[Humble Mythologies] where do i go with this?

[Jonathan Walton]

So I've been pondering a whole bunch of things from both the recent threads about myth and through-framing, along with this concept I'm trying to enact called Humble Mythologies.  

The game concept is to simulate the feel of mythic stories and/or "magical realism" (the literary genre) in a modern, urban contest.  The players should enjoy uncovering the simple, unexplainable magics in everyday life, as well as bits and pieces of the greater mystery.  I'm not sure if what I'm developing will do that, but it's certainly interesting in and of itself.  So I'm looking mainly for advice that will either stear this project towards my original goals or move it more in the direction it's headed now (whatever that is).

Here goes.


NARRATIVE GUIDELINES

1. You cannot use any proper nouns, ever.  Characters and things and animals and places and books don't have names.  They are simply given generic tags to describe them.  The man.  A grocery store.  A small dog.  The fast food chain.  This supposedly will makes things more iconic and work towards developing a "shared symbolic language" (to quote Neel).

2. No heavy description of anything.  The man isn't tall, with black hair, and blue eyes.  You can't see the signs of age on his face.  The sky isn't lit up in an explosion of color.  None of that.  Nobody cares what things look like.  Whether they are beautiful or ugly or scary or whatever.  What's important is what they do.  Storyteller's don't spend time describing the handsome prince.  All we need to know is that he's handsome and he's a prince.  That's enough.

3. Characters cannot introspectively question the nature of the world: why nobody ever admires the colors of a sunset, why nothing has a proper name, etc.  This is all taken for granted.  They can, of course, wonder why no one loves them, or how they're going to survive after they loose their job.  But no questioning the tenants of the game's aesthetic.  Also, nobody believes in magic and nobody ever will, even though the evidence for it may be all around them.

4. There is no possibility of violence.  Characters can get very angry.  They can jump up and down, shake their fists in the air, scream at each other, but cannot try to physically harm each other.  Weapons do not exist.  No guns, no swords, no batons.  Knives are used for cutting things, not people.  Hammers are used to hit nails.  This is the natural ways of things.

5. Whenever any player accidentally (or intentionally) breaks one of the Narrative Guidelines, the game universe performs something called a "Correction."  This means that either, A) the scene ends, and later on, can be redone or ignored completely, or B) something horrible/dangerous/exciting/wonderful occurs that completely distracts the character's attention from the slip-up, which is then completely forgotten and/or ignored.  Players can call Corrections on each other when someone messes up, but it's generally bad form to let the same person play "Rules-Lawyer" and narrate most of the Corrections, even if they called it first.  So no person can narrate two Corrections in a row.

6. The only time you can break any of the Narrative Guidelines with no consequences is during an occurance of magic (either of the Humble or True varieties).  While magic is occuring, things and people can discover their names, colors and sounds are experienced with great clarity and wonder, people can ponder the nature of their limited existence, and, yes, can even try to harm one another.  However, once the magic is over, all is left is a slight memory of what occured, nothing more.  The magic does not carry over to the memory, so people remember the events without the magic.  Note that, when a Correction is called, players also have the choice of invoking some kind of magic, and incorperating their mistake into the mystery of the moment (thought see the guidelines below).


MAGIC

Magic comes in two varieties:

1. Humble Magic: This is anything that a normal human being could accomplish, given the right tools and equipment, and less than 5 minutes time.  You couldn't use Humble Magic to fly to Russia, but you could use it to fall safely from a very high building, to light your cigarette without matches or a lighter, to use a pay phone for free, to lift a very heavy object, to unlock a locked door, to play a gorgeous melody without any instrument, etc.  Humble Magic is likely to occur several times in a given game session, but can only occur once in a given scene.  Humble Magic is also enacted relative to a specific character.

2. True Magic is not exactly earth-shattering, but it does shake up the lives of whoever experiences it.  True Magic is anything that would be impossible for a human to accomplish (or might be, but would take years and years of work).  Having an office building appear out of nowhere, writing a song so beautiful that it makes everyone who hears it cry, watching your friend get turned to stone, looking through a crack in the ground into hell itself, etc.  True Magic can only occur once a session, and sometimes doesn't happen at all.  True Magic is enacted independently of any character, and multiple players can together assume narrative control over it, if they like, though one must be the final arbitrator of what occurs.


CHARACTERS

Since they have no names, characters are described in other ways.

1. Their Element.  The six suggested elements for a standard urban myth game are listed below, with their associated meanings.  Every character is assigned one at creation:

a. Epistles -- communication (phones, newspapers, letters, beepers, billboards, ads, couriers, etc.)
b. Candles -- illumination & heat (traffic lights, heaters, neon signs, lighters, firetrucks, trashcan fires, etc.)
c. Winds -- transportation (buses, subway, bicycles, elevators, taxis, ships, trucks, etc.)
d. Rooks -- buildings (parking lots, coffee shops, gas stations, offices, stairs, fire escapes, manholes, etc.)
e. Coins -- commerce (money, valuables, suits, armored cars, shopping, groceries, fast food, etc.)
f. Beasts -- living things (pigeons, strays, people, instincts, emotions, biological needs, parks, etc.)

2. Their Approach.  This describes how their approach their element.  The suggested list of approaches is:

w. Page -- servant, a caretaker who protects and pampers their element
x. Knight -- warrior, an activist who fights on behalf of their element
y. Queen -- master, an artist who manipulates and shapes their element
z. King -- embodiment, a leader who is their element, setting an example

Thought there may seem to be an implied heirarchy, no approach is "better" than any other.  It's simply a matter of taste and personal preference.  An approach is also selected at character creation, giving the character a designation such as "the Queen of Rooks" or "the Page of Candles" for example.  No two characters are allowed to have the same element and the same approach, which leaves 24 possibilities for main characters (unless someone dies, leaves the sphere of the game, or is replaced).

3. Characters are not owned by individual players, but by the entire group.  However, it is often best to allow the same player to portray the character most of the time, for consistancy sake (and enjoyment of watching someone develop a role).  Still, the same player cannot talk to themselves very easily, so it is recommended that players switch off characters from time to time, especially in scenes where two of a single player's characters are going to be interacting heavily.

4. Characters enact Humble Magic through the context of their Element.  The Page of Beasts could summon a horde of pidgeons to cover his escape, for example, but he could not cause a nearby neon sign to erupt with light, blinding his persuers (though the Page of Candles could do such a thing).


SCENE FRAMING

"Humble Mythologies" is about aggressive, consensus-driven through-framing.  Because of this, I'm probably going to have to build some kind of structure to support consensus-building, but lets ignore that for now and focus on what I want to have happen.

1. Someone calls for a scene.  This can be as simple as saying "I want a scene."  

2. They describe what they want to have happen in the scene, with other players providing suggestions.  Together, the group through-frames the scene, covering the beginning, significant events, and a prediction or two about the end.  They decide what characters have to be involved.  And then they enact the scene.

3. If they want, they can create a new character for the scene, providing them with an Element and Approach.  They can also choose to have existing characters appear in the scene too, though a specific character cannot appear in two scenes in a row.

4. Not all roles in a scene have to be played by established characters.  "Extras" are temporary roles that players assume to play the uninteresting, unchanging masses of the game world.  Extras can be cast during the through-framing or improvized on the spot, with someone jumping into the role of a butcher or taxi driver, the minute it's obvious that one is needed.  The job of an Extra is to do what's needed and then get out of the way.  They should not try to hog the spotlight from the characters, but support them as best they can (which often means shutting up or leaving).  Extras that reappear in later scenes are good candidates for becoming actual characters in the story.

5. Anyone can call for a scene to end by tapping twice on the table.  This is basically a sign of impatience, or one that suggest that the main purpose of the scene has already been accomplished.  Players involved in the scene can answer back by tapping twice on the table, indicating agreement and the end of the scene, or by continuing, if they think the scene deserves to go on a bit longer.  A lot of tapping, however, should be taken as a sign that the other players want to play too :)

6. Magical effects cannot be through-framed.  The fact that magic will happen, and when it will happen, can be decided before play begins, but the effect itself cannot be determined or described.  You could say, "And then, the Page will escape from his persuers with a little Humble Magic," but that's about it.  The fun is in having the color suddenly explode into the setting, replacing all the uniform grey.

