TMW:COTEC - Rewards Systems Costs (LONGISH)

[RobMuadib]

Hi all

I have put together the tentative rules for the Rewards System Costs, and
was wondering how you guys think this would work.

The essential concept here, in terms of introducing Game Entities, is to tie the Nomenar System,into the point system of the Design Architecture. I
believe I have come upwith a functional concept for how to do this. Same
with regards to the Design Royalties for designing game entites.

Anyway, here it is.

Reward System - Costs
==========================================
Ok, we need to establish some of the Costs involved
with the Rewards System, the two main things being the
rewards of Designing Game Entities, and the Costs of
Scripts, better establish Proprietorship, and
Royalties Ideas.

Note, the Game will have 5 Major Design Systems - The Persona Creation
System, The Metabilities System (Which the other systems will be based
off of for the most part), which includes the Magic, Psi, and SuperPower
subsystems, The Tech Design System, which defines tech base/ skill tree
and includes the Vehicle, Weapon, and Gear Subsystems. The Setting
Design System, which includes the Environment, Society/Culture, &
Economic Design Systems, The Creature Design System, which includes
Race/Species and Monster/Animal design subsystems.

Note the chief focus of the Setting Design will be developing these
elements with regards to Persona Perks/Advantages/Disadvantages, thus
the system will focus on what kinds of Reputations, Wealth, Status, etc
is available to character, system will be Archetypal focusing on
Template type creation. Enough detail for varied design, but not
exhaustive

Design Rewards
============================================

Design Rewards will be based on the Scope of The Game Entity, relative
to a Persona, for the most part. With Persona/Individual Effect items
being worth only 1 Nomenar. While Items with larger Scope, say Races,
Cultures, meta-ability Systems, Nations, Citys, etc will carry a larger
reward, up to the maximum for World/Universe affecting Game Entities.
Note, these are relative to the Narrative Enviroment. For instance, in
a Galaxy Spanning SF campaign, you would consider these relative to
the overall Narrative Environment.

Game Entity Rewards
Scope         Reward
---------------------------------------------------
Persona       1 (Single spell/Weapon/Vehicle/misc Equip)
Local      2 (Village/Neighborhood/Building/Small Group/Family, Large Vehicle,etc.)
Greater Area   3-4(City,Clan/Tribe,Small Sub-Culture,Sub-Dialect,)
Region/State   5-6 (Region, State, Large Group, Organization, Dialect, Sub-Species)
Continent/Nation   7-8 (Culture, Nation, Religion, Race/Species, Language, Class of Meta-ability/Tech, Skill Tree)
World/Universe   9-10 (Meta-Ability System, Tech System, Meta-Physics/Cosmology, )

The Scope+1 is converted to a Nomenar reward via the Cost Factor Table,
such that it follows a Triangular Progression. i.e an Entity with
a scope of 1, would yield 3 Nomenar, an item with a Scope of 5 would
earn 21, a scope of 7 would yield 36 Nomenar, while a Scope of 10
would earn 66 Nomenar.

Scripts
============================================

Idea of Introducing Game Entities is to base them on Effect/Power
relative to a Persona. As part of the "Reality Rules", Persona's are
assigned a Default number of Creation Points, average for "Action" level
protagonists is 10 CP. The players then assign a number of CP's to each
Trait Category, subject to limits based on the "Reality Rules" being
used. These CP then earn them a number of specialised points with which
to spend on that Trait Category. The more CP spent, the proportionaly
greater number of points they get to buy those particular Traits. This
is based on a Triangular Progression the same as the Trait Costs are
set.


Introducing Entities
--------------------------------------
Nomenar then, can be spent directly to Introduce Entites based on their
number of CP. Players don't have to define everything about a Persona
when introducing it. They can elect to just spend 1 Nomenar, which
basically gives the character a Role/Description within the Narrative,
and abilities equivalent to an Incompetent character (1CP). If they wish
the Persona to have greater abilities, they must invest more Nomenar in
order to introduce those abilities to the Narrative, this must be done
before the Traits are used to resolve an in-game situation. Thus it is
most practical to design Persona's beforehand if they are likely to see
much use within the game system, such as entering combat with other
Personae, etc. The Nomenar spent this way are paid to the "House"

Note, besides Personae, players can Introduce Non-character Entities,
such as Weapons/Equipment, Vehicles, Buildings, Locations, etc. They can
also introduce "Effects" that will affect character in a location, these
effects are usually defined by use of the Metability Design Framework.
For instance, introducing a raging thunderstorm could be represented by
introducing an effect of a Darkness Power, Plus other Environmental
Effects. The Power Score associated with this effect would be used to
adjudicate the effect on the Personae.

