Muse - A New Storytelling Game

[Demiurge]

Hi,


After a lot of writing and playtesting, Paul Tarussov and I have finished writing a new storytelling game called Muse. It's a game designed for people with busy schedules. It attempts to allow you to play a fun roleplaying-like game with no preparation time required. There's no game master, so nobody has the added burden of coming up with a story on their own, and there are no exclusive characters (i.e. PCs exclusive to a player) and no character sheets.

I'd be overjoyed if you'd read our game or even give it a try.  Please let me know what you think of it.

You can download Muse here in PDF format:
http://jon.nullnode.com/files/Muse.pdf


Here's a little blurb about the game:

Muse is a storytelling game where players collaborate and compete with each other to tell an enjoyable
story. Players will take turns, with each of them contributing to a single story. Play will
pass from player to player in clockwise order, unless listeners jump in or object. Players will inspire
each other to create story elements, which will get combined into questions about the plot.
No-one knows in advance how questions will finally be answered. The game ends when no more
questions can be created and the last question in play has been answered. The player with the
best hand remaining gets to narrate the story's epilogue.


Sincerely,

--Jonathan

[Vulpinoid]

I've just had a quick skim through Muse and I've got to say that it seems to have potential.

I'm going to have a far more detailed read through it shortly, and hopefully I'll be able to give it a playtest run over the next week or so and let you know how it handled.

V

[Demiurge]

Thanks!  I'd love to hear your feedback.

One of the things about Muse is that it has very interesting emergent properties.  It's actually been very hard to write (it's taken me more than a year part-time), because even small changes to the rules have sometimes had very surprising and drastic changes to gameplay, which required more rule changes, etc. etc.

I guess part of the issue is that I have a decade or so of experience with RPGs, but very little experience with Story Games, so it's harder for me to predict how a certain rule might affect the play experience.


--Jonathan

[John Adams]

This looks great! I just gave it a first read-through, here are my thoughts.

The name "Muse" probably evokes the spirit of the game very well. It looks like it's all about inspiring each other's creativity. Bravo!

You seem to have all the bases pretty well covered, though it's hard to say that before I play it. The rules seem complete and polished.

One question: It seems possible that a question could contain 3 elements with only 2 checked off when the game enters the development phase. What happens to the third element? The question is in play but one of the elements "is not used in this game"? (Development starts when 6 elements are checked off, no guarantee that will be all 3 elements in a particular question.)

[Demiurge]

The name "Muse" probably evokes the spirit of the game very well. It looks like it's all about inspiring each other's creativity. Bravo!

Yes, that's it exactly.  Thanks!

One question: It seems possible that a question could contain 3 elements with only 2 checked off when the game enters the development phase. What happens to the third element? The question is in play but one of the elements "is not used in this game"? (Development starts when 6 elements are checked off, no guarantee that will be all 3 elements in a particular question.)

Good question!

Elements are actually checked off on the Element Sheet, which is a separate sheet of paper with only elements written on it.  The questions contain elements too, but these elements are just references to the elements contained on the Element Sheet.  Does that make more sense?

Here's an example question (I've underlined the elements):

Does Orville Wright discover the hidden city at the bottom of the ocean?

Let's say that when you bring this question into play (i.e. Choose the Question), you check off Orville Wright and the Hidden City.  You don't add the check marks to the question itself, you add the checkmarks to the elements on the Element Sheet.  Even though the Bottom of the Ocean didn't get checked, it is still part of the question and is still in-play and needs to be considered when you're narrating.

More generally, checking off elements is a pacing and reward mechanism for the game--it doesn't affect narration.

I hope that answers your question!


Sincerely,

--Jonathan

[Paul T]

Just chiming in to show my presence...

I'm responsible for helping Jon with this, mostly by discussing rules options and criticizing things I didn't think would work. It's a wonder Jon still considers me a friend.

Anyway, the answer to the question is what Jon said. From a slightly different angle:

--If the element is unchecked, it means it won't come back as a subject of future Questions. It doesn't mean that it can't feature in the story--in fact, it must until the Question is resolved, and probably will afterwards, so long as players keep mentioning it in their narrations, or so long as they continue narrating actions taking place there.

Cheers,


Paul

[Paul T]

[Note: I think this thread belongs in Playtesting, not First Thoughts. Can anyone move-ify it?]

[danielsan]

Hmmm. Is it because the game has already been developed to such a point that it no longer falls under the topic of "First Thoughts?" Or is it because it has already been playtested?

