TMW:COTEC - Game Concepts: Shared Play Chapter PDF

[RobMuadib]

Hi all

I have just finished the first draft of the Game Concepts: Shared Play
chapter for The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (TM).
This chapter lays out the basic what is this game, what do you need to
play it, and how do you play it stuff. So anyway, it is available as a
PDF to anyone who would like to take a look at it and offer some
comments. A warning however, it is a bit over 10K words, around 24
pages of stuff, oh, and without any examples yet, so I am sure it is dry
reading. Oh, and it is a first draft with minimal to no editing, so I am sure
there mass typos and editing errors and such.

Given those caveats. to the two or three of you who might still slog
through it, some questions. I am wondering what you think of the
whole, "play concept", it proposes? Are there any explanatory
shortcomings or things I failed to discuss that I should have? What do you
think of the Nomenar reward/input system as proposed? Any other
comments you might offer are appreciated.


Speaking of appreciation, some acknowledgements are due. The
Production Scripts are a port of Universalis' Tenets concept, as is the
Citing Facts in a challenge idea, and the whole Script system was inspired
by Universalis' coin system. The rewards system was influenced by the
Experience Dice system from Fang's Scattershot work. ( Two great tastes
that taste great together I hope:) ) Oh, and Ian Millington's Ergo text
informed my collaborative concepts and methodology/procedural advice.

Oh, and any recomendations for better Scene management are
appreciated. Also, what do you think of the Play Awards for Narrative
favored narrative techniques/devices concept?


Oh, and did the games thrust of kewl stuff simulationism come through?


Anyway, as I said comments are much appreciated. I am like so happy to
be finished, well with the first draft at least.


Thanks for your interest.

[Mike Holmes]

First a bit on the presentation so far. What's with all the one and two sentence paragraphs? Very disjointed, and hard to read to me. And there are lots of statements that seem to be references to rules, but with no reference given (wil these be put in later?). Also, you often have headers that are the same style as those which they are supposed to be under. This is a tad confusing. OTOH, your instructions direct the game activities well, and give a clear vision of what each phase is supposed to be like.

Now, on to rules.

If only one person volunteers for a Guide Position, and you feel that they are unsuitable, is your only recourse to volunteer, too, and hope to win the roll? I think you might mention that players should have some discussion, perhaps a considerable amount, on what makes up a good candidate, what each Role entails, and who everybody thinks would be good for what role. Then when everyone agrees that they are prepared, the first Role can be brought up for volunteering.

Why the particular order of presentation for the guides? You put the two that relate to play most first, which seems counterintuitive. In fact, I think that you might consider leaving them out entirely of the setup phase discussion and only introduce them in the play phase description. Just an idea. OTOH, for reference, I'd think alphabetical would make most sense.

Another idea is to present them in order that they should be volunteered for. That is, The Rules Guide seems like it should be taken first, so that he can immediately start adjudicating the rules. He can also assume the Role of Play Guide temporarily until the next assignment which would be the Play Guide. Who would then take over control from the Rules Guide, and  direct the assignment of the Game Guide (In case play should break at this point). And lastly the Setting Guide.

There may be a better order. And I may be overdoing the rigor. But this is the first act of play, and will set the tone for it. Anyhow, going by such a rigid set of rules seems fun to me.

I know, I said I wasn't going to do this, but it's text editing, not post editing:
Appraise - to determine value
Apprise - to inform or suggest
Tim apprised Bob that he needed to have his house appraised.

You point out that the Setting Guide and Rules Guide positions can be split. How is this performed? How is it decided, and by whom? When, any time, or just during setup?

I assume that the most important denominations other than ones is fives, given the fact that many rewards are five. What is the starting Anwa? I coudn't find it anywhere. The whole Nomenar terminiology (Mithal, Anwa), threatens to be offputting. I can take it, but some people really don't like learning a lot of new terms with no mnemonic value.

Also, while discussion of Nomenar as tokens seems pertinent to setup, the rewards and fines seem to be part of play to me. Maybe it'd make more sense to introduce rewards in the Play Phase description.

