[Humble Mythologies] symbolic scene-framing

[Jonathan Walton]

The snow is just pouring down outside, so I though I'd take the opportunity to type up some of my recent ideas on symbolic scene framing.  The main thread on this game concept is here, but isn't necessary for understanding this one.

Humble Mythologies is a game with a heavy split between the symbolic and the actual in-game events.  Everything that happens in the game also happen in a symbolic metagame of ranks and elements.  The two are, for the most part, parallel but without any points of real contact, except during moments of magic; then, the symbolic and actual world merge together and flowers sprout from the pavement.

In trying to come up with a system of scene framing, character creation, and a way to cause shifts in the symbolic ranks and elements, I've had several ideas which I've been floating recently.  Here are the few that have risen to the surface, which may need to be revised or cast aside to make way for better ideas:

Story- and Scene-Framing

Narrative framing might happen only at the symbolic layer, filtering down to in game events only during actual play.  This way, players would not feel restricted so much by the framing, because it was only a symbolic roadmap that could be interpreted in many ways.

Framing would happen on two levels: first, at the beginning of each session, the entire session would be given an overall framework, in a process called Story Framing; secondly, each individual scene in the story would be subject to Scene Framing.  Story Framing would almost always center around a great shift in the symbolic world, either in rank, in element, or in both at once (since change is generally at the heart of all great stories).  Individual scenes would then have the responsibility of showing how such a change happened or was attempted, depicting steps along the way or a montage of non-chronological events.

In either case, the framing would take the form of a series of questions and answers, going around the circle until enough information was on the table to begin playing through the story or scene:

Story Framing example:

1. "What has happened?" (traditional opening question)
2. "The servant has destroyed her master." (change in rank status)
3. "And who was her master?"
4. "The King of Ash."
5. "And how was the king destroyed?"
1. "By a blade of Ice."
2. "And how did the servant obtain the blade?"
3. "In a costly trade with the devil."
4. "And what did the servant give the devil?"
5. "A heart blacker than the devil's own."

If you'll notice, together, all the answers to the questions form an outline of the story that will be told during this session: The servant destroyed her master, the King of Ash, with an icy knife she obtained by giving the devil a heart blacker than his own.  The numbers in the account above indicate the 5 players in this game.  An odd number works best, since it lets the players alternate asking and answering questions.  (If there was an even number, you'd vary things by skipping a player after each one had a chance to ask or answer: 1,2,3,4; 2,3,4,1; 3,4,1,2; 4,1,2,3; etc.)

Once the players decide that enough questions have been asked and answered, the player whose turn it is to ask a question may opt not to, and instead begin framing the first scene.

Scene Framing example:

1. "What has happened?" (traditional opening question)
2. "The master has dispatched his servant." (sets general purpose of scene)
3. "Where did he send her?"
4. "To the kingdom of his enemies."
5. "For what purpose?"
1. "To be killed."
2. "Why does she choose to go, then?"
3. "There are fates worse than death."
4. "What parting gift does the master bestow upon her?"
5. "The master's only son."

During scene framing, once each player has had the chance to ask or answer, any questioning player can opt out of their question and end the framing stage.  Such a player then becomes the Scene Master for the upcoming scene, and is responsible for casting and directing the scene.  Casting basically means fitting characters to the symbolic roles described in the Story and Scene Frame (which character is "the King of Ash," which one "the servant," who is "the master's only son," etc.).

Note too that the symbolic world is almost completely disconnected from the world of actual events. The master's son need not be his literal son.  Likewise, the servant-master relationship need not be literal, nor does the sending off "To the kingdom of his enemies."  All these are symbolic relationships and events, like in a reading from the tarot, that must be reinterpreted into the real in-game events and relationships.  Only in moment of magic do the symbols shine through the flesh and steel of the world.

So I guess I'd like general thoughts on this system.  Will it work?  Do you think the symbolic world gives players enough information to drive play and determine relationships and motivations?  I feel like it does.  This is, in many ways, a true experimental system.  There is no task- or conflict-resolution system in the game, only a symbolic world driving the events and hopefully resolving differences (though I suppose the Scene Master could arbitrate real disputes, if they occurred).

