The Forge Archives

Ricky-

I hate to risk sounding like a dick, but I think you've misunderstood the distinction I was trying to make between one type of system ("helpful hints") and another ("metagame rewards/punishments").

With your barmaid example, you provided a good illustration of the kind of system I do like ("helpful hints"), and do not intend to discuss further in this thread.

Sydney-

I would like to keep this thread active for the moment, as I suspect there may be more useful feedback to come.  Let me do my best to encourage a Forge-approved style of discourse in bold:

People who like metagame rewards/punishments: please argue with the logic I've already put forward as to why (I suspect) they don't belong in Lendrhald.

This thread should strive toward identifying whether any kinds of metagame rewards systems are compatible with my game, and if so, what are the essential features of such systems.

Hopefully I can achieve some clarity on that, close this thread, and better pursue specific system brainstorms in the other thread.

I just read a gigantic article by Ron, and I think I can now say in Forge-speak: my game's primary creative agenda is Simulationist.  It is Purist for System in that the rules attempt to represent reality and High Concept in that it is concerned with a genre (dark fantasy) and theme (Lovecraft + Anthrocentrism = doomed struggle of Man).

Ron's article on Simulationism says that it (or at least Purist for System) hasn't traditionally used metagame rewards systems, prefering systems of in-game Resources.  It seems to me that the functioning of these latter can only differ from reality insofar as my setting differs from reality.  (In Lendrhald, Human culture can't differ too much; the physical world is a more flexible matter.)

I did not find anywhere where Ron (or anyone else) discussed whether it was ever possible or desirable to use metagame rewards systems in a Simulationist game.  (If anyone knows of such a discussion, please direct me to it!)

So, let that be an entry-point into this thread for those who think better in Forge jargon.

I am a little confused about in what thread i should put this, but it is a replay to something from this tread, so here it goes.

Quote
My answer would be that this job belongs to the setting.  But perhaps that isn't realistic.  Not every part of the world is dark, so in theory the players could choose to hang around in town and make friends, drink beer, chase women, trade goods, etc.

A setting is very passive. You can use a lot of time on writing about how dark, scary, horrifying etc. the setting is, but if there is nothing or no one that will reinforce this it will never be a part of the game. You may have a very scary description of an orc, but if the GM just say "you see an orc", it will have no effect.

In many traditional rpgs it is expected that the GM will reinforce the setting, but you as the designer have no way of knowing this really will happen. My experience is that may gaming groups will play a new game the same way as they played there old game. I have many time heard descriptions of 'Call of Cthulhu' games that sounded like a dungeon crawl: "lets go kill some Old Ones!".

If I ask you what the most important part of your game is, you would guess the answer is the dark and scary elements. But if you don't enforces these elements in the system, then you can not be sure that people are using them. And if people are playing what are the most important parts of the game, it can be argued that they are not playing you game at all.

If you are completely ok with this, then I will not give you farther arguments. But if I was using a lot of time on designing a game (which I am), I would make sure that people would actually be playing that game.

Quote
I am having trouble thinking of how a player rewards system would produce better results.  If the world and the GM fail to arouse players' curiosity, I don't think saying, "Your Curiosity Seeker trait means you'll earn points if you check it out!" is a desirable solution.  All you wind up with is players interested in points pretending to be interested in what's going on in-game.

The good thing of having a system that is centred around the player, is that then the player get some control of what happen to his character. This will make the player more willing to take his character into extreme situations. A GM can only go so far in trying to push a feeling into the game, before the player get annoyed. But if the players is motivated by the system to push this feeling, they will go much farther.

I can not see how you will loose anything by this.

- Anders

Hi,

I'm just going to jump on in here, as some of the ideas and mechanisms everyone has touched on have really got me thinking. I'm new to posting to the Forge, but have been absorbing a lot of content from here for about a month.....I'll tell you, a lot of that was just burying myself in the closed forums (GNS model discussion, RPG theory, and Indie game design) and reading through the Articles, and especially the glossary and just recently dipping into the First thoughts, Actual play and Playtesting forums to get a taste of what type of current discussion goes down, and how some of the pieces of the Big Model have changed from the older stuff I'd read in the theory forums.

