A Language for "The Package"

[masqueradeball]

Okay, here goes:

Conceit: Outlaws on the hunt for treasure against all odds.

Fictional Conceits: Two things must exist in the fiction for the game to function: 1) A society ordered enough that it provides real opposition to those who would go against it (and by default, the people that rebel against said society) and 2) The Treasure, a massive body of wealth that can only be obtained by doing what most would not dare to.

Functional Conceits: Are actually, almost non-existent. Since the game revolves around a scene resolution through narrative dialog mechanic, the tone and nature of the narration is almost completely up to the players. More cinematic "shoot from the hip" genres are simply more accessible in that they are often easier to narrate on the fly. The relationship between the game created fiction and real world causality is mostly up to the game group and is discussed as the game is played. Some basic things that must be accepted though is that a certain amount of iconoclasm is considered necessary to take up treasure-seeking and desperation in the name of self gain and that internal, moral concerns are real considerations in whether a person can achieve such "shoot for the stars" goals. A guess there is a conceit that characters can succeed and that getting deeper into trouble actual feeds back into their ability to do so, but this is only "real" on a mechanical level, and doesn't have to directly influence the narrative.

Protagonists: Outlaws. Always. Choosing or being forced into non-outlaw status is the equivalent of character death in the game, and the choice is not intentionally rewarded on any level of play. The main variations between player's characters are a) cosmetic (what their style, how do they approach what they do) and b) causal (why they have become outlaws and why they will continue to do so). I'm hesitant to give archetypal examples but here goes: Robber Barons, Pirates, Cowboys, Mobsters, Gangsters, "Rebels" of various stripes, Teenagers or more abstractly, intellectual or moral idealists or radicals (I'd love to play a game of RB with a bunch of Communist Revolutionaries, the Treasure would be overthrowing the capitalist state).

Taboos: Deciding that anything else in life is more important than the pursuit of The Treasure. Joining Society (any society, actually joining a criminal organization to the point where it became routine, business like, or demanding would be tantamount to giving up the life of an Outlaw).

Conventions: Fighting the authorities, physical travel, taking risks and getting into trouble. The biggest convention would probably be a sort of moral fluidity, where loyalties, for the most part, would come and go on the fly. Going "all out" in everything one does.

Motifs: Once again, since that game's mechanics don't address motifs, they aren't that ingrained in the game. A fair amount of nautical jargon is used as color in naming some mechanical elements, but hopefully the names won't distract to much from the possibilities. Motifs will be like Functional Conceits in that they'll be variable game to game based on group consensus as governed by system that defines who has the right to make the final decisions about what makes it into the fiction from moment to moment. Still, I'd like their to be a section in the game text dealing with possible Motifs of various appropriate genres.

References: Really weak here. Need to watch more pirate movies and westerns. A fair amount of sci-fi applies though: Certain elements of Star Wars, almost everything in Serenity/Firefly, Cowboy Bebop...

The list was hard only on three points: Functional Conceits and Motifs, which are things the game doesn't direct through system, so they're left vague. They're really not what I see as being "core." The idea with RB, for me, is that you take this character type (the Outlaw) and this story type (Search for El Dorado) and use them as a lens through which to interpret various genres and styles.

This is not to say that the system lets things run wild. RB is heavily turn based. When its a playing pairs turn (one is playing his protagonist, the other narrating the scene) they both have defined rights to decide fictional content, while everyone at the table contribute directly to the fiction. A pre-play phase guides conversation about where the game is set and how causality in the SIS is interpreted. So, for instance, if players wanted the game to gritty-historical, it would be there job to suggest such content and to pipe up when they thought other's ideas went against the shared image. Actually having players think about Functional Conceits and Motifs (which are the sort of "modular" aspects of the game) might be a good way to keep everyone on track, because this fluidity might turn out to just be so much murk (but I hope not).

References are strained, because I'm not really a fan of my own source material and actually drew more from a vague idea of who the historical pirate was and how they were re-interpreted in film and from there wanted to establish something stronger and more concrete, and I quickly felt, more universal than just pirates. Being pointed to more references would be great if you guys have any suggestions.