You might want to include notes on how to transfer from setup to play. Does the Play Guide just decide (perhaps refering to some checklist) , or does somebody have to make a motion and a vote be called?

To find how a Payoff is determined, I have to look under Director Scripts. Took me reading to that point to find that out.

A problem with the blind bidding thing and ties is that players may repeatedly acidentally tie. At some point they may even both give up and bid zero more (I assume that this is an option). While I'm not too concerned about duration of this activity, the idea that players may end up spending a lot of Nomenar to get a scene arises. Weird coincidences may cause the cost to be very high, occasionally. Is this just a risk that a bidding player takes?

Thought about letting people bid for other people than themselves?

I'm assuming that Cues allow the Narrative Guide to interrupt Speakers (they do not have to yield to allow him to do things)? This is one section where examples will be particuarly important.

The text says that during scenes "actions" are resolved using the mechanics. What constitutes a valid "action"? Who calls for this to occur, the Narrative Guide?

Are the System Mechanics in fact realistic as the section under scenes relates? Or is it intended to be Plausible, or even Dramatic or "Cinematic? Haven't seen them so I have to ask. Also, just to be clear, the controller of an Entity narrates the effects generated by the system? But they don't narrate entry of their Entities, or Narrative scripts that they propose? This seems a bit odd. The latter effect means that Player A will tell Player B what will happen, then Player B will narrate the effect. Seems like it would lose some drama in the re-telling.

Play Guide recognizes Script Interruptions? Not the Narrative Guide? Is that correct? Actually, I think that's cool. Keeps the Play Guide engaged, and gives the players a way to go "over the head" of the Narrative Guide who may not be interested in recognizing Interruptions. Cool.

Why does a Scene "pot" concept come in from out of the blue? It costs me to introduce something, but then the Narrative Guide gets to spend that Nomenar on whatever? Your statement that the Narrative Guide does not pay for Casting Scripts seems contradictory. I get what you mean but it sounds confusing. This all seems shakey; perhaps an overview outside of the Script section? This mechanic alone makes the opening bid worth the price of admission (as it were).

I'm assuming that "Take Overs" last for the entire scene? Otherwise, if I give you a Nomenar to take an Entity that I currently control, then I can just give you the Nomenar right back and take control for myself. This sort of interruption seems to be stated as an exception to the rules; basically, it doesn't acknowledge that the player has to be recognized by anyone to do it.

Does "renting" an Entity happen similarly with just an announcement by the interested parties?

Cast of Thousands might be very problematic. All depends on the way that things are crreated within the frameworks, which I've not seen.

Your color vs. impact rule needs some help. Who decides what events have Impact and which do not? By what crieteria? And how does the player know before hand how much something will cost (so he can plan accordingly)? This is an opportunity. Have this be part of the Narration Guide's mandate. He just decides what things cost for players. They say, "How about if this happens?", and the NG says, "Sure, for 5 Nomenar." In the end the price is determined by haggling. Perhaps the player can go over the head of the Narrator Guide to the Rules Guide for this, instead, or something so the Narrator Guide can be overruled. Lot's of cool possibilities here to make it easier than the "one event, one Nomenar" rule.

Unlike Casting, the Narrative Guide does not need to do Narrative Scripts? Hmm. That seems inconsistent. Why not have him have to pay like anyone else, and then get it back at the end, just like Casting costs? Provides a limit to the scene then. OTOH, it does speed play if he doesn't have to do this....

Director Scripts are problematic. I pay to set up a reward, and then hope that somebody takes the bait? What if they never do? Seems like a big gamble. Couldn't payment be delayed until after the Expectation is met? Making these, essentially, bribes to have players do things your way?

Storyboard Scripts seem confusing. Again, why do I want to explain what will happen in that great a detail all before hand?