So as not to skew this thread out into the general, I'll focus on hitting some possible techniques that may accomplish what you have sought, or might help you design those techniques. I think the title of this thread tells me a lot. "A reward system for players, not characters" would mean that your system (by this I mean written rules, and informal social agreements ++i.e. the Lumply Principle++) should allow different mechanical interaction that affects the SIS (shared-imaginary-space), wether the player acts from an "immersed" standpoint, or acts from a player or "meta" standpoint. Lets hits some bullets while we consider what I've grasped of your expectations for the system, and see what we come up with.

• You would like time spent in "meta" or player consciousness kept to a minimum as a way to encourage the Simulationist Agenda, focusing a majority of play on "in-character" or immersive consciousness. I'd like to point out that it seems unlikely that you can eliminate one of these types of consciousness entirely. I don't think the dials go to 0% or a 100%, but have to have a fuzzy level in between, much like a probability assigned to an electron in quantum theory. So how does that inform our choice of mechanics?


• The mechanic should serve to resolve player to player or player to DM conflict about what exists in the SIS, quickly and efficiently, and then mechanically thrust the focus of play back to character to character conflict or character to setting/situation conflict. This should lead the players to want to fall back into the immersed character role, as that should logically provide the most rewarding method of resolving the in-character conflict.


• So far, we don't have an actual mechanic yet, just guidelines for designing one. Next I'd like to pull in some of the technique mentioned in this, and the other "rewards system in Lendrhald" thread to use in an example of creating a mechanic. If you'd prefer that I take fleshing out of specific mechanics to the other thread, just holler.


• Let's call all the content that has already been introduced into play "local" or grounded content. This content, having been introduced by the GM (with or without collaborative input from the Players !!::nods to Donjon::) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content, thus fulfilling our Simulationist Agenda. That's the important part, that content that's entering the SIS have coherence with the themes and trends already in play, such as the "dark fantansy" environment, and specifically your themes of Lovecraftian Horror, and Human vs Other. I believe that a mechanic that encourages Player/GM collaboration to decide what new content to enter into the SIS would increase player enjoyment. Also, as stated above, I think that if the amount of time spent in that collaborative phase has been kept to a minimum, and that there's a concrete method to channel that energy immediately back to "in-character" action, then you can concentrate on how the simulationism between local content plays out.


• So how do we allow the Gm and Players to collaberatively frame non-local "possible" content, and then allow that to manifest into local "in-play" content? Taking Threlicus' idea for a Coin (abstract spendable resource) system idea, and applying our above guidelines, we could say that players may spend Coins to introduce new active content into the SIS. Nay, at best, we can say that the Player spends Coins to suggest new content (a new Creepy Horror, or the location of a ruined temple, or the possibility of a meteor strike in the area, which would have nasty-reality bending side effects). You can even imagine a theoretical Play event where 3 players would actually spend coins, and list those 3 things as suggestions. How do we allow the mechanics to then assist the GM/Player collaboration/arbitration to the point that the GM then says, "OK, *this* and *this* and *this* actually happen to your characters, what do they do?"


• I think that your idea of BrainStorm Lists seems ideal to fit in here. Say we have the players use a fortune based resolution system, and roll some dice depending on how many coins they bid on the suggestion. So Player 1, who has suggested "New Horrible Monstrosity Thing" has bid 4 coins, and rolls for for 4 descriptive details from the Horrible Monstrosity Thing BS List. Or The GM may make a decision, and applies one of the rolls to the "Physical Descriptor" BS list, and the other 3 to the "Creepy Powerz" BS list. These lists have setting/theme appropriate options, and better still, mechanical explanations as to how they casually inter act with the SIS once entered into play.