7. Occurances of True Magic have to be assigned to a scene and player during through-framing, since only one happens in a given game.  However, the player can always decide not to have it occur.  It's kind of a permission deal.  At the through-framing point of a scene, the players can choose to give someone permission to enact True Magic in that scene, but they can't decide where or how or if it really happens.  Permission does not carry over to future scenes.  True Magic can happen at any point in the session.  Early on, it can drive play for the rest of the game, or, near the end, it can provide a climax or reward.  Player groups should experiment with using True Magic in various ways, for various narrative purposes.

---------

And that's what I've got so far.  Pretty freeform, at this point, but I think the through-framing and tight narrative guidelines will hold everything together, though I haven't gotten the chance to playtest it yet (soon, I hope).  I really think this kind of system would really work well for the group of players I have (all female, many first-time or casual gamers), where traditional number-crunching, action-oriented systems would not.  

The setting still doesn't have any sort of OOMPH to it, though.  No general purpose or cause to uphold.  That's what I think I might be missing.  Suggestions from anyone on that?  I can see people having the "That's great, but what do I DO?" problem.

Thanks in advance.

[ADGBoss]

The system is a little free-form? Maybe more then a little :) but I think it has a great deal of promise.  

As for the setting I think maybe your title, Humble Mythologies, can provide a clue. Perhaps these people seek out the after-glow of True Magic, wanting to experience what others have done.  Peraps when True MAgic occurs, it creates a point in Time that is constant ie you do it in the present but it now exists in the past AND the future.

Perhaps like moths the Characters are drawn to this flmae in a need to experience it, even if there is some danger.  So in a sense they re-live a "Myth" and also with their own Tru eMagic crete new ones as they go.

The "Kill something" persona in me would normally suggest have some sort of cataclysmic Antogonist or Dark Conspiracy.  I think though that you might consider a Poor Man's Highlander: people born with this gift but instead of hunting each other they gain acknowledgement from creating and reliving these moments.

"The Kurrigan is the most powerful, he has relived Babe Ruth calling his shot..."

Hope thi shelps

Sean

[Umberhulk]

Perhaps you could encourage participation with a reward system that leads to being able to use True Magic?  Get a penny after each scene you participate in?  maybe it costs 1 penny to use Humble Magic and 5 pennies for True magic?  I realize this is the gamist in me, but what if there is conflict about a scene?

[Doctor Xero]

I love the genre of urban fantasy and its relative magic realism.  (I must confess this
sounds nothing like anything I've read by Charles de Lint or Gabriel Garcia Marquez, tho'.)

I would be worried about how a game this freeform could be game-mastered whether by an
official game-master or group consensus.  "You see the man."  "I already see him."  "No, I
mean the other man."  "Ah."  "The man sees the man, then the man yells at the man."  "Uhm,
which man yells at which man?"  "The other man yells at the man."  "Yeah . .  no which man
is the other man?"  "The man you saw first!"  "Oh, so First Man yells at Second Man!"  "Exactly!"
"Correction!  Correction!  You named them First Man and Second Man!"  "Ah, damn . . . "

No offense, but it seems to me that the namelessness will be asking for trouble.

I also wonder how players can wonder about the magic of it all when they are required to
take it all for granted or risk correction by the universe.

Doctor Xero

[Jonathan Walton]

The system is a little free-form? Maybe more then a little :)

Yeah, well, I think that's just the design style I'm channeling at the moment.  I'm sure it will eventualy have a bit more structure than this, but I just posted the stuff that I had pretty well nailed down.  I really wanted to add a currency system of some kind, but couldn't figure out how to properly implement one, so I left it out for now.

Perhaps these people seek out the after-glow of True Magic, wanting to experience what others have done.  Peraps when True MAgic occurs, it creates a point in Time that is constant ie you do it in the present but it now exists in the past AND the future.

I don't quite get what you mean here.  Could you elaborate a bit?

The "Kill something" persona in me would normally suggest have some sort of cataclysmic Antogonist or Dark Conspiracy.

Me too, but I'd really prefer the conflict was something internal to the game.  I not really imagining a strong GM role, just a facilitator who would supervise/arbitrate scene framing and then help ensure that all the players were as involved as they wanted to be.

This means that the conflict should come from PC interaction, with various characters working against each other, by choice or happenstance.  I'm thinking that I need some sort of strong relationship map system to create this sort of dynamism within character relationships.  Otherwise, I think the game just wouldn't have enough "built in" plots to sustain itself.  The players would have to constantly be coming up with motivations for doing things, instead of the game/events naturally suggesting them.

Perhaps you could encourage participation with a reward system that leads to being able to use True Magic? Get a penny after each scene you participate in? maybe it costs 1 penny to use Humble Magic and 5 pennies for True magic? I realize this is the gamist in me, but what if there is conflict about a scene?

See, in my early thoughts about the game, I had something like that.  But you know what?  I don't want to encourage the players to do things that hurt the overall narrative in order to get k00l p0wrz (like the ability to do True Magic), and all the systems I thought up (like the one you suggested) would potentially do just that.  I want a system in which players and/or the group can decide that not everyone has to participate in every scene.  Often a scene between 2 characters in much more powerful than one involving a large group, and I'd like a system that encourages small, limited, intense scenes instead of large, sprawling, epic scenes.  That's part of the game's aesthetic that I feel pretty strongly about.

To turn your suggestion around, I guess I could give players a coin for opting out of a scene, and then set the maximum number of coins at 3 or something, to keep people from just sitting out and watching.  Something like that might work, actually...

I would be worried about how a game this freeform could be game-mastered whether by an official game-master or group consensus.

Well, like I said above, this isn't necessarily a finished system, this is just a draft of one.  That's why I posted it and asked for suggestions on where to take it.  And the through-framing of scenes is pretty much supposed to eliminate most of the need for a GM.  If all the players know that the characters are supposed to meet, talk for a while, and then one of them is going to get hit by a car, do you really need the GM to tell you when the car comes?  Either of the PCs players can describe the car's arrival, or you could assign a third player to be the car and interrupt the conversation whenever s/he feels it is appropriate.

That's the idea, anyway.  If you have further doubts, I'd love to hear them, so I can work to make the game stronger and more successful.

No offense, but it seems to me that the namelessness will be asking for trouble.

I don't know.  The exchange you describe wouldn't be likely to happen in my mind.  Just because people don't have names, it doesn't mean you can't refer to them in other ways.  Here's an excerpt from a writer called J. Robert Lennon (who I just found online), edited just slightly to show what I mean:

"Dad's dead," said my brother, as if it were my fault. He was five years my elder, and once tried to make me drink a bottle of aftershave I had stolen from him. He was fifteen at the time, and I was ten, and he only stopped when he realized that I would vomit the aftershave and everything else onto his bedroom carpet. The last word he'd spoken to me, during our last phone conversation a couple of years ago, was fine, followed by the silence of an abrupt hang-up. Now, with the telephone receiver in one hand and a backgammon dice cup in the other, I might have welcomed a nice, clean disconnection. Instead the silence was filled with my brother's breathing."

No proper nouns in that passage, and no colorful descriptions.  Plain language, but it describes the relationship between the two brothers pretty effectively.

I also wonder how players can wonder about the magic of it all when they are required to take it all for granted or risk correction by the universe.

During occurances of magic, none of the normal restrictions apply.  You're allowed to revel in wonder, ponder, and name things all you want.  That's the whole point.  Magic, in this game, is really just the freedom to describe things in vivid detail.

[Doctor Xero]

Jonathan Walton wrote:
"Here's an excerpt from a writer called J. Robert Lennon (who I just found
online), edited just slightly to show what I mean:
   'Dad's dead," said my brother, as if it were my fault. He was five years
    my elder, and once tried to make me drink a bottle of aftershave I had
    stolen from him. He was fifteen at the time, and I was ten, and he only
    stopped when he realized that I would vomit the aftershave and
    everything else onto his bedroom carpet. The last word he'd spoken to
    me, during our last phone conversation a couple of years ago, was fine,
    followed by the silence of an abrupt hang-up. Now, with the telephone
    receiver in one hand and a backgammon dice cup in the other, I might
    have welcomed a nice, clean disconnection. Instead the silence was
    filled with my brother's breathing.'
No proper nouns in that passage, and no colorful descriptions. Plain language,
but it describes the relationship between the two brothers pretty effectively."

I would call the remembrance about aftershave fairly colorful.  It simply adds color
by way of an anecdote rather than an adjective, which is really a minor difference.

