[Humble Mythologies] where do i go with this?

[Jonathan Walton]

Indeed, fricking brilliant is what's needed, I won't forgive you if you go for anything suboptimal on such a nice game idea.

From world to symbols when exploring the story, and from symbols to world when creating one, shall be the law.

Did you understand what I meant about the amounts of the different titles?

Yes, yes, and yes.  I think we're really thinking in the same direction right now.

Thus we could have the Ice Queen of Marlsboro (don't ask why), her Ice Knight of Marlsboro (meaning the knight's cause is the queen, or Marlsboro, depending on preference) and a couple of Pages for those two, all aspected to Ice.

Something just struck me when reading your last post.  If each member of high-ranked royalty needs something to be King/Queen of, and things don't have names... Perhaps you can only become a King/Queen once you have a named thing to be ruler of.  That is, you have to wait for True Magic to name something, then, you can declare yourself ruler of it.  Part of what makes royalty aware of magic, then, is that their dominion is over something that magic has named.

Makes me wonder if we could work out similar narrative requirements for each rank, which would make advancement rare, but possible.  Maybe we need some in-game thing to provoke dissatisfaction?

Another potentially-brilliant thought that just struck me: what if the requirements for changing rank or element is that you have to make the other players think that the change needs to happen, without mentioning it yourself.  So, you have to make your character act a certain way, such that it causes someone else to say: "Y'know, I really think the Tall Man should be Snake-element, not Ice-element.  He's been really distrustworthy lately."

The interesting thing about this, is that it's really based on actual play, or at least the other player's perceptions of actual play.  And, you know what?  Occasionally, they'll probably change your character's rank or element and you won't even see it coming.  You'll want to respond, "No!  Wait!  The Tall Man isn't distrustworthy!  He's the champion of beauty and fragility!"  But that won't do anything.  The character will switch and you'll have to figure out a way to adapt to it.

The system would have to be a little more complicated that that, more involved than just one player saying that they thought a change was needed (to keep change from being constant), but what do you think of that as a basis for change?  It would certainly make it happen somewhat consistently, but then also occur just unexpectedly every now and then, promoting plot.

So the rules system used should enable players to:
a) resolve disagreements about framing,
b) enable players to proactively change elemental associations of characters and introduce assosiations for things,
c) evaluate and record changes in elemental assosiations that happen due to what happens in the game and
d) maybe do some slight manipulation of the representation of the world, like adding and changing adjectives to things, as a kind of a symbol manipulation.

So, something based on other player's developing perceptions of your own play behavior would potentially address issues B through D.

Imagine a system that might work something like this:

1. At the end of each scene, every player takes out a card and writes down any symbol changes that they think need to take place as a result of the events of the scene.  You can't, however, request symbol changes for your own characters.

2. There would be a list of "warning signs" that a change might be needed.  For instance, if True Magic named a place and a character established themselves as the person in charge of such a place, perhaps a new King or Queen needs to be crowned.  There would be similar steps that one could take to make change more likely, but it would still ultimately be up to the other players.  If the King of Snakes made a move to take over Ice, but did it in a sneaky fashion, they might decide he deserves to remain a Snake-element character.

3. Finally, the cards would be collected and compared.  Any changes suggested by more than one player (therefore, only the "obviously necessary" changes) are the ones that happen.  However, the reading out loud of other player's perspectives on your character (say, if one player thought you should change elements, when you didn't expect it) also serves as feedback and a way to inform your own roleplaying.

But there's still scene-framing conflicts to worry about.  That leads me to your comments about card mechanics and different types of scenes:

Anyway, consider playing cards for the mechanics.

I myself would maybe explore the possibilities of tying the different functions to parts of the story
(scenes, climaxes, intermissions, sessions, prologues, epilogues, flashbacks, stories, acts, books, chapters, tie-ins, the animated series, action figures, preparation sequences, revelations, turns of the plot, introducing characters, removing characters, beginnings and endings)
to get that literary, stylistic feel.

What if there were cards with different types of scenes on them, which were then somehow drawn or arranged in a particular order, partially by choice and partially by chance.  After all, there's no reason that the story couldn't start with a conclusion or intermission.  Maybe there would be other cards for adding or removing players, or ones that limited the number or type of characters that could be in a particular scene.

I don't know how well this would work, or how I would create such cards, but it's just an initial thought.  I don't like it as much as the "other character's reactions determine change" mechanic I suggested earlier.

Maybe someone else has another suggestion?