Either way, I'll throw in my two cents:
-- Loved the name. Evocative and succinct.
-- Liked the "5 Phases" right up front. Gave a quick, visual guide akin to a table of contents.
-- Code of Conduct. This I felt was out of place, as it seemed to derail the flow of what you had started with the Setup. It could be that the heading was same, subconsciously making me think this was a wholly new section on the same level as (and distinct from) Setup. But it also read that you were answering a lot of questions that weren't even asked yet. In other words, I felt like you were attempting to stave off behavior before anyone actually started "behaving" in the first place.
    Rather, it would make more sense to me to have the Code of Conduct presented as a "given." Hardwire a particular code that fits the audience you see playing the game. (If it's families, then it's more family-friendly. If it's an after-hours party game, then perhaps less so.) I would also fold it into the Genre and Tone section, perhaps as a sidebar.
    Otherwise, if you would rather have the Code of Conduct as something negotiable, then you really don't need one in the first place, right? I wouldn't assume that people would always in every game try to put themselves as a character. If or when it does happen, someone just vetoes it at the time. Same with a "cheap shot" that you describe "everythign was a dream." If or when it does happen, it just gets vetoed. Maybe I'm an optimist, as I don't see those things happening regularly.
-- Creating elements. Do players take turns, publicly announcing ideas, or does it happen simultaneously, privately writing their cards? If the latter, what happens if players write down similar or same elements?
-- Creating questions. Again, do players take turns? And what determines the turn order? If not, what happens if a player takes an element someone else wanted (ie Can you reuse elements?) There can be elements that remain unused, right? Is there any reason to choose between 2 or 3 elements to make a question? (Because later, it seems there might be a strategy in being able to cross out elements/getting cards but not being able to cross out questions/denying cards.)
-- The narrator's turn-- can he do ANY or ALL of those things? The examples of play are confusing, because it seems like he is doing a lot of those things, but in another example, he only does one of those things before the next player does one of those things. In other words, you can choose a question and add to it in the same turn? How many times can you add to a question-- with each paragraph/sentence, you can load up a stack of cards or not? Can you add to more than one question in your turn? Can you Choose more than one question in your turn?
-- I followed you all the way up to "Narrating Around the Question." None of the examples you supplied made it clear to me what narrating around the questions means. How do your examples show that the question in play was "ruined?" (which is a vague term anyway.) The question was "Do sea monsters disrupt the wedding?" Well, if someone narrates seeing a wedding disrupted from afar, then why is that vetoed, exactly?  Seems to me, the question is still in play. Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.
    Also, trying to simplify the situation by showing how to break apart the question seems like you're complicating it. Again, instead of trying to offer rules to prevent certain kinds of behavior, how about making it more clear what kinds of behavior you would like to promote?
-- Adding to the question. You're not really adding words to the question, right? Perhaps the term "complicate the question", "load the question", "weight the answer" would be more appropriate. What's the limit to add to question?
-- Does the writing down the question on the Yes/No cards slow down the play? It seems the story is key, and stopping the flow of narration to write down a multi-word question on two slips of paper would cause a hiccup. Perhaps players have markers that they can stake on the yes/no side of question, or make sure the questions are written on the card in the setup phase?
-- Showdown. So the players have the cards face up, and then add to the cards showing with cards from their hand? Maybe these bullet points need to be numbered, to reinforce that they are sequential steps.
-- Special cases. That seems really unfair to penalize the holder of the most cards if someone with no cards needs to draw from an empty deck. Is there a better solution? Is it common enough that you need to play with more decks? Perhaps one deck for 4 people, 2 decks for 5-8 people, etc.

Whew! That may seem like a lot, but I really liked your ideas. I love storytelling games and I think I'd like to try this one soon!

danny

[Paul T]

Danny,

I'll try to field some of your questions.

The idea behind the Code of Conduct is for players to be able to outline (before play starts) where they wouldn't like the game to go. That said, I agree with some of your reservations--I, myself, usually omit it when playing. I think it would be great in a sidebar, as you suggest.

As for brainstorming elements and Questions, the order doesn't matter. You can all write them simultaneously, or do so one at a time, reading them aloud. In practice, it's somewhere in-between the two--people write them down as they get ideas. It's absolutely uimportant when they get written, as long as they get written before you start playing.

The Narrator's Turn: I think the text _is_ pretty unclear here. Jon, I recommend you clean that up! The idea is that the Narrator does one of those things on his or her turn, then passes it on to the next player. For instance, you might choose to Add to a Question one turn, and then choose to Answer that Question on your next turn.

I'll leave your questions on Narrating Around the Question to Jon. I didn't have any hand in writing that part.

