Incarnate: Social Contract and Character Creation (Long)

[deadpanbob]

All,

Been off The Forge for quite some time due to RL issues.  I've been slowly slogging toward completion of my game, Incarnate.

The original threads can be found here and here.

Below please find my first set of revisions - starting with the Social Contract/Point of the Game section and an outline for how Character Creation will proceed.

Any commentary/suggestions would be more than welcome.

incarnate

Social Contract
Incarnate is a roleplaying game that emphasizes two different styles of playing decision-making by the participants, although not necessarily equally well for any given troupe or playing session.  Specifically, the game can effectively support competitive play among all the players (including the Game Master), or a more collaborative play designed to support a more narrative style.

The game is designed around the concept of Troupe style play, with either a single player acting as the Game Master or with each player taking on that role in turn, even within the same game session.

Troupe style play entered my consciousness through a game called Ars Magica – a game I was fortunate enough to encounter in it's 1st edition before beginning to play any of the Storyteller System games.  Where there is much to commend and much to deride in Ars Magica, this one concept represented the first real sea change in my own internal desires and expectations about what an RPG could do.  Regardless of any shortcomings in the system – failures to solidly support any particular mode of play - I think that the Troupe style introduced to me therein makes a fitting starting point for Incarnate.

This style of play, as outlined in that game, is set up so that each player ends up controlling a multitude of characters throughout the life of any given game – often times even within a single session.  Each player creates one primary and many secondary characters through which to Explore the System, Setting, Color, Characters, and potentially a variety of Premises.  

The decision about whether or not a single member of the Troupe will act as the Game Master is the first, and probably most important aspect of the game that will determine which of the two style of play the rules best support.  When a single Game Master is chosen, the Consensual Hallucination is said to be hostile to the Protagonists, and the game will tend to better support a more competitive style of play.  If the Troupe decides instead to share, in turn, the responsibilities generally reserved for the Game Master in most mainstream RPGs, the Consensual Hallucination is said to be neutral to the Protagonists, and the game will tend to support a more collaborative, narrative style of play.  It's important to note that in either case, the game should provide secondary support for the style of play not chosen, and in fact play-testing of the game has shown that at times it can approach equal support for each style within the same Troupe in a single session.

The Consensual Hallucination refers to the shared reality that all of the normal (i.e. non protagonist/player characters) perceive to be true, with all of it's incumbent laws, theorems, stipulations, and codicils.  It also represents the perceptual framework by which everyone in Creation communicates with one another.  Within this basic framework, a single character can said to be first among equals – but all of their actions must conform to the basic rules of everyday life.  Incarnate is a game about breaking all of these rules and trying to take over reality.

The Protagonists within Incarnate are character's who have experienced a Transcendent moment of lucidity in their lives – and have awakened from the Consensual Hallucination to find that everything they ever knew about reality was at best a joke, and at worst a lie.  The Protagonists refer, in game terms, to the primary character for each player.  Incarnate should be played with a one-to-one relationship between each individual player and each single Protagonist.

When the Troupe chooses a single player to act as Game Master, they are making a decision to pursue a more competitive style of play, where the players will compete with each other, and together or singly against the Game Master through the agency of their Protagonists in order to win.  In this case, winning is nothing more or less than the total domination and control of the entirety of the Consensual Hallucination.  In essence, each character's motivation boils down to wanting all of Creation to validate their own Paradigm – denouncing all others and elevating him to Godhood.  In meta-game terms, each player should want to topple the first selected Game Master and take her place as the new representation of the Consensual Hallucination.

Incarnate asks that the Troupe, during character creation, create a character for the Consensual Hallucination.  The CH, in effect, is personified, or more appropriately protagonized by providing CH creation rules analogous to the character creation rules.  Typically, the Game Master (regardless of whether the Troupe chose a single GM or is choosing to share the GM role) controls the CH.  While the CH-as-character concept is central to the rules mechanics, the CH-Character will probably never actually appear or manifest as a personified entity – but may be played with a sort of subtle undercurrent of passive aggressive personality by experienced Incarnate GMs who want to turn up the paranoia and competition.

Incarnate actually defines the Consensual Hallucination – which in RPG terms can be thought of as everything that GMs usually control (setting, props, NPCs, initial plot points, perhaps even control over the course of the narrative created during play – although this last issue is dealt with specifically and explicitly by the rules) – in a way very similar to creating a character.

