I have been thinking about trying to create a small rpg that can mold a game 'experience' in the likes of Dark City, Donnie Darko, etc. A game that works to tell the tale of a person led down a peculiar journey by cooperative storytelling. Sitting down for an hour tonight, this is what I've thought up so far...

Spheres
a high-concept game of peculiar journeys

Introduction
This is a role-playing game about creating a journey. This is not just any journey, but one fraught with strange wonders and madness. The mechanics are unconventional by most standards, having only one shared character and no real gamemaster. Spheres is a game of collaborative storytelling, and it won’t appeal to the majority of gamers. Mechanics were chosen that are both minimal and fluid, offering little challenge or complexity. With these rules, games can easily by creating in the mold of films such as: Dark City, Donnie Darko, Imposter, etc.

Spheres
Each game takes place in a sphere. This is a strange, closed world created at some distinct point. The point that spawns the sphere is the point of entry. It is the first thing that must be determined. To accomplish this task gather the participants of the game. Now sit, relax and think up peculiar ideas that put a spin on the world. This point of entry needs to be engaging and dramatic. A good example could be drawn from the film Donnie Darko. Here we begin with the main character wandering out into the moonlight. He takes to a strange man in a bunny suit there (at a local golf course). At the same time an airplane engine falls from the sky and crushes his room. Strange coincidence or fate?
The point of entry needs to set everything in motion for a single character. A character taken from their world and dropped in a skewed one filled with strange wonders. It needs to supply a question, something thematic that will drive the entire game.

Strays
The main character is a stray from the mundane world in which we live. The point of entry has kicked them from their normal world and into the sphere. Normal logic no longer applies and each sphere is its own enigma. The stray is a shared character in the game. Like the point of entry, the game’s participants must brainstorm to create it. We define the stray by a tagline only, building upon that as the game’s journey unravels.

Round by Round
The gameplay of spheres works in rounds. Each round is comprised of several scenes, during which one player has control of the stray. After each scene, control of the stray passes to the player sitting at that person’s right. Once the stray has come full circle that ends the round.

Scenes
Each scene has an intent. This is the scenes role in the overall journey. It must be one of the following types: Answer, Question, or Building. The first round is always comprised of building scenes. Building scenes add to the sphere in some manner. Question scenes raise a new question for the stray. Answer scenes seek to create answers for those questions. The way a scene ends varies by its type.

Architect
Each scene has one player controlling the stray. It also has another take on the role of the architect. This person operates everything the surrounds the character. The architect is the one that decides the intent of the scene, in cooperation with the stray’s controller. They are not unlike a GM for that scene except that nothing in the game is concrete, as you will see.

Building Scenes
These scenes add new locations, characters, and depth to the sphere. The first round is made entirely of building scenes. This allows the sphere and stray to take shape before you plunge into the journey. A building scene ends when the current architect calls it quits, or another player wants to take on the role of architect. This is subject to the rules of challenge like details (see later rules).

Question Scenes
These scenes take place at locations, with characters in the sphere. The color formed for the scene withstanding, the main point is to introduce a new question for the stray. This question needs to connect to the point of entry in some fashion. The scene concludes upon introduction of the question. Thinking up a question as you play out the scene as the architect is perfectly valid. Taking open suggestions of “wouldn’t this be cool?” is a perfectly valid technique as well.

Answer Scenes
Once questions are raised, we need the stray to seek out answers. This is the purpose of the answer scene. The architect selects a question, and then designs the scene while interacting with the stray’s controller. Answer scenes draw the stray to a conclusion that provides an answer for the question at hand. It need not be a right answer, just a viable one given the already established depth. Once the stray forms a conclusion, the answer scenes ends.

Conclusion
At some point, a final answer scene is needed. This concludes the game and gives it closure. The conclusion should generate two things: a reasonably definitive answer to question raised at the point of entry, and an empowering choice that the stray needs to make. At the conclusion of Dark City, John Murdock knows the answer to his point of entry question. He also makes a definitive choice to recreate the world as he sees fit.

Mechanics
Well we got this far without them, but now it is time to introduce some. The game needs a handful of a certain type of die, some paper to journal the sphere and stray created, and a scorecard. The scorecard tracks two types of points for each player: Dispute and Hint. Players begin with no hint and dispute points. The dice can be any type as long as they are the same variety.

Game Flow
The game is a fluid flow of storytelling. This flow suffers interruptions on occasion when a player wants to dispute details. Called a challenge, this involves dispute points and dice.
Each challenge requires a roll between those players that are in disagreement. Dispute points can be spent to roll more than one die. If rolling more than one die, you keep the highest as the total. The player rolling the highest wins the challenge, ties go to the stray’s controller or the architect. The player who wins gets to place their detail in place of the one challenged, this in turn can inspire another challenge. This challenge can not be issued by anyone that already has lost in a challenge over this detail (simple loop prevention). The loser of a challenge earns a point of dispute. This gives the person a better chance of succeeding in a challenge later, hopefully drawing them into the game.

Dropping Hints
Anyone taking on a role in a scene can drop subtle hints as to possible conclusions for the game. Each time they do this in inventive ways (decided by the other players) this earns them a hint point. You use these points during the conclusion instead of dispute points for challenges.

Fill In Roles
So if the stray and the architect are generating the story of the scene, what do the other players do? Well they have the option of taking on the roles of characters established in the scene. This can be at the request of the stray’s controller or scene architect. The free player is open to making suggestions for their introduction as well, allowing them to chime in. If they don’t take on a role they can still offer ideas and input. This meant to enhance the sphere overall and further engage them.