Note that I'm expecting cases where different players interpret individual symbols differently, creating interesting and unexpected situations during play.  I feel like these would, hopefully, add to the game and not detract, but I'd be glad to entertain other opinions.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Narrative framing might happen only at the symbolic layer, filtering down to in game events only during actual play.  This way, players would not feel restricted so much by the framing, because it was only a symbolic roadmap that could be interpreted in many ways.

This is a great, logical idea. Might have been there before, but for some reason I didn't grok it until now. It solves much of the problems inherent to throughrough-framing by leaving a customizable amount of freedom to interpreting the events.

This could actually lessen completely the need for any external source of surprise; normally one would expect there to be a mechanic for changes that happen between framing and actual telling of the story, to regain some small amount of uncertainty. In here you have such uncertainty in the space of interpreting the frame, and therefore there is less need for it otherwise. Actually, dividing framing and execution between symbolic and concrete levels resonates so logically, that there is nary a doubt that this isn't the right approach here.

The system could possibly benefit from a more exact demarcation between the symbolic and concrete: is it so, that changes in the symbolic structure can only be preprogrammed? And if so, is the program always inchangeable through play? The obvious answer is that the magics are to a degree, as symbols of freedom, free to change symbolics as a surprise, outside the framing. The humble and true varieties need not be differentiated in this, as their other qualities work to give them appropriate possibilities. Alternatively, view humble magic as a tool of the symbolic system, and allow changing of symbols only to true magic. You could even define true magic and it's effects by the symbolics: if there is true magic, it always acts by restructuring the symbolic system, which resonates as another kind of effect. A city can be destroyed by aspecting it to Ash, that kind of thing. In this scheme the humble magic wouldn't change symbols, but it could change the frame. It could even be characterized by this, by allowing it to change one answer (or question) in the frame at the time of playing (producing possibly interesting conflicts with other questions). This way the magics would act to give players a supernatural, metalevel ability to change their frame should they see the need. This would also alleviate the pressure generated by the framing system in a competitive group, as it'd enable a player who by the luck of the turn didn't get a change to affect an important question, the option of using magic.

On a more general vein, although the system does an admirable job of framing and plotting, it doesn't comment inherently about the idea of changing the symbolic system. This has to be intertwined there quite closely. Is the idea that changes in the symbolics are just flat-out declared in the frame, like "The Page of Ice will become the Knight of Snakes."? I think there should be a little more effort involved.

Anyway, to continue about demarcation, what things are possible in the frame? Can magic-use be framed, regardless of it's effects? Or should magic be left as a truly free agent, as I prefer, to heighten the sense of wonder? Is the frame limited strictly to the symbolic level, and if so, how is it possible to refer to the devil in it, as per your example? I agree, that you should be able to refer to such obviously symbolic things, but how to stop one from referring to other things, like the character's descriptor, defeating the whole purpose? What can and cannot be said has to be carefully limited, and that will make the framing more interesting.

Obvious things that can be allowed as referents are the ranks and elements, as well as descriptors of nonliving functions, assuming we want to allow that blade of Ice (not necessarily a good thing). Description of action need not be limited (although one could conseivably use the system of ranks to give different verbs different ranks, and limit somehow the possibilities for each character... actually, this isn't a bad idea; more about it later). How about the devil? To allow the devil, the most obvious thing to do is to allow for singular ranks, which would be created by consensus outside the elemental system (in this scheme, the Magician would be one such singular rank; not entirely sure if I like it). This has the problem of allowing too much freedom if all characters in the game just start popping up as singular ranks. The demand for consensus, lacking from the elemental ranks, won't be nearly enough limitation for some groups. It's that much easier to just throw the elemental symbolics to the side and use only singular ranks.

About the action allowable in the frame: I just noticed, that one could conseivably bring to fore an added symbolic by more strongly associating different actions with different ranks. Remember, your list of ranks gives a (still brilliant) breakdown of different approaches to life, which of course map also to different actions, which can in many cases be given a rank (commanding is the act of a king, and so on). The interesting thing is that this has a symmetry with things, that have an elemental aspect. Thus the symbolic world can be perceived as being a system of things with elemental aspect, acts with rank aspect, and persons that have both. Like with the elemental aspects of things I'd leave the rank aspect of actions almost totally without rules, just giving it as a possibility that helps interpret the symbolics to the story.

