I'm currently working on an RPG(if it can be called that) with a primary Gamist feel and seconday Narrativist feel; Sim is thrown right out of the window.

In the game players play the three Aspects that together make up a "person": Rat, Dirt and Water. The actual character doesn't exist except as a platform for the three Aspects. Now, that sounds highly esoteric, does it also sound like it may be enjoyable? It takes the weird format presented in Polaris and cranks up the metagame weirdness.

The game feel I'm working for is that of Unknown Armies on the in-game level and very much Munchkin or Settlers of Cattan on the Game level. Players are expected and rewarded when they work against one another, there is only one "Winner"(and the character loses) possible except in extremely rare cases of a tie(and character win).

I'd love if you'd comment on one of the above two questions or anything else at all regarding the game. What is written and written about the game thus far can be read here and here. Came here after realizing that's the best shot I have at generating responses. The beta is being written but I want some feedback on the alpha prior.

I'm not certain what your questions are but I looked over your rules. So all the players are different parts of one character's brain? That's a nice twist. I've seen it before  (A Call of Cthulhu GenCon game, and a psychology education game I use in therapy) but not as the center piece of a rules set. What are the end victory conditions?

Looks like the players are out to get the character into deep trouble. "Let's see what you make of THIS!"

You are using the conflict resolution idea in the way I've seen it used on the Forge - but I'm not certain what the game is about. Is it just to get "Paul" in trouble, or dead?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

It's a little bit more complex. Someone asked on RPG.Net "So what do I do with the game?", the answer was that the character action and world should be much like a Guy Ritchie film or an Unknown Armies session.

Each player plays all three Aspects, across three characters. These three Aspects make up a character, each Aspect has a certain pull and desires, out of the person it inhabits/makes up, out of a reality which is malleable to a certain degree(and semi solipsist). The character wants Enlightenment, which is in direct contrast with what the Aspects want.

The Aspects aren't there to put the character into trouble, they're there to further their control over him. The Aspects certainly don't want the character dead, dead they lose their power, they cease to be; imagine someone taking water out of the ocean. They may initiate further conflict in order to mess with the plans of other Aspects, raise future conflicts where they're the natural candidates, or just as a Meta-game tool for the Players to create a conflict heavy session.
It's "Let's see what WE make out of THIS!", since you don't know who will have to face the next challenge, I'm leaning towards one roll per scene as well.

An Aspect wins when it reaches 10, if you reach 5 Rainbow Scenes(where you end a scene with all Aspects being equal) then you reach Enlightenment, the character won, not the Aspects. In the Beta there will be rare NPCs, Magicians, who begin in Equilibrium, it gives them power but once they miss one step they can never regain their balance. If it feels like Munchkin or Settlers of Cattan, that is intended. The players are playing "Head-to-head", and they're out to win. Deals, backstabbing, manuevering, all is kosher and encouraged.

Just call me Mr. Matchmaker... I always feel compelled to introduce folks with closely-aligned designs.

Have you checked out this thread, which is currently only two or three above yours on the main page. :-)
The Uchtman Factor: An Overview

On the surface (i.e. with the details you both have so far provided) it seems to me you are making the same game--though yours may be a bit more Gamist- and Handling-oriented than TUF.

Just tryin' to help!
David

Hmm, I've noticed it, didn't read it in full. "Handling"? I know Gamist, what is Handling? I will soon post the many differences between TUF and CR, it may help people understand what CR is and isn't. I suggest reading the RPG.Net thread for details as most are there. At first glance I can already see dozens of differences, I'll post them in a bit after I peruse the other thread in full.

I'm liking this a lot, and recommend a look at the game "apocalypse girl," which you can find linked in the Ronnies post in the Endeavor forum.

Here's my question - at one point, you talk about the character winning rather than the Aspects, but then later, you talk about the individual players playing to win, presumably as single-players (i.e. everyone else losing). Can you describe the conditions for the latter? If I'm playing, how do I win?

Best,
Ron

Oh yeah. Consider the notion that when someone mentions another game for you to check out, they are not dismissing your design or suggesting that the idea is redundant. You don't need to list the differences between any particular game and yours; we are all capable of reading them ourselves. Instead, take the offered opportunity for what it is - a real opportunity to consider how your game works, or to find ways to explain it, through a useful contrast.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
I'm liking this a lot, and recommend a look at the game "apocalypse girl," which you can find linked in the Ronnies post in the Endeavor forum.

Here's my question - at one point, you talk about the character winning rather than the Aspects, but then later, you talk about the individual players playing to win, presumably as single-players (i.e. everyone else losing). Can you describe the conditions for the latter? If I'm playing, how do I win?