Reaching Conclusion
Since the conclusion must be reached, we need a method that determines when that happens. You reach the conclusion when: Enough answers have been created, and one player has enough hint points. For a short game you can set the number of answers and hint points to 3. When the conclusion is reached the player with the most hint points takes on the role of the architect. The scene does not begin until all the players get to take on the roles of their choice. The architect then creates their conclusion including all the player’s characters (stray and otherwise) in the scene. This is just like an answer scene, and the is to reach an answer for the point of entry that empowers the stray with a choice. Once that happens players with remaining dispute points take over, crafting the choice and its final consequence. When everyone is satisfied or out of points, the game ends.

Does this make sense? Anything strike you as not functional or perhaps without purpose? I haven't tried to test it yet of course, so it's just an idea really. I guess I wonder mostly if I'm heading in the right direction to get where I want to be in the end.

Jason

Hi Jason, can you give us an example of play, of how you think it might play?

Tony

I can create an example of how I think it might play. I've had some more thoughts about the idea, but I'll come back to that at the end.

We'll go with Ted, Debbie, and Hal instead of Tom, Dick and Harry.

Ted, Debbie, and Hal take little more than a half hour to think up a point of entry that is both engaging and dramatic. Here is what they finally decide on:

"Christian Lark was an ordinary man. He worked an ordinary job, with an ordinary family. This all changed in an instant. He was walking home down a main street when a driveby kills several people. Having fallen, he stadns up. Christian sees the multitude of bloody holes in his upper chest. The pain fades and he stands in disbelief. How can he be alive?"

Now the three of them need do a round of building scenes. They are seated in order: Tom, Debbie, and Hal. Tom will take control of the stray for the first scene. Debbie has an idea for a building scene, so she will be the first architect. Hal is a free player so he can pick up fill in roles during the scene. Debbie sets up the first building scene:

Debbie: Christian looks at the bodies and the blood. Becoming more frantic by the moment, he runs off. It's not longer until he passes the edge of the woods. This familiar place brings back memories of childhood play. He stops there and wanders some distance into it.
Christian: (Tom) I look around for a place to rest, stopping on occasion to poke at the dark red holes in my shirt.
Debbie: You find a short stump nearby that will do the trick. Sitting down in the waning light, you listen to the silence of still air. For a moment you think you hear laughter.
Hal: Laughter? I don't think that fits. I'm going to dispute that detail, lets roll.

The group had a handful of six-siders present, so they elect to use six-sided dice. Since no one is using dispute points, it's one die against another. Debbie rolls a 4 and Hal gets a 5. Hal wins. On their scorecard he marks off a dispute point for Debbie, who lost the challenge. Now Hal gets to alter the detail.

Hal: He thinks he hears labored breathing, no laughter. Continue on.
Debbie: [Pauses a moment to re-think] Ok, the breathing you though you heard returns. It is louder and closer now.
Christian: (Tom) I dart my eyes all over, seeking out the sound. "Who's there?".
Debbie: In the distance south you can make out the form of a tall figure in a black cloak. The light is dying quickly now, and it's some distance away. The stranger is menacing and you feel afraid.
Christian: (Tom) "Who? what...." I stand up off the stump and stagger back some.
Debbie: Standing up and moving backward, you trip over the many branches that litter the fall ground. You fall backward, striking your head hard on a rock. The world sparkles before your eyes as you faint.
Tom: Ok, now that I'm going to dispute. I just got shot by several bullets and remain unscathed, but now I'm KO'd by a fall? [Pulls forth a die]
Debbie: Alright lets roll. [Pulls 2 dice, using her dispute point].

And it goes from there.

I've reached a point where I think the game mechanics aren't embracing what I'm looking for. While I'm not saying this has no merit, I'm just not happy with where it's going. I'm going to look at MLWM for some inspiration. A system more focused on the character in question seems more attractive to me.

*shelves this idea for possible later use*

Jason, I think the basic structure of the game is intriguing, with one problem: the randomized, winner-loser dispute system. Obviously there should be a way to handle differing opinions on which way the story should go, but such a direct competition seems jarring to me in what's supposed to be a collaborative game.

I would suggest that after a challenge, the challenger explains why he or she doesn't like whatever detail is in dispute. The player who created that detail can accede and change it, ending the challenge, or can provide a defense. If the challenger still isn't satisfied, other players should have an opportunity to suggest ways to reconcile the two differing concepts ("Maybe he hears laughter and heavy breathing." "Maybe he realizes he's actually laughing himself."). If there's still no acceptable solution, the issue should be put to a vote.

This would obviously eliminate the dispute points, but hint points could still be useful as an indicator of when to bring the story to a close.

If you want a dice mechanic, why not draw up some randomized d100 idea-seed tables? Nothing too specific or trite, just little idea-joggers for use when the players feel stuck.

01-03: There's a door nearby that you didn't see before.
04-06: You hear music nearby.
07-10: You notice that it's almost dusk (or almost dawn).

Et cetera.

Brendan,

Your resolution mechanic is interesting, and very close to the initial idea I had in mind. The seed tables could be intriguing if well designed, but I see a lot of frustration possible if they aren't 'just right'.

I was thinking about something else, giving strength scores to themes that are common in these kinds of stories. Then, when you employ a themes in your idea, you get that strength. Combine all the theme strengths of an idea, and that is it's power. Higher power options win when contested. You could also put votes in there, adding some amount to total power either for or against some idea. Then of course it's a matter of playing with player power versus theme power (balance), possibly making it flexible from game to game. Hmmm *ponders*.

I can't seem to come up with an example of the idea right now. I'm sure given a less brain-fried state I'll be able to post one here.