From this viewpoint, one could almost demand that the frame not use any word that doesn't have at least implicit symbolic connection. Only tools or things that can be mentioned are those that are already given an aspect, and only acts that can be mentioned are those given a rank. Actants have to be referred to by either their rank, element, or both. This assumes a system that at some stage gives elements and ranks to things, persons and actions (but not to all of them), which is anyway needed; the framing system alone doesn't do the job of assigning these. It's a question how the devil can be infiltrated there somewhere, but it can wait.

In either case, the framing would take the form of a series of questions and answers, going around the circle until enough information was on the table to begin playing through the story or scene:

This is a quite elegant and balanced mechanic. I assume that these questions and answers would be written down always, to allow reference (and possible manipulation through magic) later? Overall, I visualize the game producing written record of all symbolic operations: keeping lists of, for example, elemental affinities of things, will make them more real and consentrate the play around them.

I'd say that any submechanics or other things needed are relatively easy to plant within this. I especially like the dynamic way of deciding when to stop with the questions and move on to play. Technically one could put such an incentive to the story framing as well (now it's not a good thing to be the one who stops the story framing, as you have to ask the first, standard question in the first scene).

When structuring other needed mechanics, like character creation, changing symbolics, resolving disputes or whatever, use the same basic system of questions and answers, either by imbedding to the framing or by additional rounds. For competing-minded players and a more debonair system it'd maybe be good to implant some alternative choices to the framing as well. Some ideas follow. A player can only choose one of these per frame.
- The "Vow of Silence" can be chosen instead of answering a question. In this case, it is just noted that the player didn't tell. The player may then reveal the answer later, even during play, if he so wishes.
- The "Delegate" can be chosen instead of asking or answering. The player chooses another player to play his turn, and the play continues from that player onwards.
- The "Exact Answer" can be chosen instead of answering a question. The player may refer to one thing not otherwise allowed in the frame.
- The "Bestowal" can be chosen instead of asking a question. The player adds an elemental affinity to a thing, a rank affinity to an action or adds or takes away the servitor rank in a given element from a person.
- Changing places: a player can, instead of asking a question, change places with another player. This is a needed function because there is significance to your place in the ring.
- The "Ending" can be chosen instead of asking a question. The player becomes the Scene Master of the next scene.

Once the players decide that enough questions have been asked and answered, the player whose turn it is to ask a question may opt not to, and instead begin framing the first scene.

Here you might need a carrot to make it a sensible decision to be the one who starts. It's not a big thing of course, so most players will certainly rather start than ask harmful questions, but still it'd be good for opting to end to not lessen the player's changes of affecting the game.

During scene framing, once each player has had the chance to ask or answer, any questioning player can opt out of their question and end the framing stage.  Such a player then becomes the Scene Master for the upcoming scene, and is responsible for casting and directing the scene.  Casting basically means fitting characters to the symbolic roles described in the Story and Scene Frame (which character is "the King of Ash," which one "the servant," who is "the master's only son," etc.).

I like the Scene Master. I used just a week ago a similar way of apportioning Gm power in a certain game, and feel that it solves many problems quite easily. Actual play is simply faster and less rambling if there is someone who's job it is to conduct the scene. The Scene Master can also make any needed interpretations about magic and successful actions.

Overall this is better than anything I'd have deviced, as far as simple lightness goes. This is clearly main mechanic material, and other things are easy to put in there. For example creating characters can be structured in the same way, even to the extent of embedding it to the framing procedure.

[Jonathan Walton]

You could even define true magic and it's effects by the symbolics: if there is true magic, it always acts by restructuring the symbolic system, which resonates as another kind of effect. A city can be destroyed by aspecting it to Ash, that kind of thing. In this scheme the humble magic wouldn't change symbols, but it could change the frame. It could even be characterized by this, by allowing it to change one answer (or question) in the frame at the time of playing (producing possibly interesting conflicts with other questions).