Maybe embed the whole to some regimented cultural tradition, like ballet or opera buffo, to get some inspiration and color to the mechanics.

Opera buffo is very, very cool.  But you run into another symbolic language there, which I don't think would necessarily gel well with the Elements and Approaches that we've defined already.  Maybe we could steal their narrative structures, though.  I'm going to think more about how exactly the scene framing connects with the rest of what we've got so far, but I wanted to divulge what my mind was already churning on.

Hey, just tell me if I'm too pushy. You can think of it as admiration of the concept. I don't post too much, partly because of time, but partly because not everything draws me to.

It's amazing when another person gets as psyched about your ideas as you do.  Do you realize we've come pretty close to fleshing out most of the game in less than 15 posts?  That's unbelievable.  There's only been a few times when I felt like my brain was really in tune with where someone else was going, and this is definitely one of them.  Shreyas and I do a real good job of supporting each other's creative processes, when we get focused and jazzed up, but it's cool to get in that groove with someone else.

THIS IS WHAT THE INDIE DESIGN FORUM SHOULD BE!  Where you find people who tackle your ideas with you and keep pushing you to be better than you think you can be.  Already, this game is going more interesting places than I would have been likely to take it myself.  I couldn't be more pleased.

You know... Another thing just struck me: it's going to be impossible to have artwork for this game, assuming it gets to that point.  Everything will have to ride on the words, the graphic design, and maybe some non-representational artwork to convey mood and color.  But anything representational goes against the game's narrative guidelines, because it would describe the external properties of things.  

That's really cool actually.  A graphic designer's dream come true.  Already, I'm imagining how cool it would be to get Oliver Graute (of the German company "Feder & Schwert") to do some design work for it, since he's an unsurpassed genius when it comes to non-representational graphic elements (as you can see from his design work on Engel).

But can't think of that yet.  Long way to go until then...

[Eero Tuovinen]

Something just struck me when reading your last post.  If each member of high-ranked royalty needs something to be King/Queen of, and things don't have names... Perhaps you can only become a King/Queen once you have a named thing to be ruler of.  That is, you have to wait for True Magic to name something, then, you can declare yourself ruler of it.  Part of what makes royalty aware of magic, then, is that their dominion is over something that magic has named.

That's a logical idea, the best kind. Certainly one should allow ousting of monarchs to make room for new ones, but naming them certainly seems to be the way the domains are originally created. Can't be the queen of anything without it having a name, can you?

Makes me wonder if we could work out similar narrative requirements for each rank, which would make advancement rare, but possible.  Maybe we need some in-game thing to provoke dissatisfaction?

Dissatisfaction comes quite naturally, as the other kind of character rarely has anything interesting to do. Usually the character starts moving when the dissatisfaction starts, and it's just a matter of formulating it for this game.

As to the narrative requirements, they already exist. The Page needs something to serve, something that is a)bigger than him and b)of the same element. This isn't a trivial thing, as mostly these things are other titleholders, who might well already have Pages. Likewise a Knight needs a cause, which has to be a)bigger than him and b)of the same element. As with Pages, most knights probably serve Queens or Kings. The world is too gray and unreal for most other things to matter enough, what with the lack of placenames and all.

There is a certain symmetry in the three middle titles, while the King stands alone. To my mind the requirement of seizing the throne (just how likely it is empty?) is plenty enough for the king.

Another potentially-brilliant thought that just struck me: what if the requirements for changing rank or element is that you have to make the other players think that the change needs to happen, without mentioning it yourself.  So, you have to make your character act a certain way, such that it causes someone else to say: "Y'know, I really think the Tall Man should be Snake-element, not Ice-element.  He's been really distrustworthy lately."

This could work, alright. The only doubt is whether this takes the symbolic system too far out, making it too bothersome to use. If we stray too much to that direction, play will simply ignore most parts. The system should be such that it demands input and updating. Being a complex question, I advice that you take time over this.

The system would have to be a little more complicated that that, more involved than just one player saying that they thought a change was needed (to keep change from being constant), but what do you think of that as a basis for change?  It would certainly make it happen somewhat consistently, but then also occur just unexpectedly every now and then, promoting plot.

I like the approach, overall. It just needs some little hooks to make it interesting, and solid integration to the whole. Can't say I can think of anything more suitable.

Imagine a system that might work something like this:

1. At the end of each scene, every player takes out a card and writes down any symbol changes that they think need to take place as a result of the events of the scene.  You can't, however, request symbol changes for your own characters.