• Now that the Players have spent/bid these coins, what happens to them? I would say that the GM may spend them as a resource to roll or choose new content from any of the BS Lists available. For example, while the characters find themselves venturing out to investigate the creepy ruined temple/fortress in the swamp, the DM could decide that a band of Orcs surround the area, and spend Coins to give them such descriptors as "Hunter/Killer Band", "Forge, Weapon, and Armor Technology" and "Degenerate Rites/Magic", resulting in large, macho orcs with wicked, cruel weapons and armor, painted with the blood of their sacrifices, and doing strange things in the woods in order to placate/control/draw the attention of the "New Horrible Thing" that player 1 initiated. The GM may then decide how their presence has affected the settlements in the area, based on what they'd most likely be doing.


• Now, tying this "content creation" system to the player rewards mechanic, say that each item on the Brainstorm list requires that the player spending Coins describe a specific aspect of that element of the new content, and that when done successfully, and creatively, earns him/her more Coins. Let's take the "New Horrible Thing" example. Say one of the descriptors of it that rolled up on the "Creepy Powers" list states:

  QuoteHorror has a level of mental domination that it uses to affect targeted human prey. Describe: "Reason for having/using power" Worth: 1 Coin
  OR "A situation in which the Horror has used power on an NPC." Worth 2 Coins.

  An example of the first may be: "Horror feeds on emotional pain/suffering that it has initiated, but that one human actually causes to another." One of the second may be: "The towns folk tell us of a lone figure that enters the town square each night at dusk, and cooks a human carcase over an open pit-fire, eats some of it, and then leaves it there. So far no-one has done anything about this." Depending on how you want to scale the rewards system, that last suggestion could have been worth 4 Coins, because the "Lone" figure may have been dominated to commit atrocity(2), but also the other townsfolk have been dominated to not attempt to stop it(2). Can you imagine the terror that the other players would express when the first player suggests this in order to win Coins? Why have the towns folk just "put up" with this sickening behaviour, and how far would this tendency to just "put up" with atrocity go if taken to an extreme? How are these people psychologically dealing with recognizing the absolute wrong-ness of the act they witness, yet failing at mustering up enough will to confront the perpetrator? All these can be possible lead ins to Mystery in the setting, and give ample opportunity to scare the players witless once they enter back into immersive mode in order to deal with the situation presented.


• Thus the GM/Players have collaboratively introduced creepy, Mystery laden content into the SIS, which they must then deal with directly as characters once the "Coin Bidding" cycle of the system gives way to the "Character Action Resolution" portion. I can easily see this happening when at the end of the Bidding session, the GM aggressively frames the scene, and then looks at the players and says "So what do you want to do about it?"

Wow, that was a massive post for my first time....hope you followed along.

Namaste,
Joshua AE Fontany -=- Telarus, Keeper of the Sacred Chao

Hi, David,

No worry about sounding like a dick. I've noticed that people on the Forge have the remarkable skill to argue without sounding like dicks. :-) So, per your request, we'll focus on metagame rewards exclusively. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Hi, Joshua,

Welcome to the Forge! That loud cheering sound is me wildly applauding your awesome first post. I am truly in awe. I have one question for you.

Quote
This content (snip) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content,

Emphasis mine. I think you meant to say "causal" in the bolded parts, ie. the new content and the SIS affect each other in ways that make sense for the game. Is that right?

Back to David,

I'm in agreement with Joshua and Anders. You need a metagame mechanic; without it, you are relying entirely on the players to play your game the way you envisioned it. We can sit here and give you ideas for mechanics (Joshua has some excellent ideas), but if you truly don't think you should have them, then that's the way you should go. How do you feel about this?

Hi there,

This has been a wonderful thread to read so far.

David, I appreciate the attention you've given to my essays. You probably won't be surprised to learn that after I published that essay here, an extensive series of threads was spawned about whether and how Simulationist design (of the kind we're discussing) can benefit from metagame-level rewards.

The general conclusion was that historically it hadn't happened, but theoretically it was possible and, as an idea, intriguing enough to be pursued by someone, some day, who wanted to.