One thing to note about this style of play, however, is that the Troupe as a whole, and by consensus, acts as the referee of any rules issues that may arise.  In many mainstream RPGs, this duty of enforcing the rules and ensuring their fair application and adjudication amongst the players typically falls under the sole authority of the GM – with accompanying admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible.  

Incarnate asks that all players in the Troupe, including the GM, have a voice in the all decisions about the game and in all disputes that arise strictly out of interpretation of these rules – and that such decisions be reached in a consensus fashion – with admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible.  Note that all decisions about the game in this context refer to disputes about how to interpret a specific rule or how to apply it in a given situation.  Decisions about player character and non-player character actions, resolutions of such decisions, and any and all decisions related to the development of a narrative, the description of a setting or props or the like, and any other elements that could rightly be construed as the game proper, are actually handled by the remainder of the mechanics.  This conflict resolution mechanic, therefore, is intended to be used in the unlikely event that this developer is somehow being unclear or ambiguous in the remainder of this text (highly unlikely, really).

Should a consensus be impossible for the Troupe to reach, each player can sacrifice one level of Verve (or gain 1 level of Ennui if their Verve is down to 1 or 0) in order to veto a given decision.  This should be considered a last resort – and an indication of the strength of conviction that the vetoing player has about this particular issue.  If, after duly considering the strength of this player's sentiments, any argument still remains, other players may match this expenditure of this very important in game resource to, in effect, veto the veto.  Such bidding wars, hopefully will never occur during the course of a game, but if they do they should be allowed to continue to the point where either a) every player involved is out of levels of Verve to give, or Ennui to gain or they refuse to give/gain any further and a single player has bid more levels than anyone else or b) all players agree to a consensus before they reach this point.  The Game Master will be giving up levels associated with Codicils (aka World Laws), should he decide to get into the bidding.  Levels given/gained in such a bidding war are non-refundable to the characters – regardless of when in the bidding a final decision was made.

The above-described method of rules adjudication and Social Contract decision-making should be used for any and all disputes that arise out of in game issues.  If the Troupe is experiencing trouble as a result of out of game social concerns, included but not limited to the logistics of playing, the interpersonal relationships between two or more players, or other real life issues, I strongly encourage the Troupe to explicitly talk these things over in an adult and constructive fashion – attempting to eschew any associated strong emotions – to try and reach some form of resolution.  It should probably go without saying, but I'm generally thought of as a pedantic bastard, that a set of rules designed to resolve disputes within the context of a game have no place in discussions of real life social issues.  

Often times a given Troupe of players will already know who their elected Game Master would be, should they choose one person to go first or choose one person as the constant GM.  However, this choice should also rightly be considered the first in-game choice made at the Social Contract level – that is to say before play begins, before characters are made, even before the milieu and potential premise(s) of the story being told are decided.  To help resolve any disputes that might arise during even this first important Troupe decision (wow, you're a contentious bunch, aren't you?), the above method of rules adjudication should also be applied.  

Wait, you say, we haven't created characters or, well, anything yet, so we don't have any levels of whatever you said earlier to give up...

True.  Hopefully the Troupe can come to a consensus here, but if not, merely keep track of how many vetos each player makes – with a strict limit, never to be exceeded (except by Troupe consensus) of 20 vetos per player.  This limit applies from the moment this first decision gets made, right up to just before the first scene of the first session of the game begins.  Use your votes/veto power wisely – and remember that with each such veto you cast, you're draining away the power of your eventual Protagonist to win or to create satisfying narrative explorations.

It's interesting to note that for the more psychotically competitive Troupe of players, the competition, horse-trading, manipulation, and subtle psychological warfare can begin even now.  Perhaps you, the elected solo GM should think about kicking up a few rules disputes between the other players even now to weaken your competition.  Of course you, the players, won't fall for such a ruse...

Game Outline

Each player starts with 20 votes/chances to veto.

The Troupe decides who will take on the role of Game Master – an whether or not this role will rotate among each of the players or remain constant.  This decision should be made via consensus – but the players may cast their votes if need be to settle a dispute.  Once cast, a vote is gone.

The Troupe decides what the starting conflict will be and what resources, settings, props and personae are involved in the starting conflict.  Consensus again is encouraged, but players may cast votes to add something rejected by the group or reject something added by another player.  They should also choose a starting Premise – with the default Premise being something like: "What price would you pay for ultimate Power?"