The penalty for borrowing (IOUs) seems arbitrary, and unimportant. Sure, I'll take out 10,000 Nomenar, please. Are you going to Challenge everything I do with it? Are you going to borrow as well to do so? There needs to be interest charged or something, and some other limit to make being in debt uncomfortable. How about being in debt means that you can't call a Challenge until it's paid? And/or can't be Narration Guide (which avoids players borrowing heavily to take control of scenes)? That sort of thing.

"Challenges" in the play section should instead be labeled "Script Chellenges". So that people don't get the idea that this is where all Challenges are referenced. There is another reference, right? Script Chalenges are "first come, first served" in terms of who gets to do the one Challenge to a particular Script? The voting mechanism seems to be comon to all these sorts of Challenges; it might make better sense to just describe the mechanism and refer to it in each section with particular diffences noted (the Special Challenge tie).

On a Conditional Challenge, you can't ask for more Nomenar? You can only downbid? The disbursements methodology seem a bit lengthy.

Again, how does transition to Record Keeping occcur? I assume that someone calls for it after the end of some scene? Or can it be called just after a conflict has been estalblished in a scene, thus creating the "Cliffhanger" effect? Or just whenever?

Also, how about a formal method for adjourning? Just to keep the whole thing tight from stem to stern. Which also suggests that there should be a formal method for play to be brought to order at the beginning of a session after the first (since the Guides are still assigned).

I think that I understand the decision to introduce the Genesis Session concept so late, but it seems out of place. Hey, now I know how many Nomenar we start with (is that it?). Is there any way you could see clear to putting it up front? Knowing how that works makes understanding the rest much easier.

Hmmm. No rule for changing the rules on the Narrative Level? Hmmm.

Mike

[RobMuadib]

First a bit on the presentation so far. What's with all the one and two sentence paragraphs? Very disjointed, and hard to read to me. And there are lots of statements that seem to be references to rules, but with no reference given (wil these be put in later?). Also, you often have headers that are the same style as those which they are supposed to be under. This is a tad confusing. OTOH, your instructions direct the game activities well, and give a clear vision of what each phase is supposed to be like.

Mike

Hey, thanks for feedback, I appreciate your taking the time to look it all
over. I will be cleaning up presentation and revising in the next draft. I
will fix the problems you mentioned.

If only one person volunteers for a Guide Position, and you feel that they are unsuitable, is your only recourse to volunteer, too, and hope to win the roll? I think you might mention that players should have some discussion, perhaps a considerable amount, on what makes up a good candidate, what each Role entails, and who everybody thinks would be good for what role. Then when everyone agrees that they are prepared, the first Role can be brought up for volunteering.

Good idea there. Definitely should address that more. Perhaps I should
use some type of Nomination/Vote method. Where people can volunteer
for each guide, or be nominated by someone else. And then have people
vote for it. That would facilitate the process you describe above.

Why the particular order of presentation for the guides? You put the two that relate to play most first, which seems counterintuitive. In fact, I think that you might consider leaving them out entirely of the setup phase discussion and only introduce them in the play phase description. Just an idea. OTOH, for reference, I'd think alphabetical would make most sense.

I think moving the the NG and PG roles to the play phase would be good.
Reinforces the idea of the big four as facilitation roles. Will allow for idea
of everyone getting into the fray and passing out the toys when they get
to Narrative and Personae Guide stuff.

I assume that the most important denominations other than ones is fives, given the fact that many rewards are five. What is the starting Anwa? I coudn't find it anywhere. The whole Nomenar terminiology (Mithal, Anwa), threatens to be offputting. I can take it, but some people really don't like learning a lot of new terms with no mnemonic value.

Yeah, I like the terms for linking the collaborative stuff to the game
universe, but it is far from obvious. I was using poker like terms before
(house, ante, pot, etc.), and was reccomending poker chips for tokens,
but didn't like how it was coloring the meta-game (Suddenly I saw
everyone wearing visors and like smoking cigars while tossing chips
around:) ). SO thought of alternate terms to color it more towards game
universe and premise. And like, this isn't supposed to be deadlands.


On the other hand easy of use/familiarity may have to win out. will try to
make universe relative terms more accessible in next draft.

