It's a simple nar game designed around fairy tales.

1. What is your game about?

fairy tales and the themes and elements common to them, especially Grimm's

2. What do the characters do?

The characters pursue their own agendas, ussually easuly summed up as 'good' or 'bad' in a manner indicated by a brief description of their character or the common archetype they portray

3. What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

The players attempt to portray their own characters, as well as a pool of communal, lesser characters, in an interesting and appropriate manner, and enforce this behavior in other players through a group veto system. There is no Gm, but could be in groups that tend to get bogged down in vetos.

4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

There is no definate setting, allowing the players to explore whatever themes they wish in whatever manner seems appropriate. Traditional settings (quiet villages, mysterious woods, and the sort) are most obvious, though others may be interesting.

5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Characters aren't restricted to people or people-like things. Anything that is likely to play a role may be generated as a 'character' of one kind or another. Attributes reflect the ideas and concepts central to a character, rather than what a character is capable of. Players do not necesarily play the characters they creat, reducing the chance for power-playing, which could otherwise interfere.

6. What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

The game rewards creative storytelling by allowing the player to include more attributes if he is able to create an interesting and appropriate enough narration that includes those concepts. The game discourages poor narration by allowing the group to veto anything particularly bad.

7. How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

Including more concepts through good narration allows a player to roll more dice. Rolling lots of dice can be a reward unto itself for some, but it will also make success more likely, which give the player more narration rights. Porr narration is discouraged by the group through veto, which can decreas the number of attributes used, hence dice rolled, hence chance for narration rights.

8. How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

All players narrate atempts and goals of the characters the own and the lesser communal characters they control, as well as the results of the contests those characters win, as they wish. Innapropriate or incredible narration may be vetoed by the the group.

9. What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

The players should be able to create an interesting enough plot to keep everyone awake. Actual involvement is encouraged through distribution of narration rights (you can't narrate anything if you don't try to get involved).

10. What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

For all contests (any event where two characters are opposed to one another), the total of all the attributes involved determines the number (six sided?) dice rolled. High roll wins, ties determined by next highest, and so on.

11. How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

All attributes (the only crunchy bits to a character) are based around concepts and themes key to that character. Group veto prevents one player from overwhelming the game through GM fiat or innapropriate narration.

12. Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Bad characters begin with more points to spend on attributes, but their highest attributes decrease as they win contests.

13. How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Attributes fluctuate to allow the negative themes inherent to bad characters to interfere with other characters in the beginning, but to encourage positive attributes associated with good characters to play a more major role in the climax. This will ussually cause games to end with with good character X winning because he was very positive attribute Y, which is appropriate as most popular Western fairy tales double as morality stories and almost always have happy endings (for the good characters, at least).

14. What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

I would like for the players to leave the table feeling creative and satisfied with the story that was created through their input.

15. What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

Most of the attention will go to the minor rules common to fairy tales (things happening in threes and sevens, normally negative things associated with good characters always work out for the best, always a second chance for good characters, never one for bad ones, and so on)

16. Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

the reinforcement of common themes through manipulation of probility rather than set rules, allowing games to leave these themes when appropriate

17. Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

The game industry at large seems to have left fairy tales alone as a genre, excluding some attempts to put fairy tale thems and ideas into modern (ussually heroic) fantasy. I also don't tend to see a lot of narration games that attempt to work within the same type of framework (most seem to be a lot more open or restrict what can be done, not what is likely to happen within the genre). Despite a few recent games appropriate for children, there is also a lack of games for families.

18. What are your publishing goals for your game?

I would like to publish a book and maybe a .pdf with high quality layout and pictures. People like games with pretty pictures.

19. Who is your target audience?

families and anyone with a literary or anthropological interest in fairy tales

Apologies, forgot to add:

What feedback am I looking for?

Does everyone get what I'm talking about with the unwritten rules of the genre being enforced through probability? Does this seem like a thing that will work?

Do tradition, unmodified fairy tales interest anyone? Too traditional? Too overused? Too childish?

Would those of you with families concider playing such a game with your family, assuming i'm able to write it to be understood by children and enjoyed by adults? I'm primarily looking to older Disney movies for my inspiration on this point.

