Thanks to Thomas ( Lord Smerf), I'm able to show you folks the game design I've been developing, based on the freeform miniatures games my daughter and I play. Here is the Actual Play discussion, and this is the pdf of the rough draft.

This design is evolving as you're reading this post (literally- I'm very likely hacking this up right now!), so the pdf represents The Village Game ( the name is a place holder) as it stood last night.

Here are a few key items I need help/comments on:

1) What do you think of the glass bead economy in the game? I'm not sure I like it as a mini-economy, but I do like it as a physical game bit. The idea was to give only limited options to any player, including the scene framing player, and to encourage players to work to get award cards. I've got some ideas about removing the bulk of the beads from the game, keeping them strictly for scene resolution.

2) Speaking of scene rez, I'm working on addding another type odf card to the game- resolution cards.
The player calling for scene resolution picks up the Eureka! card, describes what they think the main confict of the scene is, and proposes an outcome.

The other players (starting to the left of the Eureka! player ) may then pick one of the following three cards or pass:
Yes, but..., Yes, and... , or Instead....
Each of these cards offers a different outcome, but the players must somehow use the conflict identified by the Eureka! card player.

3) I'm looking for suggestions on how to have a final wrap up scene. The one in the current rules was added hastily. I want some sort of collective epilogue session.

4) I'd like any suggestions about clarifying award cards or suggesting new ones. I like the award cards and final award ceremony, even if it is a little hippy-dippy. I feel that players should take some time and show their appreciation to one another. Plus, I think it helps reinforce style of play within a group, sort of drift by feedback written in to the game.

I've got other comments and questions, but I'll leave off for now, so that I can open up the discussion.

thanks,
Robert

komradebob wrote: 1) What do you think of the glass bead economy in the game? I'm not sure I like it as a mini-economy, but I do like it as a physical game bit. The idea was to give only limited options to any player, including the scene framing player, and to encourage players to work to get award cards. I've got some ideas about removing the bulk of the beads from the game, keeping them strictly for scene resolution.

Callan wrote:

komradebob wrote: 1) What do you think of the glass bead economy in the game? I'm not sure I like it as a mini-economy, but I do like it as a physical game bit. The idea was to give only limited options to any player, including the scene framing player, and to encourage players to work to get award cards. I've got some ideas about removing the bulk of the beads from the game, keeping them strictly for scene resolution.

Sorry, I'm terrible at reading PDF's, but I got struck by this wonderful image and had to ask how your doing this? Because I had this sudden image of the town women all coveting the rare glass beads the others have. They are so desired that they become the currency that drives change in an otherwise fixed society, like "I'd never let you talk to my derrick...oh, you have those wonderful beads with the red swirls...well". But never mind driving change, what I liked was the idea of so much intensity about the beads and the emotions of a tight knit community swirling around them, with the intensity growing ever stronger with each harsh deed that follows an exchange of these bits of glass.

Sorry, got excited, had to type!

By way of example:
The scene is set in the Goblin King'sCourt. A human minstrel has been trying to convince the King to give him a goblet to take back to impress his lady love by singing for the court.

Eureka! I know what happens!- The main conflict is that the minstrel needs to impress the Goblin King. The stakes are that the minstrel gets the goblet.

Yes, and...The minstrel gets the goblet (agrees to stakes) and the Goblin King likes the minstrel so much that he orders him to stay with the Court forever to entertain him!

Yes, but...The King isn't the only one impressed. The Queen falls in love with the minstrel because of his songs. She secretly poisons the cup meant for the rival lady before the King gives it to the minstrel.

Instead...The Goblin King is unsure of whether the minstrel is truly worthy of the prize. He orders a singing contest between the minstrel and the members of his court to decide who is truly the greatest song-smith in the kingdom.

I like the way that it's going so far, but I do have a concern.

If I interpret the rules correctly, what you're playing for is the right to start the next scene.
Is there any way to do it so everyone gets a turn starting things out on a regular basis?

Maybe you could do it in chapters or something? That might give you a handy limit to the length of play. Like, each player gets to start one chapter and then you play for the scene-starting beads?

The game ends once everyone's started a chapter, maybe?
I dunno. I like the game so far and I'm probably gonna try it with my wife and some friends over Christmas, but I know me and my friend's fiance will dominate the table without some kind of everyone-gets-a-start rule.