The victory conditions for the story/campaign should be set last, just prior to creating characters.  This is merely a choice between 1 and 10 – the number representing the levels of the ladder/pyramid that exist between the Protagonists at the start of the first session and the Consensual Hallucination.

Once the initial story's conflict is set, and the personae are known, the Troupe creates their Protagonists (that is to say each player creates their primary character, their Incarnate) as follows:

·   If no votes were used by a player, they start with a Verve limit of Legendary (10) and an Ennui limit of Terrible (also 10).  For each vote a player cast, reduce their starting Verve limit by 1.  For each vote cast beyond 9, increase their Ennui limit by 1 to a maximum of 10 (Legendary).  Verve measures the character's personal power and belief in their personal Paradigm.  Ennui measures their connection to the Consensual Hallucination, and how well they function within it.

·   All Incarnate start out with Physical, Mental and Emotional Limits of Legendary (10).

·   Each Incarnate must have a Paradigm – a brief statement about their strongly held world-view.  Example Paradigm: I view the world as a programmed construct whose matter is merely dimensional representations of data and whose natural laws amount to nothing more than a code base that I can edit to meet my desires.  Note that each Incarnate's Paradigm should relate in some way to the central Premise of the campaign.

·   Using free association, come up with a set of words/concepts that relate to the Incarnate's paradigm.  These words or concepts become the Incarnate's Trump – the functional source of their power within the game world.  Trump represent an Incarnate's control over the substance of the word/concept, and allow the Incarnate to accomplish astonishing feats during play called Stunts.  No set limit on the number of Trump is placed on any player's Incarnate – except Troupe Consensus.  Should veto voting be required at this point, the vetoing players either lose one level of Verve from their character, or gain one level of Ennui – depending (see above).  Note that the overall limit of 20 votes still applies, such that in the worst case scenario a vote happy player will start with a character whose Verve Limit is in Crisis (0) and whose Ennui Limit is Legendary (1).

·   Each Trump chosen is then ranked according the Trait scale from Terrible to Spectacular.  No Trump may be rated as Legendary to start out.

·   Add up the numeric rating of all the character's Trump.  Then create an equal total value of Anchors for the character.  For example, if your character has Three Trump all rated at Spectacular, you need to pick any number of Anchors whose ratings add up to 27.  Anchors are connections to the Consensual Hallucination that should connect to the premise in some way, provide the character with story hooks that allow an exploration of the premise, and provide a potential for significant threat/weakness/damage to the character.  Example Anchor: One of Jumpin' Jack Flash's Trumps is "Secrets".  A fitting Anchor for him might be "Jack is unnaturally curious and nosy, and can't help but try and uncover any secret(s) he comes into contact with".  One of Thornton's Trumps is "Violence".  A fitting Anchor for him might be "Thornton's Son rules a power street gang in Chicago attempting to dominate local drug markets through violent street warfare."

o   Note that a character with any Anchor whose numeric value is greater than the numeric value of their Ennui Limit is in Crisis – and in danger of losing rather than resolving the Anchor.  Resolving Anchors is one of the ways players can advance their Incarnate Protagonist toward eventually victory – losing an Anchor is a good way to loose ground relative to the other players.

·   Finally, pick a number of Aptitudes and rank them from Terrible to Legendary.  Aptitudes are usually broad areas of study/competence/skill sets that represent what the character has specific and special experience/talent with.  Example Aptitudes: Cunning, Ancient Kung-Fu Master, Over the road Truck Driver, Jedi Knight, Super Strong, Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound, Crack-shot, Daredevil.

Cheers.

[Spooky Fanboy]

So this is kinda Narrativist-style Mage, with the players coming up with limitations and setting parameters like in Universalis? Any guidelines for this? I hope so, because if not, this thing could go off the tracks pretty quickly.

Consensual Hallucination being neutral or hostile is good to start, as is making Reality a character in the game. Nice touch!

But there should be some guidelines as to how many points/levels to put into Stunts/Skills/etc.

Please continue to explain. I like already, but some examples of play might be nice.