Introducing Multiple Entities
----------------------------------------------
If a player wants to introduce multiple "copies" of the same
Game Entity into a Narrative, he can do so by first paying the Entities
base cost, plus a cost based on the number being introduced.
For instance, if a player wanted to introduce 5 guards into
a Narrative, he would pay the basic cost for the Guards, plus
the amount indicated on the Multiple Entities Cost Chart,
show below.

# Of Entites      Additional Cost
-----------------------------------------------
2         1
3         2
4         3
5-6         4
7-10         5
11-16         6
17-25         7
26-40         8
41-60         9
61-100         10
+x10         +5

So to introduce 5 Skilled Guards would cost 5 Nomenar, plus 4 for
the Number of Entities, so the cost would 9 Nomenar to introduce
the 5 guards into the scene.

Introducing Events/Facts
-----------------------------------------------

Nomenar can also be used to introduce Events into a Narrative. These
typicall cost only 1 Nomenar, unless that Event/Fact had, or will have
a direct mechanical effect on the Personae, which did not occur by In-
Game Play. So saying that the Personae had been captured by slavers and
escaped to arrive at the present location within the narrative, without
suffering any effects, would only cost 1 Nomenar to establish. However,
if the player wanted to have the players captured by slavers he would
have to pay to affect each Personae, including injuries to the
Personae, loss of equipment, etc. These payments are made to the
"House"

The cost of these would differ depending on how the Narrative Guide
wanted to qualify them. He could simply pay Nomenar costs for reducing
injury to a Persona to instead cause that much damage outright. Removing
equipment would be similar to acquiring a negative Perk, etc. So long
as Nomenar are paid to establish the facts. However, this is of course,
limited by Challenges by the other players.

In general, when the Narrative Guide is framing a Scene he can pay
Nomenar to establish a Fact. If that Fact has no direct mechanical
effect on the Personae it can be established by an "ante" of 1 Nomenar.
However, if the Narrative Guide wants to impose mechanical Effects, then
he must pay additional Nomenar sufficient to create those Effects within
the Narrative, as represented by paying for the relevant Effects, this
is often done via paying for One Use Effects.

If the Narrative Guide is applying this to multiple characters,
he can use the Multiple Entity guidelines above to establish the cost
in Nomenar.

Introducing Narrative Expectations
-------------------------------------

In addition to introducing Entities, Events & Facts, Narrative Guides
can introduce Narrative Expectations into the Narrative. A Narrative
Expectation acts much like a Character Expectation imposed by
Disadvantages. The Narrative Guide must pay 1 Nomenar for each Personae
to be targeted by the Narrative Expectation. In addition to the Ante,
the player must pay a cost for the Expectation equal to a similar
Disadvantage Traits as explained in the Disadvantages section.

The Personae Guide for that Personae can then choose to accept that
Narrative Expectation by taking the Nomenar, or refuse it. If he
refuses it, he is free to ignore the Narrative Expectation, but he
is not eligible for any Narrative Reward from that Narrative Expectation
then. The Narrative Rewards from such a Narrative Expectation are
paid from the House, upon the Personae meeting the Narrative
Expectation.

So to introduce a little girl needing help by the PC's, the Narrative
Guide would pay 1 Nomenar for each Personae he wishes to have affected
by it, and then pay the Cost of establishing a Dependent NPC that the
Personae's Guide could choose to take on. Thereby making him eligible
for a Narrative Reward from the "House". The "cost" of these
Disadvantages are rated on a simple point scale, so a 1 point
disadvantage would be minor. While a 5 point disadvantage would be
Major. Based on the point value of the Disadvantage, the Player of that
Personae will earn a number of Nomenar determined by comparing the Point
Value of the Disadvantage of the Cost Factor Chart.


Investing In Entites
--------------------------------------------------------

There are two main means to invest Nomenar into a Game Entity. First,
you can Invest in an Entity to provide that Entity with "Hero Points".
Hero Points let a Personae Guide alter the odds in favor of their
character, and depending on the Reality Rules being used, reduce
the effect of certain game mechanics on the Personae. The Number of
Nomenar invested are converted into Hero Points using the
Cost Factor chart.

The second means to invest in a Game Entity is to alter it's Traits.
To do so, you spend a number of Nomenar which provide you with a Number
of CP to invest in a Trait Category, thus earning a number of points
with which to purchase or improve Traits in that category.

