My players and I want to generate some backstory for our Dogs game.  Specifically, we want to create some parables - "Sunday school stories", if you will.  So.  I have several ways to do this in mind, and this one came to me in my sleep last night.  Seriously; I do good design when I sleep.

This isn't an RPG - this is a game meant to supplement an RPG - at least, it is for me.  It was inspired by what little I know of the game Polaris, and by the card game Once Upon A Time.

Setting Up

The players sit around a table or room.  Each of them has a stack of three poker chips, which are called Credibility.  Credibility is the only game number here.  The chips they have at the game start are the *only* chips in the game.

In addition to this, the group has the title of a Parable, and each of them has a card or slip of paper that gives one possible ending for this Parable, which they keep face-down in front of them.  All the endings are mutually exclusive - only one can become the real ending.

Depending on the story in question, the players may have discussed and made up the title and endings themselves, or they might have been handed out.

Rounds Of Play

Play progresses in rounds.  There are nine rounds, each corresponding to a different stage of the story - we'll get to this in a moment.  Each round has a leader, and the oldest player leads the first round.

The leader begins by narrating a single sentence that could, in theory, stand alone as that stage of the story.  Then, each player takes it in turn (again, going clockwise around the table) to verify, add to, or alter that sentence or the sentence of another.  This is a bit more complex than it might sound, but not much.

Once play has gone around the the table in this way, the round ends and a new round begins.

The Responses

Yes, That's Right: This response is simply a way of 'passing' to the next player, skipping your turn in this round.  When you make this response, the leader of the round must pay you one of their Credibility chips, if they have any.

Yes, And Also: This response is used to indicate an addition.  The player sating it may continue speaking, adding a single idea to the sentence already in play.  This response doesn't cost or gain the speaker Credibility.

The Way I Heard It: This reponse is used to indicate a change to the story; you may carry on speaking and make change one thing in the sentence orginally given or in any addition - however, your change cannot invalidate the rest of what has already been said.  To use this response, you must pay one credibility to the leader of the round, and one to each player that has said "Yes, that's right" already in this round.

You Break Tradition: This response may be used as a reponse to anything said by any player.  It is simply a call to pause the game, because the player that uttered it believes that one of the other players has broken the rules.  The players may then discuss the traditions of telling parables (the rules), and return to play as desired.

How It Ends
At the end of the ninth round, the players stop, and turn over their endings.  Each, in turn, narrates a single-sentence bridge between the story as it stands at the end of the tenth round and their ending. 

The players then vote on which ending wins.  If there is a tie in the number of voters, whichever ending has the lowest-credibility voters attached to it is eliminated from the voting, and the players vote again.

The Nine Rounds

...The title of the story tells us what the story is about, such as "Joseph And The Pharoah, or The Story Of Consecrated Earth".

1. A Faithful One...
All narration in this round must be used to describe a single, righteous and faithful protagonist, their virtues, holdings, followers, occupation, and so on.

2. In A Sinful Land...
The narration in this round is used to describe the immoral source of troubles in the land or populace of the protagonist, and how those troubles manifest.

3. Is Called To Duty...
In this round, all narration is used to describe how the protagonist is called to fight against the immorality and aid the land or populace.

4. Questions The Task...
In this round, all narration is used to describe the obstacles that prevent the protagonist from going out to fight this threat.

5. Learns To Obey
In this round, all narration is used to show how the protagonist overcomes the things that keep them from struggling against the immorality.

6. Enters The Struggle
In this round, all narration is used to describe the first challenge the protagonist faces in entering their struggle against immorality.  This should not be a struggle with the root cause of the immorality, but a symbolic 'entering into the fight'.

7. Is Tried And Purified
In this round, all narration is used to describe the many other obstacles and perils that the protagonist faces on the way to facing the root of the immorality.

8. Reaches The Ordeal
In this round, all narration is used to describe the scene and the opposition of the final ordeal - the root of the immorality that the protagonist seeks to defeat.

9. And Defeats It
In this round, all narration is used to describe how the protanist defeats and overcomes that final ordeal.

...And each ending describes one possible way that this victory changes the world for the better.

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

So, can you visualize this in play?  And, if you can, does it seem like it would produce stories of the kind we're looking for?