This works fine if there are no more than two individuals in the entire scene (not two PCs
but two characters whether PC or NPC).  If the narrator were describing a scene
involving three brothers, and referred to each of the three brothers as only "my brother"
with no further detail (as required by your game), this passage would have been far
more difficult to understand.  If the narrator kept differentiating the brothers with tags
such "my  brother who almost made me drink aftershave lotion" and "my brother
who loves cats", the narrator is again adding that forbidden further detail and beginning
to coin nicknames to name the brothers: Aftershave Brother, Cat Brother, etc.

For that matter, referring to the man as Dad is really a naming, since most children
use Dad or its variants as replacements for the first names of their fathers.  (That's
why in written English we capitalize Dad when used as a proper noun surrogate.)
The same holds true for identifying the man as elder brother.

I mean no offense, but I'm concerned this particular game element would prove unplayable
unless players begin using out-of-play cheats such as OOC comments ("My PC is
referring to Jim's PC not Raul's PC and not Jenna's PC when he says "the man"
this time) or pointing ("My PC turns to the man [points at Jim] and asks him about
the man [points at Raul] who knows the man [points at Jenna]").

I suspect I'm not getting why you want to avoid all proper names and adjectives
and descriptors for this game.  Perhaps an example of play involving four or more
players would help?

Jonathan Walton wrote:
"Just because people don't have names, it doesn't mean you can't refer to them in
other ways."

I'd have to disagree.  Once you have decided to use a term to refer always to a
specific person, regardless of whether it's Bill, J. Crew Guy, Tall Man, or First
First Man My PC Speaks to This Scene, you've created a name.  Otherwise, nicknames
and pet names and other surrogate references would not exist.

Doctor Xero

[Umberhulk]

I guess you could go with a show of hands voting for conflicts, or "Onesies, Twosies" to figure out who determines story in conflict.

Or your vote counts like a shareholder.  You could get a penny for being out of a scene, but if you don't like what's going on in a scene then you can bid your way into the scene and take over the story telling for a particular character.  The characters would change hands a lot more that way.  

Another idea is to pass the characters around and have each player write down a different word on each character sheet that could be used in a scene by a player narrating that character to gain a penny.

This lets people benefit from being in or out of a scene.

[Jonathan Walton]

Xero, in your last post, it sounds like you're trying to be the Rules-Lawyer from Hell, sticking much more strictly to my guidelines than I would.  The point is not to make things impossible.  The point is to make non-magical play less colorful than the occasional magical moments, and to make the characters iconic by not giving them names.  You know how in Aesop's fables where animals are simply called Wolf, Raven, Horse, etc?  That's kinda what I'm imagining here, except with people: father, brother, the garbage man, the lawyer, etc.  

If those are considered names to you, then, fine, they're names.  But it feels like you're intentionally twisting my words to show problems in the game that aren't really there.  At least, I haven't become convinced that those problems exist, just from reading your comments.

Or your vote counts like a shareholder.  You could get a penny for being out of a scene, but if you don't like what's going on in a scene then you can bid your way into the scene...

Not a bad thought, but not quite what I'm looking for.  Still, it made me think about all sorts of possible coin mechanics.  Here's something that I came up with last night, see what you guys think:

It requires a penny to:
a. Call for/Frame a Scene.
b. Create a Character.
c. Insert a Character into a Scene.
d. Do Humble Magic.
e. Do True Magic (but that requires 3 pennies).
f. Bid against another player in a conflict.

You gain a penny by:
a. Not taking part in a scene.
b. Being given pennies by other players.
c. Drawing a penny at the beginning of your turn (see below).

You need no pennies to:
a. Play an Extra in a Scene (though you don't get a non-participating penny, then).
b. Play someone else's Character in a Scene (but you need their permission).

You can never have more than 5 (?) pennies at a time.

Play is turn based, going around in a circle, a turn looks something like:

1. Draw a penny.  
2. Afterwards, you can choose to pass (in which case your turn is over) or...
3. Spend pennies to do one or more tasks A-F.

Thoughts?

[Shreyas Sampat]

I think the distinction you are approaching with your description rule is that you cannot describe, in normal narration, external properties of things: their colours, their shapes, their names.

However, you are allowed to describe internal characteristics, as they are related to you: why you care about them, what you do with them, where you first encountered them, etc.

The point being, of course, that the world only exists as a part of you, until magic makes it a thing real in itself.

[Doctor Xero]

Jonathan Walton wrote Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:45 pm:
"Xero, in your last post, it sounds like you're trying to be the Rules-Lawyer from Hell,
sticking much more strictly to my guidelines than I would. . . . But it feels like you're
intentionally twisting my words to show problems in the game that aren't really there."

Not my intention.  Your initial emphasis and subsequent response seemed so definitive
that I was concerned how it might be misunderstood by your player audience; I was trying
to demonstrate for you the problems with its wording, little more.

"You know how in Aesop's fables where animals are simply called Wolf, Raven, Horse,
etc? That's kinda what I'm imagining here, except with people: father, brother, the garbage man, the lawyer, etc."

I've also noticed that when a fable involves two or more of the same creature, they
are further differentiated: Big Frog and Little Frog, the Old Wolf and the Young Wolf,
Mother Ox and The Brown Ox, etc.

"At least, I haven't become convinced that those problems exist, just from reading your comments."

<shrug> At this point, that's your choice -- I think further discussion on this point would
be counterproductive.

I would still like to see an example of play involving several players, ideally two of them
playing characters of the same type (each a Man, each a Girl, whatever), to have a
better sense of what you're striving for.

Doctor Xero

[Eero Tuovinen]

Nice start, let's see what it inspires... Some random thoughts, without editorialising.

First of all, premise (theme, possibly): you need one, and it quite clearly is the contrast between the iconic world and the magic one. Just finish the system and tell the players to make of the world constraint what they will. You hardly need anything else, assuming the rules are evocative enough (which they are). The iconic world you describe does a wonderful job of simulating in an unique way the main theme of urban fantasy, the wonder of magic. Instead of agonizing with how to describe or implement magic (like numerous games do), you just make the normal world lesser than normal, achieving the same effect of wonder maybe better than most games do with their complex and evocative magic rules. This is achievement enough, as most urban fantastists do /nothing else/ in their stories. It's all just preparation for the magic moment. It's an added bonus that most take the tack of "the world of magic is symbolic", while you take the complete reverse of tacking the mundate with symbolism and giving magic the reality. A very liberal premise, if I may say so.

About characters and their description: assume that all people of the world are of an element. These people are elemental Servitors, who are unavare of magic, but mold their lives according to the symbolism of their element. There can be many servitors in the story, obviously.

About elements: consider making the list of elements freeform, so that there is one element per player, plus the players may add one element in consensus later in the story. This way you leave the support structure with more freedom, which is a good thing: If the players want to explore the relationship of Snake people and Stone people, it can be done straightforwardly without interpreting Snake and Stone through your elements. Also, assume that all things as well as people are elementally aspected.

About nouns: what you seem to be looking for, as esteemed Shreyas already noted, is the difference between the internal and external. If it's not a problem for Plato, it's not for us either. Consider however formalising the following:
1)Every thing has to be referred to by one noun.
2)If there is two things with overlapping referrents, add a different adjective to both.
Alternatively, don't sweat it. This is absolutely the whole and only point of the game, but if someone doesn't get it without higher linguistics, what can you do?

Residue: to accentuate the search for magic, make it possible for major magic to effect a Naming in addition to it's normal effects: this means either attaching a name to a thing or adding an extra adjective to it's description or awaking one person to the existence of something more. Otherwise magic should indeed be only temporary.

About resource management: not necessary or desirable. What you need is conflict resolution between players, not limits on directorial power. Use this one of mine, if you prefer:
Usually a player decides what his character /tries/ to do. He can either decide the success and repercussions himself, or ask another player of his choise for an opinion. If someone however disagrees with the player's judgement when he decides on his own, the complete opposite to the player's decision happens. If the player asked another player, two players are needed to reverse the decision (of which one can be the original player, if he doesn't like the decision). I don't say that this is right for you, but I say that it's deeper and more nuanced than you think.