Sounds like a nice plan.  I was originally viewing magic as just the symbolic "bleeding through" into the game world, but I like your version better.  This way, people who are aware of magic (say, Magicians) would literally be manipulating the symbolic foundation of the world, quite like what actual occult magic tends to look like, with its symbology and sympathies.

On a more general vein, although the system does an admirable job of framing and plotting, it doesn't comment inherently about the idea of changing the symbolic system. This has to be intertwined there quite closely. Is the idea that changes in the symbolics are just flat-out declared in the frame, like "The Page of Ice will become the Knight of Snakes."? I think there should be a little more effort involved.

Hmm... you might be right.  Then again, the Page of Ice can't become the Knight of Snakes by it simply being declared, can he?  Even if everyone knows that his transformation is the subject of the story, it doesn't happen immediately.  They still have to depict the events by which the Page assumes the Knight's position.

I see the framing of conflict more like a declaration of intent.  Once something is declared, it will definitely happen at some point, as long as magic doesn't interfere and change the symbology.  It's still not totally assured.

Anyway, to continue about demarcation, what things are possible in the frame? Can magic-use be framed, regardless of it's effects? Or should magic be left as a truly free agent, as I prefer, to heighten the sense of wonder?

I don't think magic should be framable.

Is the frame limited strictly to the symbolic level, and if so, how is it possible to refer to the devil in it, as per your example? I agree, that you should be able to refer to such obviously symbolic things, but how to stop one from referring to other things, like the character's descriptor, defeating the whole purpose? What can and cannot be said has to be carefully limited, and that will make the framing more interesting.

I don't quite get what you're saying here.  In my mind, "the devil" is just a symbolic way of referring to some as-yet unspecified dark force.  It could be a person (the King of Snakes), it could be an organization, it could be almost anything.  I was imaging that, during Story/Act Framing, the symbols could be even more abstract, because you wouldn't want to necessarily be too specific at the beginning, when you didn't really know how things were going to work out.  So you can say things like "servant" and "master" and "the devil" instead of "the King of Snakes" and so forth.  Then, when you got down to the Scene level, the language would become much more specific.  It would be a telescoping effect:

1) Game Level: The most abstract levels, Elements, what's missing.
2) Story/Act Level: Medium-level of abstraction, general, unspecific nouns/verbs.
3) Scene Level: Somewhat abstract, the Farmer, the King of Snakes.

Are you objecting to the use of additional symbolic language, not related to the elements and ranks?  It would be nice if everything could have standardized language to describe it, but is that really possible?  I don't really think the players should have to memorize which words they can and can't use, since the general guidelines for narration are difficult enough as it is, I think.

I agree that singular ranks are bad.  I wasn't seeing "the devil" as a rank at all, just a way of referring to a character/place/situation that had not yet become specified at the Scene Level.  Likewise, I saw the "blade of Ice" as a weapon/object/person who was related to the element of Ice, not necessarily as a real blade of any kind.

Thus the symbolic world can be perceived as being a system of things with elemental aspect, acts with rank aspect, and persons that have both.

Y'know, I really like this thought.  You might even be able to have a specified language, kinda like they do in international relations or at the UN, where everyone knows the difference between "strongly condemn" and "express concern."

For example:

King: command, demand, appoint, declare, recognise, bestowe, etc.
Queen: change, manuever, control, etc.
Knight: oppose, battle, confront, denounce, etc.
Page: support, care for, attend, deliver, etc.

Then, when you Frame a Scene or Act, you would choose your words from the list (or use closely related words), depending on what kinds of things were acting.  The King of Snakes would always act in a kingly manner, or risk losing his position as King.  The Page who acted like a Knight would either be moving up, or be quickly pushed back down by those higher up in the heriarchy.

Then again, while I like this kind of system, I'm not sure this is what the game needs.  It seems too... formalized, again.  Maybe your thought about just having King-related acts generalized, but not specifically named, might work.  I just don't really know what this would DO or MEAN in a broader sense.  Would it be a way to spot people who didn't fit their appointed rank?  What would it mean for unranked things, like objects or places, to be acting "like a King" or "like a Page"?  I guess I have a hard time visualizing it.