As for Adding to a Question, I second a change in terms. Maybe "Add to an Answer", or "Contribute to a Question", or "Claim an Answer" or something like that. What do you think, Jon?

As for what the limit is... narratively it's whatever your friends will let you get away with (generally, short additions are less likely to be challenged, so they're indirectly "encouraged" by the rules). Mechanically, it's one card (or several from your hand).

"Writing down the Question": I've suggested a different way to do this, which will save some time in terms of writing. I hope Jon incorporates it. I think it makes the game smoother and easier than writing on two scraps of paper.

As for large hands, and running out of cards, I recommend playing the game with a hand size limit. But Jon has played it the way it's written, and says it works well. The rule you mention discourages people from hoarding too much, which isn't a bad thing.

I hope you get a chance to play the game. Post here, if you do, and let us know how it went.

Best,


Paul

[Demiurge]

Hi Danny,


Thanks for posting your comments and questions.  I hope you give Muse a try soon, and if you do, please let me know how it goes! :-)

I'll try to answer those questions of yours that weren't already answered by Paul.

-- The narrator's turn-- can he do ANY or ALL of those things? The examples of play are confusing, because it seems like he is doing a lot of those things, but in another example, he only does one of those things before the next player does one of those things. In other words, you can choose a question and add to it in the same turn?

My appologies for the confusion. I think I'm going to add a diagram to the rules text to explain the flow of a narrator's turn.

Here's a text-based look at what a narrator can do each turn (you may choose ONE of the following bullets):

• Narrate + Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Answer a Question + End Turn
• Answer a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + End Turn
• End Turn

Does that make more sense?  So, a narrator always has the option to narrate at the beginning of the turn.  Once they're done narrating, they can Choose a Question + Add to a Question, Add to a Question, Answer a Question, or End Turn.

How many times can you add to a question-- with each paragraph/sentence, you can load up a stack of cards or not? Can you add to more than one question in your turn? Can you Choose more than one question in your turn?

You can only choose one question per turn, and you can only add to one question per turn (you can do both only if you started off with choosing a question). Across multiple turns, there is no limit to how many cards you can add to one question's Yes or No answer.

Well, if someone narrates seeing a wedding disrupted from afar, then why is that vetoed, exactly?  Seems to me, the question is still in play.

The play experience we're trying to create here is one of increasing dramatic tension. So if the question is: Does Orville's wedding get disrupted by Sea Monsters?, we're wondering if this will happen or not.  Any narration that completely answers this question, or completely deflates the tension, is to be avoided. Any narration that escalates the tension is to be encouraged.

So if we see the wedding getting disrupted without seeing who did it, technically the question as a whole is still in play, but really the question's drama is gone.

Does that make sense?

Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.

Right, and we don't want the question to be answered by narration until the question is officially answered, which means that we get a showdown. The key here is that we want the results of the showdown to be unknown beforehand.  We can guess at the odds, but we don't know what the outcome will be.  Nobody at the table knows for sure. Hence, this helps create tension in the story, and anticipation.

If somebody just narrates an answer to the question without a showdown, then we've thrown the tension out the window. We've also thrown out the collaboration. Player X just decided what would happen for everybody.

-- Adding to the question. You're not really adding words to the question, right? Perhaps the term "complicate the question", "load the question", "weight the answer" would be more appropriate. What's the limit to add to question?

I like Weigh the Answer, personally, thanks for the suggestions!

-- Special cases. That seems really unfair to penalize the holder of the most cards if someone with no cards needs to draw from an empty deck. Is there a better solution? Is it common enough that you need to play with more decks? Perhaps one deck for 4 people, 2 decks for 5-8 people, etc.

One of the advantages of playing with only 1 deck and using Poker hands for the showdowns is that it makes ties completely impossible. :-)

However, it's true that in one deck the number of cards are a bit limited for a 6-player game.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Whew! That may seem like a lot, but I really liked your ideas. I love storytelling games and I think I'd like to try this one soon!

Thanks again, Danny!


Sincerely,

--Jonathan

[danielsan]

My appologies for the confusion. I think I'm going to add a diagram to the rules text to explain the flow of a narrator's turn.

Here's a text-based look at what a narrator can do each turn (you may choose ONE of the following bullets):

• Narrate + Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Answer a Question + End Turn
• Answer a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + End Turn
• End Turn

Does that make more sense?  So, a narrator always has the option to narrate at the beginning of the turn.  Once they're done narrating, they can Choose a Question + Add to a Question, Add to a Question, Answer a Question, or End Turn.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense and a diagram is quite helpful. It does seems to separate the card play and the narration somewhat, though. You have a section called Narration, for example, in which you say it's the purest form of the story. But what advantage do we have mechanically for simple narration? When would I want to do the last two bullet points? If never, are they really options? What would allow them to be playable/strategic options?

