The Forge Archives

Hi all

Quote from: Ron Edwards
My claim is that such a system will do best if the key value of play (and there will be one) is its core, rather than an add-on. In D&D, that core value is "level," and as such, playing D&D means being focused on levelling-up processes and consequences. Conversely, in Cyberpunk, the Humanity value is not a core, it's an added-on constraint - hence playing Cyberpunk means tolerating the constraint of Humanity and trying to subvert it via rules-lawyering or house-rules whenever possible.

Perhaps that core value itself becomes a set of variables, as in the Spiritual Attributes of The Riddle of Steel, or the three-way interaction between the three attributes in Le Mon Mouri. Note that in the first example, they are metagame mechanics, and in the latter, they are both attributes and direct-effect resolution mechanics.

This quote by Ron, from the Gothic thread, as well as talk of Rewards, got me thinking about what and how I wanted to reward players in TMW:COTEC.

Currently, I had the Hero Point system as the primary reward system of the game. Where Hero Points where primarily points which let players alter odds in favor of their characters and otherwise exempt them from the play mechanics, as well as some, as yet, poorly conceived Script Change option, allowing for the addition of elements by players, basically a limited Authorial option.  

One of my early ideas for the game was that character advancement and improvement weren't very important. They were possible but not a focus, as you can already design characters to be about as Kik-Ayssh and Kewl as you want them to be, depending on point limits of the game. Thus, I envisioned Hero Points being the most important reward, Even having a tentative HP rewards system, something like DC Heroes "Reward" categories, but where the players themselves set the reward categories.

Anyway, whilst in the shower, of course, I thought of what Ron had said and how that related to over-riding thrust of my game. Which is to have the players come together, as a company, and collaborate to create and design all the elements for their production using the Design Architectures of the system. This is building partly upon the meta-design elements put forth by Aria, but with a more mechanical and concrete design focus, and supported by the games Meta-Universe and it's accompanying mythos.

Ok, so it occured to me that I wanted to provide a larger means to reward this meta-design element. So I thought of adding a second over-layer of points that the Players earn. I thought of calling them Nomenar, which is a play on the Ubiqnomen concept of the The Million Worlds mythos. The name also represents their mystic/cosmic nature.

So players earn these Nomenar by taking part in the meta-design elements of the game. So designing a weapon, or vehicle, or magic system, or Race/Culture/ etc that earns the players some number of Nomenar. This award of points would be by group consesus/vote. I.e. the designer offers up his idea/design to be included in the world, and then the other players vote if they approve of it's inclusion. If it passess, then it is added to the world and the player earns the Nomenar.

Now, since one of the ideas of this game is shared GM, or Guide duties, the players can also earn Nomenar by running parts of the game, acting as a Rules Guide, or other Guide role. This is similar to Runes Runner rules, but also keys into some of Ars Magica Troupe RPGing aspect.

Now the value of these Nomenar is that the player can spend them to exercise Authorial/Director power during the ongoing game, as well as award Hero Points to a particular character, at some advantageous Exchange rate.

The idea here reminds me somewhat of Clash of the Titans, how the gods affected the character's ongoing life by introducing elements/characters or situations, but more on a cosmic unconcious level, something like the forces of the balance in the Eternal Champion series. Indeed, perhaps the players could create certain meta-characters like the Knight in black and yellow or similar to affect some of these changes. Again, part of the thrust of the game's mythos is the idea of the Turning, and constant cycle of change brought about Dream forces and such. Again, lots of cosmic/mythic feel to drive/color the design and game elements.

So anyway, that is the idea as it stands right now. I would love some any comments or suggestions on what people think, or how I might improve it. Again, I think it will provide alot of the thrust and focus that makes my game more than just another Generic Uber-system (albeit an incredibly well-designed one:) )

Thanks

Rob Muadib

I think it would be easier to use a Gift Economy. Here's some examples: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&querytime=wC&q=%22Gift+Economy%22.