Arpie wrote:
I like the way that it's going so far, but I do have a concern.

If I interpret the rules correctly, what you're playing for is the right to start the next scene.
Is there any way to do it so everyone gets a turn starting things out on a regular basis?

Maybe you could do it in chapters or something? That might give you a handy limit to the length of play. Like, each player gets to start one chapter and then you play for the scene-starting beads?

The game ends once everyone's started a chapter, maybe?
I dunno. I like the game so far and I'm probably gonna try it with my wife and some friends over Christmas, but I know me and my friend's fiance will dominate the table without some kind of everyone-gets-a-start rule.

Bob, this is exciting. I've been discussing the use of miniatures as Narrativist tools for a while now and haven't really seen a good way to do it. Good luck with this! I look forward to future posts.

komradebob wrote:
Ah no. I better fix that.

Scene starting is a simple around the table twice affair. So If Bob, Thren and Arpie are playing and Bob's color is chosen to start, the scenes in the game will go B, T,A,B,T,A and then have a group freeform finish.

Everybody gets two scenes.

The other critic and a rule update:
So, I was discussing this project with my daughter this weekend. She knows I've been trying to write a game based on our play for some time now, so I was explaining how it was coming along.
Threnody:" Oh you mean the game you wrote that we tried, but it didn't work, so we made up our own new rules?"
Me: "Yeah that one. I'm trying something new."
Threnody: "Oh good. Those other rules were terrible!" (referring to The Village Game's predecessor, A Cauldron of Magic Beans)
Me:" Er, yeah. I think you'll like this better, once we try it out..." (ouch!)

Ah well. Out of the mouths of babes...
The important change came from other feedback later in the conversation.

Me: ..." So anyway, once everybody has framed two scenes to play, the game ends and everybody just kind of describes, um, what they think happens after that..."
Threnody:" Why do you want it to work like that?"
Me: " Well, I mean we were awfully worn down after just a few really intense scenes, what with the stakes setting and conflict resolution and all. I just figured people would be tired and need a break after a few scenes..."
Threnody: " Um, Papa, if you remember right it was you that wanted to stop playing because you were worn out, not me. I wanted to play more..."
Me: [sigh]

After reflecting on the conversation, I've changed up the rules for ending the game. The scene framing still goes around the table twice. After this, play may continue for as long as players wish until one player calls for a final scene. They do this on their turn, and must turn in two award cards to do so. I haven't figure out if I want to have a group veto on this yet.

Also, I'll be adding a two player variant at some point. The quick gist is that in a two player game, location placing and scene setting goes around the table three times, instead of two.

Hi Bob, I just wanted to encourage you with what you're working on here.  My daughter and I have played a few times at what we call "storytelling", using some Star Wars minis we have. 

Our ad hoc rules were very simple, we basically just set up minis around the place willy nilly and then each chose a protagonist to play.  The story ended up being about the murder of Chewbacc'a (my daughter's player) friend, Alfred (who was some freaky looking bug alien).  Any major decision/intersting action/turning point in the story involved rolling dice. 

For instance, when she wanted to find out the description of the guy who surreptitiously retrieved Alfred's body from the mortician (incidentally, a battle droid for some reason), she rolled for it and I rolled against it.  We acted out the scene in favor of the person who won the roll.  In that instance she did, so the mortician gave her some accurate description information.

Whenever we play, I always end up acting out some portions of the story (GMing) to drive the play.  Maybe that is a mistake from a creativity standpoint--I'll have to think about it some more, but she likes the stories I come up with.

I skimmed through your draft rules, and hope to be able to offer some constructive thoughts when I can read them in more detail.  In my opinion, the simpler the rules and components of the game are, the better the game will be for playing with children.

Like you, I found that my daughter's enthusiasm and energy for playing "storytelling" were boundless.  She asks to play it daily and wears me down.  I'm looking forward to seeing where you go with this idea.

Well, I certainly think this is coming along well.
It reminds me of what my friend Robert Haptenstall and I used to do with LEGOs when we were kids.
Speaking of which, what about getting silly? Gag potential? Me and my play buddies used to go hog wild with some pretty humorous (to kids) outbursts.

arpie wrote: Speaking of which, what about getting silly? Gag potential? Me and my play buddies used to go hog wild with some pretty humorous (to kids) outbursts.