As a side note .... that discussion played a certain role in the design of Universalis, as one of the co-designers, Mike Holmes, was concerned with leaving that route of play open/available for the game, rather than focusing on Narrativist conflict as the only route to enjoyment. Whether that resulted in a slightly more incoherent design, or in a slightly more productive/flexible design, is a question for the individual.

Let's focus on your own game, though. My take is this: if you do not want to include such a reward system in your game, then nothing is wrong with that, and you'll certainly have historical RPG design on your side to support that approach. I recommend, if you go this way, that you provide extensive and meaningful in-game rewards/consequences for characters; in other words, make sure that outcomes of events (individual tasks, or whole scenarios, or anything in between) are quantitatively powerful in some way.

(In the past, this has been done mainly at the smaller-grain scale of characters - specifically skill improvement. I submit this is relatively trivial and that you'd do better to increase the scale of effect.)

If you do want to include a metagame-reward system after all, but to preserve the aesthetic and procedural features that you have described, then you have moved into terra semi-cognita for RPG design - the theory can help you figure out how, there are a few game designs that offer useful clues, and people here will be interested to help you (not the least of whom is the inimitable Mike Holmes, as this is something of a Grail for him) - but no solid, done, "like this" models exist to emulate.

I would like to link to some of the older discussions I've been referencing for this post, but unfortunately, it's something of a painful hunt at the moment, and my time is short. I encourage you to browse the GNS forum, paying strict attention to dates and keeping in mind that many individuals' viewpoints often changed due to the discussions ... and that some individuals can be identified as preserving conflict for its own sake, as they feared its resolution.

Best, Ron

Hi, Ron, it's great to see you give your opinion on this.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2006, 04:30:10 PM
Let's focus on your own game, though. My take is this: if you do not want to include such a reward system in your game, then nothing is wrong with that, and you'll certainly have historical RPG design on your side to support that approach. I recommend, if you go this way, that you provide extensive and meaningful in-game rewards/consequences for characters; in other words, make sure that outcomes of events (individual tasks, or whole scenarios, or anything in between) are quantitatively powerful in some way.

(In the past, this has been done mainly at the smaller-grain scale of characters - specifically skill improvement. I submit this is relatively trivial and that you'd do better to increase the scale of effect.)

Would you care to explain these two points a bit further? Namely, 1) what is an "extensive and meaningful in-game reward/consequence for characters" and 2) how has it been done in the past ("skill improvement") and why is this trivial?

Hi Ricky,

Quotewhat is an "extensive and meaningful in-game reward/consequence for characters"

You ought to be able to answer this without any difficulty at all. You've role-played. You've played characters, and you've set up scenarios for others. What did and didn't work, or consistently or never happened, in terms of a change in or for a character?

It's not a trick question. It does, however, include a wide variety of possible answers. Which one David chooses for his game is more important than the ones I've found most satisfying in my own experience, or than you've found most satisfying in yours. Maybe you should answer to yourself and let David chew over his own answer.

Quotehow has it been done in the past ("skill improvement") and why is this trivial?

Nor is this, at least the first part, supposed to be difficult. One of the first and most widely-adopted shifts in RPG design occurred when generalized levels were discarded (in new games) and replaced by modular change. The door was mainly opened by RuneQuest, or more generally BRP. The game's resolution system was based on rolling under a percentage score. for a given skill. The rule was, if you succeeded in a skill roll during play, you then rolled to see if you could get over its score; if you did, the skill increased slightly. Every skill was treated as a separate entity, throughout the play/use of that character.

To this day, variations of this basic idea are legion. The nuances of how in-game skill or ability use determines increase in individual skills are a topic of some obsession among game designers, especially new ones. Even point-buy systems of character creation and improvement represent a modification of the basic idea.