Basically, players can get as much as they want. But with this getting, eventually, they feel the internal need to repay, and so they give. The links above show how this works in science, tribal economies, the internet and so on.

For a game group, the other advantage a player gets for creating a location, tool, vehicle, character, and so on, is that they know the secrets of the thing they've made. This secret knowledge is an advantage over other players.

The important thing is that duplication costs of the tool, location, vehicle, character and so on is close to zero, so that by having just one tool design, it's easy to make lots and lots more.

I hope that helps!

Hey,

I like that idea, Andrew. It's more, what, "organic" or Social-Contract based, and a fixed currency of points/contributions doesn't intrude as a factor of its own.

Rob, overall, I am getting very intrigued by the whole MW thing, especially since I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more emphasis on good Simulationist design at the Forge. (I, sad to say, am hopeless at it.) Especially since Director Stance during play can easily be incorporated into this mode of play, as you (and arguably, Mike and Ralph with Universalis) are doing.

I confess to taking the long road when it comes to reading and understanding Aria. Tell me, in that game, following world/etc creation, does the typical player get much or any power to continue contributing to the setting and to anything besides his character? During play, I mean?

Best,
Ron

Hey Rob,

Riffing on Andrew's gift economy idea, why not just give the players as many Nomenar as they want during play, to use as hero point awards and to buy authorial/directorial power, but require a roll against the player's current Nomenar debt every time they want to use more. If they fail the roll, no more credit is extended to them until they pay off some debt (by earning more Nomenar in the ways that you've laid out).

Paul

Quote from: Paul Czege
Riffing on Andrew's gift economy idea, why not just give the players as many Nomenar as they want during play, to use as hero point awards and to buy authorial/directorial power, but require a roll against the player's current Nomenar debt every time they want to use more. If they fail the roll, no more credit is extended to them until they pay off some debt (by earning more Nomenar in the ways that you've laid out).

There's something like that in Scattershot, IIRC.

Mike

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Rob, overall, I am getting very intrigued by the whole MW thing, especially since I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more emphasis on good Simulationist design at the Forge. (I, sad to say, am hopeless at it.) Especially since Director Stance during play can easily be incorporated into this mode of play, as you (and arguably, Mike and Ralph with Universalis) are doing.

Ron, thanks for the semi-nebulous vaguely enthusiastic vote of favorable interest:) (Oh, speaking of favorable interest, got a copy of the Sorcerer Hardback. Pretty sweet, though I feel like I'd need to get some of the supplements to run it well.)

As I have spoken of before, I somewhat ascribe to the cool toys school of simulationist design. It hearkens back to the fun of playing with very well accesorized and poseable action figures with kung-fu grips and all.

The Director stance seems a natural fit with the design focus. I mean, having designed and imagined the Dark Mages of the Obsidian Spire and their Orkhgasalii hordes, you will naturally be apt to frame scenes where they arrive, in frantic multi-angle super slow-mo style, showing off their foul and merciless demeanors as they unleash the sqaud of bound Orkhgasalii or something.

Now, the Simulationist bit comes in that these cool images are backed up with some concrete mechanics so that  heavy war-clubs of the slavering Orkhgasalii smash into armor with the right heft. The mages power is evidenced in the vast area of effect of their darkness spell, it's choking, blinding effect on the PC's, and can be felt in the palpable warp of the mana around the Mages.

In many ways, it is dealing with a unique type of Whiff factor. When the system doesn't provide the right feel for the way things work(as you imainged it.).

So, as I was intimating above, someone who has designed a particular setting, or creature, or race/culture/city, etc. Will have an eye for the most interesting and coolest scenes to put together with those elements. I found myself often playing to this kind of set-up to set-pieces and such in games I played. Heck, I even did it in Mythus!:)

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I confess to taking the long road when it comes to reading and understanding Aria. Tell me, in that game, following world/etc creation, does the typical player get much or any power to continue contributing to the setting and to anything besides his character? During play, I mean?

