kathanaksaya (a story-based rpg)

[Shreyas Sampat]

In fact, sometimes the power of the landscape is more dangerous and insiduous than its Story Point pool would indicate.  Consider a landmark I will call the Marsh of Despair (to avoid copyright issues).  The Marsh of Despair began as a nice enough place (It certainly wasn't called such then), but many who no longer wished to live began to use it as a place to dispose of themselves.  Over the centuries, as the despair and corpses of those sorrowful souls piled up, the Marsh of Despair began to take on a more sinister edge, spreading its sadness to any living thing that passed through it.  Now it seeks only to drag others into its depressing depths.

This business is what I was talking about.  My question is, how did the 'nice enough place' turn into a Marsh of Despair, mechanically?  We know the story behind it, but what of the processes?  My guess is that it simply had different specialties before, and points were re-allocated from those into its newer, despairing properties, but I was wondering if there's a formalized procedure for this.  It seems like it could be similar to the process for character 'development/improvement', assuming that you have one of those as well.

So, I think I need to rephrase my question:
It seems to me that nothing in your game can be constant; it's a land of stories.  You've described in detail the initial process for creating entities in the game, but I don't see any process for changing the mechanical properties of entities, once they exist explicitly.  That's what I'm looking for.  I hope this clarifies my question enough that it's useful to answer it.

[Jonathan Walton]

I apologize for the tone of that last post.  I was frustrated, and I thought you were being condescending because it seemed like you assumed I was ignorant.

Just wanted to offer my apology too.  I don't think me or Shreyas were trying to tell you what to call your game.  But Chinese and Sanskrit happen to be our respective areas of study, so our inner language-dork had to emerge and show off a bit.  Sorry about that.  "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Personally, I was also wondering about way Story Points seem to be tied to quantity over quality.  For instance, the way you have things created, it seems to be the amount of detail that determines their importance, when many mythic stories are rather short on details, focusing on overarching themes or single, powerful archetypes.  Is there a way for some traits to be worth more than others?  Could you have a Wizard who has "Studied the Dark Arts x3" and is therefor able to open a magical door that's "Protected by a Curse," "Locked with Mystic Runes," and "Guarded by a Baalrog"?

Seperately, how are you planning to deal with locations, beings, and things that have secret backgrounds that give them great significance (and large amounts of Story Points)?  This is where Universalis breaks down, I think, and if you could find a good solution to that problem, I would be most impressed.  Since you have a GM (at least, in some forms of the game) you might be able to get around Universalis' problems, but there could be other more elegant ways of dealing with the issue.

Very much interested.

[Tony Irwin]

Hi Green,

Looks good, nice to see you've already thought about how it will look in its final form, what you've written is a nice introduction.

Have you considered doing a "designer's notes" version of your rules? Just a bare-bones one page summary that gives the mechanics and nothing else?

eg
· Players earn story points by building a character
· Players bid story points to affect outcomes of situations.
· Each bid must be accompanied by an appropriate narration of what the bid represents.

Its just that reading through lots of (very well written) introduction to the game made it very hard for me to find the actual mechanics of how the game works. Spelling things out clearly for all the lazy dunces like me makes it much more likely that us lazy dunces can scan quickly over your rules and think "Cool - here's what I think." Also it means that if you change, clarify or develop your game it makes it really easy for me (lazy dunce that I am) to see what you've done without having to read through lots of introduction.

eg
· This is a story-telling game
· Players bid story points to affect outcomes of situations.
· Each bid must be accompanied by an appropriate narration of what the bid represents.
· Story points are earned at character creation
· More detailed characters earn more story points

It just makes it easier for me to get upto date with your latest thoughts!

Anyway... Lazy Dunce I may be but I read through what you've posted at the start of the thread and here's what I thought...

The bid mechanic which combines character trait with Story Points seems nice and easy to work - and hooray for no dice! Looks like the more players there are the more unpredictable (and fun) it will get. This seems great, usually the more players there are the more boring combat and other conflicts become because it just takes too long to get everything done. Also it seems to encourage co-operation between players: rather than everyone queing up to take a separate swipe at the wolf, its more economic for everone to give Story Points to the best fighter in the party. Using economy like that to force co-operation is cool, also I like the fact it will encourage character specialisation (I'll be the fighter, who's going to be the thief? Oh and we need a courtier to do all the talking.)