Best,
Ron

One thing I want to make clearer, because I believe that's where Ron's question came from.
Suppose I have four players, one of them is GM. I have three Aspects per character.
Players are P1, P2, P3.
Characters are C1, C2, C3, each has (W)ater, (R)at and (D)irt.
P1 is W, C1; R, C2; D, C3.
P2 is W, C2; R, C3; D, C1.
P3 is W, C3; R, C1; D, C2.

An Aspect belongs to one player.

Hey, guys... I am "just tryin' to help." (Doesn't anyone remember poor Lando, in Chewie's clutches, anymore?)

No dig, spurn, critique, or dismissal intended. I figured you'd (a) see some stuff you could use or (b) see another Agenda's take on your design or (c) maybe even join forces and work together on such a game--maybe even one which allows for all Agendas, based on some preliminary choices by the players.

As for "Handling"--that's just a guess I made from the "board game feel" of your thread title. TUF--being quite Narrativist--has little in the way of handling that I have seen. Some dice pool fluctuations and rolls for narration control is about it. "Board games" (and CCGs and miniatures games), conversely, are know for having a good bit of handling techniques and rules. (Learn about these terms and more of The Big Model in Articles, above.)

Frankly, I thought it was down-right trippy to see TWO games pop up on the same day, BOTH with the "three players play one character" model, yet each with a totally different take on what Agendas they want to use to explore that Situation/Setting. It's GNS/The Big Model right in our faces. :-)

No matter what: Make Your Game. I'm not trying to be a player-hater... er, a designer-hater, that is.
David

As I replied to Ron, no harm done. I just think that there are many differences and I think they should be noted. Cross-pollenation is optional and suggested, and I'm not averse to it. I just want to note my game is pretty close to Polaris(in my mind) on how the character is played, instead of the world though it is the character itself.

I meant, what "Handling" means, not what in my game is of-Handling :)

What I certainly like about TUF is that like my game I feel that he also has a "Constant Conflict" mood going on, but I'm a bit worried about the roles of the two "Dormant" personnas, it will drive them into constant conflict with the "Active Personna" however.

Hello,

Terms clarification: Handling Time

Glossary:

Handling Time
The real time required to process, calculate, and interpret a resolution Technique once its procedures have been applied. See also Search Time.

Search Time
The real time required to determine necessary values or information prior to applying a resolution Technique. See also Handling Time.

Yes :)

I believe my Handling Time is the same as that of InSpectres, it's just that there's a bit more Handling steps to go through, once you go through the actual Conflict, or if no one tries to wrest control from you, it's all easy peasy.
Thanks for the clarification.

While I'm unsure how Apocalypse Girl relates to CR, or at least how to put it into words, it certainly does ferment in my mind. That was a good read, that was a great read.

I feel one thing about AG and CR though, the text is short, mostly system only in this "Alpha" stage. But really, it doesn't need more. Anything more that you add is a bonus. Just like most games can be distilled back to their Beta version, anything more is bennies.

And aha! I do sense where our games meet. He is the Illuminati! card game to my Munchkin card game, what with the turns and resources. It also operates on a heavy resource management from an OOC position. I like it a lot :)

Heck, I like Scene-framing, and I like Gamism(especially resource mini-games). I decided to combine both in order to keep the action rolling and furious. I keep returning back to IIEE and decided that going against my desires will only result in a weaker game. So what if I'm stealing liberally? I'm only taking the good bits :)

Scene Framing:

25/03/06
//Fuck, need this to be aggressive, need scenes to be switching like mad, need that a story such as a Guy Ritchie film could be told in an evening, max two. Also, had thoughts on how to turn this into another Resource Management mini-game, need to include zooming in shit and such, but to limit how often it is done in order to keep the dice on the table, to keep the Aspects fluctuating, end-game nearing and once more getting further away.//

Each player begins each session with 3 Tokens, the Enlightened begins with 5 Tokens. Each player has Tokens in a different colour, this is vital. Tokens cannot be hoarded between sessions, use them or lose them.
Scene-setting goes in a clockwise direction, beginning with the Enlightened. The Enlightened can set the scene, tell a short story that may or may not deal directly with the characters or Aspects, yet. Each player can only set the scene for his Rat or Dirt Character, and it should follow one of his goals(not necessarily that of the Aspect he controls).
No character may have two scenes run in a row.
In order to run a scene for a character for whom you play Water you need to give the Enlightened one of your Tokens.
In order to set another player's scene you need to give him one of your Tokens. He need not accept your offer. This includes the Enlightened.
When a Goal is resolved and you have no remaining goals, you may set a new one for free.
When you wish to set a new Goal you must give the Enlightened one of your Tokens. This must accompany something that happened in-game.
You may give the Enlightened one of your Tokens in order to gain +1 dice in a current Task or Bid.
When you get one of your own Tokens back it is removed from the game.
In order to “Zoom in” and move from Conflict Resolution two Tokens must be given to the Enlightened, though they may be spent by more than one Aspect. Only once per “Round”(Round begins with Enlightened setting scene and ends with the last player setting scene) may a Zoom-In occur.