After a quick perusal, it appears that the other players are limited to a more illusionist/dramatist style, however, the players can earn myth points which are primarily focused on character improvement, but also allow for fudging of rolls and stuff.

Another interesting aspect is that you can spend your Myth Points to effect things in Interactive History, which are kind of FiTM narrative sessions where you chart the course of a family, or culture, or race, etc through it's history by resolving various Action tests relative to the society/culture etc.  So the game is giant leap in collaborative design, but mostly baby steps in shared power within a narrative.

I have to admit, something about Aria just inspires me, the lush feel and weight of history it evokes in my imagination. Love the concepts.

Anyway, thanks for your comments

Rob

Quote from: Paul CzegeHey Rob,

Riffing on Andrew's gift economy idea, why not just give the players as many Nomenar as they want during play, to use as hero point awards and to buy authorial/directorial power, but require a roll against the player's current Nomenar debt every time they want to use more. If they fail the roll, no more credit is extended to them until they pay off some debt (by earning more Nomenar in the ways that you've laid out).

Paul (and Ron & Andrew)

Interesting idea on the Gift Economy, I like that idea. Not stifling player creativity because they don't have any points to spend. (Trying to design this system towards a functional group, not dysfunctional:) )


It led me to another idea. Since we have players spending points to exert authorial/director power, also have a vote system where the group can vote to give that player a reward if they like the Scene/idea or whatever element he introduced. So that positively adding to the game is rewarded and encouraged.

Oh, one other thing that I thought of, is the idea of Vetoing. Do you think there should be a Veto/Bidding mechanic if the other players don't like an element a player wants to introduce. It seemed to me that group consensus is important in designing worlds, as well as during the performance a paritcular production.  

Perhaps have the player who is vetoing it pay the person he is vetoing points equal to the element cost. Or allow the players to compromise, The vetoer pays a certain number of points for changes he wants to make to the players suggestion, so the suggesting player pays a reduced rate for compromising with the vetoer.

Like I was mentioning earlier, Rune has influenced me in it's meta-game aspects of racking up points. In my game, this is done not by kicking the most ass, but by contributing the most to the game in terms of interesting, peer reviewed elements, and adding to the ongoing chronicle.

Here you don't win by having the most points. But you get more input on the direction and nature of the game. One major idea I liked was the guy working as the runner getting points, and that everyone runs some part of the game. It reinforces my collaborative effort idea, and I feel it would work very well with Ars Magica type Troupe Play

So the game as I imagine it now has alot of Meta elements. Meta-Design, Meta-Game control of narratives, & Meta-Story elements by the use of Perpetual Genealogies & Interactive History, & Mythos inspired Story Arcs. The players can design particular races or cultures or families, or other Eternal type characters and shepherd them somewhat by use of Nomenar, kind of like favor of the gods, Fated/Destiny type deals.

Anyway, this alot of SOC rambling, but I can see a rather cool Premise developing to drive the fundamental actions of the game system.

Rob
(Who is remembering why he keeps plugging away at this thing.)

Quote from: RobMuadib
Oh, one other thing that I thought of, is the idea of Vetoing. Do you think there should be a Veto/Bidding mechanic if the other players don't like an element a player wants to introduce. It seemed to me that group consensus is important in designing worlds, as well as during the performance a paritcular production.  

Perhaps have the player who is vetoing it pay the person he is vetoing points equal to the element cost. Or allow the players to compromise, The vetoer pays a certain number of points for changes he wants to make to the players suggestion, so the suggesting player pays a reduced rate for compromising with the vetoer.

Sounds good, thought I'd suggest the compromise first then the veto. It's a bit like free speech, where one is free to speak, but one is also free not to listen.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: Paul CzegeRiffing on Andrew's gift economy idea, why not just give the players as many Nomenar as they want during play, to use as hero point awards and to buy authorial/directorial power, but require a roll against the player's current Nomenar debt every time they want to use more. If they fail the roll, no more credit is extended to them until they pay off some debt (by earning more Nomenar in the ways that you've laid out).

