Will the Emperor Fall (rules below) has been playtested a little bit: by myself and friends (with moderate success), at Arcon (where most players enjoyed themselves), and by a Swedish acquaintance's gaming club (they hated it).

The problem is this: It's a fun game, which tends to make good stories and get people involved, but there's no mechanics supporting the goal, and indeed the goal itself is a bit vague.

The point of the game is to make a good story. Now, how can I combine this with a way of winning? Perhaps some kind of bidding/voting system among the players? Or is it possible to make a more formal mechanism that actually rewards "correct" play?

The game consists of a stack of Character cards, a stack of Trait cards, five stacks (numbered 1-5) of Episode cards, a stack of Atmosphere cards, and a stack of Secondary Character cards. There's also a map, with generic fantasy names, but no description. No background is given; players are supposed to make it up as part of the session.

- Character cards just have a name and a title. Examples: “Innkeeper Paris”, “Countess Malion”.
- Trait cards are very generic attribute/stat/background/skill/whatever descriptions. Examples: “Wanted by the Empire”, “Skilled hunter”.
- Episode cards are broad descriptions of a part of the story, with an ending that players must reach. Example: "Duel! Two or more people meet to fight. Perhaps the characters are combatants, perhaps spectators. Ending: The characters are running away from the keepers of the law, towards the Emerald Mountains".
- Atmosphere cards affect how the episode is played. Example: "Death. All events have a macabre taint. Signs and portents of death are everywhere. Atmosphere player: Speak in a dark, monotonous voice. Use dark colors in your descriptions."
- Secondary character cards are two- to three-word descriptions, like "Flock of sheep", "Robbed peasant", "Army of ghosts".

-----------------------------------

Will the emperor fall?

* Setup

Each player draws a character card.

Each player draws three traits for his character.

Each player decides on a relationship between his character and that of an other player. No enmity is allowed. Examples: “Paris and Malion are having a secret affair”.

Each player now gives a short presentation of his character.

Randomly choose who starts the first episode.

* The game

There are five episodes. When all five are finished, the game is over. The aim is to make the story work, by integrating all events and characters into a it.

Each episode starts with one card from the Episode Stack, one from the Atmosphere Stack, and one from the Secondary Character Stack. All players can see all cards.

The player who starts the first episode - the Atmosphere Player - reads the Atmosphere card and relates how the episode starts. This should be short, four or five sentences. The important thing is creating the right atmosphere.

Play starts as described in the Player Laws below. Both Secondary Characters must be used. In addition players may use Secondary Characters from earlier episodes.

Once you’ve reached the ending described on the Episode Card, the episode is over, and a new one can begin. If you just finished episode five, the game is over!

* Player Laws

Any player can tell a bit of the story at any time. No player can control how other players tell their bit.

Players can not control other players’ characters, only his own, and the Secondary Characters.

It’s not allowed to change the personality of Secondary Characters without good in-game reason.

The episode must end in the way described on the Episode Card.

Anything stated by a player (according to the Player Laws) appears true to all characters.

First question, what happens when player A says, "Bob comes to a large pool of water."
And player B says, "Bob then leaps the pool to get to the other side."

And player A says, "But it's a *large* pool, Bob can't jump a large pool...or are you saying he's superpowered?"

B, "No, no, but by large pool, I thought you meant like someone had spilled a lot of water."

A, "No, what I meant was like a swimming pool."

B, "But you didn't say swimming pool."

A, "Because it's not a swimming pool. It's more like a pond."

B, "Well you should have said pond, then."

Etc, etc. These things happen all the time in games like this. In Universalis, this is precisely what the Challenge mechanism is for. Do you have some way to resolve problems like this?

As for "scoring" players could get points based on linking cards together in their descriptions. Kinda vague. I guess the problem that I'm having is that you haven't really said what the "correct" way to play is. If I had more idea, then I think mechanics would suggest themselves. What is it that you'd like to see?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: First question, what happens when player A says, "Bob comes to a large pool of water."
And player B says, "Bob then leaps the pool to get to the other side."