Why would I call it trivial? Well, it wasn't trivial as a fundamental shift in RPG design considerations, or as a feature of play. It was tremendously important and has many virtues. However, as the main feature of a reward system, it's a little lacking. It tends to encourage a "retreat," on the part of the player, "into" the character sheet and his or her relationship to it, as the primary reward of play.

The corollary effect is to shift any interest in the larger scale of concerns (relationships with other characters, overall goals of play for the player, outcomes of scenarios) over to the GM to reinforce through social or even asocial methods. Social methods include attempting to fascinating everyone with the brilliance of the GM's logistic or descriptive skills; asocial methods include bullying and railroading in order to make the characters "care."

As an instructive example, I suggest studying the profound differences in reward/emphasis between the original and revised versions of the Burning Wheel. The former (I'm speaking of the text, not how its author played) was nearly entirely devoted to the nuances of skill improvement on a skill-by-skill, roll-by-roll level. The latter includes those rules, but now focuses far more strongly on the personality/goal elements of the character sheet (Beliefs, Instincts, Faith, Hate, Greed, Grief) and Artha points as the primary reward system. In the original rules, the uses & presentation of these latter elements were drier, more minor, and often verbalized toward non-reward issues of play.

Bear in mind that my previous post was directed to David. What I'm seeing in this thread is a strong desire for a solid, working reward mechanic, but also to keep it firmly embedded in the SIS (i.e. fictional concerns) rather than direct attention to the among-player interactions.

So I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component of it.

David, are you familiar with the Trust mechanic in The Mountain Witch? It may be a bit "meta" for you, but you should study it anyway, as a thought-provoker, and at the very least, an example of something that you can use as a contrast for what you want to do.

Best, Ron

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 25, 2006, 03:32:03 PM
<snip>

Hi, Joshua,

Welcome to the Forge! That loud cheering sound is me wildly applauding your awesome first post. I am truly in awe. I have one question for you.

Quote
This content (snip) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content,

Emphasis mine. I think you meant to say "causal" in the bolded parts, ie. the new content and the SIS affect each other in ways that make sense for the game. Is that right?
<snip>

Absolutely right Ricky. Blame it on being 4 in the morning, and just having to get all that out before going to sleep. I did spell check, but that wouldn't have caught that type of semantic error. Causal interaction, or interaction that makes sense using the metaphysics/rules of the game seems like an important element in Simulationist-driven design. This was just one possible mechanical configuration, and I think Ron really nailed it when he talked about a reward mechanic that goes above the scope of the individual character (character sheet/pieces of the character sheet). Ron also states:

QuoteWhat I'm seeing in this thread is a strong desire for a solid, working reward mechanic, but also to keep it firmly embedded in the SIS (i.e. fictional concerns) rather than direct attention to the among-player interactions.

I focused on antagonistic parts of the setting/situation in my example mechanic, but you can use the same process to introduce characters and set pieces that side with the PC's, such as fleshing out a knightly order that one of the character's belong to. I think that players that share a Simulationist CA may even get a bigger kick, and even get more attached to a setting where they can introduce elements, and then watch what the world does to them/they do to the world in a causal fashion. I think that this may also free up the GM from taking the role of the sole "CPU" of the simulation, which in other games has involved tons of prep time to come up with new elements, and then tons of "crunching" to figure out how the total set of elements, including the new ones, interact. This left the players to just focus on how their characters changed. I'd love to see a game that actually gives the players power to care about pieces of the SIS other than their characters, even if it's just, "Does this stuff I'm suggesting sound possible in this setting? If so, how do we (as a gaming group) make it probable, so that my character can interact with it (Exploration^2)," -type of "prep" work.

I'm sure other possibilities exist.

Namaste,
Joshua

Wow.  While I was out of town throwing my body at frisbees, people gave some great contributions here.  I think I'm going to take the hint and be slower to respond. 