There's something like that in Scattershot, IIRC.

Yes, there is, and I'll explain the technique in a minute; first I want have a word about the 'gift economy' as it seems to be practiced in gaming (to me).

Quote from: Andrew MartinBasically, players can get as much as they want. But with this getting, eventually, they feel the internal need to repay, and so they give. The links above show how this works in science, tribal economies, the internet and so on.

I don't really know much about how the gift economies work in the real world, but there are few things different in role-playing games.  In gaming, you are working with a rarified focus on certain types of action.  (Meaning player characters can only 'spend' this wealth 'in the spotlight,' where they 'aren't wasted.')

And then there is the concept (that I don't think I can do justice here) that power is nothing unless you use it.  Horde all your 'goodies' and they do no one any good (unless you somehow leverage the threat of them being used).  What this means is that there's always a 'pressure' to use something that your character has and you can't do much other than further either their or your goals.

Add to that the 'embarrassment of wealth' principle; if you have enough of a resource, it's hard to highly value any individual part of it (there's so many).  This means the more you have, the easier it is to part with.  Like I said, I don't know from gift economy, but I seen what I describe work unfailingly, that's why I always preach the 'give them enough rope' (to hang themselves by) gamemastering technique.

Okay, back to Scattershot.  After a few misunderstandings, I 'stole' the idea that rewards in the game are for the players.  (This helps the sharing levels above Self-Sovereign.)

Second, I never liked the way that 'running out of steam' deprotagonizes the players, so I added the temptation of 'going into the red.'  Players, whether they're out of Experience Dice or not, can 'borrow' more; what happens is whichever person they're used against keeps them.  At some point later, these dice must be used 'against' the originating character in a form of 'kharmic backlash.'

This isn't as bad as it sounds because there's no reason the player can't use their current store of Experience Dice to 'out bid' this backlash.  (I should note, in playtest, most of the players shied away from 'taking out a loan' for fear of what the backlash could be, so it hasn't got much play yet.)

This would work a little like the above suggestion, except instead of an ongoing worry about the likelihood (randomness in application) of Nomenar debt building up to an unmanageable level, Scattershot keeps the unpredictability when the Experience Dice are 'expended,' or the 'account is closed out.'  (Unlike hero points or kharma points or whatever, you never quite know what the value of a Experience Dice will be, making it a bit of a gamble.)  The Nomenar debt sounds like, as it worsens, it hangs over a character like a pall, only to be bought off slowly.  Scattershot's kharmic backlash might hurt (and if the roll is extreme, quite badly), but when it's over, it's over.  Having little field testing, I can't really say how they compare.

I think it's interesting that Rob is considering allowing players to vote a reward for adding quality to the game.  I like it because in Scattershot, everyone awards Experience Dice to each other for exactly the same reason (and after you pass one of yours on to a fellow player, the gamemaster is compelled to replace it if the award also defined, reinforced, or enhanced the framework of the genre expectations).

I'm not too fond of the idea of veto power.  In Scattershot we have something vaguely similar though.  Under the same kind of conditions (I believe) that a player would choose to 'veto,' Scattershot offers them the chance to introduce complications (like 'it took longer' or 'it was harder' or 'could you even do that?') and these can also be powered by Experience Dice.  (Although the usual form offers the player, who is the current speaker, an opportunity similar to introducing their own complications, that affords a better chance to earn more Experience Dice, per the type of play employed.)  I guess ultimately Scattershot's 'other player introduced' complications work a little like Munchausen's challenges, so we'll see.

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le Joueur
The Nomenar debt sounds like, as it worsens, it hangs over a character like a pall, only to be bought off slowly.  Scattershot's kharmic backlash might hurt (and if the roll is extreme, quite badly), but when it's over, it's over.  Having little field testing, I can't really say how they compare.