More about theme and conflict: obviously all characters are unified by a dissatisfaction and awareness of something more. This is a common theme of urban fantasy, which is an offshoot of romanticism. In character creation then, you could emphasize these aspects by demanding an answer to the Question of Dissatisfaction and the Question of Awareness; what the character dreams about, and what hinted him of magic, respectively. A character without dissatisfaction may only be a Page (or servitor), while a character needs Awareness to be a Queen or a King.

About the elements and freedom: there is a possibility of constructing an additional philosophical question here, if one is so inclined. The existense of both Elements and Approaches implies an ordered universe. The goal of the characters is to break free. Question: are the elements, on a symbolic or acknowledged (by characters) level, the shackles or the means of liberation? Is humble magic perhaps a bone offered by the Uncaring, while the true magic shortly breaks the prison? Or are the elements paths that lead to greater understanding of the Maya, peaking in true magic? Note that I don't mean that any of these rules aspects would need to be presented to the characters of the game world, I'm speaking solely about the thematic level the players assumedly operate in. Some pondering on the premise follows.

Approaches: assume that there is a possibility for a character to change approach and even element through change in life. Assume that the approaches are indeed ordered into a hierarchy, with the numerous Servitors on the bottom and the titles on top. This hierarchy isn't an absolute truth; the players are assumed to answer the question about it's significance and validity through play. There is demands on the character depending on the approach, and a character becomes servitor when he is removed from an approach for some reason.
Approach -- must be
Servitor -- living by the element
Page -- living greatly by the element
Knight -- dissatisfied with something
Queen -- dissatisfied, aware of the existence of magic
King -- dissatisfied, aware and hold no other title

Elements: Assume that a character can adopt different elements, and hold a servitor status or title in them all. This is also purely symbolic; the idea is to use the symbolic relations and character "development" to spark the story. Page of an element being subservient socially to his queen, losing his status in the element and gaining a new one in another and so on, all changes that either reflect or spark the story.

Magician: Assume that a character can be disassociated from all elements and live. Such a character would be called Magician (still one per story, assuming we hold to that limit), and would conseivably symbolize freedom and breaking the limits. Therefore a character has to be both dissatisfied and aware of magic to be the Magician.

Change: Assume, that change in approach or elements of a person or thing come about through the actions of the characters. Approach would change when the character's understanding and harmony with the given element changes, or when another character ousts the character from his title (in which case he becomes a servitor) by outperforming him. Losing an elemental status altogether or gaining a new one follows always from great change in the life of the character. There is still the limit of Dissatisfaction and Awareness on the character's approach.

Numbers: Assume that there can be more than one holder of a given Approach in the story. I'm assuming here that statists are given implicit titles also when appropriate, so this moves the title system a little more to the direction of symbolic simulation from straight player character creation. These limits are as follows:
Servitor -- There can be an unlimited amount.
Page -- Every page must have a master of higher title, and these cannot be the same person or thing. 'None' is a master.
Knight -- Every knight must have something to fight for, and these cannot be the same person or thing. 'Nothing' is a thing.
Queen -- Every queen must have a domain, and these cannot overlap.
King -- There can be only one.
Magician -- Superrare, but unlimited.
The masters of the pages, causes of the knights and the domains of the queens must all be of higher title and the same element, metaphorically or concretely.

Magic: Note that humble magic is elementally accented, while true magic is not. Note that I don't comment on whether this is a difference between the magics, indicating different sources, or if it's unity between the elements and the true world. This is a question for the players.

With these systems in place, there are symbolic tools for answering the earlier question about freedom and structure. By the changes in the caste system and the role of the Magician the thematic questions of freedom and structure can be manipulated as well as those already in place. Note that the Magician has no natural connection to an element and therefore does humble magic without elemental connection, making it strange and unknown even to characters aware of magic.

Point: the baroque titles and elements hold no mechanical significance at all, operating wholly on the symbolic plane. What is the importance of my character losing his crown in the element of Buildings, if it has no rules significance? This is either an astoundingly half-assed way of building a dud of a game, or a strong symbolic system of interpreting and inspiring game events.

Titles: Apart from the previous topics, consider demanding that elements be always either of a paradigm or apart. Elements apart from each other cannot have the same names for the approaches, while elements of a paradigm must have the same names for them. Therefore a given element might have several names for an Approach, if it shares paradigm with elements apart from each other. This is more symbolic fucking with the heads of the players, and has no other meaning than establishing the relations of the different elements towards each other.

Rules of manipulation: The big design question is, can the game be constructed towards this vision? If it can, what is needed is a metasystem for forced manipulation of the system of elements and approaches. There'd be then three interlocking systems: the extremely minimalistic system of inworld conflict, mostly handled through the scene framing; the rules of narration, controlling the grayness of the world and use of magic; the metasystem for forcing changes in the titles of characters and acknowledging changes happening through play. If implemented, the idea of the game is clear: the changes in the lives of the characters are followed by changes in the title system, and changes in the title system are followed by changes in the lives of the characters. There is some connection between the titles and finding true magic, but what it is is defined by the players through playing.

[Jonathan Walton]

So much great stuff to respond to...

The point being, of course, that the world only exists as a part of you, until magic makes it a thing real in itself.

Shreyas, your internal/external division really works.  Thanks for helping solve that piece of the puzzle.  But this quote is still fairly opaque to me, though you seem to be suggesting a possible theme or premise, and I'd really like to hear more about this concept.  Are you suggesting that the world is subjective, until magic gives it an objective form that everyone can experience in the same way?

Your initial emphasis and subsequent response seemed so definitive that I was concerned how it might be misunderstood by your player audience; I was trying to demonstrate for you the problems with its wording, little more.

Cool, then.  Sorry I misread your intent.  Your point about the "Big Frog & Little Frog" is well taken too.  I don't think a single adjective would be enough to really spoil the aesthetic, so I might end up suggesting something like that.  After all, if you have any two individuals, you can certainly call one them "the Taller Man" and "the Other," or do something similar.  Then again, I'd still like to avoid language based on physical descriptions, because it de-generalizes everything and breaks the illusion that all the players are imagining the same thing.

I'd love further suggestions on this point, if anyone has them.

First of all, premise (theme, possibly): you need one, and it quite clearly is the contrast between the iconic world and the magic one. Just finish the system and tell the players to make of the world constraint what they will.

This is what I was originally thinking, but I guess I'm worried that players will have trouble knowing how to develop conflict (which, I think, drives most narrative), especially typical American players who aren't likely to have done much freeform roleplaying.  Then again, I just may need to ditch the idea of writing the game for typical American roleplayers and focus on a different audience.

I still feel that some sort of relationship map, or a way of determing inter-character relationships would do a lot to drive play.  The hierarchy you mention later does something pretty similar, since it's also creating relationships (hierarchical ones of power).  But let me talk about that in a minute...

Assume that all people of the world are of an element. These people are elemental Servitors, who are unavare of magic, but mold their lives according to the symbolism of their element.

Hmm, I like the politics of this concept (everyone has an Element, so nobody's special), but it doesn't seem to gel with the narrative structure, where the PCs are obviously much more significant than the average joe. Then again, your apprach would emphasize the fact that everyone has a story to tell, everyone is a potential lead character.  I'll have to ponder this a bit.  Maybe what distinguishes the PCs is not that they have an Element, but that they can draw on their Element to perform Humble Magic, something that anyone could potentially do.  That way too, an Extra would automatically shift into a PC the moment they first performed Humble Magic.  Definitely has potential...

Consider making the list of elements freeform, so that there is one element per player, plus the players may add one element in consensus later in the story. ...Also, assume that all things as well as people are elementally aspected.

This is something that I had considered earlier, but I was thinking more along the lines of giving a different Element to each character, but that was too much riffing on Nobilis and In Nomine for me.  Your way, actually, sounds like it would work much better.  So the players would decide what Elements form the basis of their mythology.  If the group has any trouble reaching consensus on the Elements, it would be easy enough to let each player pick one, but still encourage them all to maintain PCs of Elements other than the one they chose.

On the issue of things having Elements: I think animals definitely should (though having a dog of the Snake Element would be rather weird/cool), but maybe only magic objects should have Elements.  Other objects are basically tools and, as such, are basically an extension of their character and should be considered the same Element.  Unless you're thinking of having a Snake-PC who drives a Water-car or something?  I'm not sure what that would mean, except in moments of magic where the Elements became more apparent.