You can only choose one question per turn, and you can only add to one question per turn (you can do both only if you started off with choosing a question). Across multiple turns, there is no limit to how many cards you can add to one question's Yes or No answer.

Much more clear.

[quoteThe play experience we're trying to create here is one of increasing dramatic tension. So if the question is: Does Orville's wedding get disrupted by Sea Monsters?, we're wondering if this will happen or not.  Any narration that completely answers this question, or completely deflates the tension, is to be avoided. Any narration that escalates the tension is to be encouraged.

So if we see the wedding getting disrupted without seeing who did it, technically the question as a whole is still in play, but really the question's drama is gone.

Does that make sense?[/quote]

It makes sense meta-game-wise, but I don't think it translates into your rules. If you're trying to increase dramatic tension and to preserve the drama of each question, how can help me do this arbitrarily and not merely subjectively? You might just have to be more explicit. For example, no showdown can occur until there's a total number of cards on both yes/no options?   

Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.

Right, and we don't want the question to be answered by narration until the question is officially answered, which means that we get a showdown. The key here is that we want the results of the showdown to be unknown beforehand.  We can guess at the odds, but we don't know what the outcome will be.  Nobody at the table knows for sure. Hence, this helps create tension in the story, and anticipation.

If somebody just narrates an answer to the question without a showdown, then we've thrown the tension out the window. We've also thrown out the collaboration. Player X just decided what would happen for everybody.[/quote]

Oh, I understand what you mean. I may even be able to play it effectively. But if your instructions in the "how to narrate around questions" was meant to instruct this, I think you may have to rewrite it in the terms you say above. The downside, it's too abstract perhaps. But what else is there, mechanically (i.e. arbitrarily), that will help me realize when a showdown can occur at the best possible time.

danny

[Paul T]

Danny,

I agree with you that the text might be improved in a number of ways. I hope you're listening, Jon!

I have a few comments, also:

Here's a text-based look at what a narrator can do each turn (you may choose ONE of the following bullets):

• Narrate + Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Answer a Question + End Turn
• Answer a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + End Turn
• End Turn

Does that make more sense?  So, a narrator always has the option to narrate at the beginning of the turn.  Once they're done narrating, they can Choose a Question + Add to a Question, Add to a Question, Answer a Question, or End Turn.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense and a diagram is quite helpful. It does seems to separate the card play and the narration somewhat, though. You have a section called Narration, for example, in which you say it's the purest form of the story. But what advantage do we have mechanically for simple narration? When would I want to do the last two bullet points? If never, are they really options? What would allow them to be playable/strategic options?

Just skipping your turn (the last bullet), or narrating without taking any game action (the second to last bullet) are options that, game-wise or strategy-wise, are completely useless. It's just like skipping your turn. However, when you play this game, there may be times when you just don't have any ideas, or have an idea of something you'd like to narrate that doesn't relate to a current Question. That's fine, and it is why you would choose one of those options.

The breakdown, as you point out, kind of makes it look like the narration is a separate entity from the card-play. I, personally, think that this is not a very good way to look at the rules. While technically correct, it doesn't really describe what people do at the table very well. Ideally, the description should match what is going through people's heads as they are playing.

First of all, narration and game actions shouldn't really be separate things in play. I would prefer to look at it like this:

On your turn, you may:

--Narrate freely, then end your turn
--Narrate so as to add to a Question, then play a card to end your turn
--Choose a new Question, narrate so as to add to it, then play a card to end your turn.
--Try to start a Showdown, settling a Question. (You may narrate first or not.)

Narrations can be really short (one sentence!) if you just want to take the action, but I think there should always be _some_ narration accompanying every movement of the cards.

In practice, what usually happens at the table is that a player narrates ("blah blah blah"), then says, "I think this adds to _this_ Question", and plays a card on the appropriate Answer, sliding it towards him or herself.

Often, you can just start narrating, without really thinking about where you're going. Once you're done, it might become clear, and you can play a card. Sometimes, other players will point it out for you: "It looks like you're adding to Question X! Is that right?" And you say, "Oh, yeah!"

It makes sense meta-game-wise, but I don't think it translates into your rules. If you're trying to increase dramatic tension and to preserve the drama of each question, how can help me do this arbitrarily and not merely subjectively? You might just have to be more explicit. For example, no showdown can occur until there's a total number of cards on both yes/no options?  