Bob

I just saw you post at the end of yesterday and only got to read it this morning.

Cool beans!

I think HG Wells would approve of your take on Floor Games.

The first part of the game - setting up the world - is like Wells described. Personally I like wooden blocks and plastic people - but there is a much greater range of 25-30mm figures available. The setting they make will likely suggest possible stories. I remember as a kid building an "underwater" city which our toy people inhabited. The story involved fixing cracks in the walls and rescuing people. I think you need to do more work on explaining this to people. It will need to be explained in simple elegant terms for 6 year olds to get it.

I like the story tokens. It parcels out authority for resolving scenes without using dice. It is like making Matrix Game arguments where the winning argument is the one whose stone was picked. Come to think of it I think "The Village Game" is a Matrix Game because it has players make arguments/proposals for action/results and then resolves which one happens. Congrats - you've added a new type of Matrix Game!

The award cards are what people will want to get. It doesn't matter if they mean much - just calling them awards will make kids want them. Have you looked at Dr. Gardner's game "Talking, Feeling, Doing"? It shows how therapists use the game to structure time while really talking about other things.

I wonder how well very young players will take to Forge terms like "setting stakes" etc. I'm certain they will understand what they mean when they do them - but plainer language might be helpful.

Anyway - Cool game - and when you want to take it to market, let me know. I'd love to put out a hardback version. I have a new copier coming in so I can do 8x10 books now.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Maybe you could name the awards or make them highly visual?
Like pictures of ribbons and trophies? Or maybe things which relate to a village environment?
You could have funniest joke and scariest thing and bravest act , etc. ?
I dunno. What feelings would you like to encourage?

Hey there,

This is great! I like the concept of "bringing things to a boil" and hope you find good ways to flesh that out. 

komradebob wrote: Basically, I'd just like to discuss how to be an enabler rather than a director during a game, if that makes sense.If anyone knows older threads on that subject, please go ahead and post 'em here so I can have a look for ideas.

I'll give some comments later, but for now, here are some resources for folks. These buildings are scaled to figures between true 25mm and 30mm. Most of these sites have for-sale items, but I've linked the freebies for you to check out.

Dungeons and Dragons paper buildings:Tower, Woodsman’s hut, covered bridge, Mausoleum,Graveyard, Tavern, Church, City Wall, Half timbered building, half Turret, Short wall, Timber hording, Gatehouse, and roads. The models are easy to assemble, but are large in scale (more for 28-30mm figures). The colors are extremely deep and rich.

Microtactix 2-story House Meant for true 25mm scale figures.

Games Workshop has a ruined Brettonian Gatehouse.

Rohir and Gondorian Houses and Towers Look in the link for paper models at the site.

A 2 Story Town House, smithy, stone arch, peasant huts, and other stuff

A creepy Bridge

A Dungeon Entrance

a fantasy hovel-very cool

The Wizkids Site fantasy buildings

Odissey Paper Models is a freebie Italian model site. The owner does really nice work in his Hilands range. Included is a stone church, two different fantasy houses ( one that is especially clever- Thurk’s) and several Gothicy Graveyard items ( Mausoleum, Gate, graves, cemetery wall). The instructions are in Italian, but are really straight forward. The models themselves have a lot of parts, but are actually very easy to assemble.

a Haunted Mansion, Ravensblight Manor.  The Manor is cool because it has a finished interior and open back.     Additionally, there is another, simple cemetery and some other cool printable Hallowe’en goodies.

Right after Christmas you can pick up those Victorian village buildings for good prices. I know at least one historical miniatures gamer who bought them, took a hammer to them and viola had a bombed out WWII European village set up.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Hello all, and thanks to everyone who has been following along. I really appreciate the support and feedback.

This weekend was one of breakthroughs and steps backwards.
On the breakthrough front, I wrote like a devil and found several areas I wanted to modify and clean up.
On the downside, I apparently vaporized my updated copy with all of the changes.
That isn't actually as bad as it seems. I'd stopped working at a point when I felt I was overwriting the rules anyway.Losing that revision forced me to go back today and write out a newer version, that is significantly shorter, coming in at a skeletal 7 pages or so. The text needs to be fleshed out, but I'm hoping for a total of under ten pages total for the mechanical parts of the game.