As a final thought: The more I think about this the more I feel that I might have stumbled upon a unique approach to game design. It seems most games focus on Functional Conceits and Motif very strongly, while the other elements a sort of extrapolated from them. RB specifically sets these things out of the purview of the "game as rule set" in order to address a single (universal?) archetype. Don't know if anyone would agree with this or not.

[David Berg]

So my first impression from that list is that the game is about taking outlaw-y characters and doing outlaw-y things with them, without much specificity (due to short Conventions list and empty Motifs list).  So I ask myself why I shouldn't just take some "universal" RPG and make a party of outlaws in it instead.  The first answer I latch onto is:

characters can succeed and that getting deeper into trouble actual feeds back into their ability to do so

Ah!  Well, GURPS doesn't do that.  That might be a new and interesting way to explore "outlaw".

this is only "real" on a mechanical level

"only"?!?  If it wasn't real on a mechanical level, it wouldn't be much of a functional conceit, and I'd wonder whether play would actually include it!

The list was hard only on three points: Functional Conceits and Motifs, which are things the game doesn't direct through system, so they're left vague. They're really not what I see as being "core." The idea with RB, for me, is that you take this character type (the Outlaw) and this story type (Search for El Dorado) and use them as a lens through which to interpret various genres and styles.

If I can hop genres and styles, what I'd look for from this game is a particular mode of exploring "outlaw".  So I'd say the Functional Conceits would define the game.  However, I'm not just talking about conceits like "whether the gameworld contains gravity" ot "whether gameworld economics make real-world sense".  I'm talking about "outlaw"-specific conceits, like "doing something un-mainstream automatically attracts the attention and ire of the mainstream."  That's a functionally different way to play than, say, "if you do something un-mainstream, no one may notice or care."  It's all about what's important in the particular game.

Re: References, there's no point in listing stuff your players won't know, so I'd direct my movie-viewing at famous flicks if I were you.  You also might be able to fins some off-genre works that nonetheless express the type of activities the player characters will be doing.  E.g., The Usual Suspects is a group of guys pushing hard after a goal in a manner that's outside the rules of their society.  Usual Suspects may lack the proper sort of interaction with "normal" society, and thus not be a great example, but I hope you get my point.

[David Berg]

Nolan, I forgot to ask the most important question!  After filling out that list, do you feel like you are now better able to give your players an accurate impression of Rogue Bounty's "package"?

Can you identify anything that's still lacking?

[masqueradeball]

David, good question, and the answer is yes (the categories were useful). There's a little bit a gaff for me beacuse Rogue Bounty's mechanics are a bit unconventional. First, the game is highly structured. The goals and the stakes are always the same thing, mechanically, but what each mechanical element actually is "in fiction" is completely up to the players. Now, it would be counter productive and counter intuitive for players to ignore the feedback the system's giving them, but to an extent, this is possible. As to the "why not just play GURPs"... well, mechanically they're such different creatures, I don't even know where to begin. As far as I know, Rogue Bounty is the only RPG that works off scene resolution with set, randomly generated conflicts that must be overcome in order to achieve a designated goal, The Treasure. If anyone else knows of games that are either "high structure" or scene-resolution (as opposed to action or task or conflict) based, I'd love to look into them.

So, more on the only "real" on a mechanical level: here goes: A scene begins with the Narrator revealing a card. The suit of the card determines the main challenge in the scene and the rating detremines how hard it will be to overcome (called the challenge number). Play consists of what I'm calling The Dialog, which is a group discussion moderator by a given player, who has rights over certain fictional content. In a two player scene, the Narrator has all rights to content that's outside of the Active Player's character.

The Active Player, through the course of The Dialog, is trying to do two things in order to get a mechanical "win." The first is narrating his Troubles into the scene, by making mistakes and pushing the issue and generally doing things that are unwise. Each Trouble brought in gives him (the player) a certain amount of cards with which he can try to beat the challenge number. He's also trying to use his Strengths (positive characteristics) to gain the advantage. Narrating in a Strength has an identical mechanical effect as narrating in a Trouble (the two traits are differentiated in other ways though, mainly on how you lose them). Getting into more Trouble and getting a better position both go towards scoring a mechanical "win."

How all this is nararted into the scene is so variable from setting to setting and character to charactetr, that though it definately encourages certain types of fiction, it doesn't actually enforce them, and theres not suppose to be any one to one correlation between mechanics and narrative. The mechanics influence the narrative, not dictate it.