The Beta, aside from an updated Play Example, ToC, Bibliography and Character sheet is ready.
Head over here to grab a copy. 25 downloads an hour, the rest will have to go to the yahoogroups linked to there, unless someone wants to host it. Please note that I'll probably take the file down in seven days and head into a more closed-format playtesting.

Cheers! And please tell me what you think :)

Interesting. The players vie for control of the characters. In the end the characters are the victory conditions rather than anything they do in the game. I could control all three characters in your example by having them do different things (like working to cross purposes with one of the other characters).

I think this would be interesting academically. I think I'd have a hard time convincing my gaming friends to try it, but that just means they aren't adventuresome in their gaming.

I'll be watching for your actual play posts. Especially reactions you get at game conventions. See what an RPGA D+D player makes of it. I think they will rebel at the thought of not controlling "their character" but I could be surprised.

Chris Engle

Alas, I have fear of crowds, dunno if I could con it, my home-group isn't mature(or OLD) enough for it.
And yes, the "Win" in this game is 1) Shared, by way of creating a good story. 2) Personal, by how your Aspect does.
You control your "Character", your Aspect. In this way the character in the text is the DnD Group, no one players dominates.

Don't sell yourself short on running your game in public. A con game public is only four to eight people. These people self select so they will come in being open to indie game ideas.

From a personal growth perspective I feel I've personally gained by running at cons. I've made good friends this way and grown more confident in general. Over all it's a pretty safe way to learn these things.

Chris Engle

Maybe in the future.
Also, only 3-4 people considering my game. Could be up to Nth, but it isn't as good.

Game text had been revised, it's available at the same place.
Thanks for Eric Bennett and my friend Andrew for their various commentary and questions, which helped me fill holes that exist due to other people not being mind-readers!
Change log can be found here.

Hey there everyone. This post is my cold read response to Cranium Rats, combined with a bit of chat with the author because, to quote him, "nobody else can read his mind."

Above and beyond anything else, the thing that jumps out at me about Rats is what I can do with it. By placing the players into the heads of several characters, but  having them all play the conflicting drives and desires of one character at a time an area of storytelling is opened up that I really don't think has been available before. (I may be very, very wrong. I am a non-omniscient being.)

The first thing that leapt to my mind when reading this was, of course, Lovecraft. And unlike most games that get the "could this game Lovecraft" treatment, this one held up. Why? Because Cranium Rats can tell the story of an individual. The limitation on games is usually that they need to be focused on groups of characters to maintain interest. Dividing one character up amongst many provides that same group investment, but with the added bonus of only havine one "pawn" in the world of the game.

The fact that the players will be playing different roles in the heads of three different characters at the same time, however, is what makes this possibilty really shine. Just think of the tales you can tell. Off the top of my head...

Lovecraftian: One character is the Doomed Nephew, the other the Unfortunate Doctor, and the third the Insane Madman.

Zombies!: Inside the heads of three survivors. Can they keep it together long enough to live through the hell of the undead, alone?

Metal Gear Solid: One character is the infiltrating agent, the others are enemies with their own agendas and investment from the players.

I don't know how well the mechanics would work. That is what playtesting is for. But I will say this: I am an incredible, sweaty fanboy of Cranium Rats from this point forward for the ideas that it sparks off, and the avenues that it opens. Good show, mate. Good show.

-Eric Bennett

Most of the changes from Beta 1.0 to Beta Revised 1.1 were brought on by talks with Eric and Andrew, both of whom agreed for me to post our Logs here. I'm cleaning them up a bit so it'd make more sense and be less divergant. Hopefully it'd help clear things up and give off my vibe beyond the dry game-text.

Talked with Andrew as he read the book. He ran by me each and every thing he found, this is invaluable. To have each niggling bit ran by you, rather than only what is remembered by the end. Also tells you what needs clarification and coverage earlier.
[QUOTE=Andrew Chat 1]

