[Trials Distilled] Describing credibility

[Jasper]

I'm still hacking away at the text of Trials of the Grail: Distilled (go to the link in my sig if you want to read about it) and I'd appreciate some feedback / help. Right now I'm working on describing some basic issues of credibility, and how that leads into conflict resolution.  I'm aiming primarily for a semi-experienced audience, though if it were comprehensible by the lay-person, that would be a nice bonus.  

STATEMENTS

The underlying basis of play is an imaginary world that everyone conceives of together. Things happen in this world when the participants make Statements about it. These Statements can consist of just about anything. They can describe part of the world, a change that it goes through, or what someone says or feels. For instance,

"At the top of the castle is a huge tower, with green light coming out of the windows."

"The bishop leaps up onto his horse and rides away."

"Lady Emily feels sad."

Each of these sentences says something about the imagined world and therefore is a Statement.

Objections

There are restrictions on what Statements you can make. Most basically, you could say something that another participant doesn't like. For instance, "Then aliens attack and the world is destroyed." That spoils everyone else's fun, so they probably won't let you get away with it. They'll complain and try to make you take the Statement back, or change it into something reasonable, like "Aliens arrive. They want to destroy the world." That's something everyone can work with (maybe).

Of course, there's no way your friends can force you to take back a Statement even if they really don't like it. But they can ignore it by not incorporating it into their conception of the world. They can also decide not to invite you back next time.

Conflict

Both kinds of participants nominally control different parts of the world, and can freely make Statements concerning it.  A Player's domain is his Questor. He has free reign to State what his Questor does, says, thinks, or feels. The GM's domain is the rest of the world. He can freely make Statements about everything except the Questors.

Of course, these two domains need to interact. Players will want to describe their Questors affecting the world. One might say, "Bobby returns fire and kills the enemy soldiers."  And the GM will want to describe the world affecting them, as in "The boulder rolls down the hill and crushes Bobby." These Statements can be made, but only provisionally. They may be adjusted or even replaced completely. Exactly what happens is decided with a Trial.

TRIALS

A Trial is a test of a Questor's character. It asks, is he strong enough? Smart enough? Virtuous enough? If he passes, the situation will go in his favor. If he fails, it will go against him.

Trials are called for whenever the Questor and the rest of the world are in conflict. Some times, a Statement will influence both but not have a very major effect.  For instance, "Barry picks up the gun." Barry is tecnically altering the world, i.e. the gun, but there's no real conflict there; nothing significant is at stake.  In these cases, the Trial can be foregone and the Statement simply accepted.  If a Player made the Statement, the GM decides whether a Trial is needed.  If the GM made the Statement, the Player of the affected Questor decides.

When a Statement is not simply accepted, a Trial will determine what actually happens in the story. Right now we'll look at the basics of the process and deal with details later (Chapter 4).

...

What do you think?  Is this comprehensible and useful, described this way, especially for someone unfamiliar with Forge theories?

[Garbanzo]

Hey, Jasper.

Yeah, I think that's all pretty clear.  Director power made easy.  

One thing: it's very clear how Statements about the PCs can lead to Conflicts, which are resolved by Trials.  This is clear and elegant.  But the section on Objections doesn't have this punch.  To paraphrase, "Everyone can say what they want about the world, and the only way to object is to leave the game."
Could non-character conflicts be resolved with the  same Trial system, or a variation thereof?  (I dunno, "Roll-off, with each other player who supports you granting a +1.")

Your goal seems to be to show that director power is fun and functional.  This will be a stronger argument if difficulties are explicitly acknowledged and resolvable.

-Matt

[Jasper]

Hm, good point, Matt.  I really only included that clause about leaving the game as a threat, more than as a typical "solution" to disagreements.  I'm not sure I want a formal, mechanical resolution system aside from Trials though.  How about...

Objections

There are some restrictions on what Statements you can make however. First, you might say something that the other participants don't like. For instance, "Then aliens attack and the world is destroyed." That spoils everyone's fun, and they probably won't let you get away with it. They should tell you what they don't like about your Statement and ask you to modify it. In this case, maybe "Aliens arrive. They want to destroy the world." That might be something they can work with.

There's no simple way to resolve disagreements about what's reasonable.  A "majority rules" strategy might work, but ultimately you'll just have to talk it out.  Generally, it's best to give your fellow participants a wide latitude.  Don't strenuously object to something unless it really goes against the spirit of the game.

Of course, there's no way your friends can force you to take back a Statement, even if they really object to it. But if you won't play ball, neither should they. They can ignore a Statement by not incorporating it into their conception of the world, and they can decide not to invite you back next time.

Does that make it more workable? I realise that it's not ironclad, by any means, but do I really need to include mechanics for basic "I won't wreck your game if you don't wreck mine" stuff? (I'm honestly asking, BTW.)

There is a later section of the rules which discusses some related topics -- I left it until the end because it relates back to most of the rules.  Maybe it helps with this issue.

JOBS

It goes without saying that role-playing is fun, but it also demands work. You work in order to have fun, and not just during preparation but through the entire game. You have to be proactive about your fun.

Because role-playing is a group project, everyone has to work together. Each participant has to be committed not just to his own fun but to everyone else's, in practice as well as in theory. A group that can't manage this should find something else to do (bowling, cards, whatever) and other people to role-play with.

Each participant has several jobs to do, to help make the game work.

[*]Every participant should discuss the unfolding game, make suggestions, and signal his approval or disapproval of what's done. With enough disapproval, Statements will be taken back or changed. Conversely, it's the GM's job to gauge the positive responses, weigh in himself, and reward Players with NPs.

...
[/list:u]

Eh?