I assume that these questions and answers would be written down always, to allow reference (and possible manipulation through magic) later? Overall, I visualize the game producing written record of all symbolic operations: keeping lists of, for example, elemental affinities of things, will make them more real and consentrate the play around them.

Definitely.

- The "Vow of Silence" can be chosen instead of answering a question. In this case, it is just noted that the player didn't tell. The player may then reveal the answer later, even during play, if he so wishes.

As they say in Continuum, "Further information not available here."  There should probably be some symbolic language to indicate when a particular non-Question choice is being made.  In this case, maybe something like "No one knows," as a response to a question.

- The "Delegate" can be chosen instead of asking or answering. The player chooses another player to play his turn, and the play continues from that player onwards.

I don't know about this one.  Perhaps the player could simply pass and have the next player go.  Still, I see the possibility of a player opting out of answering questions, because they didn't feel confident or liked another player's answers better.  Bad contributions from all the players would almost be better than good contributions from a few players, if it made everyone feel like they were contributing to the story.

- The "Exact Answer" can be chosen instead of answering a question. The player may refer to one thing not otherwise allowed in the frame.

What kinds of things are you imagining here?

- The "Bestowal" can be chosen instead of asking a question. The player adds an elemental affinity to a thing, a rank affinity to an action or adds or takes away the servitor rank in a given element from a person.

Ah, this is where character creation comes in.  I like it.

- Changing places: a player can, instead of asking a question, change places with another player. This is a needed function because there is significance to your place in the ring.

I don't think this is really that necessary.  If the player really wants to ask a Question, all they have to do is wait until the turn comes around.  If they're worried that the Framing will end before they get a chance, they can always voice this opinion, and, if the rest of the group is done, players can pass until the turn reaches the unsatisfied player.

Aternately, maybe players don't decide when framing is over, maybe they simply opt out of the circle, and Framing continues until everyone has opted out.  However, there could be a rule that, once someone opts out, no player can have more than one additional turn before Framing ends.  This would keep a few players from Framing extensively after one or two players had opted out.

- The "Ending" can be chosen instead of asking a question. The player becomes the Scene Master of the next scene.

I like how you worked this into the standard options.

All in all, I think the system is definitely workable.  Just needs a few revisions before we could try playtesting it to see if it works.

[John Harper]

Hey Jonthan,

I really like what you've got here. The symbolic story/scene framing is something that just feels 'right'. Could you maybe take the example one step further and show us how the group actually plays the concrete portion of the scene? I think that will help me better understand the system as a whole.

[Eero Tuovinen]

On a more general vein, although the system does an admirable job of framing and plotting, it doesn't comment inherently about the idea of changing the symbolic system. This has to be intertwined there quite closely. Is the idea that changes in the symbolics are just flat-out declared in the frame, like "The Page of Ice will become the Knight of Snakes."? I think there should be a little more effort involved.

Hmm... you might be right.  Then again, the Page of Ice can't become the Knight of Snakes by it simply being declared, can he?  Even if everyone knows that his transformation is the subject of the story, it doesn't happen immediately.  They still have to depict the events by which the Page assumes the Knight's position.

As far as the interaction of symbology with events goes, I see a couple of different possible ones, which should both be supported for maximal impact:
- Planned: one or more players decide, now is the time for the Page to be Knighted. The events follow.
- Retroactive: after a couple of scenes, one or more players realize that actually what has happened means that, on some level, the Page has already become a Knight.

Now, as I see it, these two work a little differently. The former should probably be such that you are comfortable with the responsibility it puts upon the players - if there is no limits at all, the players might well just ask and answer questions about their own favourite characters becoming kings, or at least there is a danger of that. The latter should have some way of measuring the change that has happened, so that there is enough resistance to change due to one pisky scene. Here the voting system discussed earlier could come to fore.

A suitable set of limitations for the planned changes would probably include either strict demands for acquiring rank (I'd formalize the demand for Dissatisfaction and Awareness, assuming that no character has these without them being played, possibly in flashback scene, first) or some way for other players to veto the answers a player gives in the framing. For the retroactive changes something along the lines of the voting system discussed could be implemented. It could be an option for a player in the framing, alongside others already discussed: instead of asking a question, a player can choose to ask for retroactive changes in the symbology, and everyone would vote in the manner earlier discussed.

