Apotheosis: Meta-mythical Role-playing (Nar/Sim Hybrid)

[Dr. Velocity]

Okay, first off, OW MY HEAD. And I feel like I don't belong here with all these other big talkers but hey, I take chances now and then.

Next, WOW, what a ... I dunno, I've never seen a *rich* rpg 'explanation' of rules before, but this was... almost ethereally graceful, yet at the same time, I comprehended almost none of it - but didn't mind. Heh.

"A single entity cannot support multiple goals"

Er - why? I don't grasp, off the cuff, what a 'goal' is and why you (or your meta character, whatever THAT is) can't 'support' more than one.

Presumably, to be vulgar, a 'goal' in combat would be to kill or injure an NPC (I know these terms are probably anathema to your game but its easiest for me) - but if you had 'apprehend, failing that-knock out, failing that-wound, failing that-kill', is this still one goal or multiple goals? Putting it differently, how concrete or abstract are goals? All players may have the 'goal' of rescue the Duchess or Wield Excalibur or Find the Secret of the Universe, or even have a 'selfless' goal of 'Have Ted Wield Excalibur' yet ALSO have their OWN goals...

Utterly fascinating reading, just attempting to decipher it and translate it into something that my own experience and mind can interpret, but as noted, definitely NOT for unwary consumption by persons who haven't written a doctoral thesis over Joseph Cambell's works. I am intrigued by this whole meta character thing and controlling entities, being even multiple people, or one person, or I suppose, an entire town, or even the life of a forest, etc. Its truly overwhelming for someone like me who has never quite considered gaming from this vantage.

Overall, I have to agree, besides some form of respite from words with more literary pedigree than most Westminster events, a good, solid ideal example of play or a 'walkthrough' would probably be the best step toward a 'quick start' section for people who are stumped on 'Contact Layers'. Also I think an outline or something, like I. II. III, of 'do this, do that, do this now, follow with this' would be helpful - I have no clue as to how or when any of these things you described would come into play, be used, be created, be referenced, etc, or in what order.

The problem I see here is, its possible (and this is just a potential I feel could exist in a game of this... depth) that you do not know 'exactly' what you feel would be an ideal session, since it hasn't been played to its full potential and you might not really even recognize it if you saw it. You obviously have a 'goal' or expected resolution formula, complete with narrative variables and sequences along the path, and know what the players are supposed to do during play - but being able to encapsulate something as multi-dimensional as this seems like it would take a truly massive amount of detail, memory and probably trimming to be able to say 'here it is, it should work like this: A, B, C'.

I will try to follow this thread but doubt I'll be giving much input on this, but I certainly hope it gets some interest and support and can be brought to fruition. I wish you all the best.

[RobMuadib]

Silent


Hey, thought I should follow up my negative sounding post with some concrete and focused ways that I think you could improve the presentation of the ideas.  

Apotheosis is a mythic game that floats somewhere between the narrative and simulation models. Apotheosis is a poetic journey through a meta-mythic realm of infinite epic possibilities. The backdrop of Apotheosis is the Tapestry. The Tapestry is the aggregation of the narrative environments and mythologies in a given game. The Tapestry exemplifies the "meta-myth."

This is good stuff, here you provide a grand context with which people can understand the game. I think you would be well served by stressing, or at least repeating, this concept in the presentation of the rules, it will help people arrange and make sense of all of the different definitions.

I definitely want to stress the need for some step by step explanations of things. For instance, your conflict example is still to vague. You need to be like, A conflict is resolved in X steps. In step 1, you blah blah, in step 2 you blah blah. etc. Don't leave out any steps, don't skip any explanations. People may be able to read between the lines and infer stuff, but a well written game text won't require them too. Plus, as I mentioned, your terminology will be confusing to many.