A problem with the blind bidding thing and ties is that players may repeatedly acidentally tie. At some point they may even both give up and bid zero more (I assume that this is an option). While I'm not too concerned about duration of this activity, the idea that players may end up spending a lot of Nomenar to get a scene arises. Weird coincidences may cause the cost to be very high, occasionally. Is this just a risk that a bidding player takes?

Thought about letting people bid for other people than themselves?

Hmm, didn't think about it as being particularly blind, or at least wasn't
my intention, just came out that way in writing it. I suppose having the
Play Guide asking for Bids would work better. He recognizes whoever
wants to bid, they give their bid, and then he asks for any higher bids
auction style. When no one is willing to bid. The player with highest bid
wins, he pays up, and is awarded NG card and is recognized as Speaker.


Thinking about, THe idea of letting people bid for other people is
interesting, as it supports the facilitation/kewl play angle. Which would
allow for a benevolent dictatorship type of play. Also include a supporting
bid concept during auction, so you can throw your support behind
someone.

I'm assuming that Cues allow the Narrative Guide to interrupt Speakers (they do not have to yield to allow him to do things)? This is one section where examples will be particuarly important.

Play Guide recognizes Script Interruptions? Not the Narrative Guide? Is that correct? Actually, I think that's cool. Keeps the Play Guide engaged, and gives the players a way to go "over the head" of the Narrative Guide who may not be interested in recognizing Interruptions. Cool.

Good point, think I will change it so that the NG is technically the Speaker
while conduction scene, he then cues for information informally, but
remaining speaker for whole time, until at such time that someone calls
for an Interruption, then Play guide recognizes that player and he is given
Speakership to make his case.

The text says that during scenes "actions" are resolved using the mechanics. What constitutes a valid "action"? Who calls for this to occur, the Narrative Guide?

Are the System Mechanics in fact realistic as the section under scenes relates? Or is it intended to be Plausible, or even Dramatic or "Cinematic? Haven't seen them so I have to ask.

I haven't posted much about my system mechanics as I am pretty happy
with them, and at this stage in development I don't want to scrap them
again, since they meet all my design goals. THe only changes I am willing
to make are minor tweaks, operational optimizations, use guidelines and
enhanced presentation to make them easier to understand.

If you would like to take a look, have the following relevant PDF's
available

System Mechanics PDF
Tests Chapter
Sample Character Record
[/list:u]


Unfortunately, many people are going to hate them because they are
complex by implementation, with high points of contact.  But that is way
they needed to be to meet my design goals. Which was to make them seamless via an underlying log scale mechanic, open-ended, non-linear variability, and offering scaled results, as well as accomodating the switches and dials I wanted for tweaking the results.
Which is where some of the reality rules concepts come in, letting you
favor your character with more "cinematic" authoring oomph by players via Agent Scripts. Also by mitigating the results of the Resolution system to favor the outcome you want. But still working through the use of the system. Also, option for Cinematic/Realistic/Brutal damage stuff.

Which necessarily led to a complex, multi-step resolution system. In the
next rewrite of them I do, I will related them in a more easily
understandable way, featuring the usability tweaks and advice I have
developed.

Also, just to be clear, the controller of an Entity narrates the effects generated by the system? But they don't narrate entry of their Entities, or Narrative scripts that they propose? This seems a bit odd. The latter effect means that Player A will tell Player B what will happen, then Player B will narrate the effect. Seems like it would lose some drama in the re-telling.

Hmm, good point. I meant that Entity controller isresponsible for
generating his Success Rating or Effect Score to provide the NG, rather
than the expectation that the NG or RG will do it for you.  But perhaps I
should soften that somewhat, to allow for newbness. Still, the expectation
is that you will learn the system and love the system. Which I guess
means I meant the NG to add it to the narrative too, you just had to do
the grunt work.  


As for the second concern, I was thinking more that player A tells the NG
player what he would like to be added to the narrative, and the NG is
responsible for adding it in, doing the polish work to make it fit his
evolving narrative. Which is why you pay him.