Fang

One thing that I might not have made that clear in my rambling about these ideas(This stuff is still very much in the design stage at this point.). As it stands, I was thinking that Nomenar/Nomenar Debt is specific to a Player, not a character or other game entity/element. I was thinking that players can convert Nomenar to Hero Points and "Invest" them in a character or other game entity, or spend them to introduce a Game Element or Entity.  This relates somewhat to your ideas of Propietorship that you put forth for Scattershot. So maybe you can only invest in game elements of which you are the proprietor. Maybe have a system where players can buy/rent Game elements from each other as well?

Hmm, perhaps the players themselve will have an account sheet or whatever, with thier nomenar balance plus a list of the game elements of which they are proprietor of. I don't believe that's really been done before.

At this point I am thinking of adding a thick level of meta-game interest for the players, beyond the usual character/narrative concerns. Thus you get Nomenar for designing game elements that the other players approve of including in the world("Sphere") you are designing, you also get them for acting in a Guide role for the other players. The guide roles are jobs traditionally assigned to a Game Master, so there needs to be a Rules Guide to running elements of an adventure, or as an Extras Guide/Antagonist Guide by acting out NPC roles, etc.

Oh yeah, the term Nomenar relates to the idea of the Ubiqnomen and the Endless Temple in the universe mythos stuff that I have worked up so far. You can read a poorly edited unfinished draft of it in the pdf file on my website at Game Concepts: Universe)

Perhaps the only major penalty of being in Nomenar debt should be that you can't spend "negative" points to veto/change other peoples game "Investments"? (Wow, is this heavily into social contract situations.)
I like term Investment, implies your interest and commitment to what is going in the game. So you earn points by creating elements for the game, and facilitating others game play.

I still need to come up with a reasonable "Credit Check" mechanic to allow for players to spend Nomenar they don't have. Perhaps there shouldn't be any other penalty other than the no veto/change rule?

Quote from: Le Joueur
I think it's interesting that Rob is considering allowing players to vote a reward for adding quality to the game.  I like it because in Scattershot, everyone awards Experience Dice to each other for exactly the same reason (and after you pass one of yours on to a fellow player, the gamemaster is compelled to replace it if the award also defined, reinforced, or enhanced the framework of the genre expectations).

Yeah, this ties into the investment idea as well. This encourages players to make positive investments in their chronicles.

I find the idea of a super-meta currency like what is being developed here interesting. I call it super-meta because of the thrust and style of TMW:COTEC. Because of the nature of the universe and it's mythos, the players have a very large shared universe in which to play in, it's an uber-simulationist sandbox with a coherent theme for design.

One of the catch-phrases I have used it's a universal system WITH a universe. The players can allow for travel between the worlds they create, perhaps tied to vast cunjunctional thing such as in the second Hawkmoon books with the world of five realms and such. It also sets the stage for play of Meta-character's, Eternal characters and Mythos inspired story arcs. Plus there is a definite style and flavor to the worlds that will be brought across by the game. It will be universal, but NOT generic.

Quote from: Le Joueur
I'm not too fond of the idea of veto power.  In Scattershot we have something vaguely similar though.  Under the same kind of conditions (I believe) that a player would choose to 'veto,' Scattershot offers them the chance to introduce complications (like 'it took longer' or 'it was harder' or 'could you even do that?') and these can also be powered by Experience Dice.  (Although the usual form offers the player, who is the current speaker, an opportunity similar to introducing their own complications, that affords a better chance to earn more Experience Dice, per the type of play employed.)  I guess ultimately Scattershot's 'other player introduced' complications work a little like Munchausen's challenges, so we'll see.

I was considering the veto here in terms of imposing Authorial/Director power to cause larger continuity/storyline changes more so than Investing in a character already present in the Chronicle.

