Character-Player Interface

[aaronil]

Hello, my name's Aaron and this is my first post on the Forge.

Role-playing games are unique in that you can adopt the persona of someone with vastly different capabilities than you, usually represented by various character traits. How this fact is reconciled is what I'm calling the character-player interface (I'm not sure if there's a Forge term for this, but I'm eager to learn).
As an example, say my friend Jarett wants to play a charismatic leader but feels unqualified for the task. How could I help him fulfill his dream of playing this charismatic leader?

My question is how do you build an rpg that not only accounts for the character-player interface, but does so in a way which helps and inspires a player to portray a character different from them? How have you addressed this challenge in your game design and play?

Thanks!
Aaron Infante-Levy

Example:

Reason is a character trait representing the ability of the mind to form abstract concepts and operate logically and swiftly. It is used to compute math problems, navigate mazes, figure out how complex systems work, and to determine how long it takes to read a book.

You may use Reason point in the following ways:

Comprehension: While you might not understand all the lingo in the game world, nor have the vocabulary of an Oxford scholar, your character can figure out the meaning of most words. Each Reason point you spend allows you to understand one source's information (such as a person or a book) for a scene. If you don't understand the language then you only get the jist, not the specifics.

Detect False Premise: Though you might not be able to pinpoint the flaw in an argument, your character zeroes in on such false assumptions. Each Reason point you spend reveals one false premise. For example, a false premise of "because he is a criminal killing him won't harm society" is that all criminals don't contribute to society.

Logical Conclusion: Your character can anticipate the logical conclusion of a significant event, calculating what is most likely to occur in a chain of reactions. Each Reason point you spend allows you to predict what will happen as a result of an event (even a hypothetical one): 1 point (an hour), 2 points (a day), 3 points (a week), 4 points (a month), 5 points (a season), 6 points (a year), 7 points (a decade), etc. However, this only looks at one dimension of the event's effects (e.g. "within one town" or "economically speaking"); you may spend Reason points to increase the number of dimensions that you take into account.

Quick-Thinking: Even though it may take you a while to come up with a plan, your character can do so in blinding speeds. Each Reason point you spend cuts the time in half (round down). Thus if you spend 4 Reason points you could reduce a 20 minute plan to only taking 1 minute in the game (1/16 the time).

Puzzle Hint: You might be flummoxed by the Narrator's puzzle (riddle, maze, or what have you), but your character keeps his cool and applies what he already knows to gain an insight. Each Reason point you spend gets a helpful hint from the Narrator or another player of your choice.

[TonyLB]

Well ... there's two things here:  One is trying to help a player to tell a story about a character who has abilities beyond the player's.  Like, I cannot lift a car.  And yet, I can tell stories in which lifting a car (off of, one presumes, a scared child) is very important.

Another (largely separate) thing is trying to help a player feel as if they, themselves, have abilities that mimic the character's.  Now, I will be all over the game (a LARP, one presumes) that lets me feel that way about lifting a car.  But since, at the gaming table, we're mostly thinking and socializing, such things are often restricted to feeling smarter and more socially adept than we actually are.

Now the first (telling a story about a clever person) is pretty easy.  When the player says "Ah!  Did you notice the mud on the man's shoes?  It is a distinctive type known only in the southern moorlands," you (the GM) immediately say "Genius!  How do you do it, Holmes?" ... and you start figuring out how the mud that you'd never heard of before, and the moorlands that have nothing to do with "your plan" will turn out to be utterly critical to the story that actually gets told.

The second ... that strikes me as much trickier.  I mean ... you're basically trying to deceive the player (albeit with their connivance) and that's hard.

Which are you looking for?

[aaronil]

Tony,
I'm not making the same distinction you are. The way I see it I'm trying to help a player portray a character who has abilities beyond the player's. What's the second distinction you make? I'm not clear.

You suggest that when a player portraying a clever character comes up with something, the Narrator should accept it as truth and go on from there, that is improvise. Thus I assume the Narrator wouldn't react the same to a dim-witted character? That's interesting.
Improvisation strikes me as something the Narrator is either going to do all the time regardless of the character's intelligence (because that's their preferred style of play), tries to do as little as possible (because they like to be in control of the game's plot), or there is a built-in game mechanic allowing who narrates to switch, such as The Pool's "monologue of victory."

Thanks for your response.