Guy: Me updated game to make some things clearer and to fix a couple of omissions, me want you to type your comments.
Andrew: I didn't finish reading, I'm on page 9. A major problem I see is finding 4 people with enough quality storytelling ability to roleplay it ;)
Guy: Well, that means you didn't even get to mechanics!
Guy: Well, you can train them into it by playing other Indie games, assume you have such a group.
Andrew: Your writing is a trip to read, btw. I understood everything but Legend of the Moon. ;)
Guy: Define "A trip to read"?
Andrew: Yes, it's very abstract.
Guy: I said, "Define" what you meant :P
Guy: I want to know what you meant when you said that line.
Andrew: trip, acid trip = abstract
Andrew: I like everything up to the mechanics.
Guy: Re-download the file, it's been updated a bit.
Andrew: new link to new material?
Guy: I'll link you now.
Andrew: hoppy-shops = hobby shops
Guy: Heh, thanks :)
Andrew: So if Dirt is 4 and Rat is 5, and there's a contested physical action and Dirt rolls 4 successes and Rat rolls 5 success, Dirt actually has 16 successes?
Andrew: "Zoom in"?
Guy: No, 4 Dirt and 4 Successes, the multiplier is 1, so 4*1=4 successes.
Guy: And that's my anti-Death-spiral mechanic.
Guy: The lower you go, the higher a chance you have for this occuring.
Andrew: Yeah, I notice it.
Guy: The higher you go the more Dice you have in your Die Reservoir, need to give the small guys some way to counteract it.
Guy: At 1 you're too small to really fight back. And it causes mechanical wonkiness :D
Andrew: Maybe at 1 you just reroll every time you get a success?
Guy: Hmmm, at 1 you're no longer really a balancing factor, there are two big Aspects who will duke it out, one may help you in order to impede the other. I will consider your idea though.
Andrew: *nods* Another possibility would be that a 1 can save dice from scene to scene, so that he or she may not act for a while and then throw a curve ball in there eventually.
Guy: Hmm, or he gets to add Dice, every time he succeeds he keeps the dice, till he fails and it resets.
Andrew: *nods*
Guy: Note though that need some seperation between real-world tests and bidding tests.
Andrew: Have you ever considered using 4 characters and shifting the role of enlightened as well as the aspects?
Guy: Yes. Want to know why I shy away from it?
Andrew: Sure. Also there is a problem with a rule balancing
Andrew: Why spend 2 dice to give a person another die when they are bidding, instead of stealing one die from their opponent?
Guy: The Triangle is an instable form, even on a social format, that's why I use a triangular relation system. I want the game to happen, to occur, when competition increases you need someone to be impartial, need the game to use a square, with one set point, to have it work on the real world level.
Guy: If you're stealing then you're participating, adding is for those on the sidelines.
Andrew: Sidelines can't steal?
Guy: You have no dice pool. What use will stealing give you? You don't steal to the Reservoir, but to the pool.
Andrew: It adds one to you reservoir. page 12.
Guy: Right.
Andrew: So, on the sidelines you should steal not add to better yourself.
Guy: 1, you can also steal Dice that are being bidded, to a minimum of 1, limiting how much you can steal.
Guy: Assume we have Rat 4, Dirt 4, Water 8.
Guy: If we're having Rat Vs. Water then Dirt will better help Rat, because they need to stop Water.
Guy: Stealing from Water is less likely to help.
Guy: You want to help Rat.
Andrew: Why? If they're both 2 for 1. I'd better myself.
Guy: You don't better yourself. But you're right, I did think of it, need to rework it. You're paying 2 and gaining 1, end result is still better, you're right.
Andrew: Why not remove the stealing and instead allow tokens to let you steal?
Guy: Maybe helping is 2 for 1 or 3 for 2. Hmm. Token+Die, spend 1 Die, give the person you steal from 1 Token, steal?
Andrew: I was thinking about spending a token to subtract one die from their pool and add it to your resevoir.
Guy: I know.
Andrew: You could give 2 dice from your res to add 1 to their pool, or spend 1 token to add one die to your pool (used when making a non-bidding action.)
Guy: Note you can also help at the rate of 1 Token per die, once again we're left with no reason to help(aside from in real world situations).
Andrew: *nods* If the character dies does all three aspects lose?
[06:50] Guy: Well, a character dies by reaching any Trait at 0. Which can't happen so long as not all Aspects are at 1. In which case Trait going to 0 results in Aspect 0. And game end.
Andrew: Hrm.
Guy: I did say I'm throwing Simulationism(real world) out, it's all about the mini-games and the narrative.
Andrew: So what if the PC gets shot? He survives and wakes up in the hospital?
Guy: Does it make sense though? Steal being Token+1 die?
Andrew: Yes
Guy: Narration is by the people. He gets shot at, dives and hits his head, he gets shot at the leg....
Andrew: What if someone narrates his death (the enlighted, let's say). Or an aspect who is about to lose, anyways.
Guy: That's going against the game fun. There is no such option.
Andrew: So to keep the others from winning, he kills the character.
Guy: We're assuming people aren't jerks. But I'll also add this in later on.
Andrew: Big assumption, because someone can threaten to kill the character if he wins narration rights and forces the other two to use up most of their res, so that he can undercut them later ;P
Guy: I'll add it in. Besides, this game requires maturity, as you can see from how it does things.
Andrew: *nods* It's underhanded, but you seem to imply that people should play for the win.
Guy: Besides, the Resources are of limited time, so they give them up, then they have more. Not at the expanse of player fun.
Guy: Also, note the interesting Token minigame, if you're stealing from someone and you're giving him one of his own Tokens, he doesn't really get a Token, you give him someone else's, he has another Token, you give him one of yours, he can later return it to you...
Andrew: oh btw, no comma before yet at the bottom of page 13
Guy: Ah, it's there on purpose. Like saying, "It's like this, unless you want it different!"
Andrew: It is grammatically incorrect.