Hi Jake,

Nice pitch! In the past I had a game that played in this very style and we faced a problem soon: What is tying the players together and prevents them from drifting in their own personal stories? In light of this, I had players leave my game a while ago because others didn't have any interest in the other players' characters, and spoke only to the GM.

How will your game deal with this issue of "player self-isolation", which seems a risk given the premise?

Erick

Thanks for the heads up, Erick. A little cleaning up on the way a challenge is started should handle that, methinks.

Anytime a player gives a narration that is acceptable (not going to be vetoed), but is contrary to another character's agenda (even a non-main character that doesn't yet exist), the two characters are in contest. This means that any player can sort of pull any stary plot lines together, sort of created two connected plot lines. An example of this would be Snow White and Rose Red. The bear's player wanted to address removing his curse, so we have the bear and the dwarf directly involved. Snow White and Rose Red's player (I'd probably consider them one character for game purposes since they don't ever seem to act independantly) wanted to go pick some flowers, a valid character choice, but not very contributive to the story. To tie it together, the dwarf's player decides that the dwarf is going to be mean and crabby and try to ruin Snow and Rose's fun (a kind of oblique contest). Snow and Rose win each time (by using thei innocence and good natur opposed to the dwarf's grumpiness), and each time narrate an connection to the bear's goals, which the bear (as we find out at the end of the story) was fulfilling simutaniously, in a way vaguely connected to, but unseen by Snow and Rose.

Even without that, since there is no GM and challenges can only occur with other characters, if you're off doing something just completely outside of what the group is doing in such a severe way that you can't be connected to the rest of the game by the method suggested above (I can't really see this happening outside of a purposely destructive player), you've essentially stopped playing, no different than if you left the table. If you really don't want to play the game that the rest of the group is playing so badly that you'd set yourself away from it to such an extreme degree, then I guess you'd get what you wanted by being outside the game.

Hi Jake,

There are some things I'm not understanding. *grins* Like your first feedback question. I don't understand what you mean by the unwritten rules of the genre being reinforced through probability. What are the unwritten rules? How do vetoes work? Can one player veto another or does it require a group majority? When do vetoes happen? If you don't have a gamemaster, who can set scenes and when?

From your present answers I'm not seeing alot of the structure that GM-less games typically have to make up for the fact there isn't a GM. It seems to me that right now you have a freestyle structure where you are expecting the judicious use of vetoes, and the cultural learning of a freestyle player to make up the structure. Is this somewhat correct or is it just my ignorance of your design at this point? That's alot of questions, so I'll stop.

Thank you for your insight, Mr. Roer. These do seem like weak and rather vague areas now that you mention, so I'll try to fix them up a bit.

As far as the probability thing goes, you'll tend to wind up with happy endings because of the way characters progress, but there isn't a rule that says you have to have one. I'm also working a rule that will make the third time a thing happens tend to be the last, but there won't be a rule saying you can't narrate the same thing a fourth time. There a few other tendencies that I may include (I haven't decided yet what is or isn't major enough), but they'll all amount to bonuses or penalties to the appropriate contest rolls or someting of that nature, rather than saying that you can't or must do something, making certain types of results more likely than others. The unwritten rules are things that always seem to happen, but wouldn't really have to. There are three billy goats gruff, Snow White and Rose Red help the Dwarf three times, things that happen multiple times tend to happen in threes, so the third time a particular thing happens, the roll would be weighted in some way to give it some finality. I haven't yet decided quite how that'll work, but it'll probably play into how it's decided whether or not a narration can finalize something. Weighting rolls for a certain result doesn't make it certain that that result will occur, or require the players to narrate a certain way.

Vetoes require a group majority. Setting scenes will be a part of narration rights, but I haven't yet decided what kind of rights a player will need to frame a new scene. I'm thinking about having a degree of success guide what sort of narration is appropriate and it may be tied to that in a way.

Player are free to narrate whatever they like about their characters or any communal characters they're using, probably working around the table or something like that, until what they narrate conflicts with another character's goals. A contest is rolled when that happens, and the winner gets narration rights over the results. The rules assume all of the players are cooperative and have a rough idea of what should or shouldn't be possible and appropriate. The vetoes are just there to be used if a player does something that just doesn't fit, like an alien invasion in the middle of a quiet country village, or the hunter turning into a zombie, or the valiant tailor running faster because he's good at sewing. In an ideal group, vetoes won't happen. The first two might be appropriate in a modernized tale, but I'm assuming traditional settings for examples.