To sum it up, the system needs some limitations, not to empower players, but to empower the symbology. If there is no limits to it's manipulation, there is no incentive to interpreting it either. Therefore only planned changes strongly supported and retroactive changes clearly warranted should be implemented. I'd probably throw in there some mechanic that'd force change or resist it without player intervention too, to ensure that the players really have to struggle with the interpretation - I'd imagine that if the system is left wholly to players, most groups would resolve their personal disagreements in short order and choose a symbolic situation agreeable to all - each player gets an element of his definition in his sole control, every character is owned by a player who decides it's rank, nothing interesting happens. This'd be similar to reading tarot by first choosing yourself which cards to place in the reading. To prevent that there is need of limitations to manipulating symbology, as well as possibly some randomizing element that ensures that the symbology has to be interpreted, not planned

Some more about formalizing demands for the ranks: one natural way for limiting players from manipulating the symbology is indeed to demand certain abstract things - themselves symbolic - to happen in the story for the changes to be possible. Here's the option previously discussed:
Rank -- what is needed
Servitor -- living by the element
Page -- living greatly by the element (LGE), Master
Knight -- Dissatisfaction, Cause, LGE
Queen -- Dissatisfaction, Awareness, Domain, LGE
King -- Dissatisfaction, Awareness, LGE, no other title.
The idea would be, that a character cannot be framed into a rank without it fulfilling these demands, either by plan or retroactively. My point is, that these can be formalized for inclusion in the framing stage:
"What shall happen in this scene?"
"The Page of Northampton will grow Dissatisfied."
Assume, that a character will have none of these requirements unless a scene explicitly has bestowed them. Then, if a player wanted to make a character king from null, he'd need possibly some four scenes to do it. This is suitable resistance to change, as assumedly other players will either hinder or help the story along that path.

I see the framing of conflict more like a declaration of intent.  Once something is declared, it will definitely happen at some point, as long as magic doesn't interfere and change the symbology.  It's still not totally assured.

This is, as far as it goes, entirely agreeable. Just ponder on the above remarks.

Is the frame limited strictly to the symbolic level, and if so, how is it possible to refer to the devil in it, as per your example? I agree, that you should be able to refer to such obviously symbolic things, but how to stop one from referring to other things, like the character's descriptor, defeating the whole purpose? What can and cannot be said has to be carefully limited, and that will make the framing more interesting.

I don't quite get what you're saying here.  In my mind, "the devil" is just a symbolic way of referring to some as-yet unspecified dark force.  It could be a person (the King of Snakes), it could be an organization, it could be almost anything.  I was imaging that, during Story/Act Framing, the symbols could be even more abstract, because you wouldn't want to necessarily be too specific at the beginning, when you didn't really know how things were going to work out.  So you can say things like "servant" and "master" and "the devil" instead of "the King of Snakes" and so forth.  Then, when you got down to the Scene level, the language would become much more specific.  It would be a telescoping effect:

I see what you're saying here, but I was worrying about how the players will use the system. Without exact limits on what can be said, there would probably be a strong volition towards using as exact language as possible (remember, the main reason for a player to open his mouth in Universalis-type games is because he has an idea about what, exactly, should happen now). Therefore the players will have a tendency to just drift from using vague symbolics to the use of actual names, if there is no exact rules. This is what I was getting at.

1) Game Level: The most abstract levels, Elements, what's missing.
2) Story/Act Level: Medium-level of abstraction, general, unspecific nouns/verbs.
3) Scene Level: Somewhat abstract, the Farmer, the King of Snakes.

This is good, and should be included in the rules. Slightly different symbolic languages in the four stages (the actual playing is a stage too) are not too heavy a burden, as that'll ensure that players consider their use of words properly. This should be clearly spelled out and made full use of.

Are you objecting to the use of additional symbolic language, not related to the elements and ranks?  It would be nice if everything could have standardized language to describe it, but is that really possible?  I don't really think the players should have to memorize which words they can and can't use, since the general guidelines for narration are difficult enough as it is, I think.