As another example of a game that suffered because of Obfuscatory terminlogy is Immortal: THe Invisible War, it had a very cool background/setting concept, positing your character as a member of an immortal race, who had washed away his memories in lethe, just relearning his place in immortal society. It opens into a longer description of the backgrounds history and conflicts. Truly unique, engaging stuff. Unfortunately, it also used tons of non-standard terms for play. Characters had Halo's(Attributes) which had Motes (points) assigned to them. Action resolution require rolling a number of D10, which is based on the number of Hostiles, represented by having to roll under a certain number on the differently colored dice related to each Halo. THe character powers were called Serenades, etc, etc. It proved to be learning curve overkill, and the game suffered from it. The Same with Aria, and it's non-standard terminology, Expertises(skills), Backgrounds, Aspects,(Advantages/Perks), Refined Trials, Expanded Trials, Challenged Trials (Test, Extended Test, Opposed Test), this is before you got the narrative environment design and other innovaite elements of the rules. THey could have made game more accessible by using more familiar/direct terminology.

Ok, I understand the idea of Motes (costs/importance of a Entity within a narrative.) But when and how does that Cost get used. Are the Motes used the number of Arcanum needed to introduce an entity to a narrative, etc? Arcanum seems very important, but you haven't mentioned how you get, who has it, how it's spent, how it's earned etc. I have a similar element in my game, which I call Nomenar (based on Universalis' coins.) I use them as the main driver of the game and the method by which authority/credibility is apportioned. I have developed a number of specific mechanisms through which these nomenar can be spent to affect the unfolding Narrative. I call these mechanics Scripts. Which I first discussed in my TMW:COTEC - Why You SHOULD Care (Long) (updated) post.

BTW, I find there are a fair number of similarities between your game and my game The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle, because of the multi-layered structure to play. In that you identify the concepts and game elements that the players interact with to create the game. This parallels TMW quite a bit. TMW is conducted in four phases, the Genesis session in which the Setting, Narrative, Rules & Play Production Scripts for the game are developed, Company Desing, in which Game Entities (Personae/Setting/Background/History/SFX/Props) are designed, Narrative Planning, in which the structure of the narrative, the entities present, the Ensemble present, and proprietorship issues are sorted, and Narrative Play, in which the players collaborate through play of the narrative.


One thing I find interesting in your concept of Narrative Layers. You seem to posit that the division of control over the progress of the game (Control/Support Layers), the "Proprietorship" of in-game entities(Character Layer), the creation of the Narrative Environment(Setting Layer), and the Narrative planning & guidance (Contact Layers), are all variable under your system. Decided upon for each instance of the game. This is interesting, but seems like it could require some hefty description to explain the interactions. TMW fixes the control/credibility issues through the use of Nomenar and the Guide Roles, democratizes the Narrative environment design, and allows for the sharing of the narrative control through the spending of Nomenar. I discussed this in regards to my game in my TMW:COTEC - "Butchering the GM..." post. To allow for the variations you mention it, seems like it would be a different game in each combination, a necessarily massive thing to design for.

Your Narrative Structure is pretty straight-forward. You basically allow for the creation of what I call Game Entities through your Components, and allow the creation of what I call Production Scripts through your Conventions. One interesting bit is in the scope of your character layer. I take a cue from Aria(and Ars Magica to an extent) in the idea of allowing the creation/play of Perpetual Genealogies, Heritage Groups, Organizations, and Socieites through Historical Interaction, basically as a history creation/environment exploration device. It will be more of a Narrative Planning/Environment Design element in TMW than a regular play device. Due to the games simulationist bent, in-session play focuses on Persona play & detailed mechanical resolution. (though players have access to an entire Ensemble rather than a strict avatar relationship.)


Oh, as for your Conflict structure being understandable, it's not yet. You don't provide a thorough example or step by step instructions, so it is hard to see exactly how it works. Also, you fail to speak to the player in it. I mean who rolls the dice, etc. More explanation please.

Oh yeah, you mention it as a Nar/sim hybrid. To be honest, the way you have defined entities and such, I don't see much of any sim emphasis. They read more like narrativist catch-phrases, than sim details.

Anyway, it is certainly an interesting concept, Shared Authority/Collaborative game, especially those allow for environment creation, Ensembles and director stance offer some new and interesting areas for RPG's.

