Here are my first thoughts (inspired by a game run by a friend of mine) for part of a system in which character creation and world-building occur almost entirely during play, not beforehand. It's an incomplete model that needs to be tacked onto an existing system of task/conflict resolution, and it makes the assumption that each player primarily controls one main character over the course of the campaign, and that there's a GM or designated player who can improvise and fill in the gaps. I'll have a story for the "Actual Play" section at some time this Winter.

The main concept is that all of the player characters suffer from memory loss, and as the characters learn more about themselves and the world around them, the players collaborate in the creation of the facts of the characters' environment, histories, and relationships.

Before play begins, the GM (I'm calling him the GM for simplicity's sake, but he doesn't really have traditional GM-omnipotence) may make a small number of foundation statements about the proto-setting: what genre, cultural flavor, and technology level are prevalent in the area in which the first scene will take place, and perhaps what kind of variation is recommended among player characters. Then each player determines his or her's characters bodily appearance - and nothing else. No history, no knowledge, no possessions.

However, there is an in-game expression of the Social Contract. They all know a common language, and they recognize each other as friends. They may not trust each other completely, but in an otherwise unfamiliar world they have a strong predisposition to do so.

The players decide on facts about the setting as they go. For details about which no player cares much, as well as the details of the first scene and details that get the story moving, there's one person (usually the GM) on whom the burden is placed. When a dispute arises, I'm thinking of using a resource called "memory points" or something that a player can bid or spend to have the final say about something that his or her character has experienced: it represents a recovered memory about which the player character is absolutely certain.

Memory points would be replenished to a set amount at the beginning of each game session. This is to encourage the players that don't speak out as much. If a player were actively rewarded memory points for some kind of participation effect, I'm afraid that it would cause a steamroller/death spiral dynamic in which the introverts are crushed and those who already get involved are unnecessarily given more and more authority.

The end goal is a detailed story that every player is excited about. It's meant to be an alternative to creating character histories and other pregame details that never come to bear in the actual story.

One question on my mind: any suggestions for how details might be "revised" when necessary without destroying the already-challenged sense of a coherent game world?
If you have any other comments or criticism, please let fly.

This sounds like Nomic: The Setting Maker. ;-)

A few points come to my mind:
1) "GM": Why not just let this duty rotate, with each player getting a turn to fill in the minor stuff, instead of a single "GM"?
2) Gaining memory points: I can see your goals for having this be static, but there's also an inherent problem with static "refreshes": they are not a reward, and so the very creativity you seek to instill is unrewarded. Perhaps, instead, you could let voting be something that gains one memory points? Of course, introverts would not get much reward--they aren't engaging, right?--but they would still get something in the vote, if you make the vote something akin to "vote yes to grant 3, vote no to only grant 1". In short, every player voting could grant anywhere from 1 to 3 points; and attentive players could try to draw an introvert out by awarding many points, essentially guaranteeing the introvert a scene.
3) Revising established facts: One part of me says "so what"?  I've been in more than one conversation in which an "authority" asserted something that was later proven to be totally wrong. Likewise, I have "known" someone's motives or actions to be a certain way, only to find that I misinterpreted them and they were, in fact, quite different. So let the game reflect that. Otherwise, you will find the game bogging down in discussions of past facts, rather than pushing forward with new, exciting play. True, this variability of "reality" could make the game seem a bit more dreamlike and perhaps incoherent; but I think in practice you'd find it easier to adjudicate and play and stay in the moment.
If you simply *must* have a "consistency mechanic" then just write out facts as they are established, and the number of memory points spent to assert each one, and only allow a contradiction if more memory points (double?) are invested to "rewrite" that fact.

(That's why it seemed like Nomic, to me: you'd spend a LOT of play time just managing the fact list and referencing it for contradictions and amendments.)

HTH;
David

Hi, David, and thanks for your input!

A rotating GM might be a good idea, especially when player attendance is spotty. That way, the game doesn't utterly depend upon one person. I'm prejudiced toward a single GM because I'm more of a Timmy (a player who wants to experience something, roughly a simulationist) than a Johnny (a player who wants to express something, roughly a narrativist.) The one thing I don't like about games like Universalis is the feeling of distance from the characters and their experiences that comes without a single GM. Such games sometimes feel more like a focus group or a writing workshop than a roleplaying session, and this idea is partially my attempt to fix that. Still, I'm considering a rotating GM duty. (maybe a better word would be "scribe," since he'd be the one in charge of recording all the important decisions.)

I'm still reluctant to use memory points as a reward. Your argument that nobody will be rewarded if they aren't a reward is circular logic. Part of their purpose is to limit the extent to which any one player can take over the spotlight, and giving out more of them for behavior exactly in line with that is cross-purpose. If they become a reward, the amount of points available will be directly related to the extent to which the player wants them. It almost defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I still think that a better way to encourage participation is to make players feel like they should spend all their points before the session ends. This might just have to be something I look at again after playtesting a little.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of voting at all. A better mechanic would be bidding. And a rule that a player can't win a dispute with another player about a detail that's related to the other player's character. And it costs extra points to negate a premise, so a bid to make something beats an equal bid to counter it. Also, voting is so easy do do that rewarding votes would translate to rewarding all players whenever someone puts something to a vote, even if the vote was unnneccesary.

If I reward anything, it would be suggesting new ideas, and the reward would be something other than more memory points, perhaps something related to character advancement or conflict resolution.

I really like your idea of allowing for changes as long as they're diegetic. After all, the PCs are bound to be "sure" of a few false things as they struggle to relearn everything about themselves. So, if a player remembers an old fact that's at odds with a new one, I'd encourage the players to justify why the PCs would *think* that the old fact was true when it was, in fact, only an outward appearance or a fuzzy, distorted memory.

Let me know if you have any other thoughts!

Memory points remind me of impact in <a href="http://www.iainmcallister.co.uk>Reel Adventures. Reel adventures is all about films and so, apart from a name and some basic stats, everything is essentially defined by play. Players get a fixed number of points to spend on background and connections and can then form new backgrounds and connections by spending impact which they can gain from breaking previous connections, winning conflicts and the like. The game is essentially forcing participation through this, and the use of momentum, which steadily builds against the players to challenge them.

I am not sure you should have memory points refresh. What if someone has a big dramatic session where they discover something big about themselves and spend lots of memory points. Surely their next session should not have the same potential for high drama and someone else should take the limelight.

Cheers
Iain

I see your point, Iain, and I think the question is whether the unit of time before refreshing should be a single game session. I want players to feel like they should spend all their points before this unit of time runs out. In other words, I don't want players to hoard points. However, a single session is a relatively short time, and during any given session one player is likely to get a disproportionate amount of action. Perhaps the solution id to refresh points once every four sessions or so, or whenever a new "chapter" in the plot starts, or something.

That's another thing I need to make clear to my players. Memory points only *need* to be spent if there's a conflict between players. If someone comes up with a great idea, and everyone else likes it, of course the player doesn't have to be penalized!

The other function of memory points would be to give details a little more staying power (sort of like immutable rules in Nomic.) If a player makes up a detail without spending anything, the PC is only *pretty* sure of it, but if the player spends points, the PC is *completely* sure if it.