[Spooky Fanboy]

Incarnate asks that the Troupe, during character creation, create a character for the Consensual Hallucination.  The CH, in effect, is personified, or more appropriately protagonized by providing CH creation rules analogous to the character creation rules.  Typically, the Game Master (regardless of whether the Troupe chose a single GM or is choosing to share the GM role) controls the CH.  While the CH-as-character concept is central to the rules mechanics, the CH-Character will probably never actually appear or manifest as a personified entity – but may be played with a sort of subtle undercurrent of passive aggressive personality by experienced Incarnate GMs who want to turn up the paranoia and competition.

Okay, but in a practical sense, how is this done? How is the Total of Phenomenal Reality statted up? And how does it enter into conflict with players? How does this change if the Troupe decides to go with a more neutral stance, with everyone responsible for deciding the world?

One thing to note about this style of play, however, is that the Troupe as a whole, and by consensus, acts as the referee of any rules issues that may arise.  In many mainstream RPGs, this duty of enforcing the rules and ensuring their fair application and adjudication amongst the players typically falls under the sole authority of the GM – with accompanying admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible.

What guidelines/rules do they enforce?  

Should a consensus be impossible for the Troupe to reach, each player can sacrifice one level of Verve (or gain 1 level of Ennui if their Verve is down to 1 or 0) in order to veto a given decision.

Okay, so if you disagree with a proposed rule, you lose a chunk of character strength. Somehow, I think Universalis had a better way of negotiating the world rules. I dislike having to hurt my character just to overrule a law of the world that I dislike, or that I believe is poorly implemented.  

·   All Incarnate start out with Physical, Mental and Emotional Limits of Legendary (10).

Does this decrease if their Verve drops due to voting?

·   Using free association, come up with a set of words/concepts that relate to the Incarnate's paradigm.  These words or concepts become the Incarnate's Trump – the functional source of their power within the game world.  Trump represent an Incarnate's control over the substance of the word/concept, and allow the Incarnate to accomplish astonishing feats during play called Stunts.  No set limit on the number of Trump is placed on any player's Incarnate – except Troupe Consensus.  Should veto voting be required at this point, the vetoing players either lose one level of Verve from their character, or gain one level of Ennui – depending (see above).  Note that the overall limit of 20 votes still applies, such that in the worst case scenario a vote happy player will start with a character whose Verve Limit is in Crisis (0) and whose Ennui Limit is Legendary (1).

Wouldn't the Ennui be up to 10 if the player used all the Vetoes?

·   Each Trump chosen is then ranked according the Trait scale from Terrible to Spectacular.  No Trump may be rated as Legendary to start out.

·   Add up the numeric rating of all the character's Trump.  Then create an equal total value of Anchors for the character.  For example, if your character has Three Trump all rated at Spectacular, you need to pick any number of Anchors whose ratings add up to 27.  Anchors are connections to the Consensual Hallucination that should connect to the premise in some way, provide the character with story hooks that allow an exploration of the premise, and provide a potential for significant threat/weakness/damage to the character.  Example Anchor: One of Jumpin' Jack Flash's Trumps is "Secrets".  A fitting Anchor for him might be "Jack is unnaturally curious and nosy, and can't help but try and uncover any secret(s) he comes into contact with".  One of Thornton's Trumps is "Violence".  A fitting Anchor for him might be "Thornton's Son rules a power street gang in Chicago attempting to dominate local drug markets through violent street warfare."

Okay, so the strength of the Trumps is based on the strength of the Anchors (ties to the Consensual Hallucination.) This makes sense, and I applaud.

o   Note that a character with any Anchor whose numeric value is greater than the numeric value of their Ennui Limit is in Crisis – and in danger of losing rather than resolving the Anchor.  Resolving Anchors is one of the ways players can advance their Incarnate Protagonist toward eventually victory – losing an Anchor is a good way to loose ground relative to the other players.

So, resolving the problems found in Anchors is the "experience system" for Incarnate? Also, why does having a high Anchor value put the character In Crisis?

·   Finally, pick a number of Aptitudes and rank them from Terrible to Legendary.  Aptitudes are usually broad areas of study/competence/skill sets that represent what the character has specific and special experience/talent with.  Example Aptitudes: Cunning, Ancient Kung-Fu Master, Over the road Truck Driver, Jedi Knight, Super Strong, Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound, Crack-shot, Daredevil.

What are these tied to? Are the skill number and ranking totals completely arbitrary? If not, how are they determined?