Best

P.S. You wouldn't happen to be related to a guy named Fang Langford woud you?:)

[Silent Entropy]

I've revised the entire game based on the feedback I've gotten from this thread.  I've talked to several people privately and I believe my refined and revised version is much more accessible to anyone who isn't me! :)

It would be appreciated if anyone could point me toward similar systems.  I already plan to check out The Million Worlds, Nine Worlds, and Universalis.   I've checked out Ever-After and Torchbearer, although not in detail.  I'm sure they've both influenced my revisions somehow.  

There are some very broad strokes here, but I've tried to specify enough to clear up most problematic details.  After I finish presenting the most recent copy of my material I will go back through the current string of posts and explain specifically what I've done to address individual concerns.

I'm going to give a synopsis of the game, but this post will focus primarily on entities and conflicts in narrative play.

Apotheosis is a game about myths.  It's also a game about mythologies.  Apotheosis is divided into three phases of play: pre-narrative, narrative, and post-narrative.

During the first phase of play, the pre-narrative phase, players define the rules and guidelines that will further dictate how and why they play the game.  The pre-narrative phase is broken down into a context step and a contract step.  Each step requires players to structure a piece of the game world.  During the context step players decide how they will actually play the game.  During the contact step players begin solidifying the narrative structure.  The narrative structure is the multimedia theatre in which the narrative unfolds.  The narrative structure defines the narrative reality, the narrative setting, and the narrative mythos.  The narrative reality dictates what can and cannot occur in the course of the narrative, as well as how and/or why it can or cannot occur.  The narrative setting is the environment where the narrative occurs.  The narrative mythos is the collected body of myths and legends that (true or otherwise) define the mythologies of the narrative.  Context agreement and contract arrangement can be reversed in order.  This allows recursive styles of play to develop.  It's important to note that the pre-narrative phase is definitely a part of the game.  It is not "before the game begins."

During the second phase of play, the narrative phase, players act out their established roles.  This phase is generally divided into alternating periods of standard narration and conflict narration.  Standard narration is the act of simply telling a story.  Anyone can narrate the story (within the limits of the pre-narrative Context and Contract).  When a dispute over narrative rights or inheritance occurs there is a conflict.  A conflict that plays out entirely undergoes narration as well.  This is conflict narration.  The narrative phase itself is predicated upon conflict. Everything can conceivably be an entity and every entity can undergo internal and external conflict. Each entity can also be static or dynamic in nature.  Allowing this "binary opposition" gives me a lot of room to work with traditional myths and legends.  The premise of the narrative phase is typically, "We always have a choice whether or not we participate in any given conflict.  What are conflicts?  Why do we engage in them?  What do our choices, intentions, and actions in a conflict say about us?"

During the third phase of play, the post-narrative phase, the pre-narrative and narrative phases are wrapped up.  More information will be given about this phase in the future.

Players will usually control one or more game entities during the narrative phase.  The number of entities (if any) and the parameters of an individual's control are determined during the pre-narrative phase of play.  Most games will allow players to control game entities, though.  Also, most games will allow the players to act as an "anti-game" entity, a "meta-game entity," or a "supra-game" entity.  Anti-game entities do not exist in the game itself.  The player is considered to simply be playing whatever entities are under his or her control.  The player is directed by a discrete role that encourages them to simulate an entities behavior.  This is not unlike many other role-playing games that lack an exclusively "meta-game presence."  The players may also act as "meta-game" entities.  This gives them a distinct meta-game presence.  Most narrativist games fall into this category.  Playing "supra-game" entities allows a player to actually play an entity that "plays" other entities.  This can be thought of as a "meta-game" mechanic that is actually a part of the game itself.

This piece of work on entities and conflicts focuses on game entities and game conflicts.  Anti-game, meta-game, and supra-game entities (and conflicts) are not addressed.  Any reference to a conflict or entity refers exclusively to a game entity or conflict.

Entities
An entity is anything important and interesting enough to possess a defined presence in the narrative.  Entities are composed of paradigms and elements.

Paradigms are numerically scaled attributes that model an entity's place in the narrative.  Each paradigm is therefore related the narrative structure.  There are two paradigms.  Each paradigm is also associated with three unique elements.  Paradigms lay the foundation for conflict.