Your "residue" concept is cool.  I thought about allowing True Magic to permanently give people names, and this seems to be the kind of thing you're talking about.  But maybe only True Magic should leave a permanent residue.  Humble Magic might have one, but the residue would fade with time, completely disappearing after a couple of days.  I can imagine a neat story where the PCs cluster around the remants of some Humble Magic, entralled by it, but then have to watch it fade away before their eyes.

About resource management: not necessary or desirable. What you need is conflict resolution between players, not limits on directorial power.

Maybe.  I don't know.  Don't both of these address the same issue, ultimately?  They decide who gets to determine what happens.  I agree that resource management isn't quite the right system for this game, though.  It's a little bit too... formal, I guess.

Still, since we're planning on heavily framing most of the scenes, I don't think the conflicts are really going to be what happens during a particular scene.  The conflicts are going to come when the scene gets framed, when the group tries to decide what should happen.  That's when I was imagining the resource might come in handy, to do Universalis-style bidding.  But there's other potential ways of resolving those difficulties, I guess.  Your system sounds neat, but it seems more appropriate to deciding issues as they happen in a narrative, rather than helping the group come to consensus before the scene even begins.

As for premise: the philosophical issues you mentioned are great, and just the kind of thing I intended.  Since the existence of Humble & True Magic is never going to be explained in the game (and isn't something the characters are even consistently aware of), I imagine the players will be thinking about it a great deal, even if the PCs aren't.

Assume that a character can adopt different elements, and hold a servitor status or title in them all. This is also purely symbolic; the idea is to use the symbolic relations and character "development" to spark the story.

Ha!  I think you definitely have something there: an Element-driven relationship map and maybe even a Karma-based resolution mechanic.  Here's an example, off the top of my head:

• The Clerk is a Knight of Snakes but only a Page of Ice.
• The Businesswoman is the Queen of Ice, but has no status in Snakes.

• Snakes have these associations: guile, seduction, intelligence, freedom.
• Ice has these associations: wealth, beauty, institutionalized power, fragility.

1. The Businesswoman orders the Clerk to handle some marginal task that she feels is beneath her.  Because of her superiority in Ice (representing her authority over him) he is forced to do her bidding.

2. The Clerk tells the Businesswomen that it's obvious that the upper management (the King of Ice, say) doesn't appreciate her talent and skills, impressing such lowly tasks on her.  Because of the Clerk's superiority in Snakes, the Businesswomen is decieved by his flattery.

What do you think?  Characters can then take different tactics to try to get what they want, manuvering around to play on their strengths.  Does this take too much attention off the magic, since it's now a story about power struggles?  I feel like the characters' main goal should be to seek out the magic moments in the world, not try to get ahead at their jobs.  But maybe this kind of thing might still work.  Any suggestions?

Magician: Assume that a character can be disassociated from all elements and live. Such a character would be called Magician (still one per story, assuming we hold to that limit), and would conseivably symbolize freedom and breaking the limits.

Hmm... A very interesting proposal, but I'm not totally convinced by it.  If there was a character who was completely aware of magic (in a way that most other characters weren't) wouldn't they tend to become the center of attention, since they'd almost be an avatar of the players (who, like the Magician, also are aware of magic)?  The Magician would get to break all the awareness rules, would get to ponder the nature of things, etc.  

Perhaps if there were restrictions on when and how the Magician could appear in the narrative, it might work.  If there was only one Magician, and s/he could only appear in one scene per session, the character might serve to re-emphasize the nature of magic, drawing attention to it, while still not drawing all the attention on themselves.  Part of the continuing plot would then be figuring out what the hell the Magician is up to.  After all, what do you do in a world where you can see all the magic?  Perhaps the players would begin to suspect that the Magician himself is the source of True Magic, being, as he is, apart from the structure of Elements.

Also, it begs the question: If the Magician character is removed from the game in any way, can another character break free of the Elements and become the Magician?  All in all, a very interesting idea, but I'll have to think about it a bit before deciding whether and how to implement it.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Cool, then.  Sorry I misread your intent.  Your point about the "Big Frog & Little Frog" is well taken too.  I don't think a single adjective would be enough to really spoil the aesthetic, so I might end up suggesting something like that.  After all, if you have any two individuals, you can certainly call one them "the Taller Man" and "the Other," or do something similar.  Then again, I'd still like to avoid language based on physical descriptions, because it de-generalizes everything and breaks the illusion that all the players are imagining the same thing.

I'd say that single adjectives are indeed the point, and you should go with them. The idea is that for a given archetypal story, all the actors have a function. If there is a man in the story, he has a reason to be there. So, if there is two men, they both conseivably have a different reason for being in the story, otherwise one would suffice. This being the case, allow differentiating between the men either by Function or by Poetic License (the latter because the game is all about symbolic relationships). Differentiating by function means giving the man a referrent that tells, what he is doing in the story. If it's a prince, then call it a prince. Differentiating by Poetic License is used when the storytellers want to leave the Function open: in this case you pick a poetic denominator, like red beard. Call the man red bearded man from now on. Later this beard will come to symbolize the things the man stands for in the story, be they vitality or brutality or something else. Later the poetic differentiator can be swapped for either a Function or a Name, if the character ever gets there.

First of all, premise (theme, possibly): you need one, and it quite clearly is the contrast between the iconic world and the magic one. Just finish the system and tell the players to make of the world constraint what they will.

This is what I was originally thinking, but I guess I'm worried that players will have trouble knowing how to develop conflict (which, I think, drives most narrative), especially typical American players who aren't likely to have done much freeform roleplaying.  Then again, I just may need to ditch the idea of writing the game for typical American roleplayers and focus on a different audience.

Nah, you just need good analytic writing there. Write two things when writing this game: the open ended rules, and the essay on possible meanings. Put all the possible ideas about how to play in the essay. Then mix the essay and the rules together to make a nice varied reading experience. Americans have brains, just like us all, and they can, especially with help, play quite well.

I don't think that the game need be at all freeform. Just stick to demanding things relevant for magical realism, like Dissatisfaction and Awareness, and the players will follow Gaiman. The whole point of the elements and approaches is to induce a symbolic frame of mind, no? Do that, and the stories will follow.

I still feel that some sort of relationship map, or a way of determing inter-character relationships would do a lot to drive play.  The hierarchy you mention later does something pretty similar, since it's also creating relationships (hierarchical ones of power).  But let me talk about that in a minute...

I'd suggest that the players keep a real-time record of the relationships, elements and approaches. Let the relationships be either decided by players, or inspired by the system. The whole point here is that if you tell the players that one character is the Queen of Water and another is the King of the same, this will eventually or instantly inspire their relationship. Especially if the players read your essay interspeded in the rules text, written in a semimystical and dense prose that opens up only after playing and thinking. Like my posts, only more so.

Hmm, I like the politics of this concept (everyone has an Element, so nobody's special), but it doesn't seem to gel with the narrative structure, where the PCs are obviously much more significant than the average joe.

Now, now. Assume, that the PCs are special individuals. Therefore they obviously have titles, even several, which is plenty significancy enough when those titles are so rare. (I mean approaches with titles, just too lazy to be so nonintuitive). If everyone is at least a Servitor, how is being a Servitor notable in any way? Believe me, the themes and questions outlined here make this the only logical position.

How about this for a character creation: every player character may at the start of the story, have at most five ranks in titles. Obviously being a Servitor (usually useless and even harmful) costs one rank, a Page two ranks, a Knight three, a Queen four and a King five. So a character may be the King of an element, or a page in two or some such combination. Later these change only through the actions of the characters in the story.

I'll put the rest of the rules as I recommend them down here for reference:

Magic: For humble magic the character has to be at least a Page, and his magic is elementally aspected. True magic has no such limit.

Dissatisfaction and Awareness:
Title -- must be
Servitor -- living by the element
Page -- living greatly by the element
Knight -- dissatisfied with something
Queen -- dissatisfied, aware of the existence of something more
King -- dissatisfied, aware and hold no other title

Numbers:
Title -- can be
Servitor -- unlimited numbers.
Page -- must have a master of higher rank.
Knight -- must have a cause of higher rank.
Queen -- must have a domain of higher rank.
King -- there can be only one.

Ousting: A character loses his title either by failing in it's requirements or by being ousted by another. In both cases such a character becomes Servitor in the Element. A character is ousted by another, if that another is of that Element and demonstrates through play a better suitability for that position. 'Position' here refers to masters, causes and domains as well.