[Anders Larsen]

Far the most game have mechanic that will help and inspire a player to play a character with abilities very different than his own. The best example is the combat system. Not many roleplayers are good at combat, but fighting characters are popular anyway. The reason for this is that there is a mechanic that define in what ways the player (through his character) can affect the game.

So if you want the same possibility for a Leadership ability, then a way to do this is to make a Leadership mechanic. It is not always enough with just a Leader skill, because a skill does not define in what ways it affect the game. But if you have a mechanic that say: if you do this, there is this chance that this will happen, the player will know he can do, even though he have no leadership ability himself.

Of cause with this approach, there have to be a mechanic for each ability that is important for the game.

A simpler way to do it is to have a higher level conflict resolution that give the player narrative control. But this is not something I have worked with in my own game designs.

- Anders

[TonyLB]

I'm not making the same distinction you are. The way I see it I'm trying to help a player portray a character who has abilities beyond the player's. What's the second distinction you make? I'm not clear.

Well, it seems sorta cheesy to say "define the word 'portray'," but I think that may be what it comes down to.  An actor will have great difficulty portraying a six-legged tentacle horror, particularly on-stage.  He doesn't have, for instance, six tentacles.  An animator will have substantially less difficulty portraying the same horror.  Doesn't matter that he doesn't have six tentacles.  He's got a pencil and paper.

In the first case "act out" is included in "portray" because of the way that the actor chooses to portray a subject.  In the second case, not so much.  Similarly, great intelligence is difficult to portray if I must (for instance) actually recite the mathematical theorems that my character creates.  It is quite easy to portray if I can just say "And then Richards spouts a complicated and elegant mathematical theorem," and everyone will nod and agree.  See the differences in what is subsumed in portrayal?

That's the distinction I'm making.

You suggest that when a player portraying a clever character comes up with something, the Narrator should accept it as truth and go on from there, that is improvise. Thus I assume the Narrator wouldn't react the same to a dim-witted character? That's interesting.

Glad you like it.  My take on it is that someone who buys great intelligence is buying the ability to predict what's going to happen.  So if they make a prediction, the odds of it being correct should be influenced by whether they have great intelligence.

Now, yeah, you could say "Uh ... because of your great intelligence you wouldn't predict X, but would instead predict Y," if you want.  But since "What's going to happen" is just as potentially fluid as "What the intelligent person predicts" you could change either or both to bring them into synchrony.

Now it would be funny to have a person whose powerful ability is their raw stupidity ... such that if they predict something it cannot happen, even if it was what the GM was planning.

[Nathan P.]

Hiya,

Are you familier with the game Burning Wheel, specifically the Duel of Wits mechanic? It's designed to do exactely what I think you're getting at - allow a player who does not (f'rex) a very good ability to convince other players of his side of argument the tools to place the effort of convincing into the mechanical realm, instead of the purely social realm. Does that make any sense?

This thread on the Burning Wheel forums is all about DoW and how it works, and may be of interest.

I hope some of that helps.

[aaronil]

In the first case "act out" is included in "portray" because of the way that the actor chooses to portray a subject.  In the second case, not so much.  Similarly, great intelligence is difficult to portray if I must (for instance) actually recite the mathematical theorems that my character creates.  It is quite easy to portray if I can just say "And then Richards spouts a complicated and elegant mathematical theorem," and everyone will nod and agree.  See the differences in what is subsumed in portrayal?

I see the two ends of the spectrum you are describing. I'm looking to create a balanced character-player interface (neither requiring the full mathematical theorem, nor letting it go at the one liner). My thought to accomplish this, rather than provide the character with bonuses based on the player's exposition, is to provide the player with tricks based on their character's ability.

Now it would be funny to have a person whose powerful ability is their raw stupidity ... such that if they predict something it cannot happen, even if it was what the GM was planning.

:D Funny yes, and interesting too.

Are you familier with the game Burning Wheel, specifically the Duel of Wits mechanic? It's designed to do exactely what I think you're getting at - allow a player who does not (f'rex) a very good ability to convince other players of his side of argument the tools to place the effort of convincing into the mechanical realm, instead of the purely social realm. Does that make any sense?
This thread on the Burning Wheel forums is all about DoW and how it works, and may be of interest.
I hope some of that helps.

Thanks, it does. Having not played Burning Wheel yet, I'm left wondering at all the discussion about it. Some say "it reduces roleplay to a dice roll" others say "it keeps the game moving fast and encourages role-play". I'm a bit bewildered about what to think.