Realization one:
I didn't like the initial set up style for building the village. I felt that it wasn't interactive enough for the players as a group.
Old version: Each player takes a turn laying out and talking about a location while the other players could offer comments/suggestions. The placing player then could place a few figures at the location and describe them while again, the other players could offer commentary.
Revision: One player places a location and one character at the location. Each other player then takes a turn either placing minor scenery to expand the location, placing another character at the location, or expanding what the players know about a character already at the location by asking up to three questions about one of the characters. A player must make some sort of connection between the locations and characters. Each player will do this in turn.

This needs work, but I'm trying to integrate the idea of story connections between objects into the village set up.

Realization two:
I actually do have a setting of sorts. I've been thinking in terms of creating a basic system and tacking on settings. I'm realizing that I've actually got a couple of different games that use a similar sytem.
For a default game, table and character setup works in two stages. In the first stage, players take their turns laying out locations and characters that comprise the village center. The locations are close together, and the characters are created to have connections to one another. Basically, this is the insider group/micro-society.
In the second stage, player may expand the village center or create outsider locations and characters. The outsider characters/locations have connections to one another, and limited connections to the villagers.

I'm still working on this. I'm trying to create a set up a game where tensions exist at multiple levels.

Setting up scenes:
One of the things added to scene set up is what I'm calling The Big Problem. Each scene has to have a big problem, some source of conflict and ultimately change in the story.

Playing the scene:
This is killing me. How would you folks describe what a group does when it is roleplaying to non-gamers? I don't mean the greater game, I mean in the moment. I've identified some behaviors ( talking in first person/acting, describing actions out-of-character, revealing information to other players that the characters don't know, adding information to the story off the cuff), but I'm trying to describe how that relates to creating events during a scene. The thing is, I think kids will inherently get it. It's non-gamer adults that I'm trying to describe it for.

The goal of playing a scene:
I've stated that the goal of playing the scene is create events leading up to a turning point where an important change must occur and that this turning point must relate to the big problem. I'm having trouble describing this in a simple fashion that goes beyond simple advice. OTOH, perhaps simple, clear advice is the way to go on this? In particular, I'm having difficulty describing the fact that ther is no order of play during a scene in terms of who speaks and when.

As it stands, any player can simply state that the scene has reached an important turning point. This halts play, and the player describes why they think this is the turning point. The other players must either accept or reject this assessment by consensus. If they reject it, the scene picks back up. If they accept, gameplay moves to outcome setting and resolution.
Alternative 1:If any other player accepts that an important turning point has been reached, go to resolution.
Alternative 2:If all players reject, the identifying player may turn in an award card to force a recognition of the identified turning point.
Alternative 3:The player may attempt to bribe another player with an award card to agree to the turning point.

I'm not sure which option I prefer.

Scene resolution:
The player that identified the (accepted) turning point states the first possible outcome. They place their name in the bowl.
Each other player has an opportunity to pass or offer an alternative outcome. If they choose to offer an alternative outcome, their options are yes but, yes and , or instead. No two players may choose the same one of those three. At least one alternative outcome must be described ( meaning that the last player must make up another outcome if everyone else passes). When a player describes an outcome, they place their name in the bowl.

Before anyone's name is pulled from the bowl, players have another chance to influence the lottery. Each player has a chance to turn in any amount of award cards. For each award card turned in, they may place one name in the bowl. The name on the slip may be of any player that has offered an outcome. Only then is the bowl mixed and a slip drawn to determine which outcome is used to resolve the scene.

Giving award cards:
In the latest version, both the player who set the scene and the player whose outcome was drawn give an award card. The setting player goes first.

Ending the game:
Anyone can call for a final scene after every player has had a chance to set up a scene. They must turn in two award cards to be able to call for a final scene and can only do it on their own turn. Players are encouraged to use any remaining award cards during the final scene, since they are in no way used to win the game.

That's what I got for now. I'm going to try to get a pretty copy up later this week. In the meantime, if anyone would like to see the current full form, pm me and I'll send you a zipped copy.