Play examples to demonstrate these concepts would help immensely. As it is, I have only the vaguest idea how this think is supposed to work.

[deadpanbob]

Okay, but in a practical sense, how is this done? How is the Total of Phenomenal Reality statted up? And how does it enter into conflict with players? How does this change if the Troupe decides to go with a more neutral stance, with everyone responsible for deciding the world?

Well, I haven't posted my notes on this yet, but suffice it say there are rules for providing stats for the CH.

The CH is comprised of several things - first is The Limit - also called Gravitas - which acts for the CH in a similar fashion to the way Verve works for the players.  This starts out at Legendary at the beginning of each scene, and may flucuate during the scene based on the actions of any Protagonists involved in the scene.

Second, the CH has a resource called Unintended Consequence (or UC), which is a pool of points rated for each Trump that the Protagonists have.  FREX - In a Troupe with 5 players with a constant GM (and thus 4 Protagonists), the CH has one UC score for each Trump held by each Protagonist.  So if the 4 Protagonists have a total of 12 Trump between them, the CH has 12 UC scores to keep track of.  Every time a Protagonists succeeds in using a Trump, that UC score on the CH gets a point (or more depending on Slams and Grand Salms).  The CH can then use these unintended consequences as a resource against other characters in other scenes.

Finally, the CH has Codicils, or world laws, which are rated on the Trait Scale from Terrible to Legendary.  These would be the genre/milieu expectations/classic bits that the CH could attempt to enforce during play.

The CH is built the same way, regardless of whether or not a hostile CH is chosen.

The CH conflicts with Protagonists pretty much at the whim of the current GM - but will be at least tacitly involved in all conflicts that could be described as Man vs. his Environmnet.

What guidelines/rules do they enforce?  

The Troupe acts as rules lawyer/referee for all disputes.  Rather than leave one person responsible for deciding if a particular rule applies, or how to apply a particular rule - the whole Troupe decides these issues by Consensus.

Okay, so if you disagree with a proposed rule, you lose a chunk of character strength. Somehow, I think Universalis had a better way of negotiating the world rules. I dislike having to hurt my character just to overrule a law of the world that I dislike, or that I believe is poorly implemented.  

The actual rules by which the game is played (The Mechanics that haven't been posted yet) are not up for grabs - merely the structure and nature of 'reality'.  And my intent was to force the players to make a choice: either rule by consensus with the Troupe or give up some of your character's power.  If you want something badly enough at the social contract level, you have to pay for it.

I consider this a feature, and in playtest this has tended to force players to deal with issues at the social contract level via consensus, and only to spend Verve when they really, really wanted something contrary to that consensus.

Does this decrease if their Verve drops due to voting?

Nope.  All Incarnate start with Legendary Character limits.  If they choose to lower those limits themselves at character creation in order to play, what is to them the player, a more balanced or fun character, they may do so.  They get nothing in return.

Wouldn't the Ennui be up to 10 if the player used all the Vetoes?

Nope.  It may not be clear from the notes above, but Ennui is the one thing Incarnate that is measured in reverse on the trait scale.  Normally, a value of 10 is a Legendary value and a value of 1 is a Terrible value.  That's reversed for Ennui, so that a value of 10 is a Terrible Ennui and a value of 1 is a Legendary Ennui.  Why that is so will become clear once I semi-organize my mehcanics and post them.

Okay, so the strength of the Trumps is based on the strength of the Anchors (ties to the Consensual Hallucination.) This makes sense, and I applaud.

Thanks.

So, resolving the problems found in Anchors is the "experience system" for Incarnate? Also, why does having a high Anchor value put the character In Crisis?

While it's not clear from my notes above probably, what I meant to say was that any Anchor whose value was higher than the character's current Ennui value is said to be 'in crisis' and in danger of being lost rather than resolved.  It is a game mechanic way of demanding a character's attention for a span of time.

Resolving Anchors represents one of two componenets necessary to advance in rank amongst the Incarante (i.e. satisfy the victory condition established by the Troupe).  Again, this is a topic that will become hopefully more clear once I get the mechanics posted.

What are these tied to? Are the skill number and ranking totals completely arbitrary? If not, how are they determined?

Yes, they are totally arbitrary in the sense that no points or spent, nor is any kind of game balance sought.  But, since characters are to be made in full view of the rest of the Troupe, and since the Troupe has to consensually agree to any aptitude/rating

Play examples to demonstrate these concepts would help immensely. As it is, I have only the vaguest idea how this think is supposed to work.