I wonder about "You Break Tradition." I want to like it - a lot - but... well, I am ignorant of history, really. So: does anyone have some other examples of RPG rules that specifically attempt to deal with possible rules breakage? My worry is that putting this option into the ritual of the game will essentially just encourage rules-lawyering. Then again, the rules here are simple enough that I'm probably worried for nothing.

I have a nasty feeling that something really obvious will be pointed out to me. Ah well. Larger question: it seems as if the structure of the rounds will get you the kind of story you're evidently looking for, but it will only get you that story... that one story. That story's structure is also a lot more complex and (I'm treading on more and more dangerous ground here) Western than most of the parables I remember. So, I guess I want to know more about what you're after.

Really like the idea as a whole. Say more!

Regarding "You Break Tradition"; yep.  That's my feeling, too.  I want to like it, but I'm just not sure if it will encourage a playstyle that  I *don't* want.  I was originally tempted to have the player risk a token to make the call, losing it if they were wrong, getting one from the speaker if they were right - but I'm quite sure that doing so *would* encourage the style I want to avoid.  In essence, there's no gain and no loss in making the call, so here's hoping.

As for the story structure - that one is an adaptation of The Hero's Journey.  See if you can read Star Wars as that story, by ignoring the tone; it's a stretch, but it flies.  Now, try to read it as Moses, the Pharoah, and the twelve plagues of Egypt (it needs twelve players, all playing Yes, and Also during the 'is tried and purified' round, but still).  It's not all-encompassing, but it's more flexible than it looks.

And, yes, the tone is very Bible-esque, I think.  But, then, my group will probably be using it to make stories to fill in the backdrop for our Dogs in the Vineyard game, so that's a positive.

One of the challenges, for me, will be to have a way to show the players how to flex that story - how to push the boundaries of each step without breaking the game.

Got any suggestions on how to do that?

I think this would work well as a ritualized opening for some games.

I don't have any suggestions on the rules or encouraging creativity within the form. I wonder if players may experiment more within each sentence as the exercise progresses- so the result would be like a christmas tree, narrow at the top, dense and branchy by the base.

My comment is that, depending on the game, you could keep the structure but alter the tone through minor language changes. For example, for a more liberatory game the first three steps could be:

1. An Oppressed One...

2. In An Unjust Land...

3. Is Moved to Rebel...

etc.

redivider wrote:
I think this would work well as a ritualized opening for some games.

redivider wrote: I don't have any suggestions on the rules or encouraging creativity within the form. I wonder if players may experiment more within each sentence as the exercise progresses- so the result would be like a christmas tree, narrow at the top, dense and branchy by the base.

My comment is that, depending on the game, you could keep the structure but alter the tone through minor language changes. For example, for a more liberatory game the first three steps could be:

1. An Oppressed One...

2. In An Unjust Land...

3. Is Moved to Rebel...

etc.

Levi,

I like the idea, but I'm worried about Credibility. Could you talk me through it? What's the function of Credibility? How do you expect it to work?

At the moment, this is what I'm seeing:

1. The leader of the round moves the story forward. He neither gains nor loses Credibility for doing so.
2. By not adding to the story (saying "Yes, that's right"), I gain Credibility.
2. By adding to the story (saying "Yes, and also"), I neither gain or lose.
3. By changing the story (saying "The way I heard it..."), I pay Credibility to someone else.

So there's a currency exchange going on, but I don't see what it does. You receive currency by keeping quiet; you pay currency by challenging the story; adding to what's gone before doesn't affect the currency exchange. Have I missed something?

My gut feeling is that you're looking for a Capes-style currency system, where you pay currency to the other players to add to the story, but that gives them more currency, which lets them add to the story. So it's a baton-passing thing: you can add to the story, but only by giving everyone else the ability to add more to the story. That would be a nice system but, at the moment, I don't think Credibility does that.

Graham

Graham wrote:
I like the idea, but I'm worried about Credibility. Could you talk me through it? What's the function of Credibility? How do you expect it to work?

redivider wrote:
My comment is that, depending on the game, you could keep the structure but alter the tone through minor language changes. For example, for a more liberatory game the first three steps could be:

1. An Oppressed One...

2. In An Unjust Land...

3. Is Moved to Rebel...

etc.

komradebob wrote: That's awfully cool. Levi, have you considered making 2 or 3 basic formulas, then including advice for the players to make their own?