[RobMuadib]

Hey all

Woke up this morning <insert blues baseline> and realized I had made
a minor mistake in setting up the Introduction of Personae rule.

Instead, it should cost a base of 1 Nomenar to introduce a Persona. This
basically gives you a simple role for a character, an extra, that can have a line or two, as it were, that also counts as an Incompetent Character. Now, you can spend additional Nomenar on this character to earn addition CP's for him as follows. These additional Nomenar earn proportionaly more CP's for the character, following the Triangular progression as shown below.

Nomenar                   CP's
----------------------------------------------
0                               1
1                               3
2                               6
3                              10
4                              15
5                              21
6                              28
7                              36
8                              45
9                              55
10                            66
11                            78
12                            91
13                           105
14                           120
15                           136
16                           153
17                           171
18                           190
19                           210
20                           231


This provides a convenient means to introduce characters while still providing a weighting towards how much effectiveness they are like to have, and thus potential impact on the Narrative.

TFYI

[RobMuadib]

Hey guys

Noticed that I hadn't focused my post with the areas I was hoping for some feedback on, so I thought I would reiterate what the concepts on which I would like some feedback.

First, what do you guys think of the idea of making Design Rewards/Royalties be based on the "Scope" the Game Entity designed?
To me, that would equate it to the players overall contribution to the game
world.

Second, what do you guys think of the idea of the cost of Introducing Game Entities being based on the power/effectiveness of the Game Entity, as represented by the number of CP's used to design it? The assumption being that the larger the number of CP an Entity has been designed with, the greater impact and effectiveness it will have on in-game events.

Third, what do you think of tying the cost of the "Narration" of events and facts relative to their game mechanical effect on the Personae?

Lastly, what do you think of the system I described for handling Persona Disadvantages, via the "Point Rating" system. As well as introducing Narrative Expectations and rewards? Oh, and the idea of players only earning Nomenar for a Disadvantage when they actively portray that disadvantage within the current Narrative.

For "Mechanical/Physical" Disadvantages, this is ensuring they suffer appropriate penalties and such, such as for being blind, or having one leg, or whatever. (Oh, since the Disadvantages don't gain you any immediate rewards, and don't contribute more points to effectiveness, I don't see any particular incentive for playing one-eyed, one-armed, albino hunchbacks in the game.)

Oh, I was also considering having "Mechanical" psych traits, along the lines of Hero System with it's Psych limitations, as well as Passion type traits similar to Pendragon (though not pairs and such). Such that if the player's passion/limitation is called into play, he must make a roll, and depending on the level of Success of this Test, then he must take action towards that Passion/Limitation, etc commensurate with the success of that roll. With irrational actions by the character a result of extreme success levels.  

Anyway, just some ideas I had on which I would like some feedback.

TFYI

[Mike Holmes]

First, what do you guys think of the idea of making Design Rewards/Royalties be based on the "Scope" the Game Entity designed?
To me, that would equate it to the players overall contribution to the game
world.

Potentially problematic. If a player writes ten pages on a single building, and another writes one page on a whole continent, who should get the larger reward? I see people creating big, realtively undefined stuff just because the reward is greater. The reward should be linked to volume and quantity of content, not what the thing can potentially effect. I'd make this an explicit ability of the Setting Guide. He just looks at the item, and picks a value that he thinks represents the quality and content offered. If the player thinks he's being shorted, he can decide not to submit. Thereby a sort of market forms. Challenges will also affect this, of course.

Second, what do you guys think of the idea of the cost of Introducing Game Entities being based on the power/effectiveness of the Game Entity, as represented by the number of CP's used to design it? The assumption being that the larger the number of CP an Entity has been designed with, the greater impact and effectiveness it will have on in-game events.

This seems straighforward enough. Given the nature of the game, I think it's totally appropriate. I also think that there should be no CP, and HP, just Nomenar. To avoid conversion rates, and the need to record multiple pools. This shouldn't be difficult as the values for the metagame stuff can be arbitrary.

Third, what do you think of tying the cost of the "Narration" of events and facts relative to their game mechanical effect on the Personae?

Excellent idea. This is exactly what I did with Synthesis. We'll have to wait on the specific mechanics to see if it all works together, mechanically. (I'm finding that Synthesis does not work quite like how I wanted it to, FWIW.)

Lastly, what do you think of the system I described for handling Persona Disadvantages, via the "Point Rating" system. As well as introducing Narrative Expectations and rewards? Oh, and the idea of players only earning Nomenar for a Disadvantage when they actively portray that disadvantage within the current Narrative.