Elements and Titles: Elements are created at the start of the game. There is one for every player, and one element can be initiated by consensus later in the game. Every element must be either apart or of type with every other element. Titles for the elements, corresponding to the five titles of (Servitor), Page, Knight, Queen and King, must be created such that elements apart don't share a title and elements of type share it.

Residue: True magic can effect a Naming in addition to it's other effects: this means either attaching a name to a thing or adding an extra definitor to it's description or awaking one person to the existence of something more. Humble magic does the same, but the effects are always temporary.

Conflicts: As the game is throughout-framed, there can be conflicts only between players. Being that two players disagree on something, and no decision can be reached, may either one force the issue. If however a third player agrees then with the other player, the issue is decided in his favor. You don't need any more conflict resolution than this, as two players who agree are always right.

Magician: A character, who loses his elemental aspects, becomes a Magician. Magician can cast humble magic without elemental aspect.

These are all necessary groungwork, as I see the possible themes. Discussion should point out any flaws.

Then again, your apprach would emphasize the fact that everyone has a story to tell, everyone is a potential lead character.  I'll have to ponder this a bit.  Maybe what distinguishes the PCs is not that they have an Element, but that they can draw on their Element to perform Humble Magic, something that anyone could potentially do.  That way too, an Extra would automatically shift into a PC the moment they first performed Humble Magic.  Definitely has potential...

Indeed. This is my continental liberalism talking: too much of the modern fantasy fiction is premedicated on the axiom of Talent; the story is about the individual, who through no act of his own, becomes a hero. There is room for a more responsible and adult approach, where everyone is truly a part of the same system, with pontential for change and greatness. This is infinitely preferable to another "you are the holder of the sacred myth in the sea of ignorant fools who won't give you a blow-job" everyone from Whitewolf down offers.

Now, the simplest way of differentiating the player characters (or protagonists, as there are no technical player characters) is to just give them some titles. If humble magic can only be performed by one holding a title, it all becomes simple. The first step towards greatness (in service of the illusion or not, to be decided by players) is to step up from being a servitor.

Consider making the list of elements freeform, so that there is one element per player, plus the players may add one element in consensus later in the story. ...Also, assume that all things as well as people are elementally aspected.

This is something that I had considered earlier, but I was thinking more along the lines of giving a different Element to each character, but that was too much riffing on Nobilis and In Nomine for me.  Your way, actually, sounds like it would work much better.  So the players would decide what Elements form the basis of their mythology.  If the group has any trouble reaching consensus on the Elements, it would be easy enough to let each player pick one, but still encourage them all to maintain PCs of Elements other than the one they chose.

Exactly. Some times I get too elegant for my own health.

On the issue of things having Elements: I think animals definitely should (though having a dog of the Snake Element would be rather weird/cool), but maybe only magic objects should have Elements.  Other objects are basically tools and, as such, are basically an extension of their character and should be considered the same Element.  Unless you're thinking of having a Snake-PC who drives a Water-car or something?  I'm not sure what that would mean, except in moments of magic where the Elements became more apparent.

The point, as I see it, is that the elements are there mainly to inspire the symbolic nature of the story. Of course you don't need to define the elements for most things, but the option has to be there for the overall resonance. For example, the story could take a completely different turn when the Light people are exploring the University, and someone decides that the University itself is Snake aspected. The point, as I explain later on, isn't in defining any special effect for this decision, but to leave that to players. Does it mean that there are many Snake people in there? Or is the academic structure built on backstabbing? Or is it just a feature in the architecture? The elements and titles should be used to inspire the story. I'd build the rules to be such that elements and titles have no premediated effect on anything but magic. It becomes the job of the players to translate changes at that level to the story, like a tarot reader.

About a dog with the Snake element: this is a good example. This could mean that a Snake man owns the dog, or that it has the nature of a snake, or any other thing. The idea is to make the decision.

Your "residue" concept is cool.  I thought about allowing True Magic to permanently give people names, and this seems to be the kind of thing you're talking about.  But maybe only True Magic should leave a permanent residue.  Humble Magic might have one, but the residue would fade with time, completely disappearing after a couple of days.  I can imagine a neat story where the PCs cluster around the remants of some Humble Magic, entralled by it, but then have to watch it fade away before their eyes.

I was originally thinking that only True Magic would have a Naming as a residue, and the humble variety would perhaps do something more humble, but making it temporary is a good and suitable option.

About resource management: not necessary or desirable. What you need is conflict resolution between players, not limits on directorial power.

Maybe.  I don't know.  Don't both of these address the same issue, ultimately?  They decide who gets to determine what happens.  I agree that resource management isn't quite the right system for this game, though.  It's a little bit too... formal, I guess.

Formal, heavy and vulnerable to gamistic tendency. No doubt it could be done, but I feel that it's one layer too many. Resource management tends to build longer arcs of planning in the players and a drive for control of the game. Here we want to leave room for the inspiration and channel the control drive to the characters, not leave it to the metalevel like Universalis does. For these reasons I think that the only persistent statistics should be the elements and the titles, and what has happened in the game. Resolve all conflicts with something simple, here and now. The same holds for the system of element/title manipulation, which is still a complete mystery.

Still, since we're planning on heavily framing most of the scenes, I don't think the conflicts are really going to be what happens during a particular scene.  The conflicts are going to come when the scene gets framed, when the group tries to decide what should happen.  That's when I was imagining the resource might come in handy, to do Universalis-style bidding.  But there's other potential ways of resolving those difficulties, I guess.  Your system sounds neat, but it seems more appropriate to deciding issues as they happen in a narrative, rather than helping the group come to consensus before the scene even begins.

Agreed, I just threw it here because I'm planning to use it in a little different form in a game I'm writing. The important thing is to not have any statistics or resources on the metalevel. The game is complex enough when there is a strong symbolic layer over the actual game world, which is a little strange itself to boot.

As for premise: the philosophical issues you mentioned are great, and just the kind of thing I intended.  Since the existence of Humble & True Magic is never going to be explained in the game (and isn't something the characters are even consistently aware of), I imagine the players will be thinking about it a great deal, even if the PCs aren't.

Indeed. The main point would to my mind be building of a symbolic system that enables a varied range of philosophical premise to be hooked on to the symbols, and that way to the characters. This is why the Magician (as the principle of freedom), freeform elements and varied titles are the main stuff in my mind.

I personally have a vague feeling that this is on some level a complete symbology. In theory it could however be expanded, to give the players more tools. You'll just risk making in unmanageable and incomplete (in the sense that the system inspires questions that it has no tools to answer). Opinions?

Assume that a character can adopt different elements, and hold a servitor status or title in them all. This is also purely symbolic; the idea is to use the symbolic relations and character "development" to spark the story.

Ha!  I think you definitely have something there: an Element-driven relationship map and maybe even a Karma-based resolution mechanic.  Here's an example, off the top of my head:

Your example would work, certainly, but I feel that it would waste an opportunity for another kind of game. I'll elucidiate after the quote:

What do you think?  Characters can then take different tactics to try to get what they want, manuvering around to play on their strengths.  Does this take too much attention off the magic, since it's now a story about power struggles?  I feel like the characters' main goal should be to seek out the magic moments in the world, not try to get ahead at their jobs.  But maybe this kind of thing might still work.  Any suggestions?

It definitely moves the game too strongly towards simulation and competing. I was visualizing something a little more complex and freeform (in the good sense, I hope, but that remains to be seen):

There is two levels to the game, the symbolic and the concrete. These have been already constructed, with the elements and titles being the symbolic part. The point is, there is no formal connection between them at all except the magic. This is either very elegant, or extremely crazy.

As I said earlier, write an essay that explains some possible connections between the symbolic and the concrete level. Posit, that the two are interrelated. Be dense and complex. Interspede the actual rules text with the essay.

Now, give a system of rules for the players to manipulate the title system. Some way for them to give elemental affinities and titles to things and people. Also posit that the elements and titles change through the play, and put in a formal phase after all scenes, where these changes are recorded if they happen. Give the phase a friction, so the symbols aren't too easy to change.

Always posit that the two levels, the symbolic, and the concrete, are interrelated, but don't give any absolute rules. The result should be that the players start to build the story towards the symbols: a change in the title of a character inspires a cataclysmic turn in the plot, or a character, who has the title of Page of Ice (to master whatshisname), naturally is deferential to his master. Or not, as the rules don't say that the relationship should mean this.