Anyway a few questions...

At what point are Story Points refreshed? When do you get em back?

Is there a GM?

And the one million dollar question that Im very keen to read your answer to:

What do you see this game as? Is it...

A group of players creating different stories, but the system gives them a need/reason to co-operate.

A group of players creating different stories, but the gm gives them a need/reason to co-operate.

A group of players enjoying the story presented by the game world but sometimes they use story points to change things to suit themselves.

A group of players enjoying the story presented by the gm but sometimes they use story points to change things to suit themselves.

Tony

[Green]

It seems to me that nothing in your game can be constant; it's a land of stories.  You've described in detail the initial process for creating entities in the game, but I don't see any process for changing the mechanical properties of entities, once they exist explicitly.  That's what I'm looking for.  I hope this clarifies my question enough that it's useful to answer it.

I think I answer your question here:

Gaining Story Points

Only living through and inspiring stories make creatures of Kathanaksaya  more powerful.  This is done by fulfilling the dreams and wishes that create them in a manner that is interesting and relevant.  There is no easy way to determine how this comes about.  A simple way to do this is to examine how they face and deal with the trials that face them in the course of their stories.  The power they gain is determined by the scale of the challenge and the power of the dreams inspiring the character.  Equal or overwhelming odds against your character says more about its power than a series of small victories.  Gaining Specialties works along similar lines.

That's what I have in my preliminary notes. As an aside, I will add that experience also gains Story Points.  I don't mean experience as in killing monsters or accomplishing goals (although that is one way of doing it), but life experiences that changes us.  Going through great loss, pain, happiness, etc. does change a person (or, in the case of Kathanaksaya, even the landscape).  Or, if you'd like to be more psychologically accurate, experiencing change gradually via the small things that we do and experience.  For example, a hero who uses his strength, power, and charisma to browbeat others into submission may eventually take on the traits that he inspires in others as his story unfolds. So, in addition to being a hero of Might and Majesty, as he gains Story Points, he can gain Specialties in Fear and Malice as well.

As far as mechanics for determining how many Story Points you get, I'm not sure if that is the best course of action, for in a given story there are many ways things reveal themselves and grow.  As a general guideline, consider the choices a character makes in times of psychological and moral crisis as well as in non-crisis situations.  In the average session, I can see each player gaining 1 Story Point.  In an exceptional session, as many as three can be earned, especially for characters that have a "moment of truth."  Hopefully, this will get people to think of their characters in terms of conflict (not necessarily combat) and theme and to play upon these ideas.

[Green]

Personally, I was also wondering about way Story Points seem to be tied to quantity over quality. For instance, the way you have things created, it seems to be the amount of detail that determines their importance, when many mythic stories are rather short on details, focusing on overarching themes or single, powerful archetypes. Is there a way for some traits to be worth more than others? Could you have a Wizard who has "Studied the Dark Arts x3" and is therefor able to open a magical door that's "Protected by a Curse," "Locked with Mystic Runes," and "Guarded by a Baalrog"?

No.  As I stated earlier, power is not determined by what your character can do as far as skills and abilities, but by how much the character can influence the telling of his own story.  So, like Aladdin's genie, a being can have "phenomenal cosmic powers" but "itty bitty living space."

As far as powerful archetypes, I think I have stated that a shared belief and/or response to a certain story also contributes to its power.  In the case of myths, fairy tales, and archetypes, the sheer number of people who are inspired by them as well as how long these stories have been in place gives them more power than their scant details would indicate.  I have thought about this before, believe it or not, and I intentionally left it vague.  Here is something I think would be worth taking another look at:

The power of different places and beings depends on many factors, but these can be scaled down to a fewthings: the inspiration the story lends to others, the empathy a human feels for his or her creation, and the number of humans entertaining the same story.  Even things which are not normally understood to be sentient have their stories to tell, and the power of the dreams which created these things dictates how its story unfolds.  Story Points, in a sense, represents a Kathanaksayan's influence over the events of its story.  Powerful Kathanaksayans are endowed with more volition.  They are able to choose the path of their stories more easily than those without much power.  It is rumored that some stories have become so potent that they no longer follow predetermined pathways, but exist completely on their own will and choose to remain in Kathanaksaya because it suits them.