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi Aaron,

I'd suggest playing a few games that address your interest in different ways.  Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits does so explicitly, regardless of where you fall on its utility at the table.  Prime Time Adventures gives protagonists broad narrative authority of the type Tony mentioned, which makes playing characters far outside your range and expertise a snap.  Breaking the Ice forces you to create and play a character that is very different from yourself.  All are awesome and worth knowing as a designer. 

[aaronil]

Jason,
Thanks for the suggestions. BW and PA are both on my list of games to play and probably buy. Breaking the Ice is completely new to me, but the premise sounds fascinating. I checked out the game's website, but I'm wondering if it's applicable to multi-player games with a "part-time" Narrator? (I ask because it touts itself as a two-player game)

[Jason Morningstar]

Well, BtI is all about helping and inspiring you to play someone different from yourself - it isn't even possible to play someone like yourself.  So from that POV it may be noteworthy.  ECB is releasing the follow-up to Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, which is a three-player game and may be pertinent to your questions as well.

[David Berg]

Hey Aaron-

After reading this thread, I am guessing that your desire to "help and inspire a player to portray a character different from them" could be nit-pickingly re-worded as a desire to "give a player some fun tools to allow his character to be effective at things he himself is not effective at", with an emphasis on social / mental effectiveness.  If that's accurate, then your "Reason points" and 5 abilities that use them sounds like a good stab at it to me.

Come up with as many social / mental feats that might be fun to accomplish in-game as you possibly can.  If a player wants to MacGuyver a booby-trap, there should be an entry in the rulebook for it.  If he wants to write a poem so moving that it'll sway his estranged ex to visit him, likewise. 

It should be noted that in many games, abilities to do such things would be effected by Skills (set traps, jury-rig, write poetry) and/or Knowledges (literature, psychology).  So you'll need to decide what players will be thinking about (aptitude vs. training vs. background) when figuring out how to get the abilities they want, and whether chosen abilities will be relatively specialized (set traps), relatively broad-spectrum (solve problems), or a mix of both.

Tangent:

If you are concerned with realism and consistency, I have put some thought into allowing characters certain social feats their players may be incapable of without rendering an interaction incoherent or stupid.  E.g., I very much wish to avoid:

Scenario 1:
Player 1: I say, "You don't look so ugly, Ugly Bob!"
GM: (knows that Ugly Bob prides himself on being ugly, but consults his player's Charisma stat and sees that it dictates Bob react favorably)  "Aw, what a kidder!" says Bob.
Player 1: "No, I'm serious.  I've seen ugly guys.  You're not ugly at all."
GM: (fudges another polite response)
Player 2: Didn't we hear that Ugly Bob has killed guys for calling him "not ugly"?

Scenario 2:
GM: You remember what you've heard about Ugly Bob, and using your high Charisma, you talk him into showing you his secret lair.
Player 1: Uh, wait, what actually happened?
Player 2: He had to summarize cuz you would have fucked it up.  That sucks, I wanted to play meeting this guy...

Even if you're not particularly concerned with these possibilities, you might want to think about how such situations get handled in your game.

If you're interested in what I've come up with so far (warning: low on the "inspiring" factor), let me know.

-David

[Callan S.]

You may use Reason point in the following ways:

Comprehension: While you might not understand all the lingo in the game world, nor have the vocabulary of an Oxford scholar, your character can figure out the meaning of most words. Each Reason point you spend allows you to understand one source's information (such as a person or a book) for a scene. If you don't understand the language then you only get the jist, not the specifics.

Detect False Premise: Though you might not be able to pinpoint the flaw in an argument, your character zeroes in on such false assumptions. Each Reason point you spend reveals one false premise. For example, a false premise of "because he is a criminal killing him won't harm society" is that all criminals don't contribute to society.

Logical Conclusion: Your character can anticipate the logical conclusion of a significant event, calculating what is most likely to occur in a chain of reactions. Each Reason point you spend allows you to predict what will happen as a result of an event (even a hypothetical one): 1 point (an hour), 2 points (a day), 3 points (a week), 4 points (a month), 5 points (a season), 6 points (a year), 7 points (a decade), etc. However, this only looks at one dimension of the event's effects (e.g. "within one town" or "economically speaking"); you may spend Reason points to increase the number of dimensions that you take into account.