Hi Jack,

I'm not sure I'd call them weak. I think a game can be geared towards a free style game but if the rules are going to matter, who can do what, and when, needs to be ironed out well. Also the unwritten rules of a particular kind of freestyle gaming should be written down. Those last two sentences are really meaningless if you aren't trying to achieve that type of game. So I'm curious, how do you see the game being played?

I'm interested as a game I've put aside had some similar ideas to what it sounds like you are going for. It's goal was partially the telling of stories like Peter Pan, or Alice in Wonderland. It played close to my experiences with freestyle gaming. Here's a link.It's not a finished game, or even the latest version as this version was pre-playtesting, but there might be pieces you might find useful. I'd point especially to page 3 and 4 where I discuss ownership.

I might suggest looking at Universalis, or Mortal Coil to look at some games where players can make rules about what can be included or not included in a games narrative. I hear Prime Time Adventures is good for that also but I don't own it.

I'm curious about the threes rule. It sounds pretty cool to me. Who determines what narrations, are like narrations, for invoking the third narration bonus? Is this general consen us, the third time a character uses the same "trait." That could be interesting if you don't want players working every trait they have on their sheet into every narration.

I'm curious about the timing of the communal characters. How do I know when I'm using it? When can I take control of it? Anytime? What if another player is using the character?

I like that vetoes require consensus. That makes them less likely to be used to stop another players input because another player doesn't want to face a challenge. I'm in danger of running on too much. I will stop again. *grins*

Sorry, I should clarify. The unwritten rules are in the source material, not in the game. Ideally the game would resemble a simple cooperative narritive superficially, but instead of just working from person to person the responsibility of continuing the narration would be based on challanges, which are themselves based on what concepts are associated with the characters involved and how strongly (the attributes).

I don't want standing rules to be created. Starting from the assumption that anything could happen given the correct circumstances feels more in fitting with the source material. Since in a contest the abilities your using have to be a part of the contest, they also have to be part of the narration. This means that when you initiate a contest you want to keep the things your narrating similar to one or more of your abilities. Also, when your narrating outside of a contest you want to keep things similar in case someone else challenges your narration. If you don't, there's a good chance you'll lose the contest and your narration will be overriden by the winner's. I'd want vetos to be used more for discouraging bad narration, or narration that's not fitting to the rest of the story, and to serve as a replacement for GM fiat on determining what attributes are applicible. To expand upon the zombie example in my post above, it's not that it isn't possible for the hunter to become a zombie, it's that it doesn't make sense as part of the story.

The threes rule is one of those unwritten rules. Whenever something happens for a third time in a fairy tale, it seems that it's always the last time, and that it brings some finality to whatever had caused the similar events to occur. Exactly how this works depends on how I limit narration rights gained through a contest, which I haven't decided yet. I'm thinking something to do with degree of success might be appropriate, and in that case winning in a contest with similar narration to something that's already happened twice would give you more narration rights than normal. This would probably rely on the general concensus of the group, if nothing else through no one calling for a vote.

I had thought about discouraging using all of one's abilities every time by putting in an attribute loss whenever your use a lot of them, but how much of a loss, how many abilities you have to use for a loss to be incurred, and how long it lasts (I would think permenant for simplicity's sake, but having them return when you lay off an ability for a while might be appropriate) depends on how abilities are distibuted, something I hadn't decided yet.

Communal characters would probably be used instead of your own character when your narrating. Since only one person can speak at once and be heard, only one player would have a chance to use communal characters. Communal characters would generally be more minor characters (so they'd have fewer attributes, since they're less connected to the story), and so wouldn't be used often.

It seems like the biggest problem right now is that I need to fill in the blank spots in the rules.

Hi Jake.

Have you checked out Hieronymous' Seven Leagues RPG http://malcontent.sourdust.com/7L/?  It sounds like it does pretty much what you're aiming for.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi Jake,

I'm unsure what you mean by the term standing rules. I have a thickness of brain sometimes so bear with me. If you are designing a game you must have some rules, correct? So what do you mean by standing rules?