Elements are individual traits possessed by an entity.  Elements are associated with paradigms.  Elements define how much control an entity has over any associated paradigms.  This also means elements are responsible for how an entity can influence the outcome of a conflict.

Legacy is the paradigm that focuses on an entity's purpose and inertia in the narrative.  An entity's legacy determines how an entity can exploit opportunities in a conflict.  An entity's legacy also determines how much power an entity has to manipulate the narrative outside of conflict.  Legacy is associated with Masks, Sigils, and Wonders.

Masks are elements that define archetypal roles an entity fulfills or portrays.  They are unique facets of an entity that act as a foundation for identity.  Typically, an entity's name (true or otherwise) is a mask that an entity will wear.

Sigils are elements that modify or mold how an entity interacts with the narrative.  Sigils are templates that dictate what an entity is and what an entity can do.  Sigils can bend, make, and break the rules of a narrative.

Wonders are elements that fuel myth.  Wonders are used to perform unique actions that can completely change the course of a narrative.  Wonders are also used to enact specific rituals that bring an entity closer to myth.  Wonders are finite resources that may be spent during the course of a narrative.

Tapestry is the paradigm that focuses on an entity's potential in the narrative.  Tapestry helps determine the limit of an entity's ability to influence a conflict.  Tapestry determines how truly ingrained an entity is into the mythic structure of a narrative.  Tapestry is associated with Patterns, Threads, and Weaves.

Patterns are elements that form the foundation of an entity and its relationship to the narrative.  Patterns are fundamental building blocks that an entity can use to manipulate the narrative.  Patterns can be used to influence the outcome of a conflict.  Patterns are finite resources that may be spent during the course of a narrative.

Threads are elements of an entity that are active (or reactive) and require no cost to use.  Threads enhance and enrich a conflict by there very presence, when appropriate.

Weaves are elements of an entity that are passive (or inactive) and require a substantial cost to use.  Weaves affect a conflict in a similar way to threads.

Conflicts
Conflicts are the result of multiple entities vying for narrative priority.

Conflict Orientations
An entity's orientation during a conflict determines how an entity may interact in the conflict. Conflict Orientation occurs during the Initiation Stage and may be modified during the Interaction Stage.  Engaged entities may take influential actions and incidental actions.  Disengaged entities may take only incidental actions.

Initial Engagement
Initial Engagement occurs when an entity initiates a conflict. The initiator of the conflict is initially engaged before any other entities. The initiator gains a slight benefit for initiating the conflict.  For all intents and purposes otherwise the initiator is considered to be oriented toward Active Engagement.

Active Engagement
Active Engagement occurs when an entity becomes engaged during the Initiation Stage and is not the initiator. The entity is an active participant in the conflict. Active participants can declare goals and acquire narrative priority.

Passive Engagement
Passive Engagement occurs when an entity that was oriented toward Passive Disengagement, becomes engaged during the Interaction Stage instead of the Initiation Stage. The entity is a passive participant in the conflict. Passive participants cannot declare goals (since they missed the Declaration Stage).  Passive Participants cannot gain narrative priority (since they missed the Initiation Stage).

Passive Disengagement
Passive Disengagement occurs when an entity is not engaged during the Initiation Stage. This entity is not a part of the conflict proper. The entity may become engaged during the Interaction Stage. If this occurs entity becomes passively engaged (oriented toward Passive Engagement).

Active Disengagement
Active Disengagement occurs when an entity leaves a conflict during the Interaction Stage. The entity is removed from the conflict completely.  The entity's goal remains if at least a single active participant remains.

Final Disengagement
Final Disengagement occurs at the end of a conflict. All participants in the conflict become disengaged and may not reengage in the same conflict.  Entities thus disengaged gain a single Wonder.  An entity's paradigms are returned to normal.  The conflict has concluded.

Incidental Actions
An incidental action is any action that cannot have a dire or direct impact on the resolution of a conflict.  Anyone can take incidental actions.

Influential Actions
During the Interaction Stage engaged players may take influential actions. These actions can have a dire and direct impact on the resolution of a conflict.