Makes sense. And follows current theory. Assuming I'm reading it correctly. I may be making certain assumptions about how it works.

Oh, I was also considering having "Mechanical" psych traits, along the lines of Hero System with it's Psych limitations, as well as Passion type traits similar to Pendragon (though not pairs and such). Such that if the player's passion/limitation is called into play, he must make a roll, and depending on the level of Success of this Test, then he must take action towards that Passion/Limitation, etc commensurate with the success of that roll. With irrational actions by the character a result of extreme success levels.

Very cool. I'd definitely go with that. What it means is that if a player doesn't know how a character will react, he can roll, and use the outcome for inspiration. Do this sort of thing enough, and the world will come to life, and start to run itself.

Mike

[Tony Irwin]

First, what do you guys think of the idea of making Design Rewards/Royalties be based on the "Scope" the Game Entity designed?
To me, that would equate it to the players overall contribution to the game
world.

Well I think when you talked about Royalties in your other thread, the designing player got the reward everytime someone actually made use of their creation. You also mentioned the possibility of creating something as "shared" which would have a lower design cost (or introduction cost) in return for giving cheaper access to everyone who wants to use it.

I much prefer that approach - for example if I create a little field mouse called "Song" that everybody just adores and constantly wants to involve then I'd be hoping for better rewards than the guy who creates some interstellar race which he ripped right out of star trek and nobody wants to use. I've contributed much more to the game than he has.

The good thing about the royalties based on the frequency with which people use your stuff is that you get rewarded for the value of your creation as its value to the game becomes evident. It also encourages a kind of "convergence" of play: people will be more like to try and create stuff that other people will want to use. If you reward on scope then you're rewarding before you have any evidence of whether its actually a worthwhile contribution to the game or not. Someone is having to make a guess as to how valauable the creation is going to be during the game, and players are motivated to create "big", not create "useful".

Second, what do you guys think of the idea of the cost of Introducing Game Entities being based on the power/effectiveness of the Game Entity, as represented by the number of CP's used to design it? The assumption being that the larger the number of CP an Entity has been designed with, the greater impact and effectiveness it will have on in-game events.

From my reading, my understanding is that currently you would affect events buy paying the Narration guide to incorporate your events into the story (or using Hero Points to overide the game-world logic of events)?. So really entities don't impact events at all, I can just pay the Narration guide to write new events (or vote to overide the Narration guides events). Have I got that right?

Universalis has a dual method where the components impact events for free (the cost comes during component creation) but players can also immeadiately impact events by buying in game effects. Is that what you're aiming for? Where I could use my entity to impact events but also spend Nominar as a player to impact it?

Best for me to ask my question through an example I guess: which approach would I use in this situation - The corn field is on fire, do I pay the Narration Guide to say that Song rounds up all the other field mice and helps them escape? Or when creating Song would I spend lots of CPs to make her brave and a good leader and then use that to impact the situation? Or do I challenge the person who starts a fire, and having won the challenge I narrate that Song rounds everyone up and escapes. Or can I do all three?

Third, what do you think of tying the cost of the "Narration" of events and facts relative to their game mechanical effect on the Personae?

I think its good because it offers protection for entities I've introduced. No-one can afford to burn down the corn field and kill all my field mice on a whim that way, they have to pay through the nose. On the other hand... what if all the players are commited to an event that would have a big (and thus expensive) effect on a Personae. For example it was good that Obi-wan dies in Star Wars. If everyone is all agreed on that then should we need to pay lots of Nominar to remove him from the game? I think your current challenge mechanic might be a better way of protecting entities. That way the stuff that people collectively care about can't be harmed, and players are dependant on the good will of the group, rather than saving up lots of Nominar, to do what they want to do.

I've enjoyed reading about this by the way! My apologies if what I've written is based on a misunderstanding of your rules.

Tony

[RobMuadib]

First, what do you guys think of the idea of making Design Rewards/Royalties be based on the "Scope" the Game Entity designed?
To me, that would equate it to the players overall contribution to the game
world.

Potentially problematic. If a player writes ten pages on a single building, and another writes one page on a whole continent, who should get the larger reward? I see people creating big, realtively undefined stuff just because the reward is greater. The reward should be linked to volume and quantity of content, not what the thing can potentially effect. I'd make this an explicit ability of the Setting Guide. He just looks at the item, and picks a value that he thinks represents the quality and content offered. If the player thinks he's being shorted, he can decide not to submit. Thereby a sort of market forms. Challenges will also affect this, of course.