Yep.  I've got substantial play test notes that I will hopefully organize and post.

I really appreciate the feedback, and the thoughtful suggestions.  It may in fact be that once I've gotten everything posted/published in some form or fashion that you won't like the direction this game is going.  I do have a clear vision of what I'm trying to achieve.

In true Forge/GNS fashion, I'm trying to write a set of mechanics that support Gamist and/or Narrativist play, depending on how a few options at the Social Contrat level are set.  In other words, I'm creating a game that caters to my typical GNS profile.

I'm also going to be creating a basline setting for the game that ressonates with my own hobbyists interest in the Culture of Paranoia (you know, the Priory of Zion, the Knights Templar etc.)

Cheers.

[RobMuadib]

DPBob

Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player. Perhaps CH guide or something similar, since GM carries alot of expectations. You have already divested the rules adjudication from the role, reserving it to the entire group. SO calling him the GM means you have to undefine certain aspects of that term, and redefinite it for your game, which is likely to cause some confusion for potential  players.

Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

Since you have postualted the vote mechanic as a kind of punishment, you are going to want to have some solid, practical advice on how to come to a consensus without using the vetos (going to war, to be current eventish.)

Another huge area IMO that you kind of gloss over is this part

The Troupe decides what the starting conflict will be and what resources, settings, props and personae are involved in the starting conflict. Consensus again is encouraged, but players may cast votes to add something rejected by the group or reject something added by another player. They should also choose a starting Premise – with the default Premise being something like: "What price would you pay for ultimate Power?"

What conflict, the basic conflict I see is the ascension of your protagonist, right? Is this some secondary world based conflict? The Premise bit seems kind of second hand to me, and likely to be ignored in favor of the more solid gamist premise, if only by the sheer weight of the gamist facilitating rules, it seems to me.

I have run up against the fact that the meta-game elements that are kind of glossed over here so far, are the most trying to develop mechanics and play guidelines for. If only because it is hasn't been done. I am still struggling a bit with developing meta-game elements and process for TMW.

So how do the anchors work? The meta-physical resolution of these elements seems kind of shakey at the moment. Is resolving them divesting yourself of them, thus to truly transcend your worldly bonds or what? This is the chief means of scoring, so how does it work? Also, how about talking more about the whole Pyramid Scheme to remaking the world in your image, that is the victory condition bit.

How about some more discussion on the use of Verve/Ennui (not terribly fond of these terms btw, kind of a weak wishy washy existential angst connation that doesn't represent the reality shaking importance of them.)

So I guess I am more interested in the meta-gamey elements and explanation of how-to play, because like the typical action resolution & character creation type stuff is kind of easy to do, if only because of precedent and familiarity.

best

[deadpanbob]

DPBob
Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

I'll do a search on the game title and see what pops up on the Forge.  Any other places online where I can find information about your game?

BTW - I need to do a major update to the website.  There are about three different versions of the game represented on my site - and none of them are the current version.  Since this is a hobby for me, I don't have a hard and fast schedule, but I'm hoping to be able to get the website fully updated in the next two weeks or so.

So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player.

I completely agree that the terminology needs to change - that GM carries it's own baggage in the form of players' expectations.  I'm still in the process of trying out terms for this, so GM makes a good placeholder for me - and that's all it is.

Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

Yet another area that's not been fully explored in the rules, but that I have notes and outlines for.  Essentially, each player will, throughout the course of a given game session, play Extras and/or Supporting Cast when their Protagonist isn't involved in a given scene.

Since you have postualted the vote mechanic as a kind of punishment, you are going to want to have some solid, practical advice on how to come to a consensus without using the vetos (going to war, to be current eventish.)

I agree to an extent - but I'm not an expert in conflict resolution.  I'll do the best I can from my experience.  This type of advice text will probably be just about the last element to go into the final draft of the game.
Another huge area IMO that you kind of gloss over is this part

What conflict, the basic conflict I see is the ascension of your protagonist, right? Is this some secondary world based conflict? The Premise bit seems kind of second hand to me, and likely to be ignored in favor of the more solid gamist premise, if only by the sheer weight of the gamist facilitating rules, it seems to me.