Quick-Thinking: Even though it may take you a while to come up with a plan, your character can do so in blinding speeds. Each Reason point you spend cuts the time in half (round down). Thus if you spend 4 Reason points you could reduce a 20 minute plan to only taking 1 minute in the game (1/16 the time).

Puzzle Hint: You might be flummoxed by the Narrator's puzzle (riddle, maze, or what have you), but your character keeps his cool and applies what he already knows to gain an insight. Each Reason point you spend gets a helpful hint from the Narrator or another player of your choice.

Could you perhaps instead give the player points, which he can spend define what a 'charasmatic leader' can do (and he makes up powers in much the same way you have). Each powers cost is open to bartering amongst the whole player group. Any player can set their own starting price (the highest price wins). That way, everyone can agree and internalise the power as noted. He shows each one to the group, one at a time, and is instructed not to  fall in love with any he makes in advance and before he actually knows if he'll be able to afford them.

What I'm suggesting, is that once you get initial agreements, latter portrayals are more open to further agreement by everyone.

[aaronil]

Come up with as many social / mental feats that might be fun to accomplish in-game as you possibly can.  If a player wants to MacGuyver a booby-trap, there should be an entry in the rulebook for it.  If he wants to write a poem so moving that it'll sway his estranged ex to visit him, likewise. 

It should be noted that in many games, abilities to do such things would be effected by Skills (set traps, jury-rig, write poetry) and/or Knowledges (literature, psychology). 

What you describe (skills) is "what the character can do." I see my approach as "how to help the player depict their character." I think this is an important distinction. I'm not trying to subsume character skills/abilities; rather I'm trying to present universal tools. It's not just for those who are "roleplaying challenged" but for anyone having a bad day, unable to get into their character, or taking on a new or temporary persona.

If you're interested in what I've come up with so far (warning: low on the "inspiring" factor), let me know.

I'd like to see your ideas, David. Thanks.

Could you perhaps instead give the player points, which he can spend define what a 'charasmatic leader' can do (and he makes up powers in much the same way you have). Each powers cost is open to bartering amongst the whole player group. Any player can set their own starting price (the highest price wins). That way, everyone can agree and internalise the power as noted. He shows each one to the group, one at a time, and is instructed not to  fall in love with any he makes in advance and before he actually knows if he'll be able to afford them.

What I'm suggesting, is that once you get initial agreements, latter portrayals are more open to further agreement by everyone.

Totally. I envision this system as being best-suited to a creative bunch of players willing to adapt it to their needs. Still, I also want to provide some basis for creation, a spring-board if you will, so that players have an idea of what's possible with Reason, Perception, Willpower, or what have you.

[David Berg]

What you describe (skills) is "what the character can do." I see my approach as "how to help the player depict their character." I think this is an important distinction.

I think it is too.  Perhaps I went onto a tangent.  The best I can say now is that having "what the character can do" defined in a compelling and easy-to-work-with fashion may help the player depict their character.

If you are concerned with realism and consistency, I have put some thought into allowing characters certain social feats their players may be incapable of without rendering an interaction incoherent or stupid . . . If you're interested in what I've come up with so far (warning: low on the "inspiring" factor), let me know.

I'd like to see your ideas, David. Thanks.

Okay, here goes.  The following is not an attempt to resolve issues that I've found problematic by way of clever solutions; it's an attempt to draw clear lines between what's problematic and what isn't, and simply ditch the problematic stuff.

This is long.  I'd post a link, but I don't have a website.  Instead, I'll just drop the font way down, so as not to tie up a huge chunk of your thread.

Social Play

Your character's ability to be charming, suave, commanding, likable, frighteningly erratic, or to create any other desired impression in others, is dependent solely on your ability to roleplay that.

Your character's ability to devise plans of action based on knowledge and information is likewise dependent on your own powers of reasoning.

Your character's ability to acquire knowledge and information is generally a matter of roleplaying, but there are a few important exceptions:

1) Noticing things in the character's environment

2) Judging the significance of things in the character's environment

3) Noticing and judging the behavior of people the character comes in contact with

Noticing things in the character's environment

The character is there and the player isn't, so the GM must fill in this knowledge gap with description to some extent.  Ideally, this extent is determined by the players asking questions of the GM, deciding what is relevant to their characters and pursuing it.  Anything not covered by the GM's initial description and subsequent player questions can be assumed as, "The character wasn't looking for/thinking about it."