Mike (and Tony)

Hmm, perhaps I should go back to the Royalties method Tony talks about below that I had considered before.  The only thing I don't like about this is the extra book-keeping involved, or chip-flipping involved. On the other hand, it does make the "contribution" to the game element obvious, and ties into the Proprietorship idea.

Maybe a good comprise is to have it such that Large Scope items must be submitted as Shared Entities, and subject to a Special Challenge. Unless any player has major problems with it (Which can be negotiated for), it is adopted for the Narrative Environment. Earning the player a one time "Scope" reward from the "House", with this Scope determined by the Setting Guide (also subject to a Challenge Vote, and most importantly, under a One item/One Challenge/One Vote cycle.)

At the same time, We could have character's introduce elements as Proprietary Entities, such that other people have to pay that player Royalties to use that Entity within the game. (The idea being that everyone will think your Imperial Black Guard are cool and you will earn points for it.) The ultimate proprietary entites in this regard are going to be Personae, as they can earn your Persona Expectation Rewards, Genre Expectation Rewards, where supported by Tenets, Narrative Expectations, etc. That is,
they are the real cash cows, while large scope items are essentially work for hire.

What do you guys think of that approach?

Second, what do you guys think of the idea of the cost of Introducing Game Entities being based on the power/effectiveness of the Game Entity, as represented by the number of CP's used to design it? The assumption being that the larger the number of CP an Entity has been designed with, the greater impact and effectiveness it will have on in-game events.

This seems straighforward enough. Given the nature of the game, I think it's totally appropriate. I also think that there should be no CP, and HP, just Nomenar. To avoid conversion rates, and the need to record multiple pools. This shouldn't be difficult as the values for the metagame stuff can be arbitrary.

Mike

Hmm, as to not using intermediary points. The main reason I chose to do that is to keep the relative Nomenar costs low. The CP's convert into more points of that particular Trait Category. The other problem with a direct conversion is that because of the way "Hero Points" will work within the system, is that you would want to be able to spend say 5-6 HP to really pump a single roll, or 10 or more in a SH reality. So you would end up with HUGE pools of Nomenar needing to be used, which, even with Poker chips would be a pain to handle.  If you would want to spend 50-60 nomenar in a single scene to introduce a character and ensure that he is able to kick someone's butt effectively for instance. While if you use the intermediary points, it might cost you like 10 Nomenar total.

Third, what do you think of tying the cost of the "Narration" of events and facts relative to their game mechanical effect on the Personae?

Excellent idea. This is exactly what I did with Synthesis. We'll have to wait on the specific mechanics to see if it all works together, mechanically. (I'm finding that Synthesis does not work quite like how I wanted it to, FWIW.)

Mike, read some of Synthesis over the other day, pretty interesting. This
would work well also with the Nomenar to CP to TP in that it would allow you to construct "Effects" to be used against characters, say using power
system or some such, for cheap cost, with hard numbers to use to determine effects.

Lastly, what do you think of the system I described for handling Persona Disadvantages, via the "Point Rating" system. As well as introducing Narrative Expectations and rewards? Oh, and the idea of players only earning Nomenar for a Disadvantage when they actively portray that disadvantage within the current Narrative.

Makes sense. And follows current theory. Assuming I'm reading it correctly. I may be making certain assumptions about how it works.

Care to expand on those assumptions some?

Oh, I was also considering having "Mechanical" psych traits, along the lines of Hero System with it's Psych limitations, as well as Passion type traits similar to Pendragon (though not pairs and such). Such that if the player's passion/limitation is called into play, he must make a roll, and depending on the level of Success of this Test, then he must take action towards that Passion/Limitation, etc commensurate with the success of that roll. With irrational actions by the character a result of extreme success levels.

Very cool. I'd definitely go with that. What it means is that if a player doesn't know how a character will react, he can roll, and use the outcome for inspiration. Do this sort of thing enough, and the world will come to life, and start to run itself.

Other idea I thought of is allowing big successess on these rolls to translate into "Hero Points" of the character's own, letting him rise to the challenge of his Passions (Could only be used to meet the objective of the passion, etc.), and still limited by the reality rules. That would give a definite reason to use these "limitations" and would reflect the nature of obessions/compulsion/passion. In that it drives us to do great things, some times great good, some times great evil. But essentially, these people are driven to go farther and do more to achieve their goals, foregoing fear, caution, and even reason, they act, and often inexplicably succeed, unlike most people.