Actually, the rules enforce this pretty well. I think Jon actually overdid it in the current draft with all the "drama advice". All that stuff happens naturally, provoked by the rules. All you need to understand is that:

1. Once a Question is "on the table", no one may answer it through narration. (If "Does Jane kill Bob?" is a Question, no one can narrate her killing him, or him getting away safely, until after the showdown.)

2. Each contributing narration (whether for or against) moves the story towards the answer you've chosen (either 'yes' or 'no').

That's all you need to play, I think. Jon, am I missing something?

All the rest of the advice is just icing on the cake, and not strictly necessary at all. Jon, I would consider putting it an a later "advice" chapter or something, and divorcing it from the rules.

An example of a Question from birth to showdown might be helpful, here. Like this:

Bob, Emily, and Lucy are playing Muse.
Bob chooses the Question: "Does Jane X kill Gregor?" He narrates how...
Jane X, a hired killer, picks up a matte black suitcase and enters the warehouse where Bob works.
He claims the answer "yes", adding a card to it.

The next player, Emily describes...
...Gregor sitting in the warehouse, minding his own business, when a young boy rushes in, hands him a note, and runs off. The note says, "your life is in danger."
Emily claims the answer "no", adding a card to it.

Next up, Lucy narrates...
...Gregor rushing to his desk and rummaging through it to pull out his old revolver, then rushing out of the office.
Lucy plays a card on "no", stealing that answer from Emily.

Bob now describes...
...Gregor walking around the warehouse, revolver in hand. But, everywhere he goes, he hears noises: footsteps, doors opening and closing... Every time Gregor turns around, however, there is no one there.
Bob adds another card to the answer "yes", which he already "owns".

Emily no longer has a stake in this Question, so she needs to get back in on the action! She narrates how...
...even as Gregor moves around the warehouse, Jane X is crouching on a catwalk high above, and is slowly assembling a sniper rifle from parts contained in her suitcase.
She plays a card to steal the answer "yes" from Bob.

There are now three cards on "yes", which currently belongs to Emily, and two cards on "no", which currently belongs to Lucy.

Lucy's turn is next, and she decides to take her chances with the two cards against the three on Emily's answer. She describes how...
...Jane X takes careful aim, her finger tightening on the trigger... just as a cat bolts from a crate behind Gregor! Gregor, startled, spins around and finally sees Jane X up on the catwalk. He fires a few shots in her direction and dives to the ground. Jane X squeezes the trigger!
Lucy now announces her desire to see this Question answered: "Does Jane X kill Gregor?"

A showdown ensues. The winner will become the next narrator, describing how Gregor either snuffs it or escapes the clutches of death.

Does this make sense? In actual play, people's narrations can be much, much longer, if they wish.

[Note to Jon: one neat way to announce a showdown might be simply to read out the Question aloud--at the end of your narration, just say: "Does Jane X kill Gregor?"]

Oh, I understand what you mean. I may even be able to play it effectively. But if your instructions in the "how to narrate around questions" was meant to instruct this, I think you may have to rewrite it in the terms you say above. The downside, it's too abstract perhaps. But what else is there, mechanically (i.e. arbitrarily), that will help me realize when a showdown can occur at the best possible time.

It's up to the players to choose when they want the showdown to take place. However, since you're hoping to win the cards that are against your chosen Answer, there is a strong incentive not to resolve Questions until quite a few cards have been played on either side.

Best,


Paul

[Demiurge]

Hi Danny,


Thanks again for your feedback.  Has Paul answered all of your questions?


I have just a few comments to add:

It makes sense meta-game-wise, but I don't think it translates into your rules. If you're trying to increase dramatic tension and to preserve the drama of each question, how can help me do this arbitrarily and not merely subjectively? You might just have to be more explicit. For example, no showdown can occur until there's a total number of cards on both yes/no options?

One thing I didn't explain in the rules is that when you're adding cards, the most benificial action that will statistically win you the most cards is always to add cards to the underdog (the Answer pile with the least number of cards). Hence, if players play to their greatest advantage, you will have a consistent Yes-No-Yes-No-Yes-No narration for each Question. This helps create tension in the story.


Best regards,

--Jonathan

[danielsan]

Yeah, that makes sense, and makes for an interesting strategy, too. I was offering my questions not just as an interested storytelling gamer but to help you see how a newcomer would interpret your rules, too. Hope that helps!

danny

[Demiurge]

Hi Daniel,

Yeah, that makes sense, and makes for an interesting strategy, too. I was offering my questions not just as an interested storytelling gamer but to help you see how a newcomer would interpret your rules, too. Hope that helps!

Thanks!  Your comments and questions will help improve my next revision of the game. :-)


--Jonathan