The only exception should be the humble magic, which maybe is not so humble at all. The humble magic is a strange phenomenon, which is only understood even partially by the Queens, the Kings, and the Magician. They also undestand something about the elemental titles, enough at least to be deferential towards each other.

The True Magic is of course the most transcendental element of all, having no rules except that it exists: the players can bring it to the game and stump everyone, even the Magician.

This is my vision of how the game should go. A complex one, and possibly nonoperable, but interesting.

Magician: Assume that a character can be disassociated from all elements and live. Such a character would be called Magician (still one per story, assuming we hold to that limit), and would conseivably symbolize freedom and breaking the limits.

Hmm... A very interesting proposal, but I'm not totally convinced by it.  If there was a character who was completely aware of magic (in a way that most other characters weren't) wouldn't they tend to become the center of attention, since they'd almost be an avatar of the players (who, like the Magician, also are aware of magic)?  The Magician would get to break all the awareness rules, would get to ponder the nature of things, etc.  

The role of the Magician would conseivably be the same as it is in symbolic stories in general. He'd assist or advice the protagonists, or maybe a protagonist grows to be a Magician. As the players don't know the truth about magic, they hardly can reveal anything too important to the characters.

And who says that the Magician, despite the name, would be too aware of magic? Maybe he knows only as much as a king of an element, who could be opposing the magician...

Perhaps if there were restrictions on when and how the Magician could appear in the narrative, it might work.  If there was only one Magician, and s/he could only appear in one scene per session, the character might serve to re-emphasize the nature of magic, drawing attention to it, while still not drawing all the attention on themselves.  Part of the continuing plot would then be figuring out what the hell the Magician is up to.  After all, what do you do in a world where you can see all the magic?  Perhaps the players would begin to suspect that the Magician himself is the source of True Magic, being, as he is, apart from the structure of Elements.

This is possible, and it is exactly the same case as with True Magic. Limiting both is an useful guideline to the players, but can also limit certain stories, like a remake of LotR, with Gandalf in all scenes and all ;)

I don't see how a transcendental character could become the focus of the story if the players don't want a superhero story like Matrix. More likely the magician will only be seen in shadows, or in cryptic advice, or as a goal for the characters to strive for. There's no reason for there not being more than one Magician: after all, one possible interpretation is that the Magician is the man who broke out of the game world, and at least partially resides in Magic (which is largely our world). There should be the possibility of everyone becoming Magician, if they just dare.

Also, it begs the question: If the Magician character is removed from the game in any way, can another character break free of the Elements and become the Magician?  All in all, a very interesting idea, but I'll have to think about it a bit before deciding whether and how to implement it.

Believe me, you need a rebel principle in these things. Otherwise you leave nothing for the player who wants to just cuss at the Kings and Queens and play the game their own way. It's not a good thing to make the elemental symbology absolute.

I'd write more, maybe an outline for the system of symbol manipulation, but time presses. Hope I got the idea across.

[Jonathan Walton]

There is two levels to the game, the symbolic and the concrete. These have been already constructed, with the elements and titles being the symbolic part. The point is, there is no formal connection between them at all except the magic. This is either very elegant, or extremely crazy.

I feel like that's a great description of the project, in a nutshell: trying to see whether aggressive scene framing and a strong symbolic language (one that rarely effects the narrative directly) are enough System to sustain a meaningful roleplaying experience.  Will it give people enough to go on or will play simply flounder?  Most traditional roleplayers will have very few familiar tools to grasp hold of, so it'll be critical to point them towards new tools, otherwise they'll just flail about.

I personally have a vague feeling that this is on some level a complete symbology. In theory it could however be expanded, to give the players more tools. You'll just risk making in unmanageable and incomplete (in the sense that the system inspires questions that it has no tools to answer). Opinions?

I think you're right.  Besides, if the symbolic aspect is basically metagame (except during occurances of magic), I don't think we have any real motivation to make it especially complex.  What's the point of a really detailed symbolic language that you'll never get to use?  Besides, a more extensive symbolic metagame would just pressure the players to express that complexity in the game world, when that's forbidden.  Do we really want to torture the player who plays the Sultan of the Eternal Night, Lord of the Emerald Reaches, and Hope of Ages, when that character can only be expressed, in game, as the Garbage Man?

Always posit that the two levels, the symbolic, and the concrete, are interrelated, but don't give any absolute rules. The result should be that the players start to build the story towards the symbols: a change in the title of a character inspires a cataclysmic turn in the plot, or a character, who has the title of Page of Ice (to master whatshisname), naturally is deferential to his master. Or not, as the rules don't say that the relationship should mean this.

I think this is the major thing that makes the game unique.  It's like taking an entire cosmology and turning into something that's as abstract as a traditional "alignment" system.  The Page of Ice doesn't know he's "the Page of Ice" any more than a Paladin knows he's "Lawful Good" or whatever.  It just serves as a motivation for play decisions.

Now, give a system of rules for the players to manipulate the title system. Some way for them to give elemental affinities and titles to things and people. Also posit that the elements and titles change through the play, and put in a formal phase after all scenes, where these changes are recorded if they happen. Give the phase a friction, so the symbols aren't too easy to change.

Give me a couple days to ponder a few options here, and I'll get back to you.  If we're going to avoid the Gamist tendency to quantify levels of rank and have characters cause each other the gain or lose levels, I think we're going to need something subtle and frickin' brilliant.  After all, we need to ensure a few things:

1. Players have no reason to try to make their characters all Kings or whatever.  Maybe if characters increase in rank too much, they change so much that they need to be played by another player?

2. That a Player doesn't feel any less effective if they're characters have lower ranks.  After all, if the story is really ABOUT the Page, what does it matter if the Page isn't a King?  Being a King should be pretty boring in many ways, because you stand alone and don't have the freedom of those on the bottom.

3. In general, I think it's going to convince players that being at a given level in the heirachy doesn't really make a character "better" or "worse" than another; it just makes them "different."  How to make this clear, when the ranks don't directly effect play, is hard.

4. Moving up/down in rank and changing Elements should be a big deal, but it should also happen really easily, if that's what the narrative suggests.

Servitor -- living by the element
Page -- living greatly by the element
Knight -- dissatisfied with something
Queen -- dissatisfied, aware of the existence of something more
King -- dissatisfied, aware and hold no other title

Can you explain more what you mean by both "living by the element" means?  For instance, what would "living by Snakes" or "living greatly by Ice" mean?  And is dissatisfaction similar to that kind of general "wrongness" that Morpheus describes in the Matrix ("You've always felt that there was something... dissatisfying with the world...")?

I'd write more, maybe an outline for the system of symbol manipulation, but time presses.

Eero, if you write any more, you're not going to leave much for me to design ;)

[Eero Tuovinen]

Always posit that the two levels, the symbolic, and the concrete, are interrelated, but don't give any absolute rules. The result should be that the players start to build the story towards the symbols: a change in the title of a character inspires a cataclysmic turn in the plot, or a character, who has the title of Page of Ice (to master whatshisname), naturally is deferential to his master. Or not, as the rules don't say that the relationship should mean this.

I think this is the major thing that makes the game unique.  It's like taking an entire cosmology and turning into something that's as abstract as a traditional "alignment" system.  The Page of Ice doesn't know he's "the Page of Ice" any more than a Paladin knows he's "Lawful Good" or whatever.  It just serves as a motivation for play decisions.

Yes, this could be extremely interesting to play, like trying to interpret tarot or I-Ching. Or it could be entirely redundant, but I don't know which, before playing.

Much could depend on the system used for symbol manipulation. I'm thinking that you should probably discard my earlier thoughts on the actual conflict resolution and go with integrating these two. So the rules system used should enable players to a)resolve disagreements about framing, b)enable players to proactively change elemental associations of characters and introduce assosiations for things, c)evaluate and record changes in elemental assosiations that happen due to what happens in the game and d) maybe do some slight manipulation of the representation of the world, like adding and changing adjectives to things, as a kind of a symbol manipulation. This is almost complex enough to use resource management, but I stand by what I said before about the psychological aspect; I'd rather see a system that uses here-and-now spot decisions that are independent from each other.

Now, give a system of rules for the players to manipulate the title system. Some way for them to give elemental affinities and titles to things and people. Also posit that the elements and titles change through the play, and put in a formal phase after all scenes, where these changes are recorded if they happen. Give the phase a friction, so the symbols aren't too easy to change.