Anyway, thanks for your comments Mike, plan to address several of these things when I make up the first draft of the "How to Play" chapter.

[RobMuadib]

First, what do you guys think of the idea of making Design Rewards/Royalties be based on the "Scope" the Game Entity designed?
To me, that would equate it to the players overall contribution to the game
world.

Well I think when you talked about Royalties in your other thread, the designing player got the reward everytime someone actually made use of their creation. You also mentioned the possibility of creating something as "shared" which would have a lower design cost (or introduction cost) in return for giving cheaper access to everyone who wants to use it.

Tony,

Thanks for your comments, you bring up several good points, which I addressed in my post to mike. Definitely think I will try going with a Royalty based model and see how it works.

Third, what do you think of tying the cost of the "Narration" of events and facts relative to their game mechanical effect on the Personae?

I think its good because it offers protection for entities I've introduced. No-one can afford to burn down the corn field and kill all my field mice on a whim that way, they have to pay through the nose. On the other hand... what if all the players are commited to an event that would have a big (and thus expensive) effect on a Personae. For example it was good that Obi-wan dies in Star Wars. If everyone is all agreed on that then should we need to pay lots of Nominar to remove him from the game? I think your current challenge mechanic might be a better way of protecting entities. That way the stuff that people collectively care about can't be harmed, and players are dependant on the good will of the group, rather than saving up lots of Nominar, to do what they want to do.

I've enjoyed reading about this by the way! My apologies if what I've written is based on a misunderstanding of your rules.

Tony

Hey I appreciate your input, as to misunderstanding my rules, at this point is fairer to say my rules notes:) Still working out how I want things to work. Well, as to your Point about removing entities. It is rather easy to introduce Entities into the game, barring challenges. But the game is heavily weighted against simply Narrating Outcomes and Events of in-game action. However, exerting authorial control via Pumping up the actions of Entities by Investing Hero Points in them is much cheaper than spending Nomenar outright to Narrate an Outcome or the Effects of an Event that occurs In-Play.

For instance, on the Obi-Wan example. If the player acting as Obi-Wan's Persona Guide thought it would be cool to have Obi-Wan sacrifice himself. He could arrange to Introduce Darth Vader into the fight Scene. Then he could Invest Nomenar in Obi-Wan(at a much much more advantageous exchange rate), to make the action go the way he wants it, by weighting the odds in his favor. In this case, he could spend Nomenar to "Manipulate" Vader into killing him at the right moment, after holding Vader off long enough to draw the attention of the Storm Troopers, etc.

The important thing to remember here, is that my game focuses much on more the gosh-wow coolness of Light-Saber duels and the intricate fight choeragraphy, than the fact that Obi-Wan lets Vader strike him down. (However, if a player could wrangle events via play and the use of the Hero Points, he would likely earn a honking Play Reward from the other players, since it was cool and entertaining.) Which is to say, my game assumes that the players using it will want detailed systems to play things out, and doesn't particularly encourage them to handle such things off-screen. THough it does allow them to push towards outcome supported by in-game casuality. That is, if you character is a good swordsman, you can spend HP to increase the odds that things will go his way, or that he can pull off that cool move you want to use to finish off the bad guy. But you can't just say, I finish off the bad guy.

That is, the rules are setup such
that the Rule System is the default arbritator of events. And that arbritration is based in a realistic system of ability modeling,etc. If people
want to abrogate the system, they have to pay fairly heavily, and are subject to the objections of others. That is the basic ideal of the game, and perhaps one I need to well point out in describing how to play.

As an analogy. The game doesn't let you knock over the other guys King and say that he's died of a Heart Attack, as a way to win a chess match. (Well unless your opponent, and the audience agree, and even then you gotta pay a bribe anyway:) )

That is to say, the game makes in-game casualty and application of the system paramount, as opposed to pure narration. If you can make it happen to an Entity as the result of another Entities Actions, as played out through the game system, it happens. (If two players are in disagreement over what happens, they would both be able to invest Nomenar in the Entity they favored and spend hero points to pitch the odds in their favor.)

This is where it majorly differs from Universalis. You can introduce Entities into an Ongoing Scene, or Narrate Events of off-screen action, but you can't simply dictate Outcomes and Events. Instead, the game expects you to use the Rules Systems to handles these things, which is why they are there.