Now, Kathanaksaya's system helps with the empathy part by encouraging players to think of their characters as beings and not just stats.  However, the number of people is generally limited and the power of the inspiration can only be determined during play.  If you would like to play with more powerful stories (say, if you wanted to play one of the Maiar), the system won't stop you, but your fellow humans and the human who details the world of Kathanaksaya for your character just might.

Seperately, how are you planning to deal with locations, beings, and things that have secret backgrounds that give them great significance (and large amounts of Story Points)? This is where Universalis breaks down, I think, and if you could find a good solution to that problem, I would be most impressed. Since you have a GM (at least, in some forms of the game) you might be able to get around Universalis' problems, but there could be other more elegant ways of dealing with the issue.

Well, one solution would be to keep these things secret.  However, I'll have to think about it more.  Something I'm toying with now is that you can keep secrets and such by only bidding in situations that deal with what you want known about your character.  So, if your character's origins, nature, and what not are secret, you could cloak the actual significance of these things buy downplaying the power of certain Specialties (say, opening a bid at less than the actual rating) and limiting the rate of spending Story Points.  All in all, having players judiciously use Story Points is a good way to start.[/quote]

[Green]

At what point are Story Points refreshed? When do you get em back?

I considered a mechanic for doing this, but it seemed arbitrary.  I think that regaining them during downtime is a rule of thumb I'd use.  However, you can also get them back the same way you increase them.  Although it can be used as such, not every problem or conflict is resolved through bidding.  

Is there a GM?

To put is succintly, yes.  The GM is the human who defines the setting and theme of the stories involving (or should I say, revolving around) the other humans' characters.

What do you see this game as? Is it...

A group of players creating different stories, but the system gives them a need/reason to co-operate.

A group of players creating different stories, but the gm gives them a need/reason to co-operate.

A group of players enjoying the story presented by the game world but sometimes they use story points to change things to suit themselves.

A group of players enjoying the story presented by the gm but sometimes they use story points to change things to suit themselves.

I can see all these approaches as valid.  However, maybe I should put it more clearly.  Kathanaksaya is a group of players creating stories who use Story Points to change things to suit themselves (or their characters). The GM enhances this process by presenting the themes, locales, and conflicts which will be a part of the story.  In other words, the players initiate and drive the action of the plot while the GM enriches it by giving it meaning and significance.  The GM is not "God" in the sense of having ultimate power and authority, but rather everyone plays "God," albeit contributing in different ways.  Imagine it as improv theater where the players are the actors and the GM does set design, lighting, sound, and special effects.

[Green]

I've edited the text of Kathanaksaya to incorporate designer's notes.  You can find it on the first page.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hey, Green.

Just wondering if you could give us a rundown of the changes you made to your earlier posts; I took a look at the notes and all.  Very nice, straightforward.

Two other thoughts:
We've seen your example of bidding SP in action.  Can we have a larger example of play?  I think that would help us understand Kathanaksaya better.
Secondly, on Specialties again:
I think there's a conflict between the interpretation you have in the notes and the one that you posted a couple of days ago.  In the first, you say that a Specialty prevents another entity from affecting resolution without bidding higher than the Specialty; in the second interpretation, a Specialty allows you to make, in a particular contest, a bid of a particular size for free; after you exceed the Specialty you have to pay the difference in SP.
It seems that you're using the second interpretation rather than the first, and besides the first is a special case of the second (the one where you automatically bid your Specialty for free when you can).

Oops, miscounted.  Got another thought.
You mention that you can use the Kathanaksaya rules to play in other settings.  I misread this as using the rules to play in other systems.  It struck me that the formalism of Specialties would be an excellent thing to lay on top of other games with metagame point-spending mechanics.
So, what I'm saying is that since K. rules are strictly metagame, you might find it interesting to talk about how you could apply them to other games.

[Green]

willows>
I'd be glad to give an example of play if I could playtest it.  I don't like misleading players in such a way that they don't get what they expect when they start to play.