I guess the problem that I'm having is that you haven't really said what the "correct" way to play is. If I had more idea, then I think mechanics would suggest themselves. What is it that you'd like to see?

Okay, I'm going to try this again, the right way.

Presentation
Short description: GM-less RPG using cards to define story structure.
Premise: The Evil Empire is threatening the small country the characters come from. Any further premise is created by players in-game. There is no GM to define it.
Setting: Hardly any is described, but much is hinted at, through place names on a generic map, two-word descriptions of NPC's etc. Generic fantasy, intentionally so; the skeleton is fleshed out by players in-game, and to make that process easy, fantasy clichés are used.
Character generation: Random drawing of Character Cards and Trait Cards with word descriptions. No numbers.
Basic resolution: Each player in turn makes a statement. This statement is true in the game as soon as it has been made. No randomization or numbers involved.
Reward method: There is no mechanic for character advancement etc. Players are rewarded by the fulfillment of making an exciting story.
Publication: PDF on the net. Print version also available, more expensive.

How I see a good session
Player A: Halderon runs towards the guards shouting: "Look out! The Dragon is going to attack!"
Player B: The guards are cowering, but lifting their spears. The shadow of the Dragon falls over them.
Player C: There's a rumbling from the mountains behind us. Paris Fowl whispers: "Shit. The Dragon shouldn't have left the crag..."
Player D: The Dragon flies towards the guards - and past them! It seems to be aiming for the spire on the Wizards' College!
Player A: It lands on the spire and sits there looking very satisfied. The guards are looking astounded.
Player B: Marion says to the others, "Now is probably a good time to run. Seems like the mountain is waking up again..."
Player C: The spire on the Wizards' College has a strange, cup-shaped form; the Dragon sitting there looks kind of like a bird in a nest...
Player D: A wizards sticks his head out the top window and raises a wand towards the Dragon. "You can't nest here!"
Player A: That's all we see before the mountain erupts with a huge bang!
Player B: Molten lava trickles down its sides, and black clouds engulf us.
Player C: Okay... that's the ending on our Episode card, right? Whose turn is it to draw Episode IV?

Question
- I'm thinking of using a reward mechanism to keep players on the right track; playtest has shown that in the last episode there's a lot of trying to force the story in your own direction. Perhaps at the end of an episode, players vote about which player was best at picking up plot threads and keeping the story on track? This is such an abstract story thing that I find it near impossible to make a non-human-judgment-based system around it.
- I'm also specifically looking for critical questions about the game. Answering such questions always helps refine the concept, which has been in my head for so long now that I feel it has to be done right.

If you don't own it, I suggest picking up a copy of Once Upon A Time for inspiration. While it's a much "gamier" card game than yours, it's got some ideas for settling disputes and keeping stories on track.

To summarize, while one player has the stage, the other players act as judges of the content that player creates, and can override the narrating player in extreme cases of silliness or irrelevance.

I also suggest including text in the rules that defines what the players are supposed to do and how they are supposed to act. This will help get all the players on the same page before play begins.

ethan_greer wrote: If you don't own it, I suggest picking up a copy of Once Upon A Time for inspiration. (...) To summarize, while one player has the stage, the other players act as judges of the content that player creates, and can override the narrating player in extreme cases of silliness or irrelevance.

I also suggest including text in the rules that defines what the players are supposed to do and how they are supposed to act. This will help get all the players on the same page before play begins.

Actually what you described could be used as a random campaign generator of sorts. You could market as the adventure on the fly. Draw some cards, picks some npc, encounters, traits, etc. and whala, a whole adventure in under 2 minutes.

Keith,

yes, it'd be possible to use the cards for scenario and campaign generation. They would have to be modified a bit, though; and perhaps tailored to a specific setting - seems to me most people are much more interested in something for their game than something that's supposed to work for all games, but actually doesn't.

In "Okkupasjon!", we're working on a random scenario design system that's showing a lot of promise, but is also so flawed right now that I've decided not to post it yet. If we get that to work, I will definitely try to get it working for other settings.