Anyway, thanks for your input, I will be putting together a first draft of my "How To Play" section which will set out the procedures and methods of play more explicitly, and hopefully provide a clearer picture of what the game will play like, for myself and others:)

[Tony Irwin]

Hmm, perhaps I should go back to the Royalties method Tony talks about below that I had considered before.  The only thing I don't like about this is the extra book-keeping involved, or chip-flipping involved. On the other hand, it does make the "contribution" to the game element obvious, and ties into the Proprietorship idea.

Actually Rob I want to take back a lot of what I said about this! Originally when I read over your rules I was worried that the scope system would encourage players to think "big" instead of "useful". But having read through all your rules again I realise that that's part of what the game (or at least the creation phase) is about - making big things right? I noticed that the rate of cost for introducing multiple entities goes down the more you introduce: so I get more value for introducing 50 stormtroopers instead of 5. The CP/Hero points seem to work the same way: I get better value for my money by creating a powerful character than a weaker one right?

If that's what you're aiming for then I think you've done a really good job of reflecting that with your rules - players will be encouraged to make games on an epic scale. Sounds cool as hell to me! I'm looking forward to seeing a playtest.

At the same time, We could have character's introduce elements as Proprietary Entities, such that other people have to pay that player Royalties to use that Entity within the game. (The idea being that everyone will think your Imperial Black Guard are cool and you will earn points for it.) The ultimate proprietary entites in this regard are going to be Personae, as they can earn your Persona Expectation Rewards, Genre Expectation Rewards, where supported by Tenets, Narrative Expectations, etc. That is,
they are the real cash cows, while large scope items are essentially work for hire.

Well, I still reckon that your Royalties idea is a good way of forcing "convergence" among the players. Its an incentive to make everyone keep everyone else's wants in mind so a five player game doesn't turn into five games with one player in each. On the other hand have you considered having the "house" pay the royalty (you mentioned in your other thread the possibility of the house making payments to players)? The reason being that players need an economic incentive to use other player's stuff  - having to pay a royalty on top of the introduction cost might just encourage me to come up with my own version of your Imperial Black Guard (and one that better fits with my plans and ideas anyway) instead of paying extra to use yours.

If the design costs are being paid to the house, and the house is paying back royalties, then effectively the player is earning back the nominar she used in creating the entity by tailoring it to please and inspire the other players. One possible way of forcing convergence among the players.

Tony

[RobMuadib]

Tony

Hey, you bring up some interesting points. I definitely need to apply a bit more critical thinking in regards to how this going to work. The main reason I used a geometric progression with regards to the Noumen (newest term for Nomenar:) ). Was to make the use of the Poker chips practical during the game for handling the various uses.

As I mentioned to Mike, While linear costs might work for CP conversions, they would be quite cumbersome for Hero Point investitures into Entities. Since really pumping up a Roll takes between 3-10 or more points, per Roll, and you will typically want to pump up several rolls, so you are talking about 30-50 points of chips flying around to handle these things, thus inflating the economy in ways I didn't like. So I used the geometric scale and layered points to keep things manageable.


Also, part of the Tenets established sets the default Power Level of main characters and such. So someone who wanted to introduce an uber-powerful entity would have to pass a challenge by the other players, and assuming they allow it, pay to make it an Exception to that Rules/Setting Tenet. On the same token though, if someone really wants to pay to have The 10,000 man Army Of North enter the Narrative, then hey they can float all their Noumen to do it, assuming the other players are willing.

Key rule is that anything anyone wants to introduce into the Narrative is always subject to Challenges by the other players. And follow the Highlander Rule, i.e. "There can be only One" One Challenge/One Bid/One Vote on any subject during a Session, if you get overruled, then you are barred from introducing whatever it is you wanted to introduce, or have happen during that Session, etc. Attempting to do so again, gets you an Fine from the Play Guide.

As for the Scope Rewards, I have decided to tone those down too, using only 6 "Scopes" for purposes of Design Royalties. But I am still deciding how best to do that.

First thing to point out, is the idea of how I see it as working. After the Genesis Session, as non-session play, the Players Design Game Entities using the Design Tenets established during the Genesis Session.

The Setting Guide would review these if they fall within the Design Tenets, he would simply indicate the Royalty payment they would be worth, and makes copies available to the other Players. During the game, the players, acting as Narrative Guide or by using a Script, can then draw from this pool of Public, Designer, or Stock Game Entities from other sources, to introduce into the Narrative.

It would cost them so many Noumen based on the "power level" of the Entity, using the CP rating system I setup, and then the Designer would receive the Royalty payments each time they are used in the Narrative.

