[outside] critiquing ownership

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi guys,

I'm getting closer to releasing my first game Outside, for playtesting via a creative commons license (Attribution, no-derivatives, noncommercial). I'm just trying to nail a few more things down to have enough of a framework for folks to hack on. That and I'm waiting for my domain to propagate the nameservers. I'm really curious to have people examine my concept of Ownership as I haven't seen narration officially divided this way in another game, but I think it's close to the unwritten rules that some folks call "just talking." Anyway, here's what I presently have:

Ownership

What is Ownership?
Ownership is a term that is used to determine who has narration rights. What does that mean? Narration is who gets to describe what's happening. For instance, the Gamemaster "owns" Consensual Reality. This means she will describe what your characters parents or guardians do. She will describe the Police, the mailman, the neighbors big angry dog, etc. She does this because she owns Consensual Reality. She can only narrate people taking actions which are normal unless The Broken, or The Monster are involved.

So I never get to narrate what happens in Consensual Reality, unless I'm the Gamemaster?
Not necessarily. You can narrate what your character does with a few exceptions. You can narrate anything that a child could normally do in C.R. If there is something you want to happen in Consensual Reality that is beyond the normal ability of Children, but within the realm of possibility, you need to win a simple challenge with the Gamemaster. See Challenges for information on simple challenges.

Who decides what's normal?
Everyone. If someone is in doubt then it requires a simple challenge with the Gamemaster if it is something that is possible but not easy. The Gamemaster is limited to narrating what happens if the player loses in this challenge. If it's something that any of the collective thinks is not normally at all possible it will require spending a White token.

If the Gamemaster owns my parents does that mean I don't get to decide what they are like?
No. During character creation you will create your parents and/or anyone who is important to you in minimal terms. The Gamemaster is responsible for portraying those characters and should be willing to work with you on how they are played.

What other types of Ownership are there?
Players own their Characters, their Security Blanket, and anything else that is written in the ownership part of their character sheet. To effect any of these things whether you are the Gamemaster or another player you will have to win a challenge. This means players narrate their character's actions.

So no one can describe any action that effects my character without winning a challenge including the Gamemaster?
Basically. Technically an opponent can make some declarations during a challenge that describe effects that will require them becoming the leader in the challenge. You maintain the right to ask for a change in declaration if the action is inappropriate. You can never be killed without your permission, except facing The Monster.

Limited Ownership

Limited Ownership works exactly like Ownership, with one exception, another member of the Collective can claim Ownership.
Currently there is only one case where this happens in the game. Any player can claim control of a setting other than Consensual Reality by spending a White token. This can happen at any time.

How does Limited  Ownership  work?
Here's an example. Let's say Clyde is playing Billy, and controls the setting Ever Ever Land. The player characters are presently in Ever Ever Land, and Billy is showing them around. The Gamemaster decides to do something nefarious with the setting, she wants to have a Voluminous Vela-ce-rap-tar named Victor spring out of the woodlands with a large head taken up mostly by a huge gaping maw filled with row upon row of  slavering teeth. That's not very nice is it? To do this she would give Clyde a White token for Billy, "renting" the setting from Billy, and describe what the player characters see.

Do they get to keep the setting?
No. If someone rents the setting, then the setting will revert to the original owning character at the end of the game, or when all Player Characters leave. The owning character can also spend a White token to rent their setting and regain control early. This however doesn't prevent someone else from renting the setting again. This can create a lot of trading of ownership. Also note that this means the original creator of the setting is basically getting rewarded experience, if they do not regain control of their setting early. (White tokens are given as xp)

Do I need to rent the setting to interact with the setting?
No. Just like with C.R. You can interact in anyway that is considered normal for that setting. For instance your character could; pick up a rock, jump in some water, etc. You however can create nothing new with out setting ownership, so if what's underwater hasn't been established you'll need to ask the owner of the setting what you see when you dive in. Also in settings other than C.R. There may be other rules of physics established. For example in Ever Ever land everyone can fly, so when you are in Ever Ever Land you can narrate your character as flying.

How fast is the switch between Limited Ownership when renting someones setting?
It is the fastest thing in the game. It can happen even in the middle of a challenge, but during a challenge a setting can only be rented when you are describing an action. This means that everytime anyone rolls a die the setting can be theirs if they pay the price for rental.

Can Limited Ownership be set as stakes?
Yes. If players and the Gamemaster can't determine who controls limited ownership because no one will give, then control can be a challenge. See page XX for more information on how to conduct a challenge. Remember though the stakes of a challenge are good only for a scene, the setting can be contested over again later.

