Greetings again all.  I come to you again asking for feedback on another game (one I'm liking the way it's working out so far).  I just finished up a quick alpha testing session with my friend, and it gave me some things to fix, some direction on specific things to add, and one question (well, two very closely related questions) that I want to ask.

First let me paint you a very basic picture of the RPG (very rules lite at the moment, and all signs point towards it staying that way): Character are psionicists in the modern-day world, and have skill levels ranked 0-100 in five different powers.  Conflicts are handled mechanically by the actor declaring what they are doing with which power.  Someone who wishes for them to not do this can then attempt to counter with one of their powers in a logical fashion (for instance, throwing a rock at somebody can be countered by pushing it with your own mind).  They then roll percentile dice, and if the actor succeeds his skill check but the defender does not, the actor gets +1 conflict point for the scene.  There is always something at stake for the scene, and either side can freely withdraw (though there are things in place to prevent abuse of this fact).  Bottom line:  Whoever gets the most conflict points for the scene gets what they wanted (i.e. the briefcase, to the courier first, etc...) and the loser runs off to lick their wounds.  After the mission has hit its climax (big fight with Kaos, etc...), the sides add up their total conflict points and whoever has the most "wins" the conflict.  This makes for nice storytelling, and doesn't result in the death, capture, etc... of the characters unless the players agree on it.

(Thank you for taking the time to read that block of text.)

Now, a few questions, all pertaining to the topic:

1) Am I on the right track to have a true narritivist game?  If no, what am I doing wrong?

2) This actually ties into #1.  The game itself doesn't have a premise.  The party can do whatever (treasure hunting, conquering the world, exploring uncharted territory in the nether realm, etc...) and however, so long as they're all telling the story they want to.  Is this badwrong for narritivism?

If the game needs a premise, then any advice on how to subtly push the gameplay in the direction I want via the mechanics would be helpful.  (If it helps any, the inspiration for the working title of Psi Punk was the villain Ember from an episode of Danny Phantom.)  I just can't imagine being as saying "your characters are these people, and they want to do this," and I currently don't have any themes I want to explore that would really push gameplay one way or another.

Heya,

Two questions:

1. What is the game actually about?
All the PCs are psionics and it looks like you have a resolution system going on there.  Okay, that's good but (and I mean no offense by this at all) so what?  Why are they psionics?  What is their purpose?  What is the compelling part of your game?

2. What do the characters do?
Anything?  That's a bad answer IMO.  Play needs to be more focussed than that especially in a narrativist game.  Why are the player-characters motivated?  Why and in what ways do they want to create Story Now?

Peace,

-Troy

Thanks for the response.  It looks like I can answer both your questions in one answer.  :-)

Currently, there is no real schtick I'm trying to force players into.  The original concept involved the players initially having some boss type person who lorded it out over them and used the players for their own personal gain, and the player's first goal was to ditch him (over the course of a few sessions) and strike it out on their own.  Of course, then they'd have to deal with more powerful psions trying to "recruit" them for their forces, and the game would have a flavor very much revolving around the quest for power among beings so powerful normal humans are no threat at all.

I had shelved that idea because I was not sure if I could make mechanics to back up the premise (do I need them?) and because I have cut from the rules the only way the PCs could really challenge their boss without swarming him (it was cut for being a bland change of pace from the much more pleasant scene resolution mechanic).  With the current rules, even a boss with four of the five skills at max would be utterly useless after twenty actions, while a group of four PCs would be at a minor penalty.

But, was the premise (there's always someone stronger than you who wants you to work for them) a good one?  Should I endeavor to include it?  If so...  I'm thinking I know of a mechanic I axed that I could resurrect in order to include it back in.  And after giving it some thought, I think play would be better for it.

A "Narrativist game" is simply one whose goal is to support, help, and make it easier for players to address Premise. It doesn't have anything to do with "nice storytelling", although that may be a result. It's possible to make a Narrativist game without giving a Premise (look up Primetime Adventures), but it's harder. Also, having a Premise or "schtick" doesn't mean you're completely dictating "your characters are these people, and they want to do this". Sorcerer does say that the PCs are sorcerers, but beyond that the details of setting and situation are up to the GM and players to work out.

What Narrativist games have you played, read, or read about?

Your premise, "there's always someone stronger than you who wants you to work for them", seems a little weak. It doesn't immediately lend itself to action and interesting decisions. A player response to that premise might well be "So what?" Additionally, it does lend itself to cycles of getting more power, dealing with a new boss, getting more power, and so on. Personally, I would eliminate the "stronger than you" part of the phrase. I think you should expand on why it's bad to have want you to work for them. Also, expand on why it's good. What decisions do you have to make when someone wants you to work for them? This might help get your thoughts clear about the issue. You may also end up deciding to ditch this line of thought entirely, which is fine.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I've been mulling over what you've said, and I'm having trouble getting at any point of thought worth being at.

Your response gave me a better idea of what a premise is, but I'm currently pondering (as you probably expected I would) whether I want to make this game Narritivist at all.

What I'm going for is just a feel where the players know where their characters fit within the world and what their characters probably want to do.  Do you think it would be best to take this line of thought to Publishing, and ask how I can convey this desire through in-book fiction, artwork, and description of rules.

Note that "there's always someone stronger than you who wants you to work for them" is not a premise. It could be theme, although I'd term it "People want to control each other" if I wanted to say something significant. The corresponding premise could be "What do people want?" or "Is it right to accept service?", for example. The latter appears in Nine Worlds, by the by.

Now, making a game about a theme is a rather different kettle of fish from working with premise. For starters, the game will most likely be a simulationist one if you have the theme all figured out already. Your priority is to communicate the theme in various ways, preferably by giving rules that make the theme without human intervention. Instead of creating story, you're creating variations of this one story, the story about seeking escape from societal demands (which is what the control issue comes to, philosophically).

However, if I were you, I wouldn't start my design worries with the hypothetical GNS classifications of my endeavour. It's much more sensible to start with concrete things, like what the players are doing in the game, how they make decisions, how they know what to do next, and stuff like that. If your head is screwed in straight, you'll most likely will naturally take care of all this theory stuff.

As for the particulars of the project, yeah, I don't see that you're ready to talk about theme or premise the game has. If you want to communicate the idea that the game will be about servitude, then just say in the game "The characters start in servitude, the GM's job is to make sure that they face constant pressure to defect, but also to join in with new masters when they finally get a chance. The game's drama should be predicated on this see-saw of independece versus security." That's simple and to the point, no need to mess with theme or premise. That's how Whitewolf does it when they want to enforce theme, by the by: just write out concrete GMing advice.