As far as Specialties are concerned, that is one of the things I readjusted in my rewrite of Kathanaksaya.  I detailed more about how to use Specialties to incorporate both things I elaborated here.

Most of the changes are aesthetic, but I did put greater detail in gaining Story Points and Specialties.

[Tony Irwin]

Looking great Green,

It was so nice to read this:

Kathanaksaya is a group of players creating stories who use Story Points to change things to suit themselves (or their characters). The GM enhances this process by presenting the themes, locales, and conflicts which will be a part of the story. In other words, the players initiate and drive the action of the plot while the GM enriches it by giving it meaning and significance. The GM is not "God" in the sense of having ultimate power and authority, but rather everyone plays "God," albeit contributing in different ways. Imagine it as improv theater where the players are the actors and the GM does set design, lighting, sound, and special effects.

Im still bitter at VtM for promising this kind of play but failing to deliver (or at least failing to deliver it to our group!). I take it then that game sessions will focus mainly on the players exploring the story ideas that they seeded into their characters at creation: Like Dobie hears rumours of a potion that could turn him into a man (great character concept by the way! A unicorn PC!) and sets off on a quest to find it.

In some groups I've played in, everybody comes to the table with that understanding, that everyone will get the chance to tell their story and develop their character through play. We're not just going to be NPCs in the GM's own story. However have you considered anyway of making it explicit that that's the way the game should be played? How are you going to ensure that the GM doesn't just announce what's happening this session without tying it into the characters. For example Dobie and his pals suddenly find themselves questing through the desert for some magic fountain the GM invented and that none of the players are really interested in. Trollbabe is good with this, it gives a very specific definition of scenes and says that inbetween scenes a player can ask the gm to set one up at a specific location or with specific people involved. That way Dobie's player can make sure that Dobie gets to pursue his quest to become a man (instead of ending up fighting pirates in the carribean just because the GM loves pirate movies!)

I'd be glad to give an example of play if I could playtest it. I don't like misleading players in such a way that they don't get what they expect when they start to play.

In that case have you considered writing an example of a session the way you want it to be played? That way you and all the cunning rpg-theorists at the Forge will be in a better position to see whether your rules are going to encourage the kind of game-play you hope to see. Your description of character creation with Dobie was great to read - it really helped me to understand what your game is all about (and made me want to play it!). An imaginary example of play might do the same.

Tony

[Green]

Now that I have some free time to myself, I may just do that.  It'll take some thought, though, to write it in a way that makes sense to the audience without talking down to them.  

I will probably put the things I elaborated on in my next edit of Kathanaksaya, perhaps as a note to experienced RPers.

[Green]

The Role of Players and Narrators

In most roleplaying games, the players are divided into two castes.  There are the players, who create player characters (PCs) as actors in a drama written, directed, and staged by the Game Master (GM).  The GM acts as an arch deity in these games.  They arbitrate conflicts, establish rules for the game and gaming table, and provide plot and setting.  It has been understood by many roleplayers that the GM's word is not just law, but divine decree.  In the hands of an overly autocratic GM, the other players can feel as though they are being railroaded to act out the GM's own ideas at the expense of their own desires.  While this approach may work for the game systems that use them, Kathanaksaya is decidedly different because creating stories is a cooperative endeavor that depends upon everyone to reach for their own goals instead of submitting to the wishes of a single player.  

Kathanaksaya is a group of players creating stories, using Story Points to facilitate changes to suit the players or their characters.  Instead of a Game Master who arbitrates plot, scene, and rules, Kathanaksaya uses a Narrator.  Narrators enhance the story telling process by presenting the themes, locales, and conflicts which will be part of the story.  It is the players who initiate and drive the action of the plot while the Narrator enriches the experience by providing the contexts in which the characters' stories unfold.  The Narrator's primary duty is to synthesize the disparate elements of each character's concept, background, and motivations into a meaningful whole.  The Narrator in Kathanaksaya is not "God" in the sense of having ultimate power and authority, but rather everyone plays "God," albeit in different ways.  Another way of seeing it is that the Narrator serves the story by providing mood and atmosphere, theme, setting, and conflict based on each character's concept.  The players serve the story by providing the characters and action of the story.  Imagine Kathanaksaya as improvisational theater where the players are the actors and the Narrator does set design, lighting, sound, and special effects.