So would you consider "getting into trouble yields positive results" a Functional Conceit even though its effects can be hidden or subverted in the game's generated fictional content?


P.S.
Thanks for the idea on references. I agree that "The Usual Suspects" works well. In a sense the whole thing is a tale of Outlaw v/Society as Kaiser tries to deceive the police detective and as the individuals in the internal narrative are working at not becoming part of a larger controlling criminal element.

[David Berg]

I made my "why not just play GURPS?" point poorly.  I apologize.  Obviously, games with familiar Packages can still appeal to audiences based on things outside the Package.  In practice, I'm sure many gamers are going to go straight from looking at a title and cover to reading the rules (looking there for "why not just play GURPS?").

What I was thinking was basically:
What interesting features do your rules dictate into the Package?

"Scene resolution with set, randomly generated conflicts" obviously doesn't belong in a description of the package, but maybe "conflicts are always won or lost, obstacles overcome or not; there's no avoiding or circumventing" could.  (Maybe.  I'm just illustrating, not arguing.)

So would you consider "getting into trouble yields positive results" a Functional Conceit even though its effects can be hidden or subverted in the game's generated fictional content?

Well, if the "win" you refer to is a tangible thing in-game, then I don't see how the process would be hidden.  After a few repeats of "get in trouble, get more in trouble, get even more in trouble, win", I'd think it'd flavor the impression of "how this works" in a pretty obvious way.  But maybe I'm wrong.  I guess this is a borderline, judgment-call case. 

The reason I would include it is because I feel like it strengthens my idea of "what it is that this game will challenge / simulate / emulate / celebrate", which is what the Sim Package is all about.

Until you start watering a Package down with too many words to read, I think I'd err on the side of over-inclusion.

[Marshall Burns]

The Active Player, through the course of The Dialog, is trying to do two things in order to get a mechanical "win." The first is narrating his Troubles into the scene, by making mistakes and pushing the issue and generally doing things that are unwise. Each Trouble brought in gives him (the player) a certain amount of cards with which he can try to beat the challenge number. He's also trying to use his Strengths (positive characteristics) to gain the advantage. Narrating in a Strength has an identical mechanical effect as narrating in a Trouble (the two traits are differentiated in other ways though, mainly on how you lose them). Getting into more Trouble and getting a better position both go towards scoring a mechanical "win."

Wow, I like that.  Always free cheese in a mousetrap, eh?
And, yeah, I'm seeing The Way of the Gun in big flashing neon lights when I read this.  You must see it if you haven't already.  (Bonus: it's written & directed by the guy who wrote The Usual Suspects).

[masqueradeball]

All right, renting "The Way of the Gun" this weekend is on my definite to do list, thanks for the input on that Marshall.

David, Your totally right though, that this games mechanics definitely effect the way scenes feel and the flow of the narrative. Its weird, but when I get to the Functional Conceits part I want to answer: see the rules of the game, because all of the rules are about supporting/enforcing the Functional Conceits that I felt created a good "pirate-y" story, and later, fed equally well into other outlaw tales. I think I just need to think about it more to really articulate all of the Functional Conceits that will almost definitely be worked heavily into "the fiction" via the games mechanics.

Honestly, this whole thing is really eye opening. Functional Conceits, as you define them (I think), to me, are what really differentiate one game from another and is a big part of "System Matters," at least in SIM play but I imagine for others CA's as well.

If its all right with you I'll almost definitely steal some of these terms for the opening essays in RB about how to play the game and what to expect from it.

[Marshall Burns]

I wanna test this out again.  Here goes for Uncanny Underground:

Conceit:  On the edges and peripheries of the world we know, there is another world, separate but simultaneous, populated by men and women with incredible power, who are organized into Orders and spend their lives in territorial and predatory struggles with each other.

Fictional Conceits:  Power is virtue; all else is a secondary concern.  The universe is by definition predatory.  Power is power no matter its form; a gun is power, the ability to conjure fire at will is power, a magical artifact is power, money is power, knowledge is power, relationships are power.  Everything you can think of is true, somewhere.  All the beings of myth and legend are real, or at least were at one time; the gods were merely powerful beings, creatures like Mantichore and Hydra existed as unique powerful beings (which is to say, there is no such thing as *a* Hydra; there was once a specific, unique being whose name was Hydra), the Fair Folk existed (though they are mostly gone).  All phenomena are uncanny at their base level (even mundane phenomena) and thus susceptible to uncanny influence.