You are correct, the language would clearly be too poor if it were artificially limited. I'm just worrying that the players won't be vague enough in the different levels without forcing it: it'd be really cool if a player stated during story framing that a character would do the "act of the Queens" (reminiscing about the classification of acts to ranks, here) during the story, without specifying even a verb, but will that happen without rules enforcing it? I'm just looking for some similar narrative guidelines for the other three levels as there is already for the concrete play level: those simple rules do the job, I feel, without making the language any poorer or play too difficult. And think how delightfully complex communication would be if there indeed were these four levels of communication, each with slightly different limitations ;)

I agree that singular ranks are bad.  I wasn't seeing "the devil" as a rank at all, just a way of referring to a character/place/situation that had not yet become specified at the Scene Level.  Likewise, I saw the "blade of Ice" as a weapon/object/person who was related to the element of Ice, not necessarily as a real blade of any kind.

Agreed. Making the devil a singular rank was just my first thought about how to control the language, and not a very good one. The problem, as I see it, is that by allowing anything you'd allow in the actual play, you leave perilously little room for interpretation. It's debatable if there need be any room at the scene level (it is thoroughframing, after all), but at the story (and game, act) level there most definitely need be.

Thus the symbolic world can be perceived as being a system of things with elemental aspect, acts with rank aspect, and persons that have both.

Y'know, I really like this thought.  You might even be able to have a specified language, kinda like they do in international relations or at the UN, where everyone knows the difference between "strongly condemn" and "express concern."

For example:

King: command, demand, appoint, declare, recognise, bestowe, etc.
Queen: change, manuever, control, etc.
Knight: oppose, battle, confront, denounce, etc.
Page: support, care for, attend, deliver, etc.

Then, when you Frame a Scene or Act, you would choose your words from the list (or use closely related words), depending on what kinds of things were acting.  The King of Snakes would always act in a kingly manner, or risk losing his position as King.  The Page who acted like a Knight would either be moving up, or be quickly pushed back down by those higher up in the heriarchy.

Then again, while I like this kind of system, I'm not sure this is what the game needs.  It seems too... formalized, again.  Maybe your thought about just having King-related acts generalized, but not specifically named, might work.  I just don't really know what this would DO or MEAN in a broader sense.  Would it be a way to spot people who didn't fit their appointed rank?  What would it mean for unranked things, like objects or places, to be acting "like a King" or "like a Page"?  I guess I have a hard time visualizing it.

There's no problem here, as far as I can see. The symbolic connections of acts towards ranks is exactly the same case as things towards elements - there need not be any specific meaning in the car being snake-aspected, so why would there be with actions? I suggest just giving the possibility and leaving it at that. The idea would be that, the same way as the snake-car will inspire the players to decide that it betrays it's user at a crucial time, the fact that our Page wants to be a painter will inspire a change to the rank of Queen. The normal symbolic connection would be connecting war to Knights, but what if a specific war would be a Pagic war? That kind of thing. There is no need to understand symbolic systems, just offer them and let local interpretation and inspiration take care of the rest. The best symbolics rarely are coherent over the whole set, and they only make sense when considered in small parts over a definite example.

What comes to express lists about assosiations of rank and actions, I wouldn't use them in the manner you mean. It's the same as with the elements; better for the players to just name the elements and maybe a sample list of the most obvious meanings, but leave it at that. Likewise the ranks are universal, everyone understands what a king is. Let the players, through the act of playing, decide what actually, in their game, is a kingly act. Remember, there is no rules that enforce interpretation, like there is in D&D where the black agate is actually a stone of necromantic assosiation.

I'm continuously trying to figure out if the ranks could be left for player customization at the game creation, but I feel that there is too many thematic (as opposed to premise) elements there, too much rules mechanic for it to be possible. Much of the benefit can be gained by the system of variable titles I suggested earlier, as it differentiates between the elements on an entirely symbolic level while leaving the mechanics intact.

- The "Vow of Silence" can be chosen instead of answering a question. In this case, it is just noted that the player didn't tell. The player may then reveal the answer later, even during play, if he so wishes.