Differentiating between own characters and others is almost incoherent, I'd say, when the game is otherwise quite ready to be played from a completely detached viewpoint. The same effect is gained by demanding one player more to back the suggestion. The effect is the same as banning voting for own characters, as everyone will usually vote for their own first.

One option to consider is limiting and formalizing the changes thusly: every player writes a recommendation for every element after each scene (actually, scene is a tad too short, might need a longer interval). The recommendation is either a titling or ousting, depending on whether the player thinks someone should be removed or coronated in that element. Votes are then calculated thusly:
Votes needed -- The effect
2 -- Becoming a Servitor
3 -- Gaining a free title
5 -- Ousting a titleholder
1 -- Claiming a thing for the element
The votes to oust a given titleholder are summed with the votes for coronating another if appropriate. If ousted, a character is made a Servitor (this is a necessary balance between the titles, regardless of chosen mechanics).
To add a random twist and make sure there are enough votes floating around, the votes from earlier rounds are preserved. The last round is always added to the newest when counting votes. Thusly a lone player can, if given two rounds, effect a servitor status. Later, from the third round on, random votes are added to the two rounds from the older ones, as many as there is players. So effectively there will be three times the number of players in votes, one third of them random ones.

I cannot say that this blows me away - too few hooks, too many numbers as of now - but something like that is indicated if this is the chosen way. To give perspective, I'll reveal a half-resource system for comparison:

Each player gets ten tokens at game start. These tokens are used to override others in disagreements (one token, the fastest wins) without recourse to bidding. They are also used to effect changes in symbology: becoming a Servitor and gaining a title both demand that someone pay a token.

Now, the point is this: there is no method for gaining tokens, and therefore this is not a real resource management system. When only one player has tokens left, all players get a full hand of ten tokens.

A simple resource system like this has the benefit of extremely efficient conflict resolution, but there is a corresponding drawback in symbolic strength and sensibility.

What if there were cards with different types of scenes on them, which were then somehow drawn or arranged in a particular order, partially by choice and partially by chance.  After all, there's no reason that the story couldn't start with a conclusion or intermission.  Maybe there would be other cards for adding or removing players, or ones that limited the number or type of characters that could be in a particular scene.

As you yourself realise, this isn't the right choise for this game (although it could work for a fast and silly narrativistic romp). It's a little too heavy a mechanic, without enough symbolic strength.

Maybe embed the whole to some regimented cultural tradition, like ballet or opera buffo, to get some inspiration and color to the mechanics.

Opera buffo is very, very cool.  But you run into another symbolic language there, which I don't think would necessarily gel well with the Elements and Approaches that we've defined already.  Maybe we could steal their narrative structures, though.  I'm going to think more about how exactly the scene framing connects with the rest of what we've got so far, but I wanted to divulge what my mind was already churning on.

That's true. If looking for symbolic systems that are concordant with this one, the tarot is the obvious one. Can't say that that makes me happy, though: when you put tarot in anything it takes the thing completely over, and then you are interpreting for the nth time the relationship of the devil to the tower.

You know... Another thing just struck me: it's going to be impossible to have artwork for this game, assuming it gets to that point.  Everything will have to ride on the words, the graphic design, and maybe some non-representational artwork to convey mood and color.  But anything representational goes against the game's narrative guidelines, because it would describe the external properties of things.  

Indeed, you are correct. One could try for an extremely disjointed or smugdy style, though... seemingly random lines, that leave the impression of human form, for example. The cover should anyway represent the blossoming of True Magic, with a black and white world in the process of gaining color.

I'll desist for now from further commentaries. The rules system is an important part, and it should have time to gel. I promise that I'll put this to the back of my head and let it simmer, so I might have something intelligent to say about this later. I suggest that you read the exhange to date a few days from now, in case something intelligent got missed ;)

To close this, my list of things that the rules should be. Tape it to your fridge door ;) For some reason it distinctly looks like the Ten Commandments, with a division of 3/7 and all...

1) The rules should produce change in the symbology, to inspire change in the story.
2) The rules should enable players to change the symbology, to reflect changes in the story.
3) The rules should handle conflict resolution between players.