So, one of the things I need to setup is how this schedule of payments is going to be made. Something that occured to me is that during the Genesis Session, players might create Tenets defining a Race, or a Nation or Empire, etc. Basically, creating guidelines for some of the Entities that will exist in the Narrative Environment. Now, what I was thinking is that if a player goes ahead and does a writeup for one of these "Genesis Entities", he would be eligible for a flat Scope Reward, barring challenges by other players, etc.

That is where the large one-time rewards would come in, essentially by letting players take on the "Work for hire Contracts" established by the "Company" (the group of players collaborating) during the Genesis Session. These Genesis Entities would then be Company Entities, available for all of the players to use within the Narrative. Without any royalties accruing to the person who took the contract. Essentially because it was group effort.

The Second class of Entities, would be Designer Entities, these would be custom designed Entities the other players could create for use in the Narrative. These Entities could be introduced as either Shared or Proprietary. If shared, anyone can pay points to take over that Entity, with the Designer gaining a small Noumen reward each time they are used, this Royalty payment coming from the bank.  

If Proprietary, then only the Designer could "control" them, though he could allow other players to "Rent" them if he chooses. (The most common Propriety Entities would of course be Personas.) Proprietary Entities would not be eligible for Royalty payments, but the Proprietor has complete control over what happens to that Entity out of game. And is the only one that can Invest in that Entity. (This is a way to keep your favorite
toys to yourself:) )

The third class of Entities would be "stock" Entities, these would be Entities that the players got from the Rule Book, or online as contributed by other players. They can only be introduced as Shared, and no one recieves Royalty payments for them.  


I definitely like your suggestion of Royalties being paid from the House. it definitely makes a good way to encourage the "convergence" you mentioned. Just need to decide how much to make the royalty, and how often to award. Perhaps make it a flat rate, no matter the Entity, say like 5 or so, and that is awarded once per scene were that Entity is introduced/used in the Narrative.

Thanks for your input Tony, I would be interested to hear what you, and other people think of my Royalty schedule idea I described above, and how they think it would work in practice. Meanwhile, I am still making notes and working on the Game Concepts: Shared Play chapter.

[Mike Holmes]

Rob, it sounds to me like your currency problems are coming from having a previous existing "non-meta" system, and trying to attach a meta-system on top of it. If I am wrong about this, just ignore this. But If I'm not, I suggest that you are going to have a lot of trouble with the interface, and currency conversions that must occur.

Also, you've referred to this stuff as "design notes" as though it has some special preliminary status. Might I suggest that you drop that idea. You are making a game. You have your design goals well set up and decided. You are creating the mechanics. And in any case, posters cannot tell the difference between a mechanic, and a "design note" for a mechanic. Requiring us to respond differently to these things based on some delimiter that only you are privy to isn't going to work. Nor is it necessary.

In fact, it's probably dangerous. If you aren't actually designing, but making design notes, when are you going to get to the design. I suggest that designers who make such distinctions are only insulating themselves from having to make the hard decisions that are going to be neccessarly if the game is ever going to be a complete reality.

Just what I've observed.

Mike

[RobMuadib]

Rob, it sounds to me like your currency problems are coming from having a previous existing "non-meta" system, and trying to attach a meta-system on top of it. If I am wrong about this, just ignore this. But If I'm not, I suggest that you are going to have a lot of trouble with the interface, and currency conversions that must occur.

Mike

Yeah, at present the meta-system is an additional layer to interface with the underlying Resolution/Design System. As for the currency conversions, that may well be, but at present I believe it will work as I conceive of it now, having made adjustments to handle this element. But you are correct in that it will be one of the sticky points for the design.

Also, you've referred to this stuff as "design notes" as though it has some special preliminary status. Might I suggest that you drop that idea. You are making a game. You have your design goals well set up and decided. You are creating the mechanics. And in any case, posters cannot tell the difference between a mechanic, and a "design note" for a mechanic. Requiring us to respond differently to these things based on some delimiter that only you are privy to isn't going to work. Nor is it necessary.

In fact, it's probably dangerous. If you aren't actually designing, but making design notes, when are you going to get to the design. I suggest that designers who make such distinctions are only insulating themselves from having to make the hard decisions that are going to be neccessarly if the game is ever going to be a complete reality.

Mike

Hey, you make a very good point. I didn't mean that this has some special preliminary status, rather I am taking notes on the suggestions and ideas people have thus far presented, and incorporating them into my write-up, that I alluded to earlier. This is, this part of the design is much more malleable at the moment than the others, and I am really appreciative of peoples input.

Thanks,