Thanks,
Robert

komradebob wrote:
Revision: One player places a location and one character at the location. Each other player then takes a turn either placing minor scenery to expand the location, placing another character at the location, or expanding what the players know about a character already at the location by asking up to three questions about one of the characters. A player must make some sort of connection between the locations and characters. Each player will do this in turn.

komradebob wrote:

Realization two:
I actually do have a setting of sorts.

komradebob wrote:
Setting up scenes:
One of the things added to scene set up is what I'm calling The Big Problem. Each scene has to have a big problem, some source of conflict and ultimately change in the story.

komradebob wrote:

Playing the scene:
This is killing me. How would you folks describe what a group does when it is roleplaying to non-gamers? I don't mean the greater game, I mean in the moment. I've identified some behaviors ( talking in first person/acting, describing actions out-of-character, revealing information to other players that the characters don't know, adding information to the story off the cuff), but I'm trying to describe how that relates to creating events during a scene. The thing is, I think kids will inherently get it. It's non-gamer adults that I'm trying to describe it for.

The goal of playing a scene:
I've stated that the goal of playing the scene is create events leading up to a turning point where an important change must occur and that this turning point must relate to the big problem. I'm having trouble describing this in a simple fashion that goes beyond simple advice. OTOH, perhaps simple, clear advice is the way to go on this? In particular, I'm having difficulty describing the fact that ther is no order of play during a scene in terms of who speaks and when.

komradebob wrote:
Scene resolution:
The player that identified the (accepted) turning point states the first possible outcome. They place their name in the bowl.
Each other player has an opportunity to pass or offer an alternative outcome. If they choose to offer an alternative outcome, their options are yes but, yes and , or instead. No two players may choose the same one of those three. At least one alternative outcome must be described ( meaning that the last player must make up another outcome if everyone else passes). When a player describes an outcome, they place their name in the bowl.

Before anyone's name is pulled from the bowl, players have another chance to influence the lottery. Each player has a chance to turn in any amount of award cards. For each award card turned in, they may place one name in the bowl. The name on the slip may be of any player that has offered an outcome. Only then is the bowl mixed and a slip drawn to determine which outcome is used to resolve the scene.

komradebob wrote:
Giving award cards:
In the latest version, both the player who set the scene and the player whose outcome was drawn give an award card. The setting player goes first.

Ending the game:
Anyone can call for a final scene after every player has had a chance to set up a scene. They must turn in two award cards to be able to call for a final scene and can only do it on their own turn. Players are encouraged to use any remaining award cards during the final scene, since they are in no way used to win the game.

Arpie wrote:

komradebob wrote:
Revision: One player places a location and one character at the location. Each other player then takes a turn either placing minor scenery to expand the location, placing another character at the location, or expanding what the players know about a character already at the location by asking up to three questions about one of the characters. A player must make some sort of connection between the locations and characters. Each player will do this in turn.

Wow! This is MUCH better. I like the idea of my contribution being a major element to everyone's house.
Even as a kid I often used to spark when someone else dropped an idea into one of our pretend games.
Wonderful solution!

Does this mean you're considering some kind of practical development, like a line of Village Game Figures or something?

I'd like to see more chibi stuff from that area - in bright plastic colors.
Just a thought.

komradebob wrote:
Setting up scenes:
One of the things added to scene set up is what I'm calling The Big Problem. Each scene has to have a big problem, some source of conflict and ultimately change in the story.

Or you could make it an over-arching plot point and say that each scene has something to do with it.
Call it "talk of the town" and make it part of the set up?

You could also spin off subplots from it.

komradebob wrote:

Playing the scene:
This is killing me. How would you folks describe what a group does when it is roleplaying to non-gamers? I don't mean the greater game, I mean in the moment. I've identified some behaviors ( talking in first person/acting, describing actions out-of-character, revealing information to other players that the characters don't know, adding information to the story off the cuff), but I'm trying to describe how that relates to creating events during a scene. The thing is, I think kids will inherently get it. It's non-gamer adults that I'm trying to describe it for.

The goal of playing a scene:
I've stated that the goal of playing the scene is create events leading up to a turning point where an important change must occur and that this turning point must relate to the big problem. I'm having trouble describing this in a simple fashion that goes beyond simple advice. OTOH, perhaps simple, clear advice is the way to go on this? In particular, I'm having difficulty describing the fact that ther is no order of play during a scene in terms of who speaks and when.

Well, the catch phrase for that kind of thing is "real time."

This is a rubric I use for a lot of games:
"During the scene, what you say is what your character says."

You could make it touch-oriented:
"During the scene, what you say is what the figure YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND ON says."
You can only have your hand on one figure at a time.
I mean, that's how you do it when you play pretend, right?