4) The rules should be light and situation based, with no stats or resources.
5) The rules should give structure to the narration, with explicit reference to scenes and possibly other narrative structure.
6) The rules should be compact and plain; the mystery comes later.
7) The rules should be algorithmic, forcing the players to care for the symbolic structure.
8) The rules should limit nothing, as long as there is a consensus.
9) The rules should be flavourless, but failing that, the flavour should use strong and universal symbols, not weak and local ones.
10) The rules should be finished quickly, so we get to play the thing.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I got to thinking while washing dishes about the nature and reasons of the narrative limitations placed on the players of Humble Mythologies. Here's what I came up with:

The four limitations, as presented by Mr Walton, are the following:
1. You cannot use any proper nouns, ever.
2. No heavy description of anything.
3. Characters cannot introspectively question the nature of the world.
4. There is no possibility of violence.

Now, it's quite clear that the first and second limitations are a part of the same principle, that of making the world simple. This is the central aesthetic of the game, let's not mess with it. The third is likewise necessary for deep thematic reasons; it'd be strange if the characters would question their world, but the game would lose it's meaning without such questioning: therefore we prohibit such introspection, and thus draw the player's attention to it.

The fourth is the clausule I'm interested in. Why no violence? There's two reasons: firstly, this removes a central element of usual games, and thus opens the possibilities for unusual play. Pretty basic, and should be a part of many other games. The second reason is thematic, as I understand it: by removing a valuable part of the world, we make it the lesser for it. As I noted earlier, the game gives us shocking possibilities in working with the wonder of magic, by magic the baseline reality lesser than our own, and thus giving room for the magic to live in.

From this second reason I came to the conclusion that there actually is no reason for the violence limitation to be the only one; indeed, it should only be a suggestion, a good example of such a limit. In this way the game would gain in thematic tools, in the same way it gains by letting the players choose the elements in the symbology.

If the players could choose the way their world is limited (similar to MLwM with it's "more than human" and "less than human"), they could more effectively control the themes. Imagine that instead of "no violence" there'd be "no love" or "no dreams" or even "no plumbing". The limitations would focus the play, especially as exactly the lacking consepts would be the ones that magic would allow.

This could be conceivably done the same way as with elements, with there being as many consepts lacking in the world as there are players, with one added later through consensus. This'd work with smaller parts, but the kinds of violence would then be too large. Perhaps the players simply decide freeform the number and type of lacks in the world of their story.

The limits on narration, therefore, would contract to following:
1. The world is vague and archetypal in nature.
2. Characters cannot introspectively question the nature of the world.
4. The world lacks something valuable to human condition.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Jonathan, I think Eero just figured out how to make that Invisible Cities game you've been longing after.

Eero, that's brilliant.

[Jonathan Walton]

Eero, that's brilliant.

I agree.  Quite nice.

So, then, it seems like we need an additional "Game Framing" stage, don't we?  This would give the players time to determine:

1) What's missing from the world?
2) The elements of the world.
3) The ranks each element has (if they're non-standard).
4) The conditions under which the ranks are usurped.

You then follow with Story (maybe we should call each session an "Act," for unity's sake) and Scene Framing, with character/object/place creation bound up in the Framing structure.

Would we need a real process for Game Framing, do you think, or can players just work together to establish the facts?  Perhaps we could suggest that each player come up with something that's missing, an element, the ranks for the element, and the usurping conditions, and that the game should best be played with 4-6 people?  Of course, it'd be ideal if the players individually come up with these things, in conversation with one another, but I suppose they could work seperately and then bring the pieces together, if that was easier.

[Jux]

First off I would like to get the pre-posting requisites out of the way:
Obviously no one would comment if they werent truly and seriously impressed with the game idea.
And I am.
It looks to me like it has a startling amount of possibility.

Also, I am late.
With both of those in mind, I really only have one issue that I would like to see clarifyed by brighter, and more directly involved minds than my own:

The role of Approaches.


When I first began reading the thread, it was the character design system and its trappings that really excited me. As the thread progressed, something changed subtly - it may be that this is for the best, or the intended result, or that I am simply misreading, but it seems that Approaches have become a hierarchy as opposed to what they began as.

The problem that I see with arranging the Approaches as a system of ranks is that it must, as a necessity, cheapen each rank but the topmost.
When the Approaches are only a road to king-ship, how can Any page possibly be a Good page? They would all become mercenaries, posers, just scrambling for power.

Rather it was my understanding that to be a Page was to want to be a page, because it was not a recognized thing. If one lived in accordance with protecting and nurturing one's element, then one was a page. There was nowhere to go, because to be a Knight carried no more power, or prestiege, only a different way of looking at things.