Well, conflict is the fuel for the game.  And you are right that the ascension-competition will be the primary conflict in the default setting.  I'm also shooting for the Troupe to be able to determine a different default conflict when choosing the neutral version of the CH.  

I was actually hoping that the mechanics could facilitate narrativist play in a primary role as well.  In playtests, making the CH neutral and allowing for everyone in the Troupe to help define the over-arching conflict of the story really help to bring out the narrativist elements of the mechanics.  However, that may just be a result of the preferences of the playtest group.

I have run up against the fact that the meta-game elements that are kind of glossed over here so far, are the most trying to develop mechanics and play guidelines for. If only because it is hasn't been done. I am still struggling a bit with developing meta-game elements and process for TMW.

I agree to an extent.  I would tell you that careful assessment of the interactions between the various elements of the game (the Fortune mechanic, Resources, Effective Values, etc) is a good place to start.  I've also found that the meta-game mechanics/aspects of the mechanics started to emerge as I stamped out as much of the layering in character creation as possible.  Finally, by trying to think about the currency flows within the game during play, and paying attention to any preceived or actual exchange rates have helped me to get all of the kinks worked out.

All of this required playtesting, and gathering feedback from the playtesters.  Which, coincidently, also provides some good information for providing play guidelines.

So how do the anchors work? The meta-physical resolution of these elements seems kind of shakey at the moment. Is resolving them divesting yourself of them, thus to truly transcend your worldly bonds or what? This is the chief means of scoring, so how does it work? Also, how about talking more about the whole Pyramid Scheme to remaking the world in your image, that is the victory condition bit.

All of this needs better treatment, you are correct.  Resoloving the Anchors is pretty much at the control of the player.  I haven't touched on that yet.  Essentially, as long as the Protagonist is successfully dealing with any conflicts involving an Anchor (whether the player set up that conflict or another did), they are moving toward resolving the Anchor.

Metaphysically, resolvoing the Anchors is exactly designed to represent transcending worldly bonds.

My original idea behind the Pyramid Scheme was to have Anchors defining the Protagonists' place on the Pyramid - but this failed pretty miserably in playtest.  I'm still working on how to fix this - whether or not I need another character element for it.  I'm toying with making the Protagonists' ranking on the Pyramid an element of the CH's character.

How about some more discussion on the use of Verve/Ennui (not terribly fond of these terms btw, kind of a weak wishy washy existential angst connation that doesn't represent the reality shaking importance of them.)

Yep, another area that needs more treatment in the available information about the game - but an area that's pretty fully developed.  Terminology is tough.  I started with Dissonance and Resonnance - but that evoked images of In Nomine with a couple of people here.

Another option considered was Ego/Participation - which didn't work for me either.

Any suggestions regarding terminology would be greatly appreciated.

So I guess I am more interested in the meta-gamey elements and explanation of how-to play, because like the typical action resolution & character creation type stuff is kind of easy to do, if only because of precedent and familiarity.

Well, easy for you maybe.  I started this game over a year ago.  Six or seven months ago, I brought it to the Forge, and a couple of helpful elders looked it over.  In short, I was using incoherent, mostly SIM facilitating mechanics while espousing gamist/narrativist playstyles.  While I'm still not convinced that GNS is the end all be all of RPG theory, in thinking through these issues my action resolution has become much clearer.

Once I get the actual mechanics of play as they exist now posted, you'll begin to see how the action reolution and meta-game levels work in concert.

Thanks for the good feedback - it's much appreciated.

Cheers.

[Spooky Fanboy]

So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player.

I completely agree that the terminology needs to change - that GM carries it's own baggage in the form of players' expectations.  I'm still in the process of trying out terms for this, so GM makes a good placeholder for me - and that's all it is.

King of the Mountain? Puppeteer? Master Conspirator?

Yep, another area that needs more treatment in the available information about the game - but an area that's pretty fully developed.  Terminology is tough.  I started with Dissonance and Resonnance - but that evoked images of In Nomine with a couple of people here.

Another option considered was Ego/Participation - which didn't work for me either.

Any suggestions regarding terminology would be greatly appreciated.

Ambition/Submission? Epiphany/Mundanity?

[RobMuadib]

Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

I'll do a search on the game title and see what pops up on the Forge.  Any other places online where I can find information about your game?

