Unraveling the Story

You're a reporter for a national outlet with a lead on a hot story. Unfortunately the world is getting a little fuzzy around the edges. Or maybe it's just you. And it may be getting worse. But if you don't blow the lid off this thing while you still can it will be a disaster.

This is a three player game: 
•	Reporter
•	Normal GM: describes details of normal world, plays NPCs, etc.
•	Weird GM: describes strange details Reporter experiences in the world.
These strange details aren't necessarily false -- sometimes truth is stranger than fiction! -- but they might be hallucinations or the fabric of reality falling apart.

Reporter rules
Choose a Confidence rating from 2 to 6. During the game you may have opportunities to spend shock tokens to increase or decrease your Confidence, but never below 1 or above 7.

When you publish/broadcast about the story, determine impact: Roll 1d8, add Confidence, subtract 4. Mark that much progress on the Public Perception track.

While playing, if you ask for clarification or more details from a GM, roll 1d8 and compare to your Confidence. If die is greater, the Normal GM answers as honestly and straightforwardly as they can. If die is less than or equal, the Weird GM answers however they feel is appropriate.

Reporter: I ask him to show me his photocopy.
Normal GM: It's a memo, dated 18 August 1973, by Lt. Colonel Killian. It seems like Killian's complaining about political pressure to file performance evaluations for Bush even though Bush hasn't been there to evaluate.
Reporter: Does it look legit? [Rolls 3, vs. Confidence 5.]
Weird GM: It's hard to tell, it's covered with maggots which obscures some of the details.
Reporter: Is the guy reacting to the maggots? Oh, I guess I roll for that, too... [Rolls 2]
Weird GM: He picks up one of the maggots, pops it in his mouth and crunches it for a few seconds. He says, “People think it's gross, but there's good protein in these things.”
Reporter: Does this guy look crazy? [Rolls 8].
Normal GM: He doesn't seem disheveled, and he's been alert and participating in your conversation. No unusual mannerisms or patterns of speech. He's maybe a little antisocial, but every outward indication is that he's got his life together.

Rules for both GMs
Each GM's “detail sheet” is a list of concrete details. They should introduce these details into scenes in a way that feels natural to the flow of conversation. Check items off the list when you work them in. Maintain consistency in your descriptions through the course of the story (unless the discrepancy is intentional Weird GM strangeness).

Normal GM: You arrive at the diner for your face to face meeting, and there's a guy with a briefcase wearing a Hawaiian shirt sitting alone in a booth. It looks like he expects you to join him. [Checks off Hawaiian shirt, briefcase.]
Weird GM: And he's got an uncanny resemblance to your Uncle Kevin from when you were a kid. Same build, same face, even the same haircut. And he's drumming his fingers on the table, the same nervous habit your uncle had. Uncle Kevin never wore Hawaiian shirts, though. [Checks off Person is a dead ringer for Uncle Kevin.]

Weird GM Rules
Don't decide whether the strange details are hallucinatory or if reality is just getting weird. The story should end without anyone ever knowing for sure one way or the other, including you.

Before play begins look over the Normal GM's detail sheet, and move N of the strangest or most interesting details from their sheet to the “normal GM” category of yours. Don't warp or alter these details when you're incorporating them into the game, this helps prevent the Reporter from assuming they can rely on which GM is saying something in order to determine what's true.

Your detail sheet has categories:
•	Stuff from the Normal GM sheet.
•	“Odd” things are unusual and potentially off-putting, but could be extreme coincidences.
•	“Impossible” things wouldn't be possible in the normal world, barring magic, reality warping, hallucination, etc. When you check off an “impossible” detail give the Reporter a shock token.

Normal GM Rules
While playing, the Weird GM is involved with interpreting what the Reporter perceives, so they may need to embellish, revise, or add to what you're saying. Your normal facts might not be the real ones. Also, try not to inadvertently communicate that a detail the Weird GM is incorporating originally came from your sheet – the ambiguity of information is an important part of the Reporter's play experience.

Your list contains several mutually-exclusive details. After the Weird GM consults your list but before play begins secretly roll 1d8. On a 1-4 A's are true and B's are false, vice versa for 5-8. Either ignore or unobtrusively remove false details from your list. Usually this determines if scandal is ultimately real or a fabrication. (You still introduce true details from your list when it fits into the flow; normally A/B details won't be relevant until later stages of play, e.g., source might not trust Reporter with their trove of (forged?) documents at first meeting).

TBD Stuff
Detail sheets, some inspired by historical imploded stories, some by real stories, and some purely fictional or genre scenarios. “Historical” scenarios should be written with the A/B options so scandal can be real or fake in alt-history played at the table. (Also, procedures for making good ones, so people can make their own)
•	Dan Rather “memogate” scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
•	Recent controversial Rolling Stone article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

Scenes/Ticking clock: Shouldn't be possible to get all details immediately, e.g. sources at first willing to talk but reluctant to show evidence, then maybe talked into showing but reluctant to hand over, etc. Reporter should feel emergent tension to report story, waiting for all i's dotted and t's crossed might be too late, public needs to know big picture ASAP, single late report won't be enough.

Some kind of nonlinear “diminishing returns” Public Perception track – it's easy to convince people who are inclined to agree, harder and harder for people inclined to deny.

At some point a prominent critic of Reporter's story should start making an impact. A mechanic that feeds off of the checked-off-details and possibly how much time the Reporter has spent could factor in to effectiveness at taking progress off the Public Perception track. 

Reporter's “impact” mechanic might benefit from more nuance, e.g. a story with an interview and documents is probably more convincing than just an interview.