As an example, take The Grass Cutter.
The Grass Cutter is a young man who cuts grass. He happens to be the Knight of Brambles (association: plants, thorns,growing things..etc).
The Grass Cutter might, in the course of a roleplay, chase hoodlums from his golf course, combat animals attempting to destroy it, or hack apart unruly plants. Because that is how he serves his element, by fighting for it.
The Grass Cutter works with the Mechanic, who happens to be the Queen of Gears (mechanical apparatus, oil, metal..). The Grass Cutter is also the Page of Gears. This is not to say that the Queen holds more power than the Grass Cutter, it is to say that the Grass Cutter cares for his machines, he keeps them in good repair, he cleans and checks them; and that is all. And that is all he Wants to do with them.
The Queen, the Mechanic, builds new machines, controls and manipulates them, works a will through the element.

I can see how they (the Approaches) seem to dictate a hierarchy, but I suppose my point is that it seems as though there would be a distinct lack of motivation to climb that hierarchy, unless something Drastically changed in the character itself.

So I suppose the ambition could still exist, but to make it inborn just doesnt quite jive with how I originally viewed the approaches.

Once again, this could be a personal complaint, or wholly misrepresentative, but hey - I wanted it to be on the table.

[Eero Tuovinen]

The role of Approaches.

Of course the text is Jonathan's, but I can tell what I'd prefer: no comment at all from the designer. Or rather, make note of the fact that there is no inherent mechanical advantage to any of the ranks, and leave it for the players. As I've already implicated, I'd like to see the game written in such a manner that it differentiates clearly between the objective rules information and the analysis of possible themes. The former is rules, the latter is a subjective interpretation of the possibities. This is a good example of the kind of questions triggered by the rules. Your hesitation about whether what you see is in the text or in your mind is actually a good sign: neither me nor Jonathan has actually commented on the relative "worth" of the ranks.

As I see the point of the game, one of the questions to be interpreted is whether one is content to be the Page. This is a real, personal question for everyone in this, our, world, and it'd be foolish to assume that a designer could or should simply decide the matter for the players. Better to let them consider it themselves.

Consider: I myself have wrested with ambition and truth for years. Should I strive for a position of merit and power in a world of lies, or content myself with perfecting my own way? There's no easy answer. In a similar way, this is very much a decision for the players.

It should be noted that as far as I understand the rules, there should be no hierarchy supported by them, except by implication. For example, when a character loses a rank, I'd say he won't "drop" one rank down, but becomes a servitor in that element. Similarly there is no reason at all to go through all the ranks to become a King; on the contrary, it's a rare beast indeed, the character who is temperamentally suited to serve the same element in all the positions. In this sense all the ranks (except servitors, who do no humble magic) are equal. Whether characters see it that way depends on their wisdom, as it does in the real world.

So in conclusion, I agree with your thinking. There shouldn't be an explicit hierarchy, and your conclusions about diminishing the importance of ranks by imposing one are the correct ones. However, part of the premise here is that the players and characters might have their own notions, and they shouldn't be discouraged.

By the by, Jonathan, how is the game coming along? I want to play it in May, when I get rid of the current projects...

[Jux]

Concerns allayed by a rereading bearing those facts in mind.

I bow to the point of freedom.
Well done, and thanks.

[Jonathan Walton]

Thanks for the comments, Jux.  I think all 3 of us on are the same page here.  The heirarchy between ranks is simply an implied one.  Some characters (and players) will feel drawn to climb the heirarchy and some will not.  To each their own.  The idea is for the symbolic world to provide motivation for the "real" one.  The implied heirarchy is one way this can happen, but there are plenty of others too.

By the by, Jonathan, how is the game coming along? I want to play it in May, when I get rid of the current projects...

Well, right now, Antti Karjalainen (another Finnish fellow, coincidentally) and I are finishing up work on my first published game, Argonauts, which is about mythic Greek superheroes who are destined to die a horrible and unhappy death.  Not quite as unique as Humble Mythologies, perhaps, but it tackles tragedy, which is a genre that roleplaying (at least in the US) has only begun to explore.  It's somewhat based on Mutants & Masterminds, which is somewhat based on d20, but should play quite differently from either of those systems.  Hopefully, that should be out in the next couple weeks.

Once that project's out of the way, I imagine that Humble Mythologies is up next, followed by my masks & identity game, Beneath This Facade (which will probably end up borrowing some mechanics from Humble Mythologies).  May might be a good month to aim for, at least for a playtest version.  Is that soon enough for you? ;)