Also I'd like to try again as I think you believe I'm advocating constriction of narrative via the game design. That's not what I'm doing. If you haven't read the game's I suggested you really should look at them. You can do anything with the first and incredible amounts of things with the second. (Universalis and Mortal Coil) Both of them use rules that allow the players to define the realm of the narrative so that a BS rule, which you are calling vetoes, are not as needed. They still have BS rules but they are much less likely to be needed as they mechanically get the players onto the same page.

Also I think if there is a manner in which you want to see the game played you are much more likely to see it happen if you reinforce the players for playing that way. So I would argue if you want a rule of three's, make the rule of three's mechanically advantageous. You'll find that players will leap all over the place to get their bennies.

Anyway my goal is not to nettle you to death, so I'm not going to go down this area of discussion any longer unless you let me know you would like to continue.

Another area I'm interested in is Bad and Good. It seems to color everything in black and white. Is that how you see the game being played? Do you have a method on how to determine what actions are bad or good, or is badness and goodness something that is separate from the characters actions? Bad characters start out stronger. Can characters die? If so is it kosher for a bad character to come out gunning for good characters in the beginning? That seems to be the ideal strategy for a player that wants to be effective, since they get weaker as the game goes on.

Also if you are looking to Disney studios for inspiration, I'd like to suggest checking out Studio Ghibli's work. They are a Japanese movie company that in my opinion are better than many Disney movies in catching innocence, and are very fairy tale-ish. Disney owns the distribution rights to their films so they always get great dubbing if you don't like subtitles. They have made movies like My Neighbor Totoro (My favorite), Princess Mononoke, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Kiki's Delivery Service, Howls Moving Castle, and a whole bunch more.

So I feel I've deviated a lot from your definitions of the areas you want feedback in. Is my asking a bunch of questions about things I find interesting helpful? You won't hurt my feelings if you tell me to stay on topic.

Ben,

That game looks interesting, but we're going for slightly different ideas mechanically. There's definately room for both games, especially when you consider that he seem to be going for more of a British style, while my source material is mostly German

Clyde,

Sorry, I should clarify. I want the game to address what did and did not happen, but stay away from what can or can not happen. You suggested Unerversalis and Mortal Coil as models for rules on the players deciding what can or can not happen, and I'd rather not do that. A character can only win challenges if he can use attributes, and this should encourage (though not necesarily require) the players to limit narrations to concepts appropriate to that character. Since characters ar created as a group, there should be any concepts within any characters that the group doesn't want to explore.

The rule is mechanically adventagious. It will give some sort of bonus to someone with a mind toward making the thing more final. I'd rather give a player an expanded oppurtunity to make it final than just say "you can't do anything more than three times", though. That's what I mean when I talk about using probability to make certain narrations more likely or appealing, rather than making them required.

Good and Bad will be very black and white, to simulate the source material. Killing characters is one of the things I'm trying to work out. Bad characters die all the time in the source material, but good characters never seem to, even when it would make more sense than what happens instead. The easiest way would be to say that good characters can't die, but that would be a definate restriction, something I want to avoid. Mabe I can work it out when I rework chargen. I had the bad characters staring out with more dice to try to avoid an instant win for the good characters (which would happen far too often if they started with the same number), but had them advance in opposite directions to make happy endings more likely (as in the source material). Maybe I could just say nothing that excludes a character permenantly shoudl be narrated. This would allow for pretty much everything short of killing, so the good characters could get screwed in the beginning (Snow White's sleep, for example) without the game ending (the step mother just killing her). This would prevent the bad characters from dying in the end, but would perhaps encourage more creative punishments (for example, in one version Cinderella's stepsisters are perpetually pecked by birds).

I've seen a lot of Ghibli's stuff, and they are a lot like Disney in that respect. I'm not so much looking there for source material as I am for the little distinctions between family entertainment, children's entertainment that adults can suffer through, and adult entertainment that kids don't need to be excluded from. I'd like to make this something that adults would want to play among themselves, that children would want to play among themselves, and that the two can play together. I'm not sure if that's attainable, but I think I should be able to get close.