The process of creating a story in Kathanaksaya is relatively simple, although each step can be extremely involved.  The first and most important step in the process is the discussion between the Narrator and other players that uncovers what each wants to play.  Here, the players brainstorm preliminary ideas for character concepts, plot elements, themes, and conflicts.  The players reveal their likes, dislikes, and desires for the game to come, especially regarding genre, theme, and setting.  After this, the players create their characters.  Although not required, it is highly encouraged that the players consider the relationship their characters will have with one another.  Even if they are strangers, establishing the nature of PC relations helps the game run more smoothly because everyone understands where they fit in regarding one another.  Then, the Narrator carefully reviews the character concepts and determines, from the details given for the PCs, the best way to synthesize the group and engage them in one another's stories.  

The Narrator should be very careful of treating the players as actors who are supposed to act out a script.  The story belongs not to the Narrator, but to everyone involved in the process of story making.  Potential Narrators should rid themselves of the delusion of godhood before the players suffer the consequences.  By relieving the Narrator of deity status, it becomes possible to make players responsible for their own characters and to use them as inspiration for the story, as opposed to the Narrator creating the story and the players making characters that "fit."  

Next, the Narrator crafts locales, plot hooks, and the other characters the PCs will meet as they act out their story.  This is the time for shameless manipulation of each character's background, goals, desires, flaws, and weaknesses.  Narrators are encouraged to exploit as much about the character as possible when creating plot hooks, Narrator characters (NCs), and settings.  If a Narrator is particularly clever or lazy, he or she can ask the players to provide places and people they would like to visit in the course of the story.  In other words, Narrators should spend most of their time creating ways to involve the players in the story of their characters and immerse the players in the world.  

When this done, the players are ready to begin their first session of Kathanaksaya.  Of course, these things need not be static.  People change their minds and get different ideas.  When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to change the story to fit around these new elements, but it is important to keep it consistent with the rest of the story.  Indeed, incorporating new ideas helps players get a feel for what they like and don't like, which will make playing Kathanaksaya easier as they go along.

In my next post, I will provide a sample of play.

[Green]

Sample of Play

Step One: Preliminary Discussion

Sue, John, and Cappy are getting together to play Kathanaksaya.  From their discussions about what they want in the game, it becomes clear that Sue wishes to be Narrator because she has no interest in playing one character but instead wants to create interesting locales and plot hooks.  John, who is new to roleplaying, has no expectations, but he too is interested in exploring the world and meeting the strange creatures mentioned in Kathanaksaya.  Cappy is an experienced roleplayer looking for something new.  He is most keenly interested in having the background he provides for his characters mean something, and like the others, he would like to explore the world.  

As far as likes and dislikes, John, being new, is not sure what he wants, but he likes to read epics and stories of ordinary people becoming unlikely heroes.  He also has an intense interest in mythology.  John has no particular dislikes, but he would rather a story spend more time being interesting than "realistic."  Cappy enjoys interacting with different characters and seeing how his character's nature, experience, and mannerisms affect these encounters.  He loves to play a fish out of water.  He has already played other roleplaying games where combat or politics seem to be the only courses of action.  He wants his character's actions to have meaning for the characters as defined by the players.  Sue prefers settings that are not so rigidly defined that they hold no surprises for the players.  She likes to have room for exploration and embellishment.  She hates wasting time on petty details best left creating on the fly or according to player questions.

Step Two: Creating the PCs

John and Cappy get together and decide what characters they'd like to play.  John has recently been reading about unicorns, so he takes that as inspiration for his character.  He creates Dobie (as detailed above).  Cappy is an avid David Bowie fan, and he has been yearning to use this interest in a roleplaying game.  He creates a character named Ziggy 1847.  Although Ziggy 1847's character portrait is extremely detailed, Cappy makes a cheat sheet that includes Ziggy 1847's relevant information.  Most important to mention here are his dark secret that he had killed Ziggy 730 and that he seeks to find his own uniqueness.  John and Cappy decide that Ziggy 1847 and Dobie are strangers.