There are a lot of ideas here where my first thought is, "Nah, that probably wouldn't work," but for the moment I'm going to try to avoid excluding anything outright unless it is categorically impossible.  Dunno if that's efficient, but:
1) as a game-designer, I do have some interest in what kind of game people want to play (if I don't use it for Lendrhald, there are still future possibilities)
2) as a GM, the idea of having players help me with prep work sounds nice

Before I take a few more days to digest and respond to recent posts, a few quick takes:

IN-GAME REWARDS

I agree with Ron that realistic (i.e. slow) skill advancement isn't a very compelling reward system, and that the following is a goal well-suited to my game:

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2006, 06:22:21 PM
I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider  than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component  of it.

I encourage further thoughts on this.

THE ROLE-PLAYING GAME and THE METAGAMING GAME

Certain parts of Joshua's suggestion look good to me in the following way:

We have one game which upholds the goals I've put forward by keeping character behavior related purely to in-game concerns rather than being partially motivated by out-of-game factors (possibly breaking immersion or getting stupid).

We have a second game which supplements the first game by allowing the players to help the GM fill the setting with stuff that is not only appropriate to the game's themes, but also relates to what the players are most interested in doing.  The "get points, spend points" system occurs independently from character actions, allowing the first game to exist as I've described it.

Practically, I envision a play session occurring in the following order: players (& GM) convene, discuss what they want, then use the system to generate some new setting*, then take food/bathroom break, then commence roleplaying.

I'm not sure if this is what Joshua intended, but I am sure that I like it from a designer and GM perspective. 

An advantage of separating metagame concerns from in-game rewards is that it accommodates various player temperaments.  Those who want to be creative and help shape the setting are encouraged to do so, and are rewarded for doing a good job with more creative power, while those who only want to play their characters are not penalized in terms of their ability to do this (although they might be bored if they show up before the food/bathroom break as described above).

A major caveat, though, regarding any system that rewards players solely in out-of-game currency: the players might not have much incentive to bother.  Personally, I think that contributing to make a setting more fun than it might otherwise have been would be incentive enough for me -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this was insufficiently concrete to motivate a lot of players (including some who like "contributing to setting" as a basic idea).


* possibly in a manner quite similar to some of Joshua's "rolls and lists" thoughts -- that seems to me like a useful direction to go in

Just to elaborate on one thought from my last post:

George Heintzelman and I were talking about ways to give the GM creative help in set-up tasks, and I realized that doing this before or after play, rather than during, wouldn't raise all the "immersion-breaker" red flags I've been mentioning. 

George had this to say on the subject:

Quote from: Threlicus
I have played many games which use this mode, albeit without any formal tools to assist. My experience is that three facts conspire to leave the bulk of the work on the GM:
1) The GM veto is always there, and is used whenever anything player-created conflicts with something previously determined by the GM. So players tend to keep their contributions within fairly strict limits.
2) Players expect the GM to create and control anything antagonistic to the PCs. Since conflict and antagonism are the heart of story (yes, even for a Simulationist. They are emergent rather than planned, but they are there), these are the elements that get the most attention.
3) Most players don't do any work away from the game table, and when they are at the game table, they want action to be happening, not talk about design.

This could be a profitable line to pursue, if you can find ways to avoid these problems. I propose to avoid them entirely by 1) not having a GM veto; 2) expecting everyone to create antagonists for everyone else and 3) doing all the setting work, including the GMs, at the game table, as part of the game.

Quote
This could be a profitable line to pursue, if you can find ways to avoid these problems. I propose to avoid them entirely by 1) not having a GM veto; 2) expecting everyone to create antagonists for everyone else and 3) doing all the setting work, including the GMs, at the game table, as part of the game.

One solution is to separate the "setup" part from the "play" part. IOW, when the whole group sits down at the table, the first part of the game is Setup: the group decides what elements (characters, situations, etc.) are going to be encountered in this session. Then once that is complete, the Play part begins: the group plays through the elements that were created in Setup.

For this model to work, a few rules have to be there:
1) As you previously stated, GM veto cannot exist. This should be ok; the primary reason for GM veto is to ensure that the players' ideas don't wreck GM prep. Under this model, though, there is no GM prep.
2) There has to be a guarantee that whatever is decided on in Setup will actually occur in Play; otherwise, players are going to be just as uninterested in Setup as if there was a GM veto.