Functional Conceits:  People can cause things to happen at a distance; power does not care about distance.  There is a limit to how much power you can exert over things before it leaves you dangerously accessible to your enemies.  Power can be lost if over-used.  Power can be stolen.  Everyone knows exactly how they will end their earthly existence (not necessarily by death!) but not when.  Power is often handed down as inheritance when someone Ends.  Anything that does not End you ultimately makes you stronger.  Accomplishing difficult and impressive feats makes you stronger.  The effectiveness of a particular Virtue (power invested in some form) is ultimately equivalent to that of any other Virtue, provided that you are clever enough to apply it properly.  Orders grant benefits in the form of training and allies, but restrict personal freedom; being a loner, on the other hand, allows total freedom.  Dreams are also a kind of reality.  Causality, occasionally in abstract, mysterious ways, allows only certain opportunities to utilize Virtues in particular ways at particular times -- but additional opportunities can be gained through effort.  Nothing "just happens"; someone caused it to happen (you get attacked by a snake in the desert? Who tried to kill you?  You find a briefcase full of cash at the bus stop? Who gave it to you, and why?)

Protagonists:  the inhabitants of this uncanny underground, either members of an Order or loners.  They are always seekers, tirelessly questing to increase their power.  They are always warriors in some form or other, to protect what they have gained.

Taboos:  Backing down from anything; you face it in some way, even if it means allowing it to take its course.  Losing power for any reason besides gaining more power or preventing your End.

Conventions:  wars between Orders; tasks and missions set by Orders; terrible rivalries personal rivalries; seeking power in all its forms; surprise attacks at any time, any place; uneasy alliances; brief intersections with other worlds (including our own); conflict over inheritance; power struggles, in big flashing neon lights.

Motifs:  Gloriously cinematic fights waged on physical, mental, and abstract levels, ultimately culminating with someone taking it on the chin HARD.  Guns, fast cars, swords, demonic beings, terrible rituals, hostile visitors in dreams, fiery explosions, magical amulets, manipulation of the weather, martial arts, convolutions of time and space, cool & dramatic outfits, omens and portents, power being unexpectedly turned against you, any manner of strange, weird, and altogether uncanny occurences.

References:  I can't think of anything that is quite like this, but there's a lot of stuff that's similar or hits on bits of it.  The film Night Watch (Nochnoy Dozor) (I prefer the film version for the way it treats the uncanny stuff), the comic Hellblazer, the novel The Traveller by John Twelve Hawks, the novel Cities of the Red Night by William S. Burroughs.


Okay, yeah, thinking out those first three really helped a lot.  This was another one of those where I tend to just ramble at someone until something clicks or I give up, but I feel like I could show people those first three and they would have enough of an idea to be able to get interested and to attempt play.  I am having trouble with the Conventions on this one, though.

-Marshall

[masqueradeball]

I just want to thank you guys (David, Marshall) for making this thread really useful. I think the structure David came up with is just as good as Power 19 for helping you (the author) figure out what your going for and far better for explaining the game (or at least the "bullet points" version) to others. Good stuff.

[Marshall Burns]

I second that.  Forcing myself through it for Uncanny Underground has really opened up a floodgate or two towards getting it down in a way that makes sense.
-Marshall

[David Berg]

Nolan, definitely, feel free to use this, or anything you create based on this, for RB.

Marshall, your fictional conceits confused me.  Power is a virtue to whom?  How does the predatory nature of your universe differ from real-world Darwinism?  Where are the "somewheres" (wherein all things are true) located, and how do they connect?  What is this "uncanny influence" to which all things are susceptible?  What is the in-gameworld experience of statements like "power is power, no matter its form" and "all phenomena are uncanny at their base level"?  I'm not saying you need to answer these, I'm just saying that maybe the fact that I'm asking them isn't ideal.  What I want (from "fictional conceits", that is) isn't to know what it's like to be some student of your world; I want to know what it'll be like to play a character in your world.  Your descriptions sound to me to be about a game, not a fiction.