Obviously, it is very important that the GM's initial description include all sights, sounds, smells, etc. that a character "would notice" right off the bat.  If the GM wishes to suppose that "not all characters would notice all things equally", he can refer to the following character attributes:

1) relevant experience, in the form of either shared understanding of character background, or applicable Sensitivities

2) a Notice score

3) the combination of the above

In a case where the GM still feels that the character might or might not notice something, the Notice score and Knowledges can form the basis of a roll.  A possible system: Skill Check based on Notice, with a +1 bonus for every level of applicable Sensitivities.

The players and GM must discuss whether or not this system will be used before character creation, so players will know whether they want to spend character points on Notice and Sensitivities.

Judging the significance of things in the character's environment

Telling a player the physical phenomena that his character notices may not cover the whole story.  Characters have experience that their players don't, and these inform their assessments of physical phenomena.  It is often appropriate for the GM to follow a remark such as, "There's a yellow blaze mark on the tree," with, "this means someone other than the Imperials had planned to make a trail here."  When is this appropriate?  Hopefully, a general understanding of the character's background (plus prior gameplay) will enable the GM to decide.  If it still seems somewhat arbitrary, though, he can refer to the following character attributes:

1) Knowledges

2) a Memory score

3) the combination of the above

A possible system: Skill Check based on Memory, with a +1 bonus for every level of applicable Knowledges.

The players and GM must discuss whether or not this system will be used before character creation, so players will know whether they want to spend character points on Memory and Knowledges.

Noticing and judging the behavior of people the character comes in contact with

The GM may not be up to portraying/describing every facial tic of every NPC the characters want something from.  The GM may also be uncertain how well the characters can notice and judge these signs to guess at the NPC's true mood/motives/intentions.

A similar scenario exists in the reverse: an NPC attempts to "read" the characters beyond simply hearing their words.

What is roleplayed determines the bounds of the interaction, but if there is room within those bounds for varying levels of deception and perception, the GM can refer to the following character  and NPC attributes:

1) a Social Perception score

2) a Control Mannerisms score

A possible system:
S.P. attempts are rolled as Skill Checks based on the S.P. score.  The difficulty (target #) is modified by the opponent's C.M. score if the opponent is actively trying to dissemble or avoid giving away information.  If the opponent is not attempting this, the difficulty is unmodified.

The same system applies for the reverse scenario: the GM rolls the opponent's S.P., modifying the difficulty according to the player character's C.M.

The players and GM must discuss whether or not this system will be used before character creation, so players will know whether they want to spend character points on Social Perception and Control Mannerisms.

Bookkeeping

Players are encouraged to write down on their character sheets the types of things they learn in-game as reminders for later.  These Knowledges are free, and need not be paid for with character points.  Some Sensitivities may also be acquired for free, granted to the player by the GM as a direct result of something that happened during play.  All other Knowledges and Sensitivities are bought (during character creation and later) with character points.

If you decide to use the Notice, Memory, Social Perception and Control Mannerisms stats as part of your game, the costs to buy and boost these should reflect how useful you expect them to be.  As occasional supplements to roleplaying (recommended), they should be cheap skills (base 1 or 2).  As frequent determiners of important character success and failure, they should be treated like Ability Scores (Agility, Toughness, etc.).

I fear this may be useless to your endeavor, but hopefully at the very least it'll give you some food for thought.

-David

[aaronil]

David, on the contrary, that was really helpful. I thought your decision to make character charisma dependent on player charisma very interesting. As it turns out I was thinking along the same lines, and have 3 abilities which mirror yours: Reason, Focus (incorporating memory), and Perception.

Here's an example of the kind of play I'm shooting for. (In this example, a negative score can be used a number of times equal to its value. The player makes some error based on their deficient score and is rewarded with a Conviction/Action/Hero/Story point.)

Sir Justin has Reason -1, Perception +1, and Focus +2. He is entering the crypt of a saint of his church ahead of the rest of his group after a church prelate reported that a group of Sinarite heretics have chained themselves to the saint's coffin. It has just rained.