How does that sound?

Note that the quote was from me, not David Berg. I don't think David has bought into the idea of no GM veto, at least not fully. ;)

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 29, 2006, 01:59:54 PM
One solution is to separate the "setup" part from the "play" part. IOW, when the whole group sits down at the table, the first part of the game is Setup: the group decides what elements (characters, situations, etc.) are going to be encountered in this session. Then once that is complete, the Play part begins: the group plays through the elements that were created in Setup.

This is definitely interesting to explore. I'm a little worried that, as proposed here, it would destroy some of the fear-of-the-unknown vibe that David is aiming for, though. ("Hey, there's a mysterious Orc corpse here with strange glowing maggots crawling out of its flesh -- just like we discussed an hour ago. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!")

There's a few things I'd like to experiment with in this vein, though. Throwing ideas out now:
1) What if 'setup' phases and 'play' phases were more dynamically interspersed. Say, 1 play scene, then a setup phase (where, perhaps nothing happens?)
2) What if it were possible for proposed setting elements to remain on the table across scenes, until they have been taken off?
3) What if it were possible to 'buy out' a setting element, so it never turns up? Maybe a player could, using metagame tokens, show the level of his investment in particular ideas, increasing the cost to other players and the GM to make it never come to pass; other players could add to an investment if they also think it is cool. Something like that anyway. Presumably if an idea does not turn up but remains on the table, the cost to buy it out goes up?

Some grist for the idea mill.

George and Ricky's last two posts lead me to try to re-clarify the parameters I'm attempting to worth within:

I've spoken with my co-designer.  He doesn't want players to be able to influence the world beyond the actions of their characters.

We agree that world-invulnerability is a matter of degree.  There is no absolute and perfectly opaque reality, pre-defined down to the last atom, immune to all possible player thoughts of "that was likely put there for my benefit".  Along the scale of degree, however, you can do plenty to discourage such thoughts, and to the extent that I can, I want to.

Two places I wish to arrive at:

1) Plausible deniability for GMs.  Although the GM can never prove that something was there before PCs decided to poke it, he should be able to claim as much without that claim seeming immediately false.  This will produce the impression I'm going for (world is solid and exists in its own right) for all but the most inveterate skeptics.

2) Passive immersion in the simulation, rather than willful or complicit immersion in the simulation.  The goal is not to have the players deeply involved in some reality; the goal is to have them involved in my specific reality.  And my specific reality is not supposed to make players feel some level of control (which having creative input does), but to confront them with obstacles and opportunities that they may pursue or ignore at their own discretion, without any preconceptions of what will happen when they do so.  Just like real life. 

"This must be what the GM wants us to pursue" is an effective way to respond to the setting in most games (whether the players get to create setting material or not), but in Lendrhald the desired thought process would be more, "This looks interesting/profitable."  The GM's job is not to orchestrate a storyline (which the players will then do their best to force their characters into, as they expect that's where the fun will lie), the GM's job is to fill the world with things and see which of them the players are into.

So, what does this rule out, and what does it not rule out?

It doesn't rule out the GM talking to the players before set-up, and using their tastes to design material.

It does rule out the GM responding to player desires in a quick and/or obvious manner.

"Quick" we can get around by the GM creating material prior to one session, and using it at a subsequent session.  Or even, maybe, using something late in a long session.

"Obvious", unfortunately, leaves no room for some of the system ideas we've been discussing.  The GM can't plausibly claim something existed independent of you if you know you helped create it or in some way caused it to be there.

A remaining metagame option I see is something where points are earned, spent, traded, and/or weighed against each other to influence very general quantities, like "good stuff for PCs" and "bad stuff for PCs".  This could work as long as it never gets specific or transparent enough to lead to, "That guy!  That guy is clearly the "helpful NPC" we requested an hour ago."