What do you think of this concept. I see it as facilitating, these are the
toys I want to play with, roll them in for me, or this is the stuff I want to
explore, give it to me on a silver platter. Heres a service fee. It would
seem that didn't come off very well.  I didn't see so much as the player
Narrating, as the player indicating what he would like added to the
narrative, or the direction he would like to see the Narrative go. More of a
subjective experience facilitation. If the player really wants to narrate, he
should bid for NG, I was thinking.

Why does a Scene "pot" concept come in from out of the blue? It costs me to introduce something, but then the Narrative Guide gets to spend that Nomenar on whatever? Your statement that the Narrative Guide does not pay for Casting Scripts seems contradictory. I get what you mean but it sounds confusing. This all seems shakey; perhaps an overview outside of the Script section? This mechanic alone makes the opening bid worth the price of admission (as it were).

Unlike Casting, the Narrative Guide does not need to do Narrative Scripts?
Hmm. That seems inconsistent. Why not have him have to pay like anyone else, and then get it back at the end, just like Casting costs? Provides a limit to the scene then. OTOH, it does speed play if he doesn't have to do this....

Oops, it would seem that i didn't explain this very well. It should be that
he pays for both Casting and Narration scripts, but gets them for free
after a rebate, as it were. But by limiting him to what he can spend at the
moment, still limits his power.


The idea was that the Narrative Guide should largely get to act as a trad
GM, he just adds stuff as needed. Which I changed somewhat by letting
the NG basically use Casting Scripts and Narration Scripts for "free" after
a rebate in the form of the Scene "pot".  Casting and Narration as these
are the most trad GM stuff to do, introduce characters, narrate events and
details and stuff. At the same time, I still wanted his reach and influence
to be limited, as compared to trad GM.


So I came up with idea of Scene Pot. Basically, the NG is still limited
within a scene by his nomenar, but he can invest those freely during the
scene as all the Casting/Narration scripts he buys are going to be for free,
after he gets his rebate.

The idea of having players pay for their Narration and Casting Scripts into
the NG's scene pot does two things, provides him a way to earn nomenar
via facilitating the other players(as i described above). And, by having it
go into his pot, he is prevented from immediately using it against that
player in the form of challenges in that scene.  

I'm assuming that "Take Overs" last for the entire scene? Otherwise, if I give you a Nomenar to take an Entity that I currently control, then I can just give you the Nomenar right back and take control for myself. This sort of interruption seems to be stated as an exception to the rules; basically, it doesn't acknowledge that the player has to be recognized by anyone to do it.

Does "renting" an Entity happen similarly with just an announcement by the interested parties?

Hmm, yeah, that stuff should require going through the Interruption
process, since it is a special case of a Casting Script. And yeah, once per
scene sounds like a good rule.

Your color vs. impact rule needs some help. Who decides what events have Impact and which do not? By what crieteria? And how does the player know before hand how much something will cost (so he can plan accordingly)? This is an opportunity. Have this be part of the Narration Guide's mandate. He just decides what things cost for players. They say, "How about if this happens?", and the NG says, "Sure, for 5 Nomenar." In the end the price is determined by haggling. Perhaps the player can go over the head of the Narrator Guide to the Rules Guide for this, instead, or something so the Narrator Guide can be overruled. Lot's of cool possibilities here to make it easier than the "one event, one Nomenar" rule.

Ahh, i like that, good idea. set up a simple impact/scope rating or similar.
(Impact is largely tied to mechanical effect here.) So a 1 Nomenar
Narration would be purely Atmosphere, or for more, he can have it cause
a mechanical effect, and thus become Detail. . So if he says there's a light
rain, and it's overcast as you travel to the castle that would be pure
atmosphere (1 Nomenar). But if he said there is a light rain and it's
overcast as you travel to the castle (1), the ground is slick, and you will
have to watch your footing (Movement penalty of -1, 1 Nomenar). The
light is wan and there is a mist, making things  difficult to see, the water
getting in your eyes. (Visibility Penalty -3, 3 nomenar), paying 1 more for
each Personae in the scene, for first 10, etc.

