Restricted Communication System

[mothlos]

I am working on a system for my friends and I to use and am needing a way to smooth out interactions between players.

The system as it stands is fairly simple, though far from complete. As I describe it, I will indicate where flexibility exists, other portions aren't available for alteration at this point.

Players take it in turns to authoritatively tell a portion of the story, but that portion must include the player's character. At the end of each player's turn that player indicates through a series of pre-defined cues the player's desire for where the scene should go (this cue system is still very sketchy).

Interjections during these turns are strictly forbidden as is dialogue between players, but the system still needs to allow players to address conflicting ideas about story direction.

The order of players is not enforced and some players may even be absent. The system should be able to withstand this.

I am looking for any advice or ideas people can provide about these aspects of this.

1: Given the restrictions of no interjections or inter-player dialogue, how can the system guide players to be both authoritative in their statements as well as mindful of the wishes of other players?

2: How can players correct what they see as abuse of authority by another player and realign the story given the communication restrictions?

3: How can the cue system play into this?

Any support would be appreciated.

[Glendower]

Interjections during these turns are strictly forbidden as is dialogue between players, but the system still needs to allow players to address conflicting ideas about story direction.

1: Given the restrictions of no interjections or inter-player dialogue, how can the system guide players to be both authoritative in their statements as well as mindful of the wishes of other players?

I suppose you could use some counters to vote on a conflicting idea, much like currency coins in the game Universalis.  Maybe each player has a veto card that they can play once the controlling player is completed his narration.

It might help to know the mechanical reasoning as as to why it's forbidden to talk to the other players.  I personally find restrictions in open communication to be very problematic.  Though it did work quite well as a "restriction that results in creative problem solving" in Primitive, which might make for a good game to gather ideas from.

[mothlos]

The reasoning is to make it adaptable to non face-to-face environments like PBEM, play by post, or short band radio.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

I see a few possible approaches here. The first is key phrases that are distinctive enough to stand out from regular narration, but not so odd that they can't be folded in fairly seamlessly. For instance, you could finish your narration with a series of phrases like "at least that's how I remember it" or "and let no one doubt that" and so on, each with some specific implication for game mechanics (like "I would not mind total contradiction here" or "I feel strongly about this part remaining a fact and am spending some resource to make it that way" respectively, or whatever).

Another idea, although harder to implement in pretty much every way, is some visual means of doing both cues and negotiations for story control, such as a board. (By "negotiations" I mean out-of-band communication about what's going into the story, who objects to it, and what their conditions and terms might be for allowing the narration into the game.) There's a game called Mridangam, published in the journal Push, that does this with a large list of complicated hand gestures. That right there is evidence that you could use just about anything. The difficulty arises when you have to take your game online and need to represent your visual communication channel somehow.

Finally, I wish someone would design a radio-play game that uses one of the various free plugins for Skype that adds sound effects to your voice. After all, don't people's internal thoughts always have reverb on them? :-)

[Lee-Anne O'Reilly]

1: Given the restrictions of no interjections or inter-player dialogue, how can the system guide players to be both authoritative in their statements as well as mindful of the wishes of other players?

What about limiting the player's baseline authority in type, scope or duration, while allowing them expanded authority when they address another player's wish? The system would delineate the baseline authority (perhaps by providing a structure for the player's turn). It would define to what extent the directional wish must be incorporated (must it be completely fulfilled, merely hinted at, etc.?). And it would define how the player's authority can be expanded (which might vary depending on number of wishes included, extent to which they are fulfilled, etc.).

The system might also need to handle rejection or modification of other players' wishes. Maybe a wish dies if it goes some number of turns without being used. Can a player choose to completely contradict another's wish? If so, do you prefer a penalty for that? Must the player purchase the authority to contradict a wish, perhaps with the same wish-fulfillment currency?

2: How can players correct what they see as abuse of authority by another player and realign the story given the communication restrictions?

I think I might need more information before I take a stab at this one.

Which types of authority are involved? How is it determined who's turn it is to narrate? How much of a story portion constitutes a player's turn? How/why do you imagine this abuse/perception-of-abuse would happen?

3: How can the cue system play into this?

I really like the notion of key phrases, as they'll adapt easily across your assorted play media.

If the player's turns are longish, or if the persistence of unaddressed wishes is important, you might consider how to pass earlier wishes along from turn to turn, to keep them fresh in everybody's minds. Maybe have each player cue all unaddressed wishes along with their own? Then failure to cue another's wish also becomes significant.

[mothlos]

What about limiting the player's baseline authority in type, scope or duration, while allowing them expanded authority when they address another player's wish?

The only question I have is how can the normal bounds of authority be limited in such a way as to not be arbitrarily restrictive. I can see something like "no killing a PC without a wish", but what about killing an NPC important to a player?

Perhaps authority should by default be broad, but player wishes could restrict authority?

The system might also need to handle rejection or modification of other players' wishes. Maybe a wish dies if it goes some number of turns without being used. Can a player choose to completely contradict another's wish? If so, do you prefer a penalty for that? Must the player purchase the authority to contradict a wish, perhaps with the same wish-fulfillment currency?

I really like this, though I am beginning to think that not all wishes are created equal. Perhaps fully counteracting a wish requires collaboration by more than one player. The first player does a setup and indicates the wish to counteract a player wish then another player has a limited amount of time for the deathblow. Perhaps another player could also counter the counter and save the wish.

I think I might need more information before I take a stab at this one.

Which types of authority are involved? How is it determined who's turn it is to narrate? How much of a story portion constitutes a player's turn? How/why do you imagine this abuse/perception-of-abuse would happen?

I am concerned about the interplay between the restrictions in the communication schemes involved and the pacing of the game. I want players to be able to push a lot of story in a turn and to do that, the player needs to not feel overly burdened by requiring feedback from other players.

I feel pretty confident that this level of control is going to allow a player to move the story in a way which another player strongly objects to in a single post and without the ability to interject or negotiate or even thoroughly discuss this, the game goes downhill for that player far too quickly. I want players to be able to feel like they can fix things when they go terribly wrong, though I do want to keep the ability for things to go terribly wrong from time to time.

Turn order for some of these communication media are most easily first-come first-served, though some are not. I would prefer to continue on the assumption that anybody might take a turn next and the actual process of deciding the next turn shouldn't play into these ideas.

I really like the notion of key phrases, as they'll adapt easily across your assorted play media.

I have been drawn to them slowly. How role playing is a different beast in my mind than it was 5 years ago.

If the player's turns are longish, or if the persistence of unaddressed wishes is important, you might consider how to pass earlier wishes along from turn to turn, to keep them fresh in everybody's minds. Maybe have each player cue all unaddressed wishes along with their own? Then failure to cue another's wish also becomes significant.

Oooh, very nice idea. Must ponder this one a bit.