Guy: I'm not bothered by it right now. :)
Andrew: Do me a favor define things before you talk about them. What is an unclaimed region?
Guy: You have the Aspects, Dots not claimed by any are put in the "Unclaimed Region", unclaimed but not lost.
Andrew: ok, 15 starting dots? 5 for everyone? or was it 16?
Andrew: I'm unsure.
Guy: You begin with 5 for everyone, and immediately afterwards a bidding for the 16th dot begins. Only those on the road to enlightenment have the 16th dot, which pushes things out of balance.
Andrew: at the top of 15
Andrew: These games seem like they can go for a long time.
Guy: Look at Glossary on Aspects.
Guy: Yes, they can, note that Zoom-in will cause things to move much faster.,
Guy: Since suddenly you have multiple rolls per scene.
Andrew: I would perfer you rename Zoom-in. It's confusing. I'd even go as far as to call it, "Action."
Guy: I know, didn't have anything else on my mind at the time.
Andrew: Spend a token, take Action. kinda like in shooting a film.
Guy: We can also call it "Mess it up" like in Guy Ritchie films, where things go down in a basket.
Andrew: or "Roll". though that may be confusing with dice.
Guy: Initiate rock and roll ;)
Guy: See, that's what you're here for, to make me understand it's unclear there's this 16th dot going on, and shit.
Andrew: Yeah, its a cool feature. While your brevity is nice, it also harms you because things aren't clear. (in some instances)
Andrew: Might I also suggest you number each group of rules (1,2,3 etc.) and each bullet gets replaced with a letter. Then you could refer to rule 2a or rule 5b
Guy: Or "Third bullet in group 3". I'll organize it later, while I'll add the char sheet, bibliography and a new example of play.
Andrew: 3c is quicker to say
Andrew: Why would the enlightened spend tokens?
Andrew: You say you give tokens to the Enlightened. You say they're removed if he spends them. Why would he?
Guy: The Enlightened is also a player, if he doesn't use his Tokens, they're useless, they erase at every game session. Read the part where Tokens get refreshed each session. If he wants to gain more control over the story then he has to spend Tokens, if he thinks a player is doing something cool and wants to see them succeed, he can help, or help the opposition, he can create Goals for Aspects, etc.
Andrew: If he is a player, then he is not neutral. You lose your triangle.
Guy: No. He's a player of a game. He doesn't play an Aspect, he's neutral to the Aspect. He is a player as in a participant of the story being created. If he thinks something would help the story, he should help it happen.
Guy: He's not just sitting there, dammit.
Andrew: *nods* I dunno.
Guy: I dunno what?
Andrew: About the Enlightened.
Andrew: The Magician thing is interesting. You know what might be a cool twist?
Andrew: Magicians enter a dreamstate where they have those powers-- basically, while enlightened they live in a waking dream that they control. Perhaps they get knocked into a coma when they get enlightened, only to wake up when they fall out of balance again.
Guy: Note the section about Endgame, where it doesn't say what Enlightenment is, it's a solipsist game, they're only halfway there, but they CHOOSE to stay behind, they choose to not be enlightened. Like in Masters of the Art, once they reach High Arete they get trapped in power politics and lose sight of ascension.
Andrew: I have another idea. When someone becomes a Magician, that is when the Enlightened learns that the aspects exist. The GM (the Enlightened) now can bid like the players. He always will have a 5 for his trait. If the Magician slips out of his state, he automatically lose 1 trait. Now the Enlightened can only go down (to 0), if someone takes a dot from him then the non-prominent (bidding occurs if the prominent takes the dot between the other two aspects) aspect that did not gain a dot loses one. (Thus eventually perserving the 16 as the Enlightened's score drops to 0)
Guy: You're really not familiar with Indy games, sure you can modify them, they give themselves to modification, however, what is in them, is there to engender a certain feel. They're very modifiable in order to be able to get your feel, but they come with a feel packaged.
Guy: Dude, most games won't have Magicians. For a Magician to exist, you must have a tie on the beginning roll of the game. Which is rare in itself.
Andrew: Indeed.
Guy: The Enlightened was like a PC before, and is now Enlightened, of course he knows of the Aspects, that's what being Enlightened means. Read "Legends of the World" again. Also, that makes The Enlightened competitive.
Andrew: So he learns the Legends when he knows that?
Guy: It stops being the same game, at all.
Guy: Read the Legend, it means what it says.
Andrew: Yes, it does. The game is thrown into disarray-- it becomes chaotic.
Guy: That is not my goal. The reason the game has a fourth person is to maintain game-order, out of game-order. What you suggest is fine, so long you're aware it's another game.
Andrew: *nods* The state of enlightenment is balance, is it not? A fourth corner could instigate instability, though-- it would be a scene. The magician now has three voices in his head he not only listens to, but bargains with. The enlightened would be a represenation of the external character looking inward and through that and that which is drescribed in the Legends he has such powers. (I'm just throwing this out here in hopes there might be some decent ideas)
Guy: Hm. The Enlightened is beyond balance. He's One. He's None. He may have Ascended to Nirvana, out of the lie called Reality, he may have become part of reality, he may have taken the following path, which is essentially what the "GM" did, he become "God", or a god, he starts dictating facts in the lie, he may have got the Solipsist enlightenment, he figured only he exists, and now exists(?) alone, or figured everything else is a figment of his imagination, which he's now fabricating. How does the world handle multiple Enlightenments is also unclear. It depends on the Character's Cosmology, the Water Aspect and anything else.
Andrew: *nods*
Guy: I'm giving you bits, contradictory bits, and let you design your cosmology, and the players design theirs, and the characters'...