Director Scripts are problematic. I pay to set up a reward, and then hope that somebody takes the bait? What if they never do? Seems like a big gamble. Couldn't payment be delayed until after the Expectation is met? Making these, essentially, bribes to have players do things your way?

Hmm, good point, perhaps having it go into an "escrow" account, until
it's time for the payoff, then, those Nomenar go into the Mithal, and the
players each get that many from the Mithal. If no one bites, the NG gets
them back, and will have to improvise or something.

Storyboard Scripts seem confusing. Again, why do I want to explain what will happen in that great a detail all before hand?

Hmm, I guess I didn't set that one up as well as I should have. Basically it
was meant to be a "GM fiat as outcome resolution" device, suspending the
use of the system mechanics, as well as normal interaction by the
players, to make things happen in the game. So, I should have said it was
only available for use by NG. The NG would narrate events,outcomes, and
Effects. Paying the nomenar costs as he goes. So first he would pay
to "take over" or rent each entity he was storyboarding, then narrate
things, paying for the outcomes and effects as he goes. With the option
for players to Challenge with regards to the effects on their Propietary
Personae. It is meant to allow the GM to either gloss over stuff for pacing
concerns, or play the Auteur where desired, and accepted by the players.

All of these would go into the Mithal, since they represent a serious
exercise of authorial power.

For instance, The GM might introduce a complication into scenario as so,
Marik (1 nomenar for TO of SP), and Martinez, Bob's character, (1
Nomenar TO of PP), scout ahead of the Exomecha Squad into the jungle,
while the rest of your squad waits at the LZ (3 Nomenar). After about 15
minutes (1 Nomenar), you get a brief garbled message for help and have
sensor readings of a firefight (1). Rushing to the scene, you find Marik
dead (5), his Exomecha destroyed (5), and Martinez's exomecha heavily
damaged (8), with Martinez nowhere in sight. (1). You discover signs of
enemy exomecha and indications (1) they vectored to the west (1). What
do you do?

The penalty for borrowing (IOUs) seems arbitrary, and unimportant. Sure, I'll take out 10,000 Nomenar, please. Are you going to Challenge everything I do with it? Are you going to borrow as well to do so? There needs to be interest charged or something, and some other limit to make being in debt uncomfortable. How about being in debt means that you can't call a Challenge until it's paid? And/or can't be Narration Guide (which avoids players borrowing heavily to take control of scenes)? That sort of thing.

Good point, I considered this before, but was afraid it would negatively
affect the game. My particular choice would be that you can't make
challenges while in Debt. But I was worried that might be too harsh, in
terms of collaboration. But, it does rein people in who want to totally
Auteur over everyone, without their support at least.

"Challenges" in the play section should instead be labeled "Script Chellenges". So that people don't get the idea that this is where all Challenges are referenced. There is another reference, right? Script Chalenges are "first come, first served" in terms of who gets to do the one Challenge to a particular Script? The voting mechanism seems to be comon to all these sorts of Challenges; it might make better sense to just describe the mechanism and refer to it in each section with particular diffences noted (the Special Challenge tie).

On a Conditional Challenge, you can't ask for more Nomenar? You can only downbid? The disbursements methodology seem a bit lengthy.

Hmm, yeah I was calling it Script challenges, but then changed it thinking
about expanding the voting mechanic concept for another use. Good point
about unifying it. I did the first come first served bit because of the vote
aspect, that anyone can call for. So everyone has a chance for input.


What would you reccommend for the conditional challenge, a quick
negotiation phase tied to the price?

I think that I understand the decision to introduce the Genesis Session concept so late, but it seems out of place. Hey, now I know how many Nomenar we start with (is that it?). Is there any way you could see clear to putting it up front? Knowing how that works makes understanding the rest much easier.

Good point, and it will let me better stress the gosh wow lets make
something cool aspect.

Hmmm. No rule for changing the rules on the Narrative Level? Hmmm.