As they say in Continuum, "Further information not available here."  There should probably be some symbolic language to indicate when a particular non-Question choice is being made.  In this case, maybe something like "No one knows," as a response to a question.

Yup, symbolic language is cool, and the more the better. After all, players can easily strip it away if it's not to their liking.

This is anyway an interesting framing option, as it explicitly leaves a little bit of the scene a surprise for the other players. If they feel that the bit is too large, they can always nibble at it with additional questions that specify the unknown part further.

- The "Delegate" can be chosen instead of asking or answering. The player chooses another player to play his turn, and the play continues from that player onwards.

I don't know about this one.  Perhaps the player could simply pass and have the next player go.  Still, I see the possibility of a player opting out of answering questions, because they didn't feel confident or liked another player's answers better.  Bad contributions from all the players would almost be better than good contributions from a few players, if it made everyone feel like they were contributing to the story.

This is an interesting question: would a game like this be better with enforced contribution, or with voluntary? Note that your (innovative) question-answer method will ensure that no one player can decide on the proceedings anyway. It is of course a strong point, that enforcing will at least make sure that everyone participates.

Anyway, the idea of this option is two-fold: a player can make a tactical reapportioning of narrative power with this, and ensure that he himself get's the important question. That's why the player chooses himself who has the next turn: by choosing the right person, he can for example give others extra turns (but not himself), or get others to make groundwork for his important question (or answer, as he can decide if he'll ask or answer). So the form I chose is a tactical one as well.

Someone could think that putting clear tactical options in the game will diminish it's narrativistic leaning, but I don't feel so. If the players aren't interested in these tactics, they can ignore them, but if there ever comes a heated situation of narrative control, these will conseivably make it a little more involved than pure chance.

- The "Exact Answer" can be chosen instead of answering a question. The player may refer to one thing not otherwise allowed in the frame.

What kinds of things are you imagining here?

Depends on what kind of narrative guidelines there are for the different levels of framing. The general answer would be that the question may be answered one level lower in the abstraction. So, for example, if it were not allowed to specify a particular character in the frame, the player could do so with this option.
"What will happen in the scene?"
"A young man will become Aware of higher beings."
versus
"Exact answer: the Page of Heaven will meet angels, and thus become Aware."

- The "Bestowal" can be chosen instead of asking a question. The player adds an elemental affinity to a thing, a rank affinity to an action or adds or takes away the servitor rank in a given element from a person.

Ah, this is where character creation comes in.  I like it.

It's probably not enough for the whole character creation, as I feel that the whole interlocking mix is quite complex. But as I see it, granting Servitor states (which are analogical to elemental and rank affinities of things and actions) should probably be a relatively simple matter of announcement. The character has to live to some degree according to the element, but that is such a small demand that a scene shouldn't be needed to affirm it. Additionally, servitor status is only rarely useful, and is many times harmful, so it balances out and no-one should want one just because.

- Changing places: a player can, instead of asking a question, change places with another player. This is a needed function because there is significance to your place in the ring.

I don't think this is really that necessary.  If the player really wants to ask a Question, all they have to do is wait until the turn comes around.  If they're worried that the Framing will end before they get a chance, they can always voice this opinion, and, if the rest of the group is done, players can pass until the turn reaches the unsatisfied player.

Actually, this isn't there for that reason. The simple reason is that in a game depending on who you sit next to, it's a balancing idea if you can change your seating once in a while. In a sufficiently competitive group the players could even have a conflict amongst themselves about who will ask questions of whom. This is a marginal problem, I agree, and most groups will find it easier for everyone to just sit where he wants to.

Alternately, maybe players don't decide when framing is over, maybe they simply opt out of the circle, and Framing continues until everyone has opted out.  However, there could be a rule that, once someone opts out, no player can have more than one additional turn before Framing ends.  This would keep a few players from Framing extensively after one or two players had opted out.

Or, as a less heavyhanded alternative, the framing ends when everyone has passed in succession. Your way means that one player can force the framing to end, and due to the nature of the game, I don't think that it's possible to frame too much, at least easily. Better that one player can force the framing to continue.