The second discussion, having been held with our very own Eric Bennett. While the discussion with Andrew was more about rules and ambiguity the discussion with Eric showcases the game's feel, intended feel and how someone else may use it.

Chat wrote:
Eric: Ah, yes. Well, on a superficial level (to start off), where did you get the Rat/Dirt/Water trio from? I understand what they represent, and think they do so in a very intuitive way, but I'm curious why you picked 'em. :-)
Guy: Well, Mud and Rat came from the Ronnies, as you can see from the general design log, then I added Water, I then thought. Shit, isn't Mud basically Dirt+Water? And thus we got Dirt. Mud and Rat came from us being made from "clay" and the Rat burrowing in. Rats also come in part from Pratchett, where I have the image of rats as infective emotions.
Eric: Ahh, I see. I asked because they seemed to represent terms that could have easily been spoken of with plainer words, and the choice of them seemed to "load" things in a way that made the idea interestng.
Guy: I like loaded things.
Guy: If you'd have read my LJ you'd have seen how I use symbology and words like that.
Eric: Ah, yes. Reading your actual play, where the players propose the way they would drive the character to act in the situation mixed with a bit of Resident Evil: Outbreak I was playing yesterday to bring about this idea/question: Running the game in such a way that the same situation is played through (wether simply through ooc fiat or through some in-setting mechanism) but with each player rotating their position on the Rat/Dirt/Water triangle? The line..Michael: I have Paul do nothing, considering he's the type who sits in the background and
does nothing. I think the best thing would be for him to stand in the background, not
attracting attention.
Guy: I could have him run away out of fear, but fuck that shit, Daphne is here, this is my
chance, this is my day. I'm going to have him jump over Grizzly bear and take his gun
away!
Anyway, the question is about setting up the game to do that. I'm still digesting the game a bit, but from what I think I grasp of it the game would be really cool framed like that to explore the players, rather than the character in question. I'm not really sure if that makes a good question or not, but I think if I can gather my playtest slaves for such a thing, that it would be an excellent evening's gaming. ^_^;; Sorry for the vague nature there.
Guy: It's possible, but it's not necessary. You don't need to see each player's views on each situation through each Aspect, especially as players after the first are influenced by what the first set did. You have three Characters, the three players play all three Aspects, a different one for each character, so you can see how they act for the Aspect in the appropriate character!
Eric: *checks the pdf* Ah, is this a new idea? Because I like it, and it does seem to move away from risking that the second set of Aspects will act like the first.
Guy: Besides, if you want to create sympathy and care between Aspect and Player, you need to keep them coupled, if you had switching chairs on Settlers of Cattan no one would care about winning as much.
Guy: No, it's always been there. I don't know how, but people keep thinking there is only one character and three aspects.
Eric: *grins* Which page is it on?
Guy: Hmm, it's not specificied directly.... I'll make it clearer, but look here: (Link: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19160.msg201025#msg201025)http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19160.msg201025#msg201025. :: edits the portion about Character Generation to make it clear...::
Eric: Oh, cool. Yeah, that didn't seem to come out in the rules.
Guy: Does this make the game seem actually cooler?
Eric: Yes. Sorting the players out different ways for different characters, in the same game (not, for example, like running different shows altogether in PTA or something)...that feels much more, well I'm not sure "punchy" is the right word for it, but it makes the game more appealing, yes. *shrugs* Gut reaction and all that.  (Ah, I think I utterly glossed over the scene setting section, where it makes the multiple characters thing pretty explicit)
Guy: What did you think/make of The Legends. Anyway, edited the file to make it all that clearer.
Eric: The Fall had a cool take on the old myth, the World doesn't have as much "hey, that is a neat take on things" as the Fall or the Child, though it does bring to mind this semi-creepy imagery of somebody reading a flyer or somesuch when they start hearing these voices talking to them and each other in his head. I'm not sure if that is what you intended, but it has that kind of surreal quality to it, when run through my mental filters.
Guy: And The Moon?
Eric: The Child is just great. I think its the best of the three in terms of making things clear about how things might be played out, as well as just being plain creepy. As for the Moon.
Guy: The Play Example also shows at the end that there are multiple PCs.