But what sells are things that people can use in any setting, theirs, Monte's, Forgetten Realms, etc.

smokewolf wrote: But what sells are things that people can use in any setting, theirs, Monte's, Forgetten Realms, etc.

matthijs wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: First question, what happens when player A says, "Bob comes to a large pool of water."
And player B says, "Bob then leaps the pool to get to the other side."

Well, by the rules, as soon as player B has said it, it must be true. If player A meant the pool was too large to jump over, he should have described it as such; now, he'll have to adjust his view of the pool to fit B's description, even though A was the one who introduced it.

This readjusting of reference frames happened a lot during playtest; people seemed to take it mostly in stride. There were some puzzled looks, but as far as I can remember, no actual discussions.

Mike,

thanks, you've picked out a potential problem area that I didn't actually see as such. And it's got me thinking a bit.

First off: Perhaps the endgame problem where everyone tries to push the plot in their preferred direction is not actually just an endgame problem. All the groups I've played with only played once; by the time they really got into things, the game was nearing its end. So this competitive behavior could be a result of the players' understanding how they could manipulate the rules (vague as they are).

Second, then: I'm not sure just where I stand wrt competition in WTEF. On the one hand, I'd like to be able to pick a winner. On the other, I do not want it to be possible to win by distorting and destroying the story. It's okay if someone misunderstands a statement, or takes a little creative liberty with it just to fit it into the plot; but it's not okay to deliberately twist it in a way the previous player never intended.

You said:

All I'm saying is that, if you're using a point system, that it should be possible to discourage this sort of behavior by assessing some sort of penalty for it.

matthijs wrote:
Possible problems:
- Ganging up, where two players always vote for each other.
- Sabotage voting, where some players never vote for anyone.

The more I think about it, the more I think you need to eliminate any considerations for a "win" condition. It doesn't seem like your game is a competive passtime, and you yourself pointed out that the winning aspect is a flaw in Once Upon A Time.

Without a win condition, any incentive to circumvent the behavioral guidelines in the game rules evaporates.

ethan_greer wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think you need to eliminate any considerations for a "win" condition.

There are a number of things that you can do. What Universalis does is to essentially make participation contingent on good participation. That is, if you do well, you get rewarded with currency that allows you to do more.

Sorry, but it's hard not to just point at Universalis as having solved all of the problems that you're looking to solve. In fact, you've got me thinking that next time I play Uni, that I'll gimmick in the use of a tarot deck or something.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Sorry, but it's hard not to just point at Universalis as having solved all of the problems that you're looking to solve.

In short, one gets a pile of tokens called coins. These are used to "buy" everything in the game in a structured fashion. So more coins means you have more control of the story. When players disagree, the one spending more is right. Coins are returned when scenes end at a slow rate, but the real way to get more coins is complications. Conflict being the heart of story, the rules incentivize players to be involved in creating detailed conflicts.

We ususally find that with this, and a notion of when to end the story, players wrap up the plot pretty well. That said, on the following page there are some rules for how to better incentivize pacing: http://universalis.actionroll.com/Addons.htm

Mike

OK, I read a few reviews, and have ordered Universalis. I had it confused with an other game, so it's been one of those things in my mental Ignore Filter for a while; otherwise I'd probably have picked it up some months ago. Looking forward to reading it - I'm actually hoping it's not based on the same vision that WTEF is; I like my game, and want to make it a good one. But there's little point in doing it if Universalis does the same thing, and better. So... I'll just have to wait and see.

Ralph, I should get some sort of remuneration for all the sales I make for you! (To be clear, I'm not an owner of the game in any way).

Well, Universalis doesn't have cards, and there's no focus on overall story structure...I'd say that there's plenty of differences. I wouldn't let it slow you down a bit.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph, I should get some sort of remuneration for all the sales I make for you! (To be clear, I'm not an owner of the game in any way).

Well, Universalis doesn't have cards, and there's no focus on overall story structure...I'd say that there's plenty of differences. I wouldn't let it slow you down a bit.

matthijs wrote: Heheh... just altruistic pimpin' then...

I've already issued a call for playtesters, and will send out playtest copies as soon as I've translated the game & put in the new rules.

Mike Holmes wrote: I seem to have missed a step - what sort of changes are you putting in this version?