Step Three: Synthesizing the Group

Sue takes a look at the characters John and Cappy created, and she notices that they share a desire to become something else.  Dobie wishes to be a man.  Ziggy 1847 wishes to be special and unique.  She brainstorms a while and comes up with an idea.  Dobie knows of a landmark called the Wishing Tree.  It lies just beyond the realm of Faerie and the Land of Night.  When he meets Ziggy 1847, he has already started his journey, and he is near the borders of Bowies Wonderworld when he crosses paths with Ziggy 1847.

Step Four: Creating the World

Sue is happy that Cappy has already done much of the initial work for her by creating Bowies Wonderworld.  Next, she has to detail Faerie and the Land of Night, as well as a few surprise landscapes the other players will have to cope with.  In particular, she is interested in the idea of the Marsh of Despair.  She also creates a few antagonists who will pursue the characters, perhaps competitors for finding the Wishing Tree.  An elite squadron of Major Tom's forces and some hunters seeking Dobie's horn would make things more interesting.

Step Five: Playing the Game

Dobie and Ziggy 1847 have journeyed far and have become close friends.  In their trek to find the Wishing Tree, they have searched all of Faerie for answers, including the Three Forests and the Ice Mountains.  Finding no help there, they turn to Toonland, but are nearly killed by the antics of its inhabitants.  All the while, they eluded the forces of Major Tom and hunters seeking Dobie's horn.  Just when they were about to give up, they came upon a wise old hermit who knew where to find the Wishing Tree.  It was beyond the black depths of the Land of Night, close to the borders of Paradise.  Thanking the hermit, they took the most direct path through the Land of Night, encountering a myriad horrors and overcoming them with their combined ingenuity and teamwork.  

Now they approach the Marsh of Despair, a bleak, hopeless realm of deceptive safety.  The adventures of Dobie and Ziggy 1847 have severely taxed their reserves.  Ziggy 1847 only has 4 Story Points left.  Dobie, however, has 10.  Watch now as the story unfolds.

SUE: You finally come to the edge of the Marsh of Despair.  Beneath the thick blanket of fog you see no signs of life.  A few patches of solid earth are dotted across murky puddles and ponds.  All around there is the silence of the dead.
JOHN: (as Dobie) "Come on."  I hop on the solid patches of land as I make my way through.
CAPPY: (as Ziggy 1847) "I— I don't want to go in there."
JOHN: "You have to.  It's the only way we can get to the Wishing Tree."
CAPPY: "Alright."  I follow Dobie, a little slower because I am not quite as surefooted as a goat.
SUE: You walk along the Marsh of Despair for a long time.  The lack of living beings begins to weigh on your spirits.  (To Cappy) An eerie depression sinks into you as you travel.  What's the point of all this?  There probably isn't even a Wishing Tree anyway.  4 points.
CAPPY: Uh oh.  I stop where I am and look around.  I move a bit slower as my spirits start to sag.
JOHN: "Are you alright, Ziggy?"
CAPPY: "Why are we doing this?  I mean, there probably isn't a Wishing Tree anyway.  This is stupid.  Let's just go home.  We've seen enough."
JOHN: "How can you say that now?  We're so close!  We can't give up!"  5 points.
CAPPY: I reluctantly keep walking.
SUE: (To Cappy) As you trudge through the swamp, getting the sickly-looking mud all over your beautiful clothes and your ultra-cool platform shoes, you begin to wonder at the futility of it all.  What difference does it make if you find the Wishing Tree or not?  You're still just another Ziggy, nothing special.  7 points.
CAPPY: I "I can't go on.  Why don't you find the Wishing Tree without me?"
JOHN: "I won't leave you here.  You're coming with me to the Wishing Tree if I have to butt you all the way there.  We've come to far for this now!"
CAPPY: "What difference does it make?  You don't need me.  Even if I get killed out here, there are a million others just like me that'll replace me."
JOHN: "That's not true, and you know it!"  I affectionately rub my muzzle against Ziggy to give him the strength to carry on.  8 points.
SUE: (To Ziggy) The fact that Dobie cares about you makes you feel a little better.
CAPPY: I walk behind him.
SUE: After a brief interval, the soggy ground begins to slurp ever so gently as Ziggy starts to sink into the swamp.  9 points.
JOHN: "Ziggy!  You're sinking!"
CAPPY: "I know."
JOHN: "You've got to get out of there!  You've got to fight the sadness!  C'mon Ziggy, fight it!"
CAPPY: "I can't.  It doesn't matter anyway.  I'm nobody important."
SUE: Ziggy sinks further down.
JOHN: "You're important to me.  You're my friend.  Ziggy, please!  You've got to move or you'll die!"  I try to butt him out of the swamp.  "Move, please!  I won't leave you.  Ziggy!"
CAPPY: Seeing how much Dobie cares for me stirs my spirits a bit as I reach out to him and weakly say, "Help me, Dobie."  3 points to John's bid for 8.
SUE: The swamp eases its grip from you.
JOHN: I pull him out of the water and let him ride on me.
SUE: Soon, you see the edge of a land of ethereal, diaphanous beauty ahead, and you immediately recognize it as Paradise.
JOHN: "Ziggy, look!  We're almost there."
SUE: That concludes this chapter of the adventure.  Dobie, you definitely get SP for your altruistic display by saving Ziggy from himself in the swamp.  The way you did it really touched on the Specialties you created for Dobie, especially with the innocence.  Ziggy, you get SP for roleplaying how Ziggy almost succumbed to the sadness of the swamp.  That was really good.
CAPPY: Despair is one of Ziggy's Specialties.
SUE: Really?  That makes sense, then.  Alright.  You get 1 SP for overcoming the marsh.  You both also get 1 SP for playing your specialties, and since this was a major obstacle, you both also get two SP.  That takes you both up to 4 SP gained this chapter.  Now, we have to get erady for Paradise.[/list:u]