I'm glad you've both found the list useful, but I think it isn't done yet.  I think the definitions of "what each list item is" need to be refined.  I also am curious about whether y'all are refering to those definitions while you write, because they haven't been included in your posts.  Personally, I found it impossible to meaningfully fill in the items without looking at the definitions.  I'll post my own Package sheet so we can compare the ways we went about using it.

[David Berg]

Fictional Conceit: About how the gameworld exists.

The West of Lendrhald is half human civilization, half unexplored forests.  The forests are dangerous. 

People: The technology approximates 13th century Europe.  There is no gunpowder.  Civilization looks familiar -- geography, resources, money, and survival of the fittest create society.  Superstition and religion don't accomplish anything provable.

Geography: Most of Lendrhald is normal nature, but there are places where Lendrhald differs greatly from the real world, possibly in magical ways.

Magic: Most folks aren't sure whether the supernatural exists or not.

Evil: The enemies of Man are powerful, and much of their power is supernatural.

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works, i.e., how PC actions affect it. 

Real-world physics provide the final say on absolutely everything (except on the "how"s of magic). 

Stuff that should kill people will kill you.  The main exception is infection & disease -- they are much less likely to kill you or cost you limbs than they were in the real world at this tech level.

People (NPCs) act based on rational self-interest.  Opportunities for profit are not simply "missed".

Confronting the supernatural probably gives you some understanding of it, and possibly drives you insane.

Information on everything mysterious is out there, but is generally hard to get to (if it wasn't, more people would know it already).

Protagonists: The behavior patterns the players will explore directly (by playing PCs of these types) or indirectly (by playing PCs who are noteworthy for how they differ from these types).  A sort of character measuring stick. 

Those who seek knowledge, particularly knowledge of the supernatural.  Willing to take great risks.  Resourceful.  Indiana Jones if he wanted to take the Grail and Ark and plumb their secrets.

Otherwise normal people, no different from or better than (a) those around them and (b) the players.

Taboos: If you do these with your character, you're playing the game wrong.

Not latching onto an interest to pursue.
Making convenient assumptions about the environment (gameworld).
Talking to or performing for the camera/audience (other players).
Leaving the group and still wanting screen time.

Conventions: What kinds of things tend to happen in play?  What are some activities that represent play well? 

Discovery.  Crawling down holes.  Tiptoeing through dungeons.  Searching forests.  Running from monsters.  Fighting monsters.  Planning.  Asking questions.

"If we put Tab A into Slot B we create Item C, which can be taken to Location D, where, using Password E, we inflict State F on Enemy G!"

Ancient ruins.  Mysterious items.  Supernatural phenomena.  Secret knowledge.  Answers that raise more questions.  Hints and pointers toward power.

Injury.

Motifs: Color beyond the central conceit, that gives play its distinctive personality.

Savage abominations destroying all in their path.

Armies of frenzied, hideous humanoids bent on slaughter.

Foul-smelling forest groves where heavy vines strangle the trees and a black fog blots out the sun. 
Giant structures of some unknown material, crumbled to pieces. 
Dark, metallic rocks, growing from the ground in shaded places. 
Colored stars roaming the sky before disappearing at solstice. 
The moon rising from the West just after sunset.

Human alliance vs Evil.  Human struggle as valuable.

Death, darkness, eventual triumph of Evil.

References: Narrative fiction or non-fiction that helps players fill in any blanks and find inspiration.  Movies, TV series, comic books, novels, etc. 

Indiana Jones (without the archaeologist thing), Hellblazer (without Constantine's personality), X-Files (without the "proving" thing), "haunting" movies (sometimes), and actually going out in the woods on backpacking or camping trips.

[David Berg]

My experience presenting this to my players was interesting.  Most of the Conceits, Protagonists, and Conventions info they disappointedly went, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, of course."  Which to me was a great sign that we were all on the same page, but it raised the issue of presentation.  For some reason, my players all looked to the sheet for inspiration.  I really don't think this Package sheet is an optimal way to inspire people.  I think some of it is primarily useful to designers, and some of it is useful to players but should be presented in other ways -- specifically the combo of Fictional Conceits / Conventions / Motifs.

Random observations:

• I'm starting to think Taboos are the best part of this.  One player wanted a lot of clarifying re: what "performing for an audience" meant, and I think play will benefit greatly from the consensus-forming discussion that ensued.
  