In terms of the 'ritualized opening' comment, I just meant that the exercise would have two benefits. Creating parables as back story and helping put players in the mood of the game.

Redivider: Ah.  Yes.  That would make sense.

------

Okay.  A Title and Endings:

The Sacrifice that Jerham made on the Mountain

1. "And in this way Jerham gave up his son to become a priest, and by the wisdom of his son the people were restored."

2. "And in this way Jerham's son was sent into the wilderness, and the people followed after him."

3. "And in this way Jerham gave up his life, giving over his holdings to his son, who lead his family to greatness."

4. "And in this way Jerham won the hand of the queen for his son; and she became faithful, and brought peace to the nation."

5. "And in this way Jerham and his son raised up the people to rebellion against the evils of the queen."

6. "And in this way Jerham slew his own son, and the power of his sacrifice silenced the queen, and she ceased her actions against the people."

...Or similar.  Those might need some tuning, but that's the idea.

Oh, the Campbellian story arc, it burns, it burns!   ...ahem.

What ensures that the content that the players propose and ratify has anything to do with the stages that they are meant to fulfill?  What's to stop me from narrating that the hero refuses the task when he's supposed to be learning to obey?

I'm interested in how the titles of the parables and the potential endings are generated -- by a GM figure, by the players themselves, by the players and then randomly redistributed?

Does the player starting a round rotate around the table?  That's how it sounds, but I don't want to assume.

Why are the tokens called Credibility?  If I start a round and somebody else doesn't change anything, they're bestowing credibility on what I said; why do I pay them Credibility tokens?

Lastly, I'm curious how you expect this to mesh with Dogs play -- will the Dogs characters reference these parables?  Will the GM set up the town with an eye for mirroring these parables?  I can't say that either really appeals to me, since the strength of Dogs is that there are no external moral authorities to interfere with the players as moral authorities.  Don't get me wrong, I like this little microgame, I'm just not sure how it relates to Dogs play.

I'm going to pretend that those questions were numbered.

1 & 2. The other players - they can explicitly call you out for breaking tradition.  That could be more explicit, though.

3. In the case of my players, one play group will create stories and titles for the others, by discussion, and vice versa - I'm building towards having several play groups on the run at the same time.

4. Good catch.  Right now, it rotates around the table.  I've been considering changing that, though.

5 & 6. Uh...  the name Credibility is a holdover from elsewhere.  Got a better suggestion?

7 & 8. More 'reference in play' than anything else, but that's not the primary function with relation to my game.  The primary function here is that these stories will be a device to spur the players into creating world background, history, and doctrine as a much larger group... 

...and that answer makes sense only if you know that I'm building, slowly, towards running Dogs as a hybridized tabletop/LARP group with about 24 players, rotating between playing towns and Dogs, with multiple groups running at once.  Such a thing can only happen if there's a consensus of world that applies to a group that size; this is one of the ways I'm hoping to bring out the creation of that larger consensus, without simply deciding on things myself and stripping down player authority on world issues.

Yes, I'm ambitious.

Levi wrote: 1 & 2. The other players - they can explicitly call you out for breaking tradition.  That could be more explicit, though.

Levi wrote: 5 & 6. Uh...   the name Credibility is a holdover from elsewhere.  Got a better suggestion?

Hm.  Next draft, I'll put a note in on the tradtion rule.

And my players are sort-of educating each other in basic theory.  So, Authority it is.

The larger project, I'll be updating in the lumpley forums.  Right now, I'm in the middle of setting up "the Parlour" - a small-groups introduction to the setting and some exercises in building consensus.

Levi,

I may have missed this in previous threads or posts, but just in case, are you familiar with the card game, Once Upon a Time? I have comments on what you have so far, but which ones I'll post depend on what you know of this game.

Best,
Ron

Yes.  Once Upon A Time was one of the things that spurred me to write this - partly, I wanted to play something like it, in a different tone, without needing to make a whole new deck of cards.

---

On a seperate note, as far as alternate structures go, I'm pondering how to use this system to create Towns for Dogs - with the various stages being Pride, Injustice, Sin, and so on.

As well as Once Upon a Time, other possible sources to look at are Pantheon (Hogshead NewStyle) and Aye, Dark Overlord (Stratelibri), both of which follow a slightly different varient on this kind of play.

-Matt