Eric: Looked at one way, it feels a bit weaker than the other three, but looked at another way (the drive to survive urging people out of desperate situations and into the unknown) it makes me want to play Lovecraft with it.
Guy: Legends of the Child's last two lines are Anansi Boys influenced for the simpletons, or merely folk-tale influenced for those who know more.
Guy: Ah, it also shows you the relation between Rat and Water, and that things aren't as they seem. Rat is instinct, but look where it gets you afar from shore ;). And yes, the light and ocean of darkness give certain Lovecraft vibes.
Eric: *nods* Gotcha. I think I am going to be, depending on who I playtest this with, running a "folks who get eaten by the Mythos" thing, where two characters are different investigators and the third is the Horrible Cultist, or...zombies.
Guy: Consider this, for I did. You can have one Character be a soldier in WW2, a second being his grandson, a security guard in a mall, and the third being a random who knows. The thing is, all three characters should cross-paths, if not go along.
You can even have one character be a Hyrborean Conan, the second being the "Author" writing him, the third being the author's successful cousin. That'd give your players a shake-through about the nature of Reality.Combine that set-up with The World and watch their eyes light up ;)
Eric: Might I suggest that you highlight the possiblity of taking that sort of angle? Little sidebars or something with different takes on how to distribute the three characters?
Guy: I will, after writing influences/Play Examples, as this sort of things belong there.
Eric: I think one of the best things Cranium Rats has going for it, by the way, is that it opens up a kind of story you don't often get to tell in a group setting. That being, all those ones which tend to focus on "first person" style tales.
Guy: I added Repeat the above for each Character. You have one Rat, Water and Dirt per player, each Character has all three Aspects.
For example: 
Players are P1, P2, P3.
Characters are C1, C2, C3, each has (W)ater, (R)at and (D)irt.
P1 is W, C1; R, C2; D, C3.
P2 is W, C2; R, C3; D, C1.
P3 is W, C3; R, C1; D, C2.
An Aspect belongs to one player.
To the end of the Character Generation section.
Guy: What about the Gamist fun? :P I want people to get a Munchkin or Settlers of Cattan feel! I want them going for the other players' throats!
Eric: *hasn't played Settlers, but has heard much of it* If you want them going for each others throats...well, I will be doing it by playing up the madness angle for the Lovecraft and zombies thing. Conflicting urges and all that. Oh! And I have nowhere near anyone who would play such a game, but I can also see a very amusing "Day in the Life of a High School Student" thing. Two characters are students from different cliques, the third is a teacher...
Eric: *grins* I suppose an excellent compliment on the work is that it fuels such a variety of stories...hell, Indigo Prophecy would fit in there rather decently, on the Lovecraft angle.
Guy: Well, I want players going at throats, not characters. Look at how I set it up, there's a finite pool of Aspect Dots, you can only go up by taking others' dice, you're bidding them for narration, all resources...
Eric: *nods* Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I meant, the drives within one character conflicting over what to do with their Knowledge Not Meant To Be Known, sort of thing. Inner turmoil, you know what I mean?
Eric: *ponders how to work Enlightenment into a zombie game* Mayhap call it Escape. Fate doesn't let you out of <insert zombie apocalypse location here> unless you manage to be a decent person.
Guy: I didn't define Enlightenment over. Combined with the meaning of Solipsism that I didn't cover, it leaves much space for thoughts in.
Eric: Do you mean that Enlightenment shouldn't be defined by the game, or that it should only defined when it is reached?
Guy: It should be defined when it reached, by the Water player. Read "Game End" again. You can give them your Cosmology HINTS, don't say "This is So!", there's a reason I call it "Legends of" and put contradictory little bits in. They decide what it is, not you.
Eric: *nods* I was waffling between reading that as "decide when you get there" or "decide based on the character".
Guy: By the way, if you want to know what kind of person can come up with Cranium Rats, then the answer is as follows: Someone whose inner mind works something like this, and whom the Gamist feel exists between himself and his siblings.
Eric: Aha! Sibilings...now there would be a great party game angle...
Guy: Except it's a bit tough, as they cross-over all the time, unless you have them meet say, three times a day, during lunches. Sister A gets mugged, tells older brother during dinner.
Eric: Get four people together, they do each other up as characters (with the Englightened being whoever the character being played in based on) and game with that. It would need some modification, to tell the truth.