I am drawing a blank here as to what you mean with the narrative level
rules, care to elaborate.


Anyway, thanks for your comments Mike, they will really help me when I
start the second draft. I appreciate your taking time to read through my stuff and offer thoughtful and constructive comments.

Thanks

[Mike Holmes]

Hey, thanks for feedback, I appreciate your taking the time to look it all over.

Actually, I was worried that I'd gone overboard. I'm glad you found it useful. I just like these concepts so much that I feel compelled to comment.

Good idea there. Definitely should address that more. Perhaps I should use some type of Nomination/Vote method. Where people can volunteer for each guide, or be nominated by someone else. And then have people vote for it. That would facilitate the process you describe above.

Actually, I like a lot of what you have there, currently. But there may be a simple way to streamline everything.

You still don't have anything for swapping positions, yet. I could see that becoming quite problematic.

On the other hand easy of use/familiarity may have to win out. will try to make universe relative terms more accessible in next draft.

I'd wait for a second opinion on that. Maybe it's just me who's having trouble tracking.

Hmm, didn't think about it as being particularly blind, or at least wasn't my intention, just came out that way in writing it. I suppose having the Play Guide asking for Bids would work better. He recognizes whoever
wants to bid, they give their bid, and then he asks for any higher bids
auction style. When no one is willing to bid. The player with highest bid
wins, he pays up, and is awarded NG card and is recognized as Speaker.

Oh, I get it. Yeah, that's very different. I was thinking that it's problematic that two people might vote near simultaneously, but then I think it's cool that the Play Guide gets to insert his bias that way (or keep it out) as he sees fit. Kinda neat ability, actually. He can recognize himself every other bid if he likes. If players see abuse, they can Challenge.

Good point, think I will change it so that the NG is technically the Speaker while conduction scene, he then cues for information informally, but remaining speaker for whole time, until at such time that someone calls for an Interruption, then Play guide recognizes that player and he is given Speakership to make his case.

Mostly semantics as to who is the Speaker. The question is simply whether the NG has the authority to interrupt at will. As he's sorta GMing at this point, I think that's mandatory. So, you can phrase it that he can appoint sub-speakers at will (Actors? I'm sure there's a better term), and that he can take that ability back at any time, even interrupting other Player's statements.

I haven't posted much about my system mechanics as I am pretty happy with them,

I wasn't suggesting anything else. I was just asking what the design goal was specifically for that part of the rules. I take it that "realistic" is exactly what you were going for?

If you would like to take a look, have the following relevant PDF's
available

At some point...I wasn't even sure they'd been written.

Which is where some of the reality rules concepts come in, letting you favor your character with more "cinematic" authoring oomph by players via Agent Scripts. Also by mitigating the results of the Resolution system to favor the outcome you want. But still working through the use of the system. Also, option for Cinematic/Realistic/Brutal damage stuff.

I get it. That all makes sense. The Resolution is realistic, but the metagame can bend it to other angles. Pretty standard in the breakdown, actually. But cool.

Hmm, good point. I meant that Entity controller isresponsible for
generating his Success Rating or Effect Score to provide the NG, rather
than the expectation that the NG or RG will do it for you.  But perhaps I
should soften that somewhat, to allow for newbness. Still, the expectation
is that you will learn the system and love the system. Which I guess
means I meant the NG to add it to the narrative too, you just had to do
the grunt work.

Ah, I get it now. That makes sense internally.

What do you think of this concept. I see it as facilitating, these are the toys I want to play with, roll them in for me, or this is the stuff I want to explore, give it to me on a silver platter. Heres a service fee.

All makes sense now. Again, the only problem I see is one of taste. That being that some may not like the idea of things being asked for, and then being restated. Like in play of Donjon. Sometimes a player will state a fact, "I find a door" and then the GM will narrate, "Bob finds a door." It just seems stilted in many cases.

Oops, it would seem that i didn't explain this very well. It should be that he pays for both Casting and Narration scripts, but gets them for free after a rebate, as it were. But by limiting him to what he can spend at the moment, still limits his power.