Narrator: As you descend the crypt's glistening stairs you can make out torch light, and hear moaning and the sound of whips upon flesh. A sharp cry pierces the night wind.
Sir Justin: Hmm, I'm guessing they're just showing their devotion (you know, flagellating), but I'm going to make an error of reason, jumping to the conclusion that they're defiling the tomb. I need some Conviction points bad after last adventure. I'll charge into the crypt with my mace drawn yelling, "Defilers! Heathens!"
Narrator: As you charge forward you slip on the water covering the stairs.
Sir Justin: Wait a second! I would have noticed the water.
Narrator: Ok, I'll be clearer next time, but recall that it just rained. Do you want to use a Perception point to have taken into account the water?
Sir Justin: Yeah, but I still am jumping to conclusions here, so I'll yell out as I descend the steps steadily, "I am an inquisitor of the Brethren of Light, tasked to defend the blessed saints from grave defilers and heathen defamers. Prepare a champion amongst yourselves, for tonight all are punished!"
Narrator: Emerging into the torch-lit crypt, you see a group of men and woman chained to the coffin of St. Alstarius; their backs are stripped bare and their fellows whip them with scourges while tears pour down their cheeks. Seeing you approach, a young broad-shouldered canonist stands in your way, "How dare you draw arms in the tomb of a blessed saint?"
Sir Justin: Hmm, these are those Sinarites you mentioned earlier, huh? I'll spend a Focus point to recallt their ethos is. That'll help me decide how to handle this...

Perception
Perception represents the mind's ability to selectively acquire sensory information and interpret it usefully. It is used to listen to people speaking behind closed doors, spot someone hiding, count the number of soldiers in a company, smell traces of incense, taste a hint of poison, and feel your way in the dark.

Implied Intent: While you might not describe everything your character would be trying to perceive, your character still is on the look out. Each Perception point you spend compels the Narrator to answer a vague question like "do I notice anything that might help me out of this prison cell?" The Narrator might simply provide you with some ideas or require you to make a Perception check, with varying results providing more or less information.

Percept: A percept is the mental impression of what the senses perceive. While you might not be clear about what the Narrator is describing, your character might know exactly what it is. Each Perception point you spend allows you to get a one or two word answer about the identity of what you're witnessing. For example, you might have no clue what "a large stinking vulture-like bipedal creature with murderous eyes and an aura of evil" is, but your character might recognize it as a demonic vrock. If your character wouldn't know, then the Narrator may veto your expenditure.

Taken into Account: When you don't notice something because you weren't paying attention or your Narrator wasn't clear enough (not because it was hidden), your character still notices it. Each Perception point you spend allows you to have noticed something after the fact – the scene is re-played from the time you noticed.

Visualize: While you might have trouble visualizing the scene, your character witnesses what's going on in its entirety. Each Perception point you spend allows you to consult with one map, picture, or other visual aid; your character must reasonably have access to such information. If no aid is available, the Narrator will sketch something up for you.

Wiggle Room: The Narrator provides you with information about what your character perceives, but often such description has to be somewhat vague in order to keep the game moving. While you might not get the full picture of the scene, your character does. Each Perception point you spend allows you to make one reasonable assumption about the scene's environment, such as a chandelier in a duke's palace.

Focus
Focus represents the mind's ability to concentrate despite distraction, to remember information, and to absorb new lessons. It is used to maintain control over a supernatural power, perform an action despite violent motion, recall a bit of obscure lore, recognize a guard you've seen before, or advance a skill.

Memory Aid: While you might be unable to remember new information, your character retains it like a sponge. Each Focus point you spend compels the Narrator (or another player) to provide you with a memory aid – a handout, chart, or mnemonic device for example – regarding one scene, character, object, place, or organization.

Quick Recap: While you might be foggy about what's happened in the game, the events are clear in your character's mind. Each Focus point you spend compels the Narrator (or another player) to provide you with a quick recap of last session's events (or, if you've just arrived at the game late, that same session). Each additional point you spend extends the number of sessions recapped.

Recall: When you forget something, your character probably knows it. You may spend a Focus point to get a reminder from the Narrator or another player of your choice; this may take the form of "do I recognize the guard?" If it's disputed or no one can remember clearly, the player whose character has the highest Focus has the final say.

Take a Break: While you might get tired of a scene, your character is intently focused. You may spend a Focus point to take a short break from the scene or to gloss over events and get on with the main adventure – of course, you'll either revisit the glossed over events in a flashback or you'll give the Narrator say over what transpired "behind the scenes." For example, you might get tired of trying to figure out a puzzle and decide to pick it up later, or even to solve it in between game sessions.

Weaving/Framing: These terms refer to taking control of the narrative. Weaving gives you control for a short moment to declare what you discover, whereas framing makes you the Narrator for an agreed upon time, usually depicting a tale told within the game.