Give me a couple days to ponder a few options here, and I'll get back to you.  If we're going to avoid the Gamist tendency to quantify levels of rank and have characters cause each other the gain or lose levels, I think we're going to need something subtle and frickin' brilliant.  After all, we need to ensure a few things:

Indeed, fricking brilliant is what's needed, I won't forgive you if you go for anything suboptimal on such a nice game idea. Go to it. I notice that I chose the wrong english word in the last sentence there, I meant by friction that there should be a certain resistance to change coming from the game world in the symbology, to ensure the moderately restrictive nature of the symbols. Hope that got across.

1. Players have no reason to try to make their characters all Kings or whatever.  Maybe if characters increase in rank too much, they change so much that they need to be played by another player?

2. That a Player doesn't feel any less effective if they're characters have lower ranks.  After all, if the story is really ABOUT the Page, what does it matter if the Page isn't a King?  Being a King should be pretty boring in many ways, because you stand alone and don't have the freedom of those on the bottom.

The first is a feature, not a problem, to my mind. Remember, we want the players to make in-game decisions based on the symbols. There is absolutely no use ruleswise to being the King as compared to Page, the only difference is in your (brilliant) definitions of the approaches. Despite this, we'll probably be seeing striving for the kingship, but that just drives stories: if the king of Stone is a leader of a buddhist temple, a character has to oust the king on some level, maybe disgrasing the king in his temple, to assume the title.

The second one is largely implemented if the only rules effect of the different titles is that Servitors cannot use humble magic. There is no real difference, except in the symbology, which is the whole point. To my mind, if a player is so inclined, he should indeed feel less effective for being a page and not the king. Actually, the group should make that a drive for the game, making sure that the other persons of that element are actually more successful in ways important to the character.

Overall, the idea is that the symbology will be realized through play, not by the designer. Like premise versus theme in the theory. Make it possible for the rank and element issues to emerge, but give it no justification whatsoever. The great war between the elements, the betrayal by the Count of Cats and all the subsequent events are all the more imporant if they actually have only reason and importance vested in them by the players. Let the frustation with the stature of the Page be channeled through issues of the game world.

Remember, you are going to need the Magician. He will be the road for those who want to really step outside the symbology, to tell all the nobility to fuck off. This can be done of course without him, by the characters staying suppremely uninterested in gaining titles, but why make it harder for the players, especially as the Magician enables so many strong stories just by existing?

3. In general, I think it's going to convince players that being at a given level in the heirachy doesn't really make a character "better" or "worse" than another; it just makes them "different."  How to make this clear, when the ranks don't directly effect play, is hard.

4. Moving up/down in rank and changing Elements should be a big deal, but it should also happen really easily, if that's what the narrative suggests.

The third one is somewhat similar issue to the first and the second. Just say, like you do in the last version, that the title doesn't make anyone better or worse. They believe it or not. Actually, I would write an enigmatic game where I'd make no comment at all about the significance of the ranks to the game. Those kinds of explanations I would embed in the mystery essay I told about... Make the rules simple, but make players work for even hints about meaning. The game's point is to make your own interpretation, so it'd be strange to give any straight answers rightaway. I feel that this game has potential to be a great text, apart from the game, if you're brave enough :)

I agree entirely with the fourth one, with proviso. The system should, like I hinted earlier, make it a technical and somewhat rare matter to change elemental affinities with no in-game reason at all. The reason for enabling change in symbols without change in the world is sparking of interpretations. It should also make this progressively easier when the change in symbology and change in-game become closer, all the way to the point where an especially illuminated Servitor ousts the King in full knowledge, and the change in the symbology follows instantly from the in-game change.

Making change progressively easier with change in-game isn't however enough, for there is need for a resistance; otherwise the symbols lose their meaning, as the players find it easier to change symbols all the time, and even forget them altogether. Better that a change in symbols happen only with permanent changes in-game, to prevent too easy changing. It should be easier when something happens in-game to permit it, but that reason has to be real.

And, to repeat, I find it important that there is some (maybe semirandom) way to change the symbology almost with no in-game justification at all. Such a system, working to the other direction from the norm, would be useful in inspiring the story and introducing new elements. From world to symbols when exploring the story, and from symbols to world when creating one, shall be the law.

Servitor -- living by the element
Page -- living greatly by the element
Knight -- dissatisfied with something
Queen -- dissatisfied, aware of the existence of something more
King -- dissatisfied, aware and hold no other title

Can you explain more what you mean by both "living by the element" means?  For instance, what would "living by Snakes" or "living greatly by Ice" mean?  And is dissatisfaction similar to that kind of general "wrongness" that Morpheus describes in the Matrix ("You've always felt that there was something... dissatisfying with the world...")?

Certainly. Everyone is at least a servitor of at least one element, right? Therefore "living by the element" means that the life of such individual is touched in some way by the symbol, at least more than by other symbols. This isn't usually a choice, but simply the nature of the world. If Snakes be one of our elements, that prescripts a certain kind of a view on our world: there shall be many people, whose lifestyle is symbolically connected to the Snake. A servitor of the Snake could be a lawyer, getting his income from betrayal. Or he might simply like dark and dank places, if that were a meaning the group ascribes to snakes. Similarly the people of Ice would perhaps be not too emotional, rational, like skiing, be poets of great clarity, vote republican, or anything else the group finds acceptable.

Similarly, the Page is required to "live greatly by the element", which probably isn't the best way to say it in English. This means, that whatever are the ways a servitor lives according to his element, the Page does it more. If a servitor could serve the element by skiing, the Page could be a professional, for example. So the difference is that one living greatly does something not everybody of that element can, but that nevertheless is in the purview of that element.

It should be noted, that I meant the requirements to be cumulative, so anyone aspected to an element will live by it. This is what it means to be aspected. Similarly all who hold titles will be especially aspected.

Dissatisfaction indeed is that, but that's probably the most rarified form of it. It could be much simpler, especially for the lower order of character. Wanting to be the quarterback, despite being a nerd, that kind of thing. Dissatisfaction is simply willingness to dream about a better life. Contentment never took anyone anywhere in the fiction. Both dissatisfaction and awareness are to my mind essential elements of urban fantasy (why nobody comments on these interesting bits?), and therefore they should also be explained in that mystery essay I keep talking about, that reveals the secrets of the game.

I feel that all these are healthy to put in as restrictions to character creation. Demand that the player tell us why his character is aspected to both Ash and Wind. This helps to enrich the meaning of symbols, which is needed later in the game. Likewise demanding dissatisfaction and awareness will bring these thematic elements to the fore.

Did you understand what I meant about the amounts of the different titles? I'm not 100% sure that it's a good idea to increase the amount of Pages of Ice in such a drastic amount, but I feel that this can be alleviated by assuming titles. Players can just assume that every higher-up has that page of his tucked away somewhere. Maybe his driver is one? This way the amounts will effectively be the same, and the rarity and individualness is preserved, while making the system more dynamic. The change would essentially be from a story level to a simulation level, except that there is no meaningful simulation going on with the titles. Note that every titleholder will in this system be still individual, as page, knight and queen each demand that they have an unique individual or thing they serve, fight for or rule. Thus we could have the Ice Queen of Marlsboro (don't ask why), her Ice Knight of Marlsboro (meaning the knight's cause is the queen, or Marlsboro, depending on preference) and a couple of Pages for those two, all aspected to Ice. And there could be the preferred amount of other Ice nobility, but not without restrictions.

I'd write more, maybe an outline for the system of symbol manipulation, but time presses.

Eero, if you write any more, you're not going to leave much for me to design ;)

Hey, just tell me if I'm too pushy. You can think of it as admiration of the concept. I don't post too much, partly because of time, but partly because not everything draws me to.

Anyway, consider playing cards for the mechanics. There is obvious benefits. The resource manipulation is of course a brute force way, that certainly could do everything stated yet. Probably no dice. I myself would maybe explore the possibilities of tying the different functions to parts of the story
(scenes, climaxes, intermissions, sessions, prologues, epilogues, flashbacks, stories, acts, books, chapters, tie-ins, the animated series, action figures, preparation sequences, revelations, turns of the plot, introducing characters, removing characters, beginnings and endings)
to get that literary, stylistic feel. Maybe embed the whole to some regimented cultural tradition, like ballet or opera buffo, to get some inspiration and color to the mechanics.