OK, that's consistent, at least. But giving that player unlimited control is something you should consider. It takes out a lot of bookwork, an makes the position more valuable. As such, Players will bid more for the position which will balance the value. If the other players think he's hogging, they can Challenge. Or perhaps some other Guide acts as oversite on this. What I'm starting to see is a system of checks and balances in the guide positions....

OTOH, what you have works, too.

Set up a simple impact/scope rating or similar. (Impact is largely tied to mechanical effect here.) So a 1 Nomenar Narration would be purely Atmosphere, or for more, he can have it cause a mechanical effect, and thus become Detail. . So if he says there's a light rain, and it's overcast as you travel to the castle that would be pure atmosphere (1 Nomenar). But if he said there is a light rain and it's overcast as you travel to the castle (1), the ground is slick, and you will have to watch your footing (Movement penalty of -1, 1 Nomenar). The
light is wan and there is a mist, making things  difficult to see, the water
getting in your eyes. (Visibility Penalty -3, 3 nomenar), paying 1 more for
each Personae in the scene, for first 10, etc.

I was thinking more like the NG could charge whatever he likes (this would work best if stuff was free for him; basically he charges himself nothing). The idea is that this creates it's own economy with him as supply and the other players as demond for his product. If he charges high amounts, then players will not use his services. If players are not doing stuff, he can advertise low prices to get people to use his services. And the NG will attract more customers if his narration is better.

Think of it this way, the NG is a temporary monopoly on the means of production. He gets this position by his bid, which could be seen as startup capital. The thing that prevents him from charging arbitarily high amounts is that, the Challenge mechanic represents the ability of the consumers to revolt and throw out the old capitalist regime. Thus, the NG has to stay honest, provide an honest, reasonabhly priced product, or have his production base removed.

Hows that for a reverse application of economic to game theory.

Hmm, good point, perhaps having it go into an "escrow" account, until it's time for the payoff, then, those Nomenar go into the Mithal, and the players each get that many from the Mithal. If no one bites, the NG gets them back, and will have to improvise or something.

Sorry, that's confusing. Who are "the players" in question?

Hmm, I guess I didn't set that one up as well as I should have. Basically it was meant to be a "GM fiat as outcome resolution" device, suspending the use of the system mechanics, as well as normal interaction by the players, to make things happen in the game. So, I should have said it was only available for use by NG. The NG would narrate events, outcomes, and Effects. Paying the nomenar costs as he goes. So first he would pay to "take over" or rent each entity he was storyboarding, then narrate things, paying for the outcomes and effects as he goes. With the option for players to Challenge with regards to the effects on their Propietary Personae. It is meant to allow the GM to either gloss over stuff for pacing concerns, or play the Auteur where desired, and accepted by the players.

This makes sense, but why not just go on a case by case basis? One resolution at a time? Instead of pre-planning it all out, and then charging for the whole?

What would you reccommend for the conditional challenge, a quick
negotiation phase tied to the price?

Sure. That would work. Note that for any haggling, the Play Guide should be able to enforce a moment of choice, so that play does not go on interminably.

I am drawing a blank here as to what you mean with the narrative level rules, care to elaborate.

You allow for rules to be changed in the System Mechanics, but that would indicate that you can't for the rules of this document. For example, there's no way one to change the rule such that the Play Guide get's to decide when something violates an Expectation or somesuch. Your structure is sound enough that, perhaps this is a really good idea. But what it means is that, if the players really want to change a rule, they have to drop back down to social roles, decide to vote on it or something, and then implement it that way. Why not have some mechanic to alow them to change anything they want?

You could even make a differentiation between rules at the System Mechanics Level and the upper level. Like the difference betweeen making a law, and ammending the Constitution. Perhaps someone calls a vote, and a two thirds majority needs to vote for it to pass it. Or, simpler, it only gets put in if it's unanimous. Again, the more this game is structured like real institutions, the more it makes me want to play.

Mike