DPBob

I have a website for it, that is also terribly outdated:) it is at
http://www.wildmuse.com/games/. I also have a yahoogroups group about it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmdesignforum, it is just a design journal deal about it. THe most pertinent threads to read on the forge are TMW:COTEC - Why You SHOULD Care (Long) (updated) andTMW:COTEC Game Concepts Shared Play pdf

That should give you plent of info in terms of what my game is about. I am currently in the process of rewriting the Game Concepts: Metaplay chapter, which lays out all the high-level metagame stuff involved, with the players designing the game world, and setting up narratives, using collaborative means.

Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

Yet another area that's not been fully explored in the rules, but that I have notes and outlines for.  Essentially, each player will, throughout the course of a given game session, play Extras and/or Supporting Cast when their Protagonist isn't involved in a given scene.

I plan to adress the same thing in my system (Ars magica, Aria, and Universalis are all big influences in terms of the metagame stuff for TMW:COTEC) with three types of characters, Lead Personae, Supporting Personae, and Background Personae

What conflict, the basic conflict I see is the ascension of your protagonist, right? Is this some secondary world based conflict? The Premise bit seems kind of second hand to me, and likely to be ignored in favor of the more solid gamist premise, if only by the sheer weight of the gamist facilitating rules, it seems to me.

Well, conflict is the fuel for the game.  And you are right that the ascension-competition will be the primary conflict in the default setting.  I'm also shooting for the Troupe to be able to determine a different default conflict when choosing the neutral version of the CH.  

I was actually hoping that the mechanics could facilitate narrativist play in a primary role as well.  In playtests, making the CH neutral and allowing for everyone in the Troupe to help define the over-arching conflict of the story really help to bring out the narrativist elements of the mechanics.  However, that may just be a result of the preferences of the playtest group.

Sounds doable, I am trying to define the methods and procedures for doing this metagame stuff in a pretty easy to understand step-by-step method in my current revision. I definitely believe having plenty of clear directions and example of play is going to be necessary for people to "get" the more meta-game heavy play style. Since so much of this stuff is usually glossed over or made implicit in traditional games, and player only need to focus on the narrative/character level stuff. Even in Ars Magica the meta-game elements are well defined.

There are pretty much no games out there that have a collaborative meta-system at the top level. So it is kind of new ground. Oh that reminds me, one good system to read is Ian Millington's Ergo, he has quite a few good ideas about top-level collaborative meta-system stuff in there. It has certainly informed my work on the metaplay chapter. you can find Ergo on http://www.collaborativeroleplay.org/

How about some more discussion on the use of Verve/Ennui (not terribly fond of these terms btw, kind of a weak wishy washy existential angst connation that doesn't represent the reality shaking importance of them.)

Yep, another area that needs more treatment in the available information about the game - but an area that's pretty fully developed.  Terminology is tough.  I started with Dissonance and Resonnance - but that evoked images of In Nomine with a couple of people here.

Another option considered was Ego/Participation - which didn't work for me either.

Any suggestions regarding terminology would be greatly appreciated.

Hmm, I'd probably go with Transcendence (There is no Spoon), and rate it as positive or negative, squishing your scale together.

best

[deadpanbob]

RobMauadib;

Thanks for the links to the threads and information about your game, I'll check them out as time permits ;-).

I also appreciate the link to Ergo, I'll look at that as well.

Hmm, I'd probably go with Transcendence (There is no Spoon), and rate it as positive or negative, squishing your scale together.

best

Well, I've toyed with using one sliding scale - but that doesn't get across mechanically what I'm trying to do.  In playtests using one scale, all of the players strove to keep their protagonists entirely in the positive (transcendent) side of the scale, and pretty much ignored working within the CH as a result.  I split accoradnce with the CH and transcendance from it into two scales/values/limits in order to, essentially, force the players to pay attention to both in an attempt to balance the concerns of Paradigm and Consensual Hallucination.

I may need to revisit this, however.

Cheers.

[Spooky Fanboy]

So, how is this beast coming along?

[deadpanbob]

So, how is this beast coming along?

In an appropriate and beastly way, I'm afraid.  I've got lots of RL stuff going on right now, and I'm afraid I'm on the Scattershot development track rather than the 24 hour RPG track.

I'm waiting until I run into a question/issue about the game to post the next update.

Thanks for checking back in, and I hope to have more information posted in the next couple of days.

Cheers,


Jason