For instance, Clyde and Jennifer keep giving each other a White token to take ownership of Ever Ever Land. Neither of them wants to give, so a collective member asks them to conduct a challenge to determine who owns it long enough to narrate. If neither is willing to give then they both will set their stakes as, "I own the setting." This ownership will last until the story changes scenes or there is another challenge. (A collective member can pay rent to have setting control during their action phase of a challenge.)

I hope all that makes sense out of context. If it doesn't feel free to ask questions. Basically I'm allowing actor and author stance by declaring players own their characters and restricting director stance for a setting to one person at a time, and requiring a challenge to use directors stance with another PC, or an NPC. I know there has to be holes so poke away.

[Paul Strack]

I hope all that makes sense out of context. If it doesn't feel free to ask questions. Basically I'm allowing actor and author stance by declaring players own their characters and restricting director stance for a setting to one person at a time, and requiring a challenge to use directors stance with another PC, or an NPC. I know there has to be holes so poke away.

I don't actually see any big holes as written. The only potential mechanical issue is one that you've already identified, with players tossing white chips at each other as they struggle over ownership (which you can then resolve as a challenge).

I do have a suggestion in terms of tone, though. For settings, I suggest you frame ownership in terms of "who has veto power" instead of "who has control over this component". So, when acting inside of a setting, anyone has the ability to narrate anything and create story elements, but the current owner of the setting can veto anything. Then you could make spending white chips give you the ability to override vetoes and introduce items against the owner's desires.

One more suggestion: if player A owns a setting, and player B temporarily takes over and introduces some story elements, then player B retains control over those elements after the setting reverts back to player A. That prevents player A from erasing those elements immediately after directorial control reverts back to him without making a challenge.

Finally, control over components gives you the facility to introduce challenges. If a component controlled by player A does something to a component of player B and player B objects, resolve through a challenge. Since players always control their character and the GM always controls consensual reality (and presumably, the Monster), there is always something in the game that can challenge other things.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Paul,

Your idea on having Veto power and letting everyone narrate, is an interesting idea. The reason I've made it so only one person has control was to provoke challenges over who has directorial control. I'm trying to find as many ways as I can to make spending White an attractive offer. However your idea has merit, as it should give more engagement from all the players, and I may playtest it both ways.

I'll have to think a bit deeper on whether a new person taking over a setting can "rewrite" what the previous person did. I'm leery as my original conception was to let the owner have total control. Again this was to create struggle over the ownership as it has more value if you can undo things, but that could lead to deprotaginization. Thanks for pointing this out.

You lost me on your last suggestion. I think my main difficulty is understanding what you mean by component. Can you expand on this?

[Paul Strack]

Your idea on having Veto power and letting everyone narrate, is an interesting idea. The reason I've made it so only one person has control was to provoke challenges over who has directorial control. I'm trying to find as many ways as I can to make spending White an attractive offer. However your idea has merit, as it should give more engagement from all the players, and I may playtest it both ways.

I am working on my own narrative rules right now and the guidelines I am using are "that which is not forbidden is allowed". Anyone can suggest any story element at any time, but the "owner" can veto it. In your rules, if the player didn't like the veto, he could spend a White, take control, and effectively override the veto.

I'll have to think a bit deeper on whether a new person taking over a setting can "rewrite" what the previous person did. I'm leery as my original conception was to let the owner have total control. Again this was to create struggle over the ownership as it has more value if you can undo things, but that could lead to deprotaginization. Thanks for pointing this out.

You lost me on your last suggestion. I think my main difficulty is understanding what you mean by component. Can you expand on this?

Here is my (somewhat incomplete) thinking. Say the heroes are wandering around ever-ever-land. One of the players narrates the existence of a happy-fluffy-bunny. Since the owner does not object to the bunny, it enters the story. The creator of the bunny uses it in his narrative and can become attached to it. However, he does not "own" the bunny, since he hasn't paid for it. He cannot initiate any challenges that use the bunny. Only the owner of ever-ever-land could use the bunny against the PCs. The world-owner can also destroy the bunny whenever he likes. If another player wants to destroy the bunny, it would be a challenge between that player and the world-owner, not the bunny-creator.

If the bunny-creator wanted to own the bunny, he would have to spend a White. This would let him spawn any number of story elements while the world was (temporarily) under his control. Later, even if the bunny-creator lost control of the world, he would retain control of the bunny. He could narrate that his hideous vorpal bunny initiates an attack against another player's character, or some component controlled by another player, using it as the basis for a challenge.

I am a bit fuzzy on whether other players could take the bunny away from whoever owned it, but clearly they could also eliminate the bunny by challenging the bunny-owner.

It also means that players must risk their PCs for challenges until such time as they pay White to introduce something else. I kind of like the idea of children surrounding themselves with a buffer of imaginary friends to protect themselves from the Monster.