Here's an idea for turning points:
When you start a scene, each figure in the scene should have Something Else to DO (sorry about the capitals.) Life in the village is always going on in the background and the figures have just gotten together for a short while over The Big Poblem (to deal with one aspect of the talk of the town.)

Each player, in turn, picks a figure in the scene and states what that Something Else for that figure is.
"Johanne the Baker is waiting on a big order of bread to get done."
"Mr. Rinse, the peddler, needs to check on a sale down the road."
"Momma Goggy has to pick up her three cubs from the babysitter in a little bit."

here's only one or two figures left in a scene, each player suggests what they think the turning point was. (Hindsight is 20/20)

MatrixGamer wrote:
The first part of the game - setting up the world - is like Wells described. Personally I like wooden blocks and plastic people - but there is a much greater range of 25-30mm figures available. The setting they make will likely suggest possible stories. I remember as a kid building an "underwater" city which our toy people inhabited. The story involved fixing cracks in the walls and rescuing people. I think you need to do more work on explaining this to people. It will need to be explained in simple elegant terms for 6 year olds to get it.

Come to think of it I think "The Village Game" is a Matrix Game because it has players make arguments/proposals for action/results and then resolves which one happens. Congrats - you've added a new type of Matrix Game!

The award cards are what people will want to get. It doesn't matter if they mean much - just calling them awards will make kids want them. Have you looked at Dr. Gardner's game "Talking, Feeling, Doing"? It shows how therapists use the game to structure time while really talking about other things.

I wonder how well very young players will take to Forge terms like "setting stakes" etc. I'm certain they will understand what they mean when they do them - but plainer language might be helpful.

I'd love to put out a hardback version. I have a new copier coming in so I can do 8x10 books now.

Emily wrote:
Hey there,

This is great! I like the concept of "bringing things to a boil" and hope you find good ways to flesh that out.

I do a lot of "pretend" with Meg & Vincent Bakers' kids & what works well is for each of us to introduce complications for the plot, either by making up our own nemeses or by making up obstacles that we'll all have to overcome or dangerous encounters etc. We either do it at the start of play, or during the game.  Having one per person who is playing is great since then everyone gets a chance to have their ideas spotlighted.  And even young kids can come up with stellar stuff.  I wrote about the rules we use over here.

Hi Robert,

It's looking great.

1) There's a lot of risk involved in bidding a story token, which makes it look to me as if conflicts will be one of the most exciting parts of the game. I wondered though if you're doing anything to reward players for getting involved in conflicts. It seems to me that the more in synch your players are with each other, then the less likely it is that conflicts will actually arise. I expect that what will happen is that one player will realise that, for the sake of everyone else's fun, they must take on an unofficial gm role and start thinking up alternative outcomes that will make things awkward (and hence create risk and excitement) for the other players. Is there a way you could reward players and so encourage them to do this?

2)There seems like great opportunities for characterisation: for narrating the model's dialogue and actions. But I was wondering about real character: the decisions a person makes under pressure. With conflict resolution as it stands it doesn't neccessarily reveal anything about who the characters are, in fact it kind of sidesteps the idea of conflict between the characters and focuses on swapping narration between the players. I realise that you're going for a collaborative story telling game, so this is going to come down to our personal preferences for story. For me what the characters do to attain a goal while under pressure is story. I feel there's a danger that by simply deciding what happens next, without reference to how a character is working to achieve that result, could result in a game populated by weak, unsatisfying characters.

For compelling story here's what I'd like to see your system touch:

What is the sequence of actions that the character takes to achieve the outcome?
How does the setting (every other character present + environment) respond to these actions?
What is the choice that the character must face?

I'm not trying to push you into writing a Story Now game. Choice doesn't have to be about summoning demons or keeping your humanity. Character revealing choice is just being forced to decide between two good things, or between two bad things:

Which ice cream do you want? Strawberry or chocolate?

Which punishment do you want? Grounded for a week or no pocket money for a week?

If you can find a way to focus on character actions, setting responses, and character choices, I think you'll create even more compelling story, and help players to develop a real attachment to the character models.

3) I didn't pick up a lot of sense of Situation in the game. When I play Universalis, often things flounder for a while until someone hits upon a situation that inspires everyone. It's like they "see" a situation in amongst all the stuff we've been busy creating, and once they start driving towards it then we all see it too.