  
• 
  I had originally written the Functional Conceit "Stuff that should kill people will kill you" with no caveats, leading one of my players to ask, "So when we get wounded in combat, we'll be dying from infections a month later?"  You can see how I've subsequently clarified.

[Marshall Burns]

I also am curious about whether y'all are refering to those definitions while you write, because they haven't been included in your posts. 

I'm puzzled by that.  Why would we not refer to the definitions while writing?

As for the questions you raised re: the fictional conceits for Uncanny Underground, they're quite natural, because I left that stuff out.  When I start talking about fiction and fictional things (especially if I made them) I tend to take certain points for granted when I probably shouldn't.

Oddly enough, all of your questions aside from the first two are covered by the mechanics of the game (which might seem strange, but I take a holistic approach to the Five Elements of Exploration--that is, I approach it like I approach polyphony and counterpoint when composing music--and I'm especially vehement about the idea that you CANNOT just "plug in" a System to a given Setting and expect it to work; they must be integrated every step of the way).  As for the first question, I have to make the distinction that power is not *A* virtue, but "power is virtue."  By which I mean to all people in this setting, PCs and NPCs alike, power is the only thing that is respected and admired, and all else is considered a secondary concern.  And as for the second, it is either exactly the same as Darwinism (depending on what exactly you are personally meaning by the term) or it does not matter whether it's like Darwinism; I merely made the statement to indicate that there is not some "balance of mother nature," there are just things eating other things (literally and metaphorically).  As for the "somewheres," they can be anywhere; "where" you are is not really relevant in comparison to "how" you are (that is, your current modality of existence--which is actually a pretty simple concept but for some reason incredibly difficult to explain, so I won't attempt to right now, although I'm addressing it in the rough draft of the game).  Those last two deal with some more difficult-to-explain concepts dealing with the fundamental properties of things, synchronicity, the nature of symbol, and how power is expressed/emanated/manifested--which I'm not going to go into right now, because it would take too long, but I am dealing with it in the rough draft.

The point of all this is that you're completely right; the fictional conceits, as I wrote them, do not really communicate what it is like to be a fictional character in that fictional world.  The things that I wrote down are merely things that all characters in the fiction know and understand, but they are not much use to real people.

When I said that running through this exercise opened up a floodgate or two, I meant it opened up a floodgate or two into my word processor at home where I'm preparing a rough draft of the game, and a great portion of that is due to the fact that, having written the conceits down, in black and white, where I can SEE them, and then having time to think about them, has indicated to me where the holes (i.e., the things I'm taking for granted) are.  Which is what I'm saying is a great virtue of this schema.  The stuff I actually wrote down in that post is only partially useful, but what I've gained from doing it in the first place is incredibly useful.  (Of course, all of what I've just said is stuff that I didn't really manage to say in any of the posts.  Darn internet.)

-Marshall

[David Berg]

As I see it, this "language for the Package" has 3 potential uses:
1) helping game designers review, analyze, and supplement certain design concerns (as with, e.g., Power 19)
2) helping game designers (and other GMs) communicate certain information to their own play(test) groups
3) helping game designers communicate certain information to their commercial audience (as part of a book)

In addition, I think (1) is best achieved if we also achieve:
1a) helping game designers and theorists discuss certain topics with a shared vocabulary (as with, e.g., "IIEE")

From the title and O.P., I had #1a in mind when I wrote the list.  Then the list's utility for #1 was inspiring and fun.  Then I tried to use the list for #2 and found it less than ideal (that might actually have been a tangent w.r.t. this thread's purposes... oops).

It's my interest in #1a that led me to be critical of the Uncanny Underground post -- it got me worried that two designers might mean very different things by, e.g., "Fictional Conceit".  That's what has me thinking about refining the definitions.

The "to all people in this setting" in Marshall's last post made all the difference to me in terms of understanding Uncanny Underground's Fictional Conceits.  So perhaps the definition of Fictional Conceits could be revised as something like:

Fictional Conceit: About what the gameworld contains, in terms of beings, objects, and structures (e.g. societies).  Also, how it will appear to player characters.

and maybe modify the next one to:

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works.  The core of this is how player character actions affect the gameworld, and how the gameworld affects the player characters.  Also, any more general gameworld "hows" and "whys" that explain that interaction.