Guy: Older brother goes out and beats muggers. Younger brothers sees this and decides to run away, sure he's next!(Such a rat thought...)
Guy: Also, I suggest The Enlightened is kept as the same person!
Eric: I know, which is why that would be very difficult/impossible to do, but I was just saying the thought occured.
Guy: If things become too competitive you can't trust others to be neutral. Triangle is unstable, The Enlightened forms an OOC Square, a more stable form. Well, be careful, not having a permanent Enlightened, especially with controlling your other friends, and acting as if you know what drives them, will surely end badly.
Eric: *chuckles* As all party games do. Which is why you play Roach, where it should end in a horrible fate for all mankind. I'll probably only be able to get to do the Lovecraft/zombies angles, considering who I have access to for players.
Guy: I mean end badly OOCly.
Eric: I know what you meant. I've had that kind of experience with just about every such game I've tried to play with folks in the hall.
Guy: How would your friend act if you have his person rape someone in-game, if you describe him as weak-willed, or whatever?
Eric: I don't know. I don't have te kinds of friends I could do that with...though to be honest none of them would pull something like that in the first place. Consider my suggesting retracted, in light of my forgetting how awful people can be to each other at the table.
Guy: You control the WHY he does why he does, that's even more powerful than WHAT. You can say he slept with a total ho, sure, but saying he did it because he wants to hurt women? Now that's much more powerful. If you do it with an imagined character, that's damn powerful, DitV level, if you do it with your friend, it's like you punched him in the teeth.
Eric: *nods* Actually, that angle reminds me quite a bit of Sailor Nothing. Have you ever read it? Its one of the best web-based pieces of fiction I've read in a good while. It is a take on the magical girl genre, using most of the same tropes, but what the author does with it, how they explain the obligatory invading empire, how the protagonists powers function, and how truly fucked up the characters are make it rather powerful. I've got a link hereabouts...
Eric: (Link: http://www.pixelscapes.com/sailornothing/)http://www.pixelscapes.com/sailornothing/ The reason it reminds me of that is due to the multiple character angle, and the focus on what goes on inside the characters' heads. That, and because both are very cool.
Eric: *nods* I know what you mean. But...I think there really is a big difference between thinking the game is about three people playing one character, rather than three. Three characters opens up a beautiful can of possibilties for storytelling.
Guy: Ooooh, shit, forgot one piece completely out of the beta-text, the mechanical effects of having different Aspect ratios.
In the alpha unedited format: -/+# refers to Dice at Dice Pool.
If Water>Dirt then Rat+1 when Defending, -1 when Attacking(Initiating).
If Dirt>Water then Rat-1 when Defending, +1 when Attacking.
If Rat+Dirt>Water*2 then +1 to Initiator.
If Water>Rat+Dirt then -1 to Initiator.
If Rat>Dirt then +1 Social, -1 Mental.
If Dirt>Rat then -1 Social, +1 Mental.
This will help make things less static, and cause alliances now and then to bring about/stop some of these.
Eric: Nice. By Aspect Relations, do you mean you pyramid thing?
Guy: Yes, the pyramid and especially what follows.
Eric: (Oh, random commentary: Having the Physical/Social/Mental be based on pairs from Rat/Water/Dirt is good. I like the way it shakes things up in terms of the Aspect meanings.)
Guy: Like in the Token bits? It'll be even cooler once you see the Hexagrams this results in on the sheet ;) I'm nothing if not about sending loaded-messages.
Eric: I'm not sure how "hard" I would say it hits me...its more of a thing that I absorbed while reading and then brewed for a while. The bits like "Water is Meltdown" have implied but undefined meaning. They invite the reader to fill it in...and I like it.
Guy: How do you like the Rats bit?
Eric: Hmm...I like the Rat bit in that you see the Rat both as a primal drive and as a force of intelligence compared to Dirt and Water (inanimate elements). Or, more correctly, I see the Rat that way.
Guy: Dirt is also a force of intelligence.
Eric: Yeah, Rat isn't the only part that makes it up, but in terms of the rat alone the instinct/intelligence in one Aspect is interesting. I think the only line in that section I don't "get" is the Dirt is Drone part.
Guy: Dirt is mind, intellect. If Dirt is maxed, you're acting by pure thought, with no emotion; you don't care. The aspect relations also put down in mechanical terms the "Rat goes up....." and such.
Eric: Oh! Drone as opposed to emotion. Drone to me speaks more along the lines of "mindless drone", though on further reflection they would usually only be "mindless" because they display no emotions. Awesomeness.
Guy: Also note how The World breaks the "World", it breaks the fourth wall.