Pattern
An entity may spend patterns to influence the outcome of a conflict.  An appropriate number of patterns equal to or less than the Tapestry may be spent.  Each pattern spent contributes to the number of options available to an entity during a conflict.  Patterns spent are not cumulative.  For example, if I spend two Patterns I can either grant an entity two dice to roll or take away one die from an entity.

Fortune
For every pattern spent an entity may give a single die to any other entity during the Resolution Stage.  This die is rolled in an attempt to gain a narrative opportunity.  If the die is even the entity gains a narrative opportunity.  If the die is odd the entity gains nothing.

For every two patterns spent an entity may remove a single die from any other entity during the Resolution Stage.

Karma
For every three patterns spent an entity give a single narrative opportunity to any entity during the Resolution Stage.

For every four patterns spent an entity may remove a single narrative opportunity from any entity during the Resolution Stage.

Drama
For every five patterns spent an entity may declare an additional goal.

For every six patterns spent an entity may reorient itself toward Passive Engagement or Passive Disengagement.

For every seven patterns spent an entity may reorient itself toward Active Engagement or Active Disengagement.

For every eight patterns spent an entity may give a Wonder to any entity.

For every nine patterns spent an entity may remove a Wonder from any entity.

For every ten patterns spent an entity may nullify a declared goal.

Thread
An entity may activate a thread to increase any entity's Tapestry be one.  The thread costs nothing to activate.

Weaving
An entity may activate a weave to increase any entity's Tapestry by one per Wonder spent to activate the weave.

Notes
If no active participants remain in a conflict the conflict is concluded without narration.

If a single active participant remains in a conflict that participant gains narrative priority.

If a single goal is ever left that goal is narrated and the conflict is concluded.  The only exception to this is during the Interaction Stage (since goals can be added or removed from the conflict).

A transmutative goal has a specific cost based on the nature of the transmutation.  It costs a specific amount of Wonders to transmute an entity.  It also requires the transmuter to sacrifice a certain number of elements.

Raising or Lowering a Paradigm by X costs (10^X) Wonders + X Associated Elements.
Adding or Subtracting a Legacy Element costs 5 Wonders + 1 Tapestry Element
Adding or Subtracting a Tapestry Element costs 5 Wonders + 1 Legacy Element

Conflict Stages
Conflicts follow a linear path through five stages.

Initiation
Any player may initiate a conflict. Any players that wish to participate in the conflict may do so.  No one is ever forced into participating in a conflict.  The initiator is immediately oriented toward Initial Engagement and all other participants are oriented toward Active Engagement. All non-participants are oriented toward Passive Disengagement.

Declaration
Each active participant may declare a single goal. There must be at least two mutually divergent goals in any conflict.  Goals can be purely interpretative and affect the course of the narrative. Alternatively, a transmutative goal can be declared.  Transmutative goals change an entity.

Interaction
Active Participants may become non-participants (Active Engagement reoriented toward Active Disengagement).  Non-participants may become Passive Participants (Passive Disengagement reoriented toward Passive Engagement).  All participants may take appropriate actions.

Resolution
Participants may resolve the conflict using any appropriate means determined in the Interaction Stage.  Participants may add or subtract their narrative opportunities to or from other participant's opportunities.  Participants may reserve their narrative opportunities.  The participant with the most narrative opportunities at the end of the Resolution Stage gains narrative priority and is considered the narrator.  The initiator of the conflict gains an extra narrative opportunity.

Narration
The narrator determines which goals manifest. The narrator may pick one or more goals (or a compromise between multiple goals).  Each goal costs a single narrative opportunity.  A participant may only spend a number of goals equal to or less than its Legacy.  Interpretive goals only cost narrative opportunities. Transmutative goals must be paid for with an additional cost depending upon the particular transmutation.  Afterward everyone is oriented toward Final Disengagement and the conflict ends permanently.

Does this clear up any questions? Do the mechanics have a particular feel?  Is the conflict structure understandable yet?  Is the vernacular easier to deal with or does it still put people off?  I'm going to write up some conflict examples from a mechanics standpoint.  They'll be up as soon as I get some more time.  After that I'd like to go back through the past posts and address my changes and everyone's questions.