I was wondering if you could focus your rules to help players to "see" potentially fun situations in amongst their ideas. I really liked the questions you have players ask of each other when they're defining locations and choosing characters. I think that it's during that phase that players will be hearing the stuff that later they'll hopefully be able to pin point as a situation that can really motivate play.

I've seen a definition on the Forge like this: Situation = Character + Setting

Situation = plucky adventurers looking for gold + a secretive Village with a secret stash of treasure
Situation = clever adventurers who love a mystery + a panicked Village where people dissappear in their sleep

So my question is, now that you've gotten all the players to go through this imagining process and create lots of characters and setting and even a few scenes, how do you help them to pin point a situation that will make everyone look up and say "yeah!" and give a direction to play. I like the idea that this can arise naturally as the game is being played, but is there a way that you could push the players towards making it happen without having to use words like "situation" or adding in any more planning phases?

Tony

So, hmm.
I'm discovering that throwing my ideas out to a bunch of creative folks has a cost: They ask me tough questions! In fact, some of the questions are so tough that I actually ducked responding for about a week ( Lots to think about Tony, sorry!).

Here's the thing. Several of you have offered some really good ideas about concepts that I want to incorporate as "soft rules". For this discussion, I'm using "soft rules" to mean the kinds of stuff that often shows up a sGM's advice in a rulebook. I recognize that this flies in the face of a good bit of Forge thinking on design, but I think that for a shared narration game like this, targeted at new-to-gaming audiences, that it might just be workable.

This brings me to point two: Some of you folks just plain hit methodology better than I do. I'm satisfied with the way this overall mechanical design is shaping up, but I'm not as comfortable with some of this kind of stuff that I'm describing as soft rules.

So, if any of you are willing, I'd like your help. I would like to include some advice type sections, and I'm wondering if some of you folks that have participated in this thread would be willing to write a paragraph or two that I could include in the text of this game. I have some decided ideas about what I'd like to have each person focus on based on the questions and suggestions you've already asked, and I'd be happy to clarify by pm.

As for where I'd like the next step for this design to go, I'm thinking a free pdf. I'm thinking of a later print development, and I'll be more than happy to discuss ideas about that by pm.

Thanks again,
Robert

I'm probably not one of the guys you're talkin' about, but I'm free. You want to hit me up with a writing assignment, I'll happily accept. The link at the bottom of the page leads to my web page and I got an email addy there (or you can use the Forge, but I don't check my Forge mail all that often.)

Figure about a day per 8 column inches

Arpie wrote:
I'm probably not one of the guys you're talkin' about, but I'm free. You want to hit me up with a writing assignment, I'll happily accept. The link at the bottom of the page leads to my web page and I got an email addy there (or you can use the Forge, but I don't check my Forge mail all that often.)

Figure about a day per 8 column inches

Okay, here's a first draft:

Sometimes, it feels like a scene or part of a game can run on and on without going anywhere. People get frustrated and bored. There's a neat way to prevent this from happening:

When you start a scene, each figure in the scene should have "Something Else to Do."

Life in the village is always going on in the background while the figures have just gotten together in any scene. While they talk, they have to keep in mind that the figure has other matters to attend to - that way, if things start to get too long, you can use your "Something Else to Do" as an excuse to leave the scene (assuming you'll get back to it later if it's important enough.)

When you pick a figure for the scene, you should state what that "Something Else to Do" is as you introduce the figure.

For instance, you could say something like:

"Johanne the Baker is waiting on a big order of bread to get done. He has to make sure it doesn't burn."

"Sir Rinse, the knight peddlar, has to see if anyone up at the castle is interested in his new design for a suit of armor. He's heard there's a big tournament coming up."

or even
"Hi, everyone! Can't stay long, the kitties are watching me. But, while I'm here, let's..."

Then, if you get bored with the scene or think it's not really going where you'd like, you can use your "Something Else to Do" as a way to get out.

"Oh no! I'd better get back to my bread!"
or
"Well, those nobles up in the castle will need plenty of time to check out my new armour, I'd better get going."
or
"Sensing the Ire of the Cats, this little figure must depart."

It's up to you, of course. And not every figure needs  "Something Else to Do," but it always helps to have a back up plan!