[Shreyas Sampat]

What this EoP makes me want to ask is, "What is Sue doing"?  I'm tempted to contend that the responsibilities given her would be more elegantly distributed among the players, either Multiverser-style as different positions of responsibility (Setting Guy, SP Guy, NPC Guy) or Universalis-style, dividing power by the way players want to affect a thing at a time (if my passing understandings of both games are not incorrect).

Wait.  Rather than asking what she's doing, which we know and understand, I want to know why she's doing it.  I know that traditional game design has grouped these responsibilities and powers in a single person for time immemorial, but does it serve a purpose in your game?  Where's the value-add?  How do you feel the game would change if you moved around the power-structure?

[Green]

Rather than asking what she's doing, which we know and understand, I want to know why she's doing it. I know that traditional game design has grouped these responsibilities and powers in a single person for time immemorial, but does it serve a purpose in your game? Where's the value-add? How do you feel the game would change if you moved around the power-structure?

I think I described that in the writeup that deals with the preliminary activity.  Keeping in mind that a story without purpose or structure loses meaning, the role of the GM is to give the story these things yet still allow for the other players to explore and develop their characters.  Without this structure, all the players are then forced to create the entire world, even those who are not interested in doing so or who only want to deal with a single character.  Of course, your idea about different story elements going to different people is sound, but I think the main difficulty will be trying to gain a sense of unity and structure in the story as opposed to the different elements being slapped together like a fast-food hamburger.  Although delegating story authority this way works well in theory, in practice, I have found that when everyone does not have the same level of appreciation for these things, it is---shall we say---difficult to have fun with it.  And then there are the hard questions which can bog down play.  Which element holds priority in a given situation?  Why?  When should one player yield to the wishes of another in meta-story concerns?  Why?

I think it has something to do with boundaries.  It looks very clear on paper, but in practice, things are very different.  The more each party understands what its responsibilities are, the more smoothly the story will run.  The more strongly I separate the two, the less likely they will step on each other's toes.  By giving players more autonomy with their characters and GMs more leeway with the unifying elements of the story, there is less potential for conflict which will slow down play.

In my own mini-playtest of this system, I did a completely random game.  It worked rather well once the players understood how to use Story Points and how to create characters.  I was pleased with the results.  However, in the future I may try to playtest in a more prepared manner, taking the time to deal with the issues I discussed in the preliminary stages and then crafting the story hooks from there.