I think between the Compromise points idea, were you subsidize a game elements cost for another player if he agrees to your compromises regarding it's introduction to the Chronicle, and paid vetoing, with the No Veto/Challenges while in debt rule make a good compromise. I mean the game is already hinging upon pretty agreeable players in terms of social contract.


Anyway, the above is more rambly idea churning by me, but I would appreciate feedback from everyone on what you think of the shape of the game idea so far, as well as suggestions or questions.

Thanks

Rob

I'm startin' to like this, Rob. It strikes me that a lot of previous Simulationist/Setting game design has been, well, lazy in terms of the people involved. Since the experience of play has been to prioritize total engagement in the character, setting, or whatever, somehow, talking about anything else or discussing means to handle inter-person influence on the game has been regarded as "impure" in some way.

Yet here, you're finding ways to incorporate constructive input and participation by the players/people, while staying true to the Sim/Setting goals. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but it's as if the "mission statement" in Aria is actually getting a fair shake in TMW.

I've found that in general the concept of the "veto" isn't necessary during play. By contrast, the concept of "the buck stops here" is much more constructive. In other words, a given person during play has the power to "settle" or "cement" a given set of input or suggestions. In practice, most of the suggestions end up being used without much modification. The contrast between the veto and the buck might seem subtle, but I think it's real.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI'm startin' to like this, Rob. It strikes me that a lot of previous Simulationist/Setting game design has been, well, lazy in terms of the people involved. Since the experience of play has been to prioritize total engagement in the character, setting, or whatever, somehow, talking about anything else or discussing means to handle inter-person influence on the game has been regarded as "impure" in some way.

Yet here, you're finding ways to incorporate constructive input and participation by the players/people, while staying true to the Sim/Setting goals. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but it's as if the "mission statement" in Aria is actually getting a fair shake in TMW.

Yeah, it is kind of refining the classic sim game structure. I also like to think of it as sharing the toys, in that design systems have been traditionally reserved to GM's. One of the best instances of this were the early traveller games, it was chock full of design systems for the GM, Star System, Creature, Planet, Starship etc. The design of which many Traveller GM's and such would admit to being an enjoyable past time in and of itself. So the GM got access to all these neat toys to play with, while the other players were strictly limited to playing with the GM's toys, and only when and how he says. The idea behind TMW:COTEC is to give all the players access to their own "Action Figures", and give them a means to share them with the other players through the gameplay.

Quote from: Ron Edwards
I've found that in general the concept of the "veto" isn't necessary during play. By contrast, the concept of "the buck stops here" is much more constructive. In other words, a given person during play has the power to "settle" or "cement" a given set of input or suggestions. In practice, most of the suggestions end up being used without much modification. The contrast between the veto and the buck might seem subtle, but I think it's real.

Ron

Hmm, you bring up a very good point. The natural thing to do would to give the player who is the "proprietor" of the current narrative/storyline of the production, hmm call him the Chronicle Guide, the final say. With the caveat that who the Chronicle Guide is varies from game to game, etc.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI've found that in general the concept of the "veto" isn't necessary during play. By contrast, the concept of "the buck stops here" is much more constructive. In other words, a given person during play has the power to "settle" or "cement" a given set of input or suggestions. In practice, most of the suggestions end up being used without much modification. The contrast between the veto and the buck might seem subtle, but I think it's real.

I agree, but I always saw them as quite different; this is why I go to such trouble to make 'proprietorship' and explicit issue.  I really like the way you refer to "a given person during play has the power to 'settle' or 'cement' a given set of input or suggestions;" that is exactly what puts them into the role of the proprietor.  I guess I never expressed the idea that a proprietor is not meant to be a total or dictatorial controller, simply 'the last say' on what becomes of a particular entity in play.  That way many suggestions can be considered and assimilated.  I think I may steal this language for describing proprietorship, adding advice about remaining 'focused' under a hail of suggestions.

Fang Langford

p. s. Xremember this Fang!