start of Act I to kick-start the game. Maybe they solve it again in Act III, but it's the same puzzle. Less cool but simpler. 3) Instead of having a single puzzle that the team sends back through time, the key puzzle in Act III is actually a meta that's based on some kind of "extraneous information" in several different puzzles in Acts I and II. The players realize (either b/c they see the same versions of the puzzles in Act III, minus the extraneous info, or simply because it's obvious that this piece is part of a meta, or because the solution to some Act III puzzle suggests it) that they need to combine these in Act III.

The "Jiffy Pop" concept is that, at some point, the players need to "send this puzzle back to themselves". In versions 1 and 2 above, this is something like "actually making the puzzle". In version 3, it may just be "sending the meta pieces back" (maybe with some sort of time-machine code or something).

My impression was that most of the group thought that having the players make the puzzle and send it back through the time machine _more than once_ would be unnecessary. If anyone worries about "how can them sending it back in Act III actually reach the Act I timestream - which, in some sense, never happened" - hey, it's a magic time machine.  :)

- Regarding the climax of each act: I believe the general opinion was that there should _not_ be a big, cathartic resolution of _any_ kind in Act I or II. There should be some signal that they've "succeeded" - an unslimed Dr. When holding hands with the cheerleader - but there _cannot_ be any sort of "celebration back at the lab". After all, once you've changed history, the moment you get back to the lab, things are different. That's the whole point, after all. So you move from "whew, looks like we saved Dr. When from getting slimed - let's go back to the lab!" directly to "Huh? ... why are we starting over again, but w/ Dr. Chronos?" There may be a period of time where teams are assembling before the beginning of Act II, but there can't be any general, cathartic Act I (or Act II) conclusion.

MORE FROM ALLEN

Thank you, Erik, for enhancing the notes. I've added them to the wiki.

The recap "My impression was that most of the group thought that having the players make the puzzle and send it back through the time machine *more than once* would be unnecessary" is absolutely correct.

However, being the contrarian that I am, the little remaining mathematician in me is attracted to the symmetry of having the structure of Parts 1 & 3 be rigorous, i.e., doing the Jiffy Pop puzzle in both parts (if not Part 2, as well). But I know I am in the minority here and will, of course, defer to the group.

I am also in the minority in my preference to have a serious cathartic, "we've succeeded" at the end of Parts 1 & 2. It still seems to me that the fun for the players and impact of coming back to the lab and discovering they haven't succeeded will be proportional to how strongly we "sell" the "we've succeeded" at the